Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[Cat_Herder]

No, Cat, what I am asserting is that God does accomplish His will, but not at the expense of our free will. Knowledge of the truth is readily available, but himankind is not always capable of hearing it, or at least properly understanding it.
God’s will is not frustrated by the devil. The fact that the Spirit is* leading* is an important point. It is not a finite, already led statement. Leading is an active thing, ongoing,and continuing until the time of His return. We see this today, Christians of various communions working together, with the leading of the Holy Spirit, to bring His Church Militant back to unity.

Jon

Which is why my statement is nuanced: God OFFERS knowledge of truth and salvation. He doesn’t force anyone to accept it. But you’re correct in noting that free will is vital, but it follows that a person must be given a legitimate choice.

Suppose that Calvin takes over Geneva and his Calvinist theocracy reigns. A whole generation grows up knowing only Calvinism, which is of course a heresy. Those people don’t have a legitimate choice to make between heaven and hell because Calvinism denies free will. When this happened in reality, God found a way to get the actual Gospel into Geneva and modern Geneva and Switzerland are no longer Catholic free zones.

But suppose that Calvin’s theocracy had taken over all of Switzerland and Germany and all communication with the Catholic world was cut off. Now you have a situation where it is impossible to know the truth or even to believe that one is free to choose. Do you see why it doesn’t do any good to say “oh well all Christians share the basics and that’s good enough?”

 

[Swiss_Guy]

As soon-to-be former Lutheran, you know the role of works in lutheran thought, as layed out in the confessions. It is not the lack of works that causes one to lose salvation, but that the failure to do good works is 1) contrary to His command, and therefore sin, and 2) sin, repeated and unrepented, eventually separates us from faith. Jusification is accessed by Grace through faith alone, but faith, if it is a saving faith, cannot ever be alone. A saving faith is a Galatians 5:6 faith - a faith that works through love.

Jon

Thanks for the reminder about faith alone and Lutheran theology.

 

[JonNC]

Which is why my statement is nuanced: God OFFERS knowledge of truth and salvation. He doesn’t force anyone to accept it. But you’re correct in noting that free will is vital, but it follows that a person must be given a legitimate choice.

Suppose that Calvin takes over Geneva and his Calvinist theocracy reigns. A whole generation grows up knowing only Calvinism, which is of course a heresy. Those people don’t have a legitimate choice to make between heaven and hell because Calvinism denies free will. When this happened in reality, God found a way to get the actual Gospel into Geneva and modern Geneva and Switzerland are no longer Catholic free zones.

But suppose that Calvin’s theocracy had taken over all of Switzerland and Germany and all communication with the Catholic world was cut off. Now you have a situation where it is impossible to know the truth or even to believe that one is free to choose. Do you see why it doesn’t do any good to say "oh well all Christians share the basics and that’s good enough?"

I absolutely agree. I do not understand the “essentials” approach. While Lutherans believe that, for example, Calvinists are Christian, we recognize that their teachings are heterodox, and there are dangers inherent in heterodox teachings. And we pray God’s grace.

Jon

 

[Cat_Herder]

I absolutely agree. I do not understand the “essentials” approach. While Lutherans believe that, for example, Calvinists are Christian, we recognize that their teachings are heterodox, and there are dangers inherent in heterodox teachings. And we pray God’s grace.

Jon

Indeed.

But let’s turn it around and look at the 1500 years before Luther. If God woudnt have allowed Calvinism to take over western Europe, it follows that He wouldn’t have allowed any heresy to do so. It logically follows that the Catholic Church, being the only Church during that period, has the truth and knowledge of salvation and is the means of gaining both as explained here.

 

[faithalone1]

And yet, our confessions say this:

Surely, it is visable where the Gospel is rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered.

If there is no true Church, what of the Church Triumphant?

