Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

So to be sure I am not misunderstanding you, in the nutshell you are saying they are led by the Human mind not the Divine.

Now if this is true, what do they do with the scripture that no human can know the mind of God?

Even the Pope will tell you he is led by the Holy Spirit (only because God promised to give him the words to preach and teach in his name) but does not know the Mind of God.

Well yes, but they would never say that.

They would say they are led by the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit works in each individual. They don’t see the error of that as blatantly as us because in their little group of seminary or their church, everyone holds relatively the same message.

But when asked what about the views of everyone else who is Christian?

They must answer eventually that either

the Holy Spirit does not fully work in each individual, as this means he tells people different things.

Or

They have the true inspiration and everyone else is mistaken.

Due to the anonymity of each church/denomination and the ecumenical spirit among Protestant’s they don’t really have this issue blatantly in their faces every day.

It is only when a doctrinal disagreement occurs, such as mine that it becomes evident.

Most Evangelical leaning churches have a very general and generic statement of faith. That would be their core doctrines, and the rest people are free to think what they wish.

Our statement of faith as Catholics is the Catechism. ( thousand pages) most evangelicals are one page.

An example:

STATEMENT OF FAITH

A. The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.
B. There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
C. Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead and ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.
D. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and, during this age, to convict men of sin, regenerate the believing sinner and indwell, guide, instruct and empower the believer for godly living and service.
E. Man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is therefore lost, and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.
F. The shed blood of Jesus Christ and His resurrection provide the only ground for the justification and salvation for all who believe, and only such as receive Jesus Christ by faith are born of the Holy Spirit and thus become the children of God.
G. The personal, premillennial and imminent return of our Lord Jesus Christ is our “blessed hope” and has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer.
H. There will be a bodily resurrection of all the dead, of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord and of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting, conscious punishment.
I. The true church is composed of all such persons who, through saving faith in Jesus Christ, have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the body of Christ, of which He is the Head.
J. Water baptism by immersion soon after accepting Christ as personal Savior is a testimony of death to sin and resurrection to a new life, and the Lord’s Supper is a memorial service setting forth in sacred and symbolic manner the death of the Lord Jesus Christ; all true believers and only believers should share in it.

 

[believerdoc]

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?

May I suggest that many items referred to in this thread are non-essential doctrine. Our church believes that “In essentials there must be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”. I think you will find that most, if not all, Protestant Churches have an agreement on essential doctrine and that it is on non-essential items that they disagree. But you must also acknowledge that there is also great disagreement among Catholics in everything from birth control to those that believe that the See of Peter has been vacant since Vatican II. So the same concern exists in all faiths not just Protestant to Protestant.

 

[believerdoc]

Well yes, but they would never say that.

They would say they are led by the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit works in each individual. They don’t see the error of that as blatantly as us because in their little group of seminary or their church, everyone holds relatively the same message.

But when asked what about the views of everyone else who is Christian?

They must answer eventually that either

the Holy Spirit does not fully work in each individual, as this means he tells people different things.

Or

They have the true inspiration and everyone else is mistaken.

Due to the anonymity of each church/denomination and the ecumenical spirit among Protestant’s they don’t really have this issue blatantly in their faces every day.

It is only when a doctrinal disagreement occurs, such as mine that it becomes evident.

Most Evangelical leaning churches have a very general and generic statement of faith. That would be their core doctrines, and the rest people are free to think what they wish.

Our statement of faith as Catholics is the Catechism. ( thousand pages) most evangelicals are one page.

An example:

STATEMENT OF FAITH

A. The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.
B. There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
C. Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead and ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.
D. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and, during this age, to convict men of sin, regenerate the believing sinner and indwell, guide, instruct and empower the believer for godly living and service.
E. Man was created in the image of God but fell into sin and is therefore lost, and only through regeneration by the Holy Spirit can salvation and spiritual life be obtained.
F. The shed blood of Jesus Christ and His resurrection provide the only ground for the justification and salvation for all who believe, and only such as receive Jesus Christ by faith are born of the Holy Spirit and thus become the children of God.
G. The personal, premillennial and imminent return of our Lord Jesus Christ is our “blessed hope” and has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer.
H. There will be a bodily resurrection of all the dead, of the believer to everlasting blessedness and joy with the Lord and of the unbeliever to judgment and everlasting, conscious punishment.
I. The true church is composed of all such persons who, through saving faith in Jesus Christ, have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit and are united together in the body of Christ, of which He is the Head.
J. Water baptism by immersion soon after accepting Christ as personal Savior is a testimony of death to sin and resurrection to a new life, and the Lord’s Supper is a memorial service setting forth in sacred and symbolic manner the death of the Lord Jesus Christ; all true believers and only believers should share in it.

May I suggest a third possible explanation to your statement that “the Holy Spirit does not fully work in each individual, as this means he tells people different things. Or They have the true inspiration and everyone else is mistaken”. Maybe because there does not need to be total unity in non-essential matters. For instance style of worship, frequency of communion, pouring versus baptism by immersion, etc. Maybe all are pleasing to God and that he takes people where they are and guides them individually. We believe that God looks and the honesty and intent of the heart. If a person is doing his best to serve God to the best of his understanding and knowledge that he/she is pleasing to God.

 

[believerdoc]

Look at the UCC (United Church of Christ). What a mess…

I always point to them when people say the Catholic Church isn’t progressive enough and that’s why Mass attendance is falling. The UCC is as “progressive” as it gets, and that whole denomination might go defunct in my lifetime…

I think you misunderstand the UCC position. While I am not UCC I do not think from my studies that there ever is an attempt to say that homosexuality is correct but that they seem to take the attitude that Pope Francis is taking in his recent interview.

 

[Jon_S_1]

May I suggest a third possible explanation to your statement that “the Holy Spirit does not fully work in each individual, as this means he tells people different things. Or They have the true inspiration and everyone else is mistaken”. Maybe because there does not need to be total unity in non-essential matters. For instance style of worship, frequency of communion, pouring versus baptism by immersion, etc. Maybe all are pleasing to God and that he takes people where they are and guides them individually. We believe that God looks and the honesty and intent of the heart. If a person is doing his best to serve God to the best of his understanding and knowledge that he/she is pleasing to God.

The problem with this believerdoc is it is unbiblical and man made.

You can show me no example explicit or implicit in the Bible advocating this laissez faire type attitude.

It is certainly not the case in the New Testament, and even clearer in the Old Testament.

Further, for issues such as marriage in my example, it creates a problem of relativism that results in non effective pastoral care.

It also creates the problem of what are essentials.

Gay marriage?
Remarriage?
Women Clergy?
Lesbian clergy ?
Abortion?
What is sin?
What does sin do to us?
What is salvation?
And on and on

Also your example of divergent Catholic views on contraception and Vatican 2 is a straw man since the people holding such views are as Protestant as a baptist. Even though the look catholic. They are not.

 

[JRKH]

May I suggest that many items referred to in this thread are non-essential doctrine. Our church believes that “In essentials there must be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”. I think you will find that most, if not all, Protestant Churches have an agreement on essential doctrine and that it is on non-essential items that they disagree. But you must also acknowledge that there is also great disagreement among Catholics in everything from birth control to those that believe that the See of Peter has been vacant since Vatican II. So the same concern exists in all faiths not just Protestant to Protestant.

I’ve heard this before from protestants…but I’ve never been able to get a clear, consistent list of what these essentials are - exactly. Different groups have a differing number of things that are "essential.

Now - I don’t know exactly what you consider to be essential - in other words - how you would define something as being essential, but for myself I would assume that anything that has an effect on one’s salvation would be considered essential - Would you agree?

If you do agree with this assessment then I suggest you consider the issue of the real presence in the bread and wine. Anglicans and Lutherans hold that the presence is real - while baptists and many others hold that the presence is symbolic…
Yet Jesus speaks of the necessity to eat and drink His flesh and blood in order to have life in us - and Paul says that it is critical that one rightly discern the flesh and blood lest they eat and drink judgement on themselves…

Given what the bible says on this matter - ISTM that the matter of the real presence is an essential - and yet there is no agreement among protestants.

There are other important areas too where this is disagreement among protestants.

Pretty much shoots down the idea that protestants agree on essentials…

Peace
James

 

[rinnie]

May I suggest that many items referred to in this thread are non-essential doctrine. Our church believes that “In essentials there must be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”. I think you will find that most, if not all, Protestant Churches have an agreement on essential doctrine and that it is on non-essential items that they disagree. But you must also acknowledge that there is also great disagreement among Catholics in everything from birth control to those that believe that the See of Peter has been vacant since Vatican II. So the same concern exists in all faiths not just Protestant to Protestant.

