Protestants, why?

[XianThinker]

Xian,

You outlined it pretty well. So here I am going to talk to someone because I want them to go to heaven. How is it you came to believe and how is I am going to get someone to believe.

Do they have to hear about it and does the hearing come by way of someone telling them and is this in the Bible to do that?

I’m sure the apostles handed out Bibles and told everyone to read them and pray, asking the Holy Spirit to help them interpret it correctly.

Okay. I know that’s not true but that’s what happened with me and how I learned. One problem I have is there aren’t any churches that interpret the Bible the way I do. In the early church, I assume Christians talked to people and invited them to church to learn more.

 

[joe370]

XianThinker;9659100]My point is that the apostles established many churches (in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, etc.) If some of them are now part of the Roman Catholic Church and some are part of the Orthodox church, then some of the churches had to deviate from the apostolic teaching.

For a non-catholic (protestant that is) in search of that one church I suppose it comes down to a choice really, and it is not always so simple. Matthew 16 (and the ECFs) was the clincher for me.

 

[XianThinker]

Hhmmmm? So what do you think Jesus (Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59) – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” :ehh:

I heard that passage before but I don’t know what it means. I checked online to get some ideas. Someone asked on Yahoo answers, “What does Matthew 5:26 mean? Does it relate to purgatory or what?” It looks like it can be interpreted many different ways. Here were the answers:

1. "Nope. That is. Very literal passage pertaining to civil government in the millennial kingdom. It simply means that if you owe a debt that you don’t pay, you’ll be cast into prison until you pay the debt. Never spiritualize something that can be taken literally unless you’re told to in the passage.
2. “No it talks about Hell, many like to say Hell is eternal this is not true. We are judged according to what we have done, and if we are throne into hell the punishment can be for a week a thousand years a billion years or in SOME cases, such a Satan, eternity. Once you pay your punishment you are taken out of existence.”
3. "No. Actually that passage starts with verse 21 and is about anger. Broken relationships can hinder our relationship with God. If we have a problem with a friend, we should correct the problem as soon as possible. We are hypocrites if we say we love God while we hate others.

In Jesus’ time, someone who couldn’t pay a debt was thrown into prison until the debt was paid. unless someone came to pay the debt for the prisoner, he/she would probably die in prison. It is practical advice to resolve our differences with our enemies before their anger causes more trouble. You might not get into a disagreement that will cause you to go to court, but even small conflicts are fixed more easily if you try to make peace right away before you have to stand before God."

1. “No, not purgatory, it does not exists. This is a case where the “plain meaning is the Plain meaning”. Read verse 25. That is the context. Jesus says to settle out of court, because once you get in there, you do not know what will happen.”

 

[stewstew03]

Trinitarian Non-Catholic Christians! The above is another reason why “Me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit” simply cannot work. It leads to folks believing that God is not Trinitarian.

As someone on here often says… 'ZACTLY!

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t think anyone is perfectly pure.

How do you know?

When John wrote in Revelation “nothing impure shall enter it [Heaven]” I don’t think he was speaking that literally. I think he meant that adulterers, thieves, greedy, and other immoral people who haven’t repented won’t make it into heaven.

How do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think anyone is perfectly pure. When John wrote in Revelation “nothing impure shall enter it [Heaven]” I don’t think he was speaking that literally. I think he meant that adulterers, thieves, greedy, and other immoral people who haven’t repented won’t make it into heaven.

Regardless. Your paradigm of “it’s just logical to assume {fill in the blank with your religious belief]”

ought to apply to Catholics as well.

So you are not objecting anymore to the Catholic dogma of purgatory?

 

[XianThinker]

For a non-catholic (protestant that is) in search of that one church I suppose it comes down to a choice really, and it is not always so simple. Matthew 16 (and the ECFs) was the clincher for me.

I’ve been to lots of churches and it was so frustrating hearing something different at each church and hearing people tell me why they were right and the other churches were wrong. I’ve asked about different beliefs and why I should attend a particular church. I’d get answers like, “The difference is this church is right and the other churches are wrong. If you read the Bible and pray, God will reveal the truth and you will agree.” I does seems like there is no real authority in Protestant churches. I decided to stop going to church and start reading the church fathers and study the beliefs of different churches. The Catholic Church has been around longer and has more consistent beliefs so that’s why I’m interested and signed up here. The main issue I have with the Catholic Church is it seems beliefs have been added over the centuries. That’s better than changing beliefs (like churches that say we used to teach that homosexuality and abortion were a sin, but now we believe God is okay with it) but I’d be more comfortable if I had evidence that all the Catholic beliefs not in the Bible were taught by the apostles.

