Question For Protestants (if any are here)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mrnuggles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My buddy is a Lutheran from the Wisconsin Synod. He said (and this is a quote, this isn’t what I believe) that he believes in 99% of the Catholic church but the Pope and the Virgin Mary.
 
The logical holes in the example equations I gave are intentional, and reflect the faulty logic of your original statement.


You also neglected to note that the False Dilemma Fallacy can have more than two false options (trilemma, quadrilemma, etc.). Perhaps you did not know this. In formal debate, you would’ve been cited for use of a False Dilemma. Whether you consider your original statement to be either a false _di_lemma (with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism on one side and “Protestantism” on the other) or a false _tri_lemma (like the first, only with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism separate from each other) makes no difference with regard to logical function: you attempted to pass a fallacy off as truth.

Explaining the basics of logic and argumentation is not interesting here. Neither is attempting rational dialogue with someone who retreats on semantic tangents when the substance of their argument is exposed as… well, empty and triumphalistic.
 
OKComputer said:
My buddy is a Lutheran from the Wisconsin Synod. He said (and this is a quote, this isn’t what I believe) that he believes in 99% of the Catholic church but the Pope and the Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...
The single biggest cause of division within the Church is the papal claim of universal jurisdiction
 
I hope we all know that there is a specific genesis for the term Protestant, with a narrow, specific, meaning; that there is a wider sense in which some denominations (or, where Anglicans are concerned, some members of that tradition) might use the term to refer to themselves; and that there is a wider sense still, by which all non-RCC, non-Orthodox, Christians are sometimes identified.

Since, I hope, we all know this, arguments about which is the correct definition seem pointless. Equally, since we all know this, can I suggest that some precision in the use of the term when discussing with non-Catholics would be both sensible and polite?
 
JonNC said:
40.png
ajg:
Y’all were arguing over the definition of Protestant. Figured I’d help
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing over it. I’m debating about the use of the term.
Click to expand...
I think most are willing to concede that Anglicans may not be “Protestant”.

Some folks just don’t like being described by labels, as necessary as they are. This dislike can persist even if the label is somewhat accurate.
 
JonNC said:
The single biggest cause of division within the Church is the papal claim of universal jurisdiction
Click to expand...
Yep.

I’d argue the better label is “papal supremacy”, but they’re nearly one in the same.

Critical difference being that the pope may be supposed to serve some sort of role over which is jurisdiction is the Church catholic, as Irenaeus’ presentation as arbiter may suggest.
 
Last edited:
Arbiter, mediator, first among equals and so on is fine by me.
Infallability, supremacy, earthly power and so on - no need to get into specifics - is a whole other kettle of miscellaneous swimming things. All the other divisions flow from that.
In practice, 500 years later too much water may have flowed down the river for the joining bridge to be rebuilt. The accumulated changes may have become too much for either side to swallow.
 
SnowRose said:
Arbiter, mediator, first among equals and so on is fine by me.
Infallability, supremacy, earthly power and so on - no need to get into specifics - is a whole other kettle of miscellaneous swimming things. All the other divisions flow from that.
In practice, 500 years later too much water may have flowed down the river for the joining bridge to be rebuilt. The accumulated changes may have become too much for either side to swallow.
Click to expand...
Any reunion won’t be done in one generation - that’s for sure.

And in order for it to happen, the ranks of the Rad Trads will necessarily swell as the Catholic Church moves toward that reunion.
 
And even then, the objection is often to universal immediate jurisdiction by divine right. Remove that modifier, and many are no longer opposed.
 
steido01 said:
And even then, the objection is often to universal immediate jurisdiction by divine right. Remove that modifier, and many are no longer opposed.
Click to expand...
I see that as the engine that drives it.

Could you pithily explain how it would work by some other means?

I’m not trying to be snide. I just see your presentation as “universal immediate jurisdiction by assent”, which provides problems in my mind (think herding cats, or how it works when a bishop must be disciplined).
 
PickyPicky said:
and that there is a wider sense still, by which all non-RCC, non-Orthodox, Christians are sometimes identified
Click to expand...
Which is merely a logistical term for identifying a group of non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians. However, there are Protