That’s why there are so many divisions in other denominations and also why they seem to be rapidly accepting so many of the evils of today, such as Birth Control, Abortion, Homosexuality, SS Marriage etc. I often wonder what God thinks of our society today. Do we remind Him of Noah’s time or maybe Abraham’s pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah. We need to plead for our world! God Bless, Memaw
Well the bible teaches the saints and the church are one in the same. The “church” Jesus came to build was individuals into the the living body and temple of God not buildings or a religious organization. So you see there is no conflict.
I thought of that. But it’s pretty weak isn’t it when you have verses in the new testement that talk about being submissive to those who watch over your soul as though we are talking about a formally recognizable hierarchy. The Protestant tradition of authority is you submit to the pastoral leadership of the church until you believe their judgement is contrary to scripture and then find a church you prefer. It’s cafeteria Christianity as a dogma. Also the word church means assembly or congregation. It doesn’t mean a smattering of disconnected independent saints.
I have rhetoric that would satisfy the likes of Jericho777. It doesn’t satisfy me. Part of my problem is I fear I am wrong. I’ve been wrong about the silliest things. This is big.
Although I would agree that Christ protects his church, if we were debating, I would not assent to that as a blanket agreement because I see where it is headed. I would, as a Protestant agree to the use of the Bible, but then I would ask questions to keep you on the defensive about protecting the church. The reason being that most Protestants are going to go with something like what Jerrico777 offered. It’s the idea that there are people in any number of denominations including the RC that are true Christians who are not lost to God. They are the wheat among the tares. The church doesn’t include the tares even though they are always there. So, if we are going to debate about the identity of the RC, I am going to keep you trying to answere questions. It’s easier to find fault then to support a claim. So when I am in a debate in the real world like in the lunchroom at work or whatever, I keep the other guy in the position of having something to prove. Your goal is to persuade not to win. It’s about philosophy not rhetoric. So you ask questions that encourage the opponent and any bystanders to use their brain a little. You also go for the aortic artery. That means innocuously asking questions they won’t know how to answer. For example, I could respond to tommyris by claiming to have a better pedigree than he assumes. Then I have something to prove. It really doesn’t matter what my experience is though in this context, because he only attacked me personally. That’s an ad homonym. It’s a distraction from the fact that he hasn’t offered a solid answer–just a dismissal of the question as the ravings of an ignoramous. So why did he post at all? That doesn’t matter either. How would Tomyris re ask one of my questions in a form that is insightful?
And that is what happens, but when they try to prove from the Bible that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church based on their own interpretations of Peter not the rock, universal priesthood, or Peter not given keys exclusively I tell them I’m not talking about a debate on interpretations. I actually tell them that their interpretations are absolutely plausible. But, there is a way to go from plausibility to the truth. Then I simply ask them, “you seem to be positive that the Catholic Church is not the one true protected Church that Jesus speaks of in Mt 16:18, then who is and how can you prove it? Assuming you believe that your beliefs are the ones of the one true Church how can you prove that your interpretations were the same ones used by the Church of the first 800 years?”. I haven’t had a Protestant yet who has answered me straight (again other than the “hidden church” thing which is easily shown to be not only silly but unbiblical per Mt 5:14-15). At that point, I proceed to tell them that I can prove that the Church of the first 800 years believed in the Eucharist, infant baptism, Mary as Mother of God and ever-virgin, and a 73 book Bible. Can you name me 1 person, yet alone a group, that believed in the collection of beliefs they you espouse to? Again they resort to the “hidden church” or interpretive attacks of the Catholic Church. It’s almost painful to watch and I’m just wondering if I’m not speaking to knowledgeable Protestants and if there is something more to their arguments that I should be prepared for.
I must say. This is the first time I have ever heard of a “hidden Church” argument. In real life and on this forum.
I think that depends. Are you talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church?
COC makes this wild claim.
Actually it’s pretty strong when you study the word church “called out ones” in context and usage it is referring to people not a religious organization. Paul’s epistles and letters are perfect examples of this. They are written directly to the people of the congregation not the religious leadership. That is quite odd in the catholic paradigm don’t you think with its top down power structure and the “church” being the sole mediator of God limiting all to pass through them? What about individuals going to the throne of Grace themselves boldly Hebrews 4:16?
Tomyris
she
That does not make a whole lot of sense. I will address your first question, though, since you don’t like my ‘best shot’.
True, what was started by Calvin was finished by Napoleon. Marriage was no longer understood as human nature recognized by the state, but a product of the state. As society has been able to control nature and reject orthodoxy, they think they can control what marriage is; anything they want it is be.
That sounds like what I learned in Anabaptist school. The new testement has books written to congregations and to specific leaders–bibliolotry 101. The Catholic Church does not teach that all God’s grace passes strictly through the priests. Where did you here that?