Jon

I say that there is no true church as Catholics represent. An Apostolic Succession since the 12 that puts catholic tradition and its teaching magisterium as equal to the word. Ofcourse there is an invisible church comprised of true believers. The true church is NOT a denomination and yes the its is plainly visible when the gospel is taught. that can be found in various “churches”, its not exclusive to one “brand”. I dont believe in Apostolic succession as Catholics Do. their whole claim to being the “true church” rests on that claim and i disagree with their claim.

 

[faithalone1]

I absolutely agree. I do not understand the “essentials” approach. While Lutherans believe that, for example, Calvinists are Christian, we recognize that their teachings are heterodox, and there are dangers inherent in heterodox teachings. And we pray God’s grace.

Jon

One could also say that the CC strays from essentials when they add their traditions based on their succession claim.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I say that there is no true church as Catholics represent. An Apostolic Succession since the 12 that puts catholic tradition and its teaching magisterium as equal to the word. Ofcourse there is an invisible church comprised of true believers. The true church is NOT a denomination and yes the its is plainly visible when the gospel is taught. that can be found in various “churches”, its not exclusive to one “brand”. I dont believe in Apostolic succession as Catholics Do. their whole claim to being the “true church” rests on that claim and i disagree with their claim.

But you cannot refute it because the Catholic Church is fully biblical.

 

[Cat_Herder]

One could also say that the CC strays from essentials when they add their traditions based on their succession claim.

You have yet to identify a single iota of Sacred Tradition that is unbiblical.

Show us book, chapter and verse where the Holy Spirit fails to pass when an Apostle lays hands on someone.

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t beleive that all Protestants beleive the Catholic Church went bad, if by that you mean the “total apostacy” theory.

AFAIK there is only one Protestant eccesial body to believe that and that is the cambpellite “church of Christ”, they really believe that the church ceased to exist until thier founders Campell and Barton Stone “restored” the church back into existence.

The mormons a semi-Christian cult teaches the same thing except their “restorer” was Jsf Smith.

Actually those two gruops are very simular in faith and practice, but both deny it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I don’t beleive that all Protestants beleive the Catholic Church went bad, if by that you mean the “total apostacy” theory.

AFAIK there is only one Protestant eccesial body to believe that and that is the cambpellite “church of Christ”, they really believe that the church ceased to exist until thier founders Campell and Barton Stone “restored” the church back into existence.

The mormons a semi-Christian cult teaches the same thing except their “restorer” was Jsf Smith.

Actually those two gruops are very simular in faith and practice, but both deny it.

It’s good to have the Orthodox represented on this thread as well.

I would say that the great-apostasy theory is inherent in Protestantism because if the Catholic and Orthodox Churches were not allegedly apostate the reformers would have nothing to reform. As we know, there was no apostasy and thus nothing to reform.

 

[faithalone1]

But you cannot refute it because the Catholic Church is fully biblical.

well if you read the NT it can be refuted, I gave a Mark 9-38-40 verse that proves that those outside of even the 12 apostles were equal in power and validity as stated by Christ. Easy to see.there is no mention of the 12 passing down any special divine right or succession. The 12 were a prophecy fulfilled and a foundation to TEACH the gospel. they passed down the gospel not their own position. even Christ said he would send the advocate to establish his church. This gave the apostles the power to cast out demons,do miracles,to forgive sins. there is no mention of any of these powers being passed down. The catholic claim of being the successors and in charge of pastoral duties of the Christian church are just a claim. i just dont see it. the 12 apostles were a fulfillment of prophecy and had no succesors in the Catholic sense of special priveledge. in reality all christians are the “successors”.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

well if you read the NT it can be refuted, I gave a Mark 9-38-40 verse that proves that those outside of even the 12 apostles were equal in power and validity as stated by Christ. Easy to see.there is no mention of the 12 passing down any special divine right or succession. The 12 were a prophecy fulfilled and a foundation to TEACH the gospel. they passed down the gospel not their own position. even Christ said he would send the advocate to establish his church. This gave the apostles the power to cast out demons,do miracles,to forgive sins. there is no mention of any of these powers being passed down. The catholic claim of being the successors and in charge of pastoral duties of the Christian church are just a claim. i just dont see it. the 12 apostles were a fulfillment of prophecy and had no succesors in the Catholic sense of special priveledge. in reality all christians are the “successors”.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. You may not be able to see it, but if you read the Early Church Fathers you will see it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

