Question for all protestants

[chero23]

Yup! But women speak up in Church and teach others all the time. Look at Priscilla and Apollos even back then. It wasn’t an understood concept for a woman to teach a man… still off topic but I don’t see the problem. Women’s roles in society have drastically changed.

But b/c society changes that doesn’t mean you have to change. Especially when it comes to the Church. Look, ppl will be upset about x,y, and z. But b/c society accepts a woman having 3 boyfriends and a husband that doesn’t mean its right. Yes woman do have a role in the Church but its not as priests

 

[Atheling]

But please can we get to what I am asking. Not what Rome may or may have not done.

What Protestant Church has authority over another. If as stated NUMEROUS times same sex marriage is wrong. No disagrement from me. My Church teaches it, ITS NOT the point though.

What Protestant Church has the right to correct the others and if so how. Easy question. But not one response yet!

They’re kind of one-dimensional questions that already have been answered by myself and others, but to reiterate…

1. No Protestant denomination has authority over another. They’re all autonomous, just like every other religion.
2. No Protestant denomination has the right to “correct” another sect, but if there’s a point of disagreement between them, then obviously the other can speak out against the transgressor, and that’s about it.

Simple, really.

 

[rinnie]

Well…ok…So there is only one truth and that is the Holy Spirit…Maybe the truth is a journey instead of a destination…
For instance…Lets take the gay issue…And the original sin…sex…Jesus said it’s better we do not have sex at all…Because when we do, we have to submit to one another as opposed to submitting to the Lord. Sex is not holy no matter who performs it…Is it then less holy when two people of the same sex perform it? is that any more of an abomination? I have been searching for many years to find the answer to the truth to all this.Here is what i have found so far…When we try to convince someone the truth as we know it, then, we impede upon the work of the Holy spirit. Because, The truth is the Holy Spirit as he comes to you on your journey.
For me to say sex is a sin for me but it is ok for you, may or may not be the truth…But, it is the Holy spirit’s answer to me up to this time, But for me , as a non-practicing homosexual, it would be a sin for me to condemn anyone having sex…My job is not to speak truth but to live the truth as i see it…Otherwise, how would we ever carry our cross, or walk through the fire if the Holy Spirit dont quide us with truth as we see it?

Its just not my day. To begin with Jesus is speaking of Priests when he said it is better not to marry because they can become divided in mind. I think thats where you are going there. I pray it is.

Sex in the Catholiic Church between a woman and man is a beautiful and fullfilling gift from God. He actually encourages it. But to have it outside of marraige is indeed a sin.

The truth of the Holy Spirit came to the CC on the day of Pentecost so the Apostles could teach and preach the good news. Without them there would be no teaching, since there was not a bible.

If the Holy Spirit came to all of us instead of the chosen few, we would mot be idivided om anything because the Holy Spirit teaches truth and there is only one truth. God bless you.

Now can we please get on topic. Please.

 

[rinnie]

They’re kind of one-dimensional questions that already have been answered by myself and others, but to reiterate…

1. No Protestant denomination has authority over another. They’re all autonomous, just like every other religion.
2. No Protestant denomination has the right to “correct” another sect, but if there’s a point of disagreement between them, then obviously the other can speak out against the transgressor, and that’s abut it.

Simple, really.

:extrahappy: Ah ON topic and everything. Now if no Protestant Church has a right to correct the other who is right and how?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is it that the Catholic case for which is the more legitimate of the two Christian bodies always comes back to “…this is the 2,000 year old church…”, “…the church founded by Christ…”, “…apostolic legacy…”, and so on. Heavy on rhetoric, but lacking in substance.

When someone points out that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, it is generally meant to point out that A) our Church is there at the beginning and B) yours is not. Like Paul, we place a lot of importance on the idea of legitimate apostolic succession.

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are five generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Those who came before Paul and instructed him, 2. Paul himself, 3. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 4. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 5. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

In like fashion, we can trace the succession of our Bishops all the way back to the Apostles themselves. I doubt yours can.

This is just historical fact, so before responding, read on…

That the Roman Church is old is a superficial and erroneous argument in favour of some infallibility.