I’ve been told that “real Christians” formed an “underground church” (hidden) that had to hide from the persecutions of the Catholic Church surfacing again near the time of the Reformation. I thought it was a joke until I researched that theory a bit. It seems to be anti-Catholics that use this approach.
Thank you. Much more to the issue at hand. I apologize for misidentifying the correct pronoun, sister. I worded it the way I did because that is how a Mormon bishop presented it to me. However, your characterization that the Catholic Church as a denomination went astray by burying the gospel beneath superstition still lends one to ask, how is that even possible if they were on the right track in the first place? As a Calvinist, you must find it odd that God would elect his people but leave his congregation to be tossed about by the winds of heresy.Tomyris
And you are demonstrating that your question is anything but innocuous, and that my earlier criticism was accurate.
she
That does not make a whole lot of sense. I will address your first question, though, since you don’t like my ‘best shot’.
No. Christ did not lose His church. I never said He did. There is a presupposition that His church is identical to the Roman Catholic Church, which is a false statement, even in Catholic belief. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox and some other churches as legitimate churches.
Most Protestants consider that the RCC veered into false doctrine and buried the Gospel under superstition and corruption, and that the Reformation was His correction to the problems in the church, as church leadership of the time was resistant to calls for reform, such calls having been going on for centuries.
It is fairly insulting to assume that Protestants believe that Christ somehow lost His church, as if He were incompetent in handling it. You gain nothing by antagonism and putting people on the defensive - instead you inculcate an adversarial relationship. This stems from a school of apologetics that has done great harm to Christian unity over the centuries and today is perpetuated by the likes of Art Sippo (“the Art of Attack”) who delights in smearing and slamming Protestants any way he can. Not a way to win friends and influence people. This school of apologetics that you are seeming to join is also one that goes against how the Catholic Church currently views ecumenical relations. I invite you to read Don Ruggero’s posts and consider what he would think of your approach.
Some of these questions. 
Do you really think that Protestants teach that God does not “actually change” us? Has your experience of Protestantism shown you that we believe we simply live and die and are resurrected as depraved sinners? Have you never been taught about sanctification?
This question assumes that the apostles “established apostolic succession” in the first place.
What is your definition of a sacrament? How do the biblical writings support your sacramental view?
All Protestants believe that sacraments have “substance” and are not merely rituals. The Lutherans and many Anglicans have views that affirm some type of Real Presence. The Reformed churches believe the sacraments are “signs and seals” of the covenant of grace. Even strictly “memorialist” churches believe the sacraments/ordinances are not empty rituals without substance. They are full of meaning and edification for the person receiving them and for the body of Christ as a whole.
The problem with throwing around the “schism” accusation is that it is not always clear cut as to who the schismatics are and who the “faithful remnant” are. Also, if you believe a religious body has become heretical, is it still schism to leave them or are they the schismatics for embracing false teaching in the first place?
It happens.
Things do go astray.
I am a battle-axe myself but occasionally grace makes its way to the surface.
Thanks for these responses. I am not planning to debate them all on this thread. This is more a survey. I have had many discussions with pastors and seminarians about theology over the years. Recently I stopped reading about Catholicism from a Protestant point of view for the exact reason in reverse of what you mention about the quality of my questions. I was reading a book by a Protestant about what a horrible idolatrous church Catholicism is and when I went to look up his quote of a catholic source, it wasn’t in the book. After that I decided to do my own research. This thread is to give the other team a chance to help me not get locked into a mindset. My grandpa is a Calvinist. I attended a theology class with Campus Crusade for Christ. So I am not entirely uninitiated in “reformed theology.” The issue in this context with the term is that it does not mean “reformation theology.” Words: what a minefield. It seems, and this is not a rigorous criticism, that reformed theology can be described as that point of view which flows naturally from adding the correctly placed word “elect” into any verse which contains an inconvenient superlative. That is my perception.It happens.
Things do go astray.
I don’t like the term Calvinist because it seems to have degenerated into a mushy pejorative meaning Hyper-Calvinist puritanical hypocrite, usually flung about by people who have little understanding of what it actually means.
I see nothing odd about people in leadership becoming corrupt and going astray. He did not continue the Sanhedrin, for example, but replaced the leadership completely. It would be odder if He did nothing to fix a situation in which church leadership refused to reform the church.
There is no conflict between a corrupt church and election. God saves whom He saves. He can use a church or do it without the church. It was the church leadership that was the problem more than anyone else. You need to read up on Alexander VI and Leo X and the business of the papacy being bought and sold as well as all kinds of corruption.
I am a battle-axe myself but occasionally grace makes its way to the surface.