Question For Protestants (if any are here)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mrnuggles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AugustTherese said:
Exactly! Until, men in the 16th century strayed from docility and took it upon themselves to attempt to privately interpret Sacred Scripture.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Bishop ofvRome did in clsiming supremacy.
AugustTherese said:
I do not know what ‘Church’ you speak of, because if the Church is ‘One’ with a capital ‘O’, then it is unified, not ‘divided’! I do not protest the Catholic and Apostolic Faith that is safeguarded by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church; I left that ‘division’ that includes all of protesting Christians years ago.
Click to expand...
Some more triumphalism? The fact is we are all members of His one true Church via Baptism. There are some who claim Catholics are not part of the Church. That is triumphalism and they are just as wrong
 
JonNC said:
One need only spend a week at CAF to know that Catholics do not all believe in the same doctrine.
Click to expand...
Thank God We have the Magisterium to teach us the True Doctrine and don’t depend on our own personal and falible opinions like our protestant brethren.
 
JonNC said:
Yes. By loss of faith, not by membership in any one tradition within the Church.
Click to expand...
So, as long as one is Baptized and has faith, that person is in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?
 
JonNC said:
Essentially. Mark 16:16. Do you have a scriptural reference otherwise
Click to expand...
Mark 16:16 refers to the Apostolic, full deposit of faith, not to ‘faiths’ of ‘strange doctrines’, i.e. “Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings” (Heb 13:9). I cannot think of anything other than Protestantism that encapsulates diversity in its teachings. Can you? Do you really think that the diversity of different doctrines within Protestantism comes from the Apostolic, full deposit of faith once delivered, 2,000 years ago?
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
40.png
AugustTherese:
Mark 16:16 refers to the Apostolic, full deposit of faith, not to ‘faiths’ of ‘strange doctrines’, i.e
Click to expand...
Oh. So it excludes universal jurisdiction
Click to expand...
Does it not appeal to your conscience, ever-so-slightly in the least, that of all the many questions I have asked you, you retort with statements solely regarding either ‘universal jurisdiction’ or ‘triumphalism’ and leave many questions completely ignored or intentionally unanswered? Have you ever pondered these questions and desired to even attempt at answering them? Or, is it perhaps that because your conscience knows the very basic and obvious answers, but seeming incorrigibility prevents you from being honest with yourself at wanting to answer the questions? One more time:
AugustTherese said:
Do you really think that the diversity of different doctrines within Protestantism comes from the Apostolic, full deposit of faith once delivered, 2,000 years ago?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LostSheep7 said:
Thank God We have the Magisterium to teach us the True Doctrine and don’t depend on our own personal and falible opinions like our protestant brethren.
Click to expand...
What makes you think “Protestants” (whoever they are) rely on their own personal and fallible opinions?
 
Living among protestants since I was born.
You get to see how they can’t reach agreemente in any point.
I have to confess it usually works better in traditional protestant churches (presbyterians, reformed baptists etc.) who have faith standards, but doesn’t solve the problem since these same standards are falible.
 
I always find it interesting when this is said so many times. It doesn’t really help when from the other side it should be clear the thinking is that now there are just a group of very fallible men as well proclaiming things here and there and the rest follow it without question?
 
If you’re not Catholic or Orthodox, and you are a baptized Christian, you are a Protestant. If you do not like the label of ‘Protestant’, then do not be one.
 
Personally I have no issue with the label. I am in total solidarity with the German Princes Protesting at the Diet of Spyer.
 
AugustTherese said:
If you’re not Catholic or Orthodox, and you are a baptized Christian, you are a Protestant. If you do not like the label of ‘Protestant’, then do not be one.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
If you’re not [Republican], and you are [a member of a political party], you are [a Democrat]. If you do not like the label of [‘Democrat’], then do not be one.
Click to expand...
If you’re not [Muslim], and you are [religious], you are [an infidel]. If you do not like the label of [‘infidel’], then do not be one.
Click to expand...
If you’re not [a Planned Parenthood supporter], and you are [an American], you are [a woman-hater]. If you do not like the label of [‘woman-hater’], then do not be one.
Click to expand...
If you’re not [a Capitalist], and you [have views on economies], you are [a Communist]. If you do not like the label of [‘Communist’], then do not be one.
Click to expand...
If you’re not [a Black Lives Matter supporter], and you are [American], you are [racist]. If you do not like the label of [‘racist’], then do not be one.
Click to expand...
This sort of argument might score talking points on the vainglorious triumphalist scoreboard, but its logic is faulty. It’s the False Dilemma Fallacy.
Look, the term ‘Protestant’ might have some usefulness as an arbitrary descriptor of a grouping of people, but it has zero use whatsoever as a specific theological identifier.

One could similarly group cats, zebras, turtles and amoebas together and arbitrarily call them ‘Zorgs.’ Cool. Now you can identify an arbitrary group. That doesn’t mean a thing, taxonomically.
 
A very well written reply!

You had be trying to catch my breath there for a while!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top