Not in the RCC. We may not like what the CHurch teaches or obey it but we are guaranteed it to be the truth.

See we know that Peter was the leader of the RCC and he had the true word of God. It is by his teachings and the rest of the Apostles that we got our truth.

 

[rinnie]

May I suggest that many items referred to in this thread are non-essential doctrine. Our church believes that “In essentials there must be unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity”. I think you will find that most, if not all, Protestant Churches have an agreement on essential doctrine and that it is on non-essential items that they disagree. But you must also acknowledge that there is also great disagreement among Catholics in everything from birth control to those that believe that the See of Peter has been vacant since Vatican II. So the same concern exists in all faiths not just Protestant to Protestant.

Who is it that determines essential doctrine and non?

 

[rinnie]

May I suggest a third possible explanation to your statement that “the Holy Spirit does not fully work in each individual, as this means he tells people different things. Or They have the true inspiration and everyone else is mistaken”. Maybe because there does not need to be total unity in non-essential matters. For instance style of worship, frequency of communion, pouring versus baptism by immersion, etc. Maybe all are pleasing to God and that he takes people where they are and guides them individually. We believe that God looks and the honesty and intent of the heart. If a person is doing his best to serve God to the best of his understanding and knowledge that he/she is pleasing to God.

Or how about maybe not See now it was Christ who teaches this not me. In the bible it says the Church must be One. And the Holy Spirit is the teacher of truth. And there is only ONE truth not many.

While I agree that God only holds us bound to what is given to us in his grace. Does not mean that we can agree on different truths. God only taught one truth.

And if God wanted to guide us all individually why would he leave us the Apostles and the CHurch? WHy would we need it.

Because if he guides us all individually we would indeed all have the gift of the Holy Spirit,have one truth, and no division between us.

 

[rinnie]

I think you misunderstand the UCC position. While I am not UCC I do not think from my studies that there ever is an attempt to say that homosexuality is correct but that they seem to take the attitude that Pope Francis is taking in his recent interview.

The attitude all must take do you not agree. To love the sinner hate the sin.

 

[JonNC]

You realize every seminary teaches different doctrines right ?

I would contend that not every Catholic seminary teaches exactly the same doctrine.
That said, if a Lutheran seminary is teaching something that does not conform to the Book of Concord, then it is Lutheran in name only. For the most part, Lutheran seminaries teach the same doctrine.
Seminaries from other communions will teach what they believe, of course. That shouldn’t be surprising at all.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’ve heard this before from protestants…but I’ve never been able to get a clear, consistent list of what these essentials are - exactly. Different groups have a differing number of things that are "essential.

Now - I don’t know exactly what you consider to be essential - in other words - how you would define something as being essential, but for myself I would assume that anything that has an effect on one’s salvation would be considered essential - Would you agree?

If you do agree with this assessment then I suggest you consider the issue of the real presence in the bread and wine. Anglicans and Lutherans hold that the presence is real - while baptists and many others hold that the presence is symbolic…
Yet Jesus speaks of the necessity to eat and drink His flesh and blood in order to have life in us - and Paul says that it is critical that one rightly discern the flesh and blood lest they eat and drink judgement on themselves…

Given what the bible says on this matter - ISTM that the matter of the real presence is an essential - and yet there is no agreement among protestants.

There are other important areas too where this is disagreement among protestants.

Pretty much shoots down the idea that protestants agree on essentials…

Peace
James

Correct. Of course, if they want to confess the Augsburg Confession, they are “essentially” welcome to join us.

Jon

 

[cmodrmac]

All Churches are doing God’s works a TV Preacher is a TV Preacher and represents only him or herself

 

[cet]

I’d like to agree with the fact that there is much differences in the theology of the different protestant churches. Even in the church that i belong to, the fact that there are new and strange ideas coming into the church is very obvious. There is one nice pointer though, it’s written here:

John 14:21
He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

1 John 3:24
And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1 John 2:4
He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Revelation 14:12
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

All these scriptures are from the new testament, there is no need to take all the scriptures from the OT, because we all know that they say the same thing. The believer that lives accordingly to the faith of Jesus, and keeps His commandments, like they are written in the bible, it probably the one who is following the path. In the end It all boils down to these two things, the faith of Jesus, and keeping Gods ten commandments, like He gave them. Not the commandments that are modified… And just a little clarification, we are not saved by our own works of the law, but Christ love in us, will cause us to be in line with the law, meaning that Jesus with His power will cause us to keep the law. Everything is His doing, both forgiving us/cleaning us of our sin, and fulfilling our faith in him, by making us holy, like His Father is holy… This happens by us accepting His robe of Rightiousness, then the Father will accept us, and only then… If the branch does not bear fruit, it will be broken off and burnt to ashes… We are the branches, so let’s make sure we bear fruits.

