Question For Protestants (if any are here)

[pablope]

The papacy of course goes right along with the traditions of men.

But keeping in with the theme of the original post. There are a lot more issues than just the obvious. Your crucifixes depict Jesus still on the cross. I was taught that he is no longer on the cross, he is risen. He should not still be depicted on the cross. He triumphed the grave.

Maybe this will help explain by Jesus is still depicted on the Cross…Two-Minute Apologetics | Bible Christian Society

One other passage to keep in mind is Galatians 3:1, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” Did you catch that? Jesus was publicly portrayed, before their “eyes”, as being crucified. Sounds kind of like they may have been looking at a Crucifix, doesn’t it?

While not all of these are my view points it’s just some of what Ive seen and been exposed to. I can see the appeal for sure although that is not the home Christ is pointing me to.

Happy Sunday.

I just ran across this book…https://www.amazon.com/Questions-Protestants-Anniversary-Protestant-Reformation/dp/1942190344

Author was on the Coming Home Network recently as a guest.

 

[JonNC]

This has been Jon’s issue ever since I encountered him here.

I think it is a residual of how he views the universal jurisdiction as being anti-Christ

All this time and you still seem to not understand the point of that.
Any doctrine or teaching that is not consistent with the teachings of Christ and the early Church can be said to be opposed to Christ. I believe the Calvinist TULIP is, by and large, opposed to Christ.
There is nothing “residual “ in that view, nor is that anything near saying the pope is some sort of end-times beast.

 

[MaryT777]

I agree with this. Jon was LCMS (Confessional Lutheran) before he converted which he has stated on the board, and the LCMS does still teach in the Book of Concord, ThePpope is the Antichrist, now intrepreted to mean he "sit in the seat of the Antichrist., If I understand correctly.

With that belief indoctrinated in you for years, universal jurisdiction of the Pope would probably be adverse and repugnant to you.

 

[JonNC]

I agree with this. Jon was LCMS (Confessional Lutheran) before he converted which he has stated on the board, and the LCMS does still teach in the Book of Concord, ThePpope is the Antichrist, now intrepreted to mean he "sit in the seat of the Antichrist., If I understand correctly.

With that belief indoctrinated in you for years, universal jurisdiction of the Pope would probably be adverse and repugnant to you.

What’s truly interesting is that charge was never part of my catechetical training, never even once mentioned in church or worship. It was never part of my religion classes in college. It seems I was “indoctrinated” by never hearing it.
About 10 years ago, one of the first three threads I authored here at CAF was a proposal to the Lutheran members of the time that the term should be dropped because of the American evangelical definition that has taken over the term.
But that said, you have the order reversed. The reformers did not think that, since the office was anti-Christ that universal jurisdiction must be wrong. They thought that, because universal jurisdiction is wrong, the basis of the office was anti-Christ.

Now,with permission from you and Pablope, I will put my own words in my mouth. Universal jurisdiction, in my view has no basis in scripture or the early Church. Therefore, I believe that the Bishop of Rome has jurisdiction where other bishops remain in communion with him.

 

[mwcampbell]

Inertia is the best reason I can think of. I would need to learn so much more about Catholicism to switch but I find substantal doctrinal agreement on the most important concepts from a 10,000 foot view.

Having been exposed to virtually no Catholic doctrine for my first 49 years on this planet, I don’t see what all the fuss is about for so many. I find a certain logic that appeals to my need for order. In fact, that was a problem for me going back to my teens, really. Who’s right? Clearly, it is the Southern Baptists (the denomination I was raised in) but what about a few- not all- of the others:

Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Association
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist Bible Fellowship International,
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists
Free Will Baptist
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Mainstream Baptist Network
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Primitive Baptists
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions

And that doesn’t include all the flavors of Methodists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcipals, and on and on and on. Going back to the question I used to ask when I was 16, “who’s right?” It’s difficult to fathom that Jesus had this scale of division in mind when Luther nailed his new traditions on the door…

 

[JonNC]

It’s difficult to fathom that Jesus had this scale of division in mind when Luther nailed his new traditions on the door…

Why do you think the Baptists have anything to do with Luther, except maybe the Baptists who believe in infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, “one baptism for the remission of sins”, the real presence in the Lords Supper, private confession, and confirmation?

 

[mwcampbell]

The Baptists that I grew up with would see Luther as in error, along with most of the other denominations. My point was that the many permutations of Protestantism from which the Baptists sprang ultimately go back to Luther’s protest.

 

[GKMotley]

Motley are the Baptists. But, as you are saying, not that motley.

 

[JonNC]

The Baptists that I grew up with would see Luther as in error, along with most of the other denominations. My point was that the many permutations of Protestantism from which the Baptists sprang ultimately go back to Luther’s protest.

More likely from the Zwingli/ Reformed Reformation than the Lutheran. And yes, they are/ we’re teo different movements.

 

[JonNC]

Motley are the Baptists. But, as you are saying, not that motley.

I suspect less so than Anglicans.
I’m finding out.

 

[steido01]

No. Luther is not the source for Baptist theology, no matter how much some Baptists might like to claim him as their own forerunner. Luther himself likely would’ve condemned many modern Baptist practices as ‘Anabaptist,’ even though many Baptists would deny the connection (Baptists theology is motley with messy history). But probably just as many Baptists would say they are connected to the Anabaptists (especially the “Trail of Blood” crowd).

The Lutheran Confessions blast Anabaptists more than they do Rome, and Lutherans and Catholics used to pause their fighting in the Thirty Years’ War just to hunt Anabaptists! Lutherans have always been quite separate from Baptists.

 

[mwcampbell]

I only mentioned Luther in the sense of a common ancestor as with evolution. I think Baptists and Lutherans are still lumped together collectively as Protestants, however far apart they’ve evolved theologically.

 

[steido01]

That’s @JonNC and my point – he’s not a common ancestor. He’s a totally different plant in the forest of “Protestantism.”

 

[roseyelephant]

Having difficulty understanding the canonization of anything other than the Bible itself, the view of Mary, saints, purgatory…

 

[pablope]

I agree with this. Jon was LCMS (Confessional Lutheran) before he converted which he has stated on the board, and the LCMS does still teach in the Book of Concord, ThePpope is the Antichrist, now intrepreted to mean he "sit in the seat of the Antichrist., If I understand correctly.

With that belief indoctrinated in you for years, universal jurisdiction of the Pope would probably be adverse and repugnant to you.

What’s truly interesting is that charge was never part of my catechetical training, never even once mentioned in church or worship. It was never part of my religion classes in college. It seems I was “indoctrinated” by never hearing it.

That’s probably one way to put it…

Now,with permission from you and Pablope, I will put my own words in my mouth. Universal jurisdiction, in my view has no basis in scripture or the early Church. Therefore, I believe that the Bishop of Rome has jurisdiction where other bishops remain in communion with him.

Well…I came across this about 2 weeks ago…it is an interesting portrayal of the early church…if you have time, please watch this…at the least from about the 12 minute mark to about the 22nd to 25th minute mark…How Do We Know the Early Church? - Dr. William Marshner - YouTube

Dr. Marshner talks about the paintings or depictions of the early church…pre-Constantine and post-Constantine.

I found it interesting was that early church depictions of Peter had him being portrayed as Moses, first sitting on a rock, then later on a seat…and holding a book (from what I remember)…and the work Lex or Law on the book…and no other Apostle had been portrayed as such…

No basis…I think these portrayals are a window in how Peter was perceived…comparing him to Moses.

 

[JonNC]

if you have time, please watch this…at the least from about the 12 minute mark to about the 22nd to 25th minute mark…

Dr. Marshner talks about the paintings or depictions of the early church…pre-Constantine and post-Constantine.

As I recall, Marshner was raised Lutheran. I’ll look, but depictions in art are not the same as canons from councils

 

[AugustTherese]

One Church. Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Established at Pentecost by Christ Himself. That fact is not diminished by human divisions

Exactly! Well said! How can you attempt to suggest that Protestants, perhaps the pinnacle for ‘human division’, are all fully in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

 

[MichaelP3]

the pinnacle for ‘human division’,

That’s YOUR ASSUMPTION.

Have you considered you are quite arrogant here?

Just a thought. I guess these things never get to you spontaneously but at least now I pointed it out???

 

[AugustTherese]

That’s YOUR ASSUMPTION.

Have you considered you are quite arrogant here?

Just a thought. I guess these things never get to you spontaneously but at least now I pointed it out???

There are tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations, all divided on what they confess to believe…and, that makes me arrogant?

 

[MichaelP3]

Even if there were a million!

Conduct does not depend on numbers!