Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smp501
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stewstew03 said:
Okay, but how did you choose which books to include in your canon?
Click to expand...
God ordained which books would be included. the CC did NOTHING in this regard. the cannonization the bible was an act of GOD not of the CC.
 
reformedman1 said:
I dont think the CC has any special authority. The apostles once saw a stranger casting out demons in Jesus Christs name and they were upset. Jesus told them that whoever is not against us is for us. I dont see church body membership as being critical to salvation. The holy spirit is the messenger sent after Jesus Christs ascension. The Holy spirit determines who is in the true church, Its not a name its a body.
Click to expand...
\

Let’s stop side stepping the issue. What I think reformedman believes is the standard Protestant idea.

That Jesus founded an invisible church, it’s members known to God alone, and composed of those who have been “saved” or “born agian”.

It has nothing to do with humans, or the sacraments. Most beleiver’s baptism by submerrsion only folk deny the existence of sacraments repacing them with “ordinaces”.

While some protestants use the term sacrament all but Lutherans and Anglicans strip them of grace, making them innfectual symbols only.

To evangelicals nothing matters but “getting saved” by mental prayer, any physical act is deemed a “work”.
 
reformedman1 said:
Luther revolted more than reformed. John Calvin reformed the church. This country we live in was founded by men of Calvinist persuasion. man is corrput when unchecked. the CC had unlimitied power and that was the problem. the corruption of the CC proves it to be an institution of men.
Click to expand...
classic protestant arguement. What do you mean by institution of men? Do you mean lead by men? Instituted by men? Preserved by men? What is the meaning of the term? And calvin reformed the church by bringing his new doctrines right? And a futher examing of his legacy would make ‘deformed the church’ more appropriate.
Ubenedictus
 
Ubenedictus said:
classic protestant arguement. What do you mean by institution of men? Do you mean lead by men? Instituted by men? Preserved by men? What is the meaning of the term? And calvin reformed the church by bringing his new doctrines right? And a futher examing of his legacy would make ‘deformed the church’ more appropriate.
Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
calvin simply gave credit where credit IS due. To God. not a crazy idea to me at all. what is a church? is it a name?building? to me its a fellowship of believing Christians, and vital to our health spiritually. to me its not a Name or a chain of sucession. As Jesus said “Whoever is not against us is for us”.
 
reformedman1 said:
God ordained which books would be included. the CC did NOTHING in this regard. the cannonization the bible was an act of GOD not of the CC.
Click to expand...
You get partial credit for this one - God worked through the Catholic Church to give us the canon.
 
reformedman1 said:
God ordained which books would be included. the CC did NOTHING in this regard. the cannonization the bible was an act of GOD not of the CC.
Click to expand...
it had nothing to do with the CC right? Why is it that i cant find any reference to a list that fell from the sky? Nothing by CC right? Maybe you would explain how we got the canons, maybe also describe how they fell from the sky.
Ubenedictus
 
andrewstx said:
\

Let’s stop side stepping the issue. What I think reformedman believes is the standard Protestant idea.

That Jesus founded an invisible church, it’s members known to God alone, and composed of those who have been “saved” or “born agian”.

It has nothing to do with humans, or the sacraments. Most beleiver’s baptism by submerrsion only folk deny the existence of sacraments repacing them with “ordinaces”.

While some protestants use the term sacrament all but Lutherans and Anglicans strip them of grace, making them innfectual symbols only.

To evangelicals nothing matters but “getting saved” by mental prayer, any physical act is deemed a “work”.
Click to expand...
wow, evangelical IS impossible to define nowadays. its written on every church sign. you seem to be adressing independent baptists and not “calvinists”. AS you may know baptists typically accept the 5th point of calvinism only, while the other 4 are questionable to many of them. I believe that baptism and the lords supper were instituted by Jesus Christ and we as Christians are responsible to follow them.
 
Ubenedictus said:
it had nothing to do with the CC right? Why is it that i cant find any reference to a list that fell from the sky? Nothing by CC right? Maybe you would explain how we got the canons, maybe also describe how they fell from the sky.
Ubenedictus
Click to expand...
you give credit to men and not God with that statement. that is the problem in Christinaity today. to many people think THEY get the credit(free will). Did the apostle Paul spread the Gospel through his own power or did the holy spirit compel him? its an act of GOD not man.
 
reformedman1 said:
Luther revolted more than reformed. John Calvin reformed the church. This country we live in was founded by men of Calvinist persuasion. man is corrput when unchecked. the CC had unlimitied power and that was the problem. the corruption of the CC proves it to be an institution of men.
Click to expand...
Do you consider rejection of the real presence reforming?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Do you consider rejection of the real presence reforming?

Jon
Click to expand...
it was reforming. as we know the CC claim was that you had to be a member of THEIR church and do THEIR Eucharist or you would be condemmed. very corrupt. it was reforming and liberating of the reformers to question this doctrine and the CC special authority as well.
 
reformedman1 said:
it was reforming. as we know the CC claim was that you had to be a member of THEIR church and do THEIR Eucharist or you would be condemmed. very corrupt. it was reforming and liberating of the reformers to question this doctrine and the CC special authority as well.
Click to expand...
Not the question I asked. I asked about the real presence. And as an aside, the LCMS also practices close communion.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Not the question I asked. I asked about the real presence. And as an aside, the LCMS also practices close communion.

Jon
Click to expand...
I believe that the lords supper is SYMBOLIC of our continual spiritual nourishment in Jesus Christ as our savior. Baptism is SYMBOLIC in our death and rebirth into the body of Jesus Christ. but these were instututed by Jesus Christ and we are responsible as Christians to follow them.
 
reformedman1 said:
I believe that the lords supper is SYMBOLIC of our continual spiritual nourishment in Jesus Christ as our savior. Baptism is SYMBOLIC in our death and rebirth into the body of Jesus Christ. but these were instututed by Jesus Christ and we are responsible as Christians to follow them.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your honest answer. To quote that old revolter, Martin Luther, “Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss, I shall drink blood with the pope.”

Jon
 
my conviction is that the word of God is the ultimate authority and that no church can claim ownership to Christianity.
 
(name removed by moderator)-- Did not the pre-V2 Church teach that outside the Church there is no salvation? I would say that’s tantamount to teaching that non-Catholics who call themselves Christian are not Christian at all, since they don’t participate in the merits of Jesus’ sacrifice.
 
reformedman1 said:
my conviction is that the word of God is the ultimate authority and that no church can claim ownership to Christianity.
Click to expand...
First , your key words are “my conviction”. You have made yourself the infallible authority and put your words in God’s mouth

Second, that the Bible is sole authority, was not believed by Christians for 1500 years. The Bible nowhere claims this authority but instead says THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD is pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Timothy 3:15.

Third people who have studied early Christian history with an unbiased mind knows that they didn’t believe in the modern doctrine that Scripture is the only authority, A man came up with that.

Fourth, its not just Catholics who believe in church authority, all the ancient churches do, the Greek Orthodox, the Syriac and the Oriental Orthodox… Exalting your own interpretation of Scripture over the Church of the Living God is a modern, I repeat, modern doctrine, not to mention it goes against Scripture itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top