Just my two cents… (Actually, I don’t have any cents )

-c-

 

[JRKH]

cet -

Nice post here.

Yet - consider this. Where the “new ideas” entering your church may be of concern to you. The very foundational ideas of your SDA church were once “new” and of concern to others.
The SDA was not one of the original protestant churches…but came along later as the result of “new and strange ideas”.
I do not say this to be offensive or to attack you. Rather it is to suggest that, in a sense, the whole history of the protestant churches is one of “new and strange ideas”.
Take Sola Scriptura for example. It’s not contained in Scripture - nor was it a principle or practice of the Church(es) in existence before 1500 AD. Five hundred years ago, “Sola Scriptura” it was a “new and strange idea”.

That said - I like that you have quoted the importance of faith and the commandments. Yet - Why are you limiting yourself to only the 10 commandments? Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34-35 - that we Love one another as He has loved us.
Actually this one command summarizes the 10 quite nicely - something Jesus makes clear in Mt 22:36-40.
Then there is the command from Jesus about resolving problems within the Church. He tells us to “tell it to the Church” and to “Listen…to the Church” for it is the Church that has the authority to bind and loose. (Mt 18:15-18) Later we see this command in action in Acts 15.
Add to this the many calls to unity - profound visible unity - that we find in the NT starting with Jesus prayer that we be one (John 17:20-21) followed by Peter’s and Paul’s exhortations to unity in their letters.

When we ask about “authority” in the protestant world…These are the things that we are looking at. When we see the many “Sola Scriptura” Churches being so dis-unified we have to wonder…how can they claim to follow the bible when they refuse to come together and resolve their differences - as commanded by Christ in the NT?

Two cents…back at ya…

Peace
James

 

[Novocastrian]

Catholics don’t differ on answers as well?

Well it depends. If that suggests that Catholicism is unclear or that their teaching authority fails to unify the flock, then of course they don’t!

On the other hand, in insisting that all other Christian groups from the first century onwards have broken away from the Roman Church, and not vice versa, Catholics obviously must differ on answers for such schisms to arise!

 

[Novocastrian]

Jesus could of picked 6 men and 6 women but he chose 12 men. Why try to change the rules. I totally agree with what you said about this.

Genuine question: if we don’t have female clergy because Christ had only male apostles, why do we have uncircumcised clergy? In other words, why is maleness seen as substance, and circumcision as accident?

 

[JRKH]

Genuine question: if we don’t have female clergy because Christ had only male apostles, why do we have uncircumcised clergy? In other words, why is maleness seen as substance, and circumcision as accident?

Not sure if this answers your question or not…but the matter of circumcision was brought up and disposed of in the first century - it’s recorded in Acts 15

So that is why we have uncircumcised clergy…

Peace
James

 

[Novocastrian]

Not sure if this answers your question or not…but the matter of circumcision was brought up and disposed of in the first century - it’s recorded in Acts 15

So that is why we have uncircumcised clergy…

Peace
James

Yes, but being a woman was never against the Torah either! My point is this: if priests must conform to the model of the Apostles, why is their maleness important and their Jewishness not? Likewise with regard to being an icon of Christ; if Christ’s maleness must be represented in the priest, why not his Jewishness, or his brown skin? What is it that makes maleness more important than these things?

I don’t mean this to be a hostile question at all, I’ve just never seen anyone explain this in a satisfactory way before…

 

[JRKH]

Yes, but being a woman was never against the Torah either! My point is this: if priests must conform to the model of the Apostles, why is their maleness important and their Jewishness not? Likewise with regard to being an icon of Christ; if Christ’s maleness must be represented in the priest, why not his Jewishness, or his brown skin? What is it that makes maleness more important than these things?

I don’t mean this to be a hostile question at all, I’ve just never seen anyone explain this in a satisfactory way before…

Fair enough…I’m afraid I have no answer for you on this other than to say that I “listen to the Church” (Mt 18:17) on such matters for it is she who may bind or loose.

Peace
James