 

[XianThinker]

How do you know?

I could say the Holy Spirit revealed it to me and guides me into all truth but honestly I don’t really know for sure.

 

[stewstew03]

…The main issue I have with the Catholic Church is it seems beliefs have been added over the centuries…

Not ‘added’ - doctrines/dogmas have been developed over the centuries.

 

[joe370]

I’ve been to lots of churches and it was so frustrating hearing something different at each church and hearing people tell me why they were right and the other churches were wrong. I’ve asked about different beliefs and why I should attend a particular church. I’d get answers like, “The difference is this church is right and the other churches are wrong. If you read the Bible and pray, God will reveal the truth and you will agree.” I does seems like there is no real authority in Protestant churches. I decided to stop going to church and start reading the church fathers and study the beliefs of different churches. The Catholic Church has been around longer and has more consistent beliefs so that’s why I’m interested and signed up here. The main issue I have with the Catholic Church is it seems beliefs have been added over the centuries. That’s better than changing beliefs (like churches that say we used to teach that homosexuality and abortion were a sin, but now we believe God is okay with it) but I’d be more comfortable if I had evidence that all the Catholic beliefs not in the Bible were taught by the apostles.

I can really relate, as a former protestant. I think, once you read the ECFs thoroughly (it takes a little time) you might come to realize that the catholic church added nothing, and I was a bit biased against the CC, when my search for doctrinal additions began. My only hurdle, in the end, was our mother Mary’s assumption, and after much prayerful deliberation it finally occurred to me that it just made perfect sense in light of her sinless state, which was even believed by Martin Luther (her sinless state that is).

PM me if you come across something, written by the early church fathers, that seems to contradict a catholic teaching?

 

[narrow_path]

For me, I’m not Catholic because of primarily why the Reformation occured in the first place: Justification. Catholics blend sanctification and justification together resulting in an ongoing uncertainty of their eternal destination (depending if they are in a state of grace or not). It is Jesus PLUS the sacramental system. I fallibly choose to believe it is Jesus plus NOTHING. Also, all Catholics are fallible. They fallibly choose to accept that Jesus gave this authority to Peter as the first bishop of Rome (or essentially the first Pope) yet state this with extreme dogmatism. Forget the fact that even a cursory reading of Matthew 16 indicates that this is about JESUS, not Peter. Also forget the fact that MORE early church fathers interpreted this to refer to Peter’s confession of faith as the “rock” (that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the loving God)…just think logically…did Peter consider himself supreme about the other apostles? Or, did he refer to himself as a “fellow bondservant” to the other disciples? Was Peter the man in charge of ecumenical church councils? Or was it James presiding? Was Peter rebuked publicly by Paul on a matter of faith? How could this be considering his “supreme” status? Shouldn’t Paul have been considered way out of line by doing so? There are so many holes in the Catholic religious system, I really don’t even know where to begin.

 

[PRmerger]

If you’re a Baptist or non-denominational Protestant you probably believe the Bible teaching on salvation is clear and easy to understand.

Except when they are pressed to answer this: how do you know that Verse A is a requirement for salvation and Verse B is a secondary concept…

they won’t have an answer.

For the Bible does not say which is an essential and which is a secondary concept.

Baptists must rely on their pastors’ preaching on this. Their* fallible p*astor’s preaching.

 

[PRmerger]

As someone on here often says… 'ZACTLY!

 

[pablope]

My point is that the apostles established many churches (in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, etc.) If some of them are now part of the Roman Catholic Church and some are part of the Orthodox church, then some of the churches had to deviate from the apostolic teaching. Therefore, the fact that Catholic Churches can trace themselves back to the apostles doesn’t mean their teaching is correct.
.

I think you maybe mistaking additions to development of understanding, which may seem like additions.

Development of Doctrine by Blessed John Newman:

newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

 

[CopticChristian]

I’ve been to lots of churches and it was so frustrating hearing something different at each church and hearing people tell me why they were right and the other churches were wrong. I’ve asked about different beliefs and why I should attend a particular church. I’d get answers like, “The difference is this church is right and the other churches are wrong. If you read the Bible and pray, God will reveal the truth and you will agree.” I does seems like there is no real authority in Protestant churches. I decided to stop going to church and start reading the church fathers and study the beliefs of different churches. The Catholic Church has been around longer and has more consistent beliefs so that’s why I’m interested and signed up here. The main issue I have with the Catholic Church is it seems beliefs have been added over the centuries. That’s better than changing beliefs (like churches that say we used to teach that homosexuality and abortion were a sin, but now we believe God is okay with it) but I’d be more comfortable if I had evidence that all the Catholic beliefs not in the Bible were taught by the apostles.