You are correct. Many religions are older than Christianity, and that does not make them infallible. Therefore, Apostolic Succession, not age, is important. Of course, your church has neither.

I’ve noticed with great interest that many on this forum have acknowledged that Luther, Calvin, and others exposed legitimate problems within the Church that needed addressing, so that point alone demonstrates imperfections within a body whose claim to be the True Church rests on its alleged inherent perfection.

And here we come to the essence of your error.

The Catholic Church is infallible. It is not perfect. If you learn the difference, you will have done well.

That, and Protestants don’t reject the term Catholic, but rather, ours is a repudiation of the errors of Rome.

Naturally, I’m eager to discuss any alleged errors you care to discuss. You’ll need to start a new thread, and remember - one topic and one topic only per thread.

See you there.

 

[JRKH]

But please can we get to what I am asking. Not what Rome may or may have not done.

What Protestant Church has authority over another. If as stated NUMEROUS times same sex marriage is wrong. No disagrement from me. My Church teaches it, ITS NOT the point though.

What Protestant Church has the right to correct the others and if so how. Easy question. But not one response yet!

Well - I was going to say that you are unlikely to get a response on this…but then Atheling came up with this:

They’re kind of one-dimensional questions that already have been answered by myself and others, but to reiterate…

1. No Protestant denomination has authority over another. They’re all autonomous, just like every other religion.
2. No Protestant denomination has the right to “correct” another sect, but if there’s a point of disagreement between them, then obviously the other can speak out against the transgressor, and that’s about it.

Simple, really.

Yes - it’s simple…but not very biblical.

1. No Protestant denomination has authority over another. They’re all autonomous, just like every other religion.
   Did Christ found multiple, autonomous religions or did he found one Church? What does Scripture say?
2. No Protestant denomination has the right to “correct” another sect, but if there’s a point of disagreement between them, then obviously the other can speak out against the transgressor, and that’s about it.
   I agree that when there is a point of disagreement then they need to speak about it…and the Bible tells us how to go about it, In fact Scripture contains a set of instructions given by Christ Himself AND an application of those instructions after Jesus ascended.

It’s pretty clear and to the point - and right there in Scripture…

Peace
James

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not every Priest agrees with every Priest, and when they consult the Church there isn’t always a definitive answer. How is this different from Protestants?

This is overblown. Catholicism has an ultimate authority and a process by which error is evaluated. Some Protestant churches do, too, btw.

The distinction is that if the situation arises where a priest or bishop is teaching doctrine that is contrary to the Catholic faith, he will be corrected or excommunicated if necessary. This happened recently:

world.time.com/2013/09/25/pope-francis-excommunicates-priest-who-supports-womens-ordination-and-gays/

In the non-Catholic community, the person in question would simply move to another strip mall and open his own denomination there…probably the very thing this excommunicated priest will do, btw.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I understand your frustration and it’s not like I’m not getting you. What I’m saying is beliefs in the CC have developed many times and the same can be said about a women’s role in the Church.

But yes, we’re off topic.

Off topic, yes.

But briefly, women’s roles in the Church are being evaluated, but the priesthood is forever closed.

 

[JonNC]

Infant baptism.
Ordination of women.
Real Presence v. Symbolic Commemoration.
Baptismal Regeneration.
Eternal Security.
Predestination of the Elect.
The Rapture.

And I’m just getting started…

The Filioque
The Universal jurisdiction of the pope
Dormition vs. Assumption.

Oh, wait. That’s differences between Orthodox and Catholic.

Sorry.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

They’re kind of one-dimensional questions that already have been answered by myself and others, but to reiterate…

1. No Protestant denomination has authority over another. They’re all autonomous, just like every other religion.
2. No Protestant denomination has the right to “correct” another sect, but if there’s a point of disagreement between them, then obviously the other can speak out against the transgressor, and that’s about it.

Simple, really.

Yes, it is very simple. And not biblical.

You see, Jesus did not tell us to take our disagreements to the “churches” because He only promised to build one Church.

Atheling, if you really stop and think about what you just said, I think you will come to the realization that you have just made one of the strongest arguments possible for Catholicism.