well if you read the NT it can be refuted, I gave a Mark 9-38-40 verse that proves that those outside of even the 12 apostles were equal in power and validity as stated by Christ. Easy to see.there is no mention of the 12 passing down any special divine right or succession. The 12 were a prophecy fulfilled and a foundation to TEACH the gospel. they passed down the gospel not their own position. even Christ said he would send the advocate to establish his church. This gave the apostles the power to cast out demons,do miracles,to forgive sins. there is no mention of any of these powers being passed down. The catholic claim of being the successors and in charge of pastoral duties of the Christian church are just a claim. i just dont see it. the 12 apostles were a fulfillment of prophecy and had no succesors in the Catholic sense of special priveledge. in reality all christians are the “successors”.

You might want to ask Simon Magus about that.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:9-24[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[faithalone1]

You have yet to identify a single iota of Sacred Tradition that is unbiblical.

Show us book, chapter and verse where the Holy Spirit fails to pass when an Apostle lays hands on someone.

apostolic succession,confession, faith-works salvation, having your tradition and teaching magesterium as EQUAL to the word of god. thats as unbiblical as you can get. purgatory,indulgences, immaculate conception is completely unbiblical, the assumption of the virgin mary, catholic teaching that muslims worship the same god, celibacy of priests, though you call that a discipline. i have a copy of the catechism and could go on and on. some tradition is good obviously, but some is supported completely on the CC claim of apsotolic succession.

 

[faithalone1]

You might want to ask Simon Magus about that.

[BIBLEDRB]Acts 8:9-24[/BIBLEDRB]

Simon magus Replaced Judas so as to make the 12 apostles when Jesus acsended. bible prophecy fulfilled. there were always going to be 12. makes no mention of Succession.

 

[faithalone1]

Lack of evidence is not evidence. You may not be able to see it, but if you read the Early Church Fathers you will see it.

in that case anybody can make any claim as say it doesnt say i couldn’t do this or that., dangerous water.

 

[faithalone1]

for something as VITAL as the CC claim of apostolic succession as they see it, you would think that there was some evidence. crickets…

 

[Cat_Herder]

apostolic succession,confession, faith-works salvation, having your tradition and teaching magesterium as EQUAL to the word of god. thats as unbiblical as you can get. purgatory,indulgences, immaculate conception is completely unbiblical, the assumption of the virgin mary, catholic teaching that muslims worship the same god, celibacy of priests, though you call that a discipline. i have a copy of the catechism and could go on and on. some tradition is good obviously, but some is supported completely on the CC claim of apsotolic succession.

I guess you have not bothered to check the footnotes in your copy of the Catechism. They indicate where each of those items are found in the Bible. But I’ll make it easy for you:

Apostolic succession: Acts 8:9-24
Confession: John 20:23, James 5
“Faith works”: Hebrews 10:26-29, James 2
Tradition: 2 Thes 2:15
Purgatory: 1 Cor 3:10
Indulgences: Acts 8:23
Immaculate Conception: Genesis 3:15
Assumption: Revelation 12
That Muslims worship the One God: Acts 17:23
Celibacy: 1 Cor 7

 

[Cat_Herder]

for something as VITAL as the CC claim of apostolic succession as they see it, you would think that there was some evidence. crickets…

The Catholic Church has never changed a doctrine.

 

[Lacour]

Slight tangent, but there is something I was never clear on from my Protestant days. If you don’t believe in apostolic powers being passed down, then what happened to those apostolic powers. Do you believe there is no need for them anymore and if so where is that found in the bible?