Xian,

What beliefs do you believe were added by the Catholic Church?

What Catholic beliefs do you believe are not in the Bible and not taught by the Apostles?

The Apostles never taught what books should be in the Bible.

 

[CopticChristian]

My point is that the apostles established many churches (in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillipi, etc.) If some of them are now part of the Roman Catholic Church and some are part of the Orthodox church, then some of the churches had to deviate from the apostolic teaching. Therefore, the fact that Catholic Churches can trace themselves back to the apostles doesn’t mean their teaching is correct.
There are some Baptists and other churches that would say all the churches were Baptist (or whatever their particular denomination is) and that the majority became Catholic after the Roman Empire took over and made membership in the Catholic Church mandatory and persecuted everyone else but, I agree with you, that it is less likely this happened.

Xian,

The Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West all believe and teach 7 sacraments including the Eucharist. That is all the same and not different. Why do you believe differently?

 

[prochrist1]

Except when they are pressed to answer this: how do you know that Verse A is a requirement for salvation and Verse B is a secondary concept…

they won’t have an answer.

For the Bible does not say which is an essential and which is a secondary concept.

Baptists must rely on their pastors’ preaching on this. Their* fallible p*astor’s preaching.

Herein lies the problem

For example in the epistle of Peter we find that in this chapter the author portrays the message that The God of Israel had brought salvation to Jews and everyone willing to listen(Gentiles), in this case Jesus was the Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law. So naturally a person following Jesus had in fact had to be Jewish and that meant observing the Sabbath, kosher foods, and following Jewish law.

But then you read Paul’s writing and his message is different in a way that in order to achieve salvation one has to believe in the resurrection of Christ.

How did this affect the early Christians ?

Well if you where Jewish or Gentile the law was no longer the way to achieve good standings with God, in fact Paul claims the law to be a “stumbling” block

This conflict between the Jews and their law became a major issue for the early church and I might add much hatred and contempt against the Jews

 

[PRmerger]

Herein lies the problem

For example in the epistle of Peter we find that in this chapter the author portrays the message that The God of Israel had brought salvation to Jews and everyone willing to listen(Gentiles), in this case Jesus was the Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish law. So naturally a person following Jesus had in fact had to be Jewish and that meant observing the Sabbath, kosher foods, and following Jewish law.

But then you read Paul’s writing and his message is different in a way that in order to achieve salvation one has to believe in the resurrection of Christ.

How did this affect the early Christians ?

Well if you where Jewish or Gentile the law was no longer the way to achieve good standings with God, in fact Paul claims the law to be a “stumbling” block

This conflict between the Jews and their law became a major issue for the early church and I might add much hatred and contempt against the Jews

I appreciate your rresponse, prochrist…but am puzzled as to how it applies to this discussion??

Are you saying that the entire message of St. Paul is this: believe in the resurrection and you will be saved?

Surely you can’t be saying that??

 

[PRmerger]

Come on, this is really ridiculous. Some of you say 20,000 while others say 50,000. Which is it?

Or else, provide the statistic of the actual number you believe exists. (And please provide your source.)

Fellow Catholic apologists: just a friendly word of advice.

Whenever a discussion devolves into a statistics game of how many actual Christian denominations are there (and non-Catholic Christians ALWAYS get their feathers in a ruffle about this!) my suggestion is to offer to use whatever number they can provide, as long as they offer a valid source.

So far no Protestant who has vehemently objected to the 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 demographic has been able to offer what they believe is the true statistic.

Otherwise, the discussion devolves very quickly into whether 30,000 is a valid number.

And that’s not the point, is it?

Even 3 denominations is a failure of “Me, the Bible and the Holy Spirit”.

But, following a parallel paradigm of another poster I offer this:

Therefore I never use words like murder(er), heretic, hypocrite ,etc as those trying to defend the indefensible would like nothing more than to have the the discussion degenerate into a semantics argument over the meaning of words–estesbob

IOW: Protestants would like nothing more than to have the discussion degenerate into a statistical argument over how many denominations there are…rather than the original discussion.

 

[JustaServant]

IOW: Protestants would like nothing more than to have the discussion degenerate into a statistical argument over how many denominations there are…rather than the original discussion.

Doesn’t look like that’s going to happen with Prosmith.