The multiplicity of the non-Catholic denominations was the :newidea: moment that brought my best friend back into the Church after a long evangelical walkabout.

 

[JonNC]

I asked this on another site and its got me thinking!:newidea: Oh NO!

Okay here it is. What makes one Protestant Preachers version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant Preachers version.

Lets say I go to one Protestant Church and the Preacher teaches me that this is what the word of God is saying, and then the next says this, and so on and I go to 10 different Protestant Preachers and get ten meanings. Who do you feel is right?

And how do you know which one is right?

Hi rinnie,
As you can see by my post to Randy, the issue of differences between communions is more than a protestant issue.

In Lutheranism, it isn’t pastors that have a version of the Truth. They are bound to the scripture and the confessions. As a Lutheran layman, I “feel” the confessions are a right reflection of scriptures. What other communions teach is up to them, but if they teach contrary to the confessions and scripture, we would be in disagreement.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;11310954]Yes, it is very simple. And not biblical.

I agree Randy, and it is a much older problem than the 1500’s.

You see, Jesus did not tell us to take our disagreements to the “churches” because He only promised to build one Church.

Again, I agree.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Filioque
The Universal jurisdiction of the pope
Dormition vs. Assumption.

Oh, wait. That’s differences between Orthodox and Catholic.

Sorry.

Jon

Correct, Jon. Those are issues that have created schism (though we’re closer on two of them than you might think).

But again, the person to whom I was responding asked for doctrines that Protestants disagree on…I don’t think he expected any responses.

 

[JonNC]

Correct, Jon. Those are issues that have created schism (though we’re closer on two of them than you might think).

But again, the person to whom I was responding asked for doctrines that Protestants disagree on…I don’t think he expected any responses.

And you are clearly correct. To claim that there are no differences, or that they are minor, or non-essentials, may be true in the Reformed churches and their “offspring”, but from a Lutheran perspective, the differences are huge, and for this Lutheran, insurmountable.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

And you are clearly correct. To claim that there are no differences, or that they are minor, or non-essentials, may be true in the Reformed churches and their “offspring”, but from a Lutheran perspective, the differences are huge, and for this Lutheran, insurmountable.

Jon

Help me out here…differences between who/whom are huge?

 

[JonNC]

Help me out here…differences between who/whom are huge?

Lutherans and protestants, generally. Sorry, I wasn’t clear.

On your list,
Infant baptism.
Ordination of women.
Real Presence v. Symbolic Commemoration.
Baptismal Regeneration.
Eternal Security.
Predestination of the Elect.
The Rapture,
we are on opposite sides of most, if not all of these.

Jon

 

[Atheling]

When someone points out that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, it is generally meant to point out that A) our Church is there at the beginning and B) yours is not. Like Paul, we place a lot of importance on the idea of legitimate apostolic succession.

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are five generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Those who came before Paul and instructed him, 2. Paul himself, 3. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 4. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 5. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

Age doesn’t equate to infallibility, nor does the idea that those in the hierarchy, tracing some ambiguous lineal “descent” from Paul, guarantee continuity when, in reality, there has been at least as much divergence between Popes through the centuries as there has been between Protestant sects since the Reformation.

You are correct. Many religions are older than Christianity, and that does not make them infallible. Therefore, Apostolic Succession, not age, is important. Of course, your church has neither.

As aforementioned, age and Apostolic Succession are only as significant as the Catholic Church believes them to be - it’s equivalent to citing your own works in an academic paper. Again, superficial facets of the Catholic Church, outside of scripture, that the Church constantly relies upon to claims it’s the True Church. I prefer to defer as closely as possible to the word of God in spiritual matters, not “church history and tradition”, and so Biblical sources trump the baggage that Catholics attach to the faith.

The Catholic Church is infallible. It is not perfect. If you learn the difference, you will have done well.

As the Catholic Church repudiates scripture as the sole source of the word of God - and elevates earthly clergy into positions of demi-god status - assertions of infallibility are laughable at best.

Yes, it is very simple. And not biblical.

You see, Jesus did not tell us to take our disagreements to the “churches” because He only promised to build one Church.

Atheling, if you really stop and think about what you just said, I think you will come to the realization that you have just made one of the strongest arguments possible for Catholicism.

The multiplicity of the non-Catholic denominations was the :newidea: moment that brought my best friend back into the Church after a long evangelical walkabout.

You’re committing a fallacy in that you’re precluding the possibility that those administering the Church in the years and centuries after Christ’s proclamation fell into error - and given that the Church has dealt with a multiplicity of errors throughout history, we clearly see that isn’t the case. Declaring the Church to be infallible is a cop-out in this case. That the Church moved away from God, and that the Reformers brought it back, must be coupled with the notion, as much as it may be difficult for you to accept, that imperfect people administer these churches, and notions of infallibility prevent accepting the reality that we can and have corrupted Christ’s Church. I’ve conceded that our faith has its troubles and has been blighted by error, now why can’t you?

 

[JonNC]

You’re committing a fallacy in that you’re precluding the possibility that those administering the Church in the years and centuries after Christ’s proclamation fell into error - and given that the Church has dealt with a multiplicity of errors throughout history, we clearly see that isn’t the case. Declaring the Church to be infallible is a cop-out in this case. That the Church moved away from God, and that the Reformers brought it back, must be coupled with the notion, as much as it may be difficult for you to accept, that imperfect people administer these churches, and notions of infallibility prevent accepting the reality that we can and have corrupted Christ’s Church. I’ve conceded that our faith has its troubles and has been blighted by error, now why can’t you?

I suspect Randy’s first question will be, which Reformers?

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

This [my insert: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist] is the only relevant one imo.

DRonald -

When Jesus himself says
"Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

How can the Eucharist be the only relevant one? Why wouldn’t you say first that a dispute over a condition of salvation would be first??

PnP

 

[Randy_Carson]

Age doesn’t equate to infallibility, nor does the idea that those in the hierarchy, tracing some ambiguous lineal “descent” from Paul, guarantee continuity when, in reality, there has been at least as much divergence between Popes through the centuries as there has been between Protestant sects since the Reformation.

Wow. Where to begin?

1. I agree that age has nothing to do with infallibility.
2. The lines of Apostolic Succession are not ambiguous.
3. The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, not Paul.
4. Divergence between popes? Clearly, you are ignorant about Catholic doctrine.

As aforementioned, age and Apostolic Succession are only as significant as the Catholic Church believes them to be - it’s equivalent to citing your own works in an academic paper.

I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less since your Church has neither.

Again, superficial facets of the Catholic Church, outside of scripture, that the Church constantly relies upon to claims it’s True Church. I prefer to defer as closely as possible to the word of God in spiritual matters, not “church history and tradition”, and so Biblical sources trump the baggage that Catholics attach to the faith.

Oh? The Bible teaches that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer? You have a verse for this? (Hint: I wouldn’t be asking if I knew you did.)

As the Catholic Church repudiates scripture as the sole source of the word of God

God is the sole source of scripture, if that’s what you were trying to say. No Catholic would repudiate that. However, the Word of God is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I think you may be unfamiliar with that idea.

• and elevates earthly clergy into positions of demi-god status - assertions of infallibility are laughable at best.

What actually has me chuckling is your assertion about theological concepts about which you are clearly ignorant.

You’re committing a fallacy in that you’re precluding the possibility that those administering the Church in the years and centuries after Christ’s proclamation fell into error - and given that the Church has dealt with a multiplicity of errors throughout history, we clearly see that isn’t the case. Declaring the Church to be infallible is a cop-out in this case. That the Church moved away from God, and that the Reformers brought it back, must be coupled with the notion, as much as it may be difficult for you to accept, that imperfect people administer these churches, and notions of infallibility prevent accepting the reality that we can and have corrupted Christ’s Church. I’ve conceded that our faith has its troubles and has been blighted by error, now why can’t you?

Can you define for me what infallibility means in Catholic theology?

You have to be able to do this in order to accurately argue with the doctrine. Otherwise, you are knocking down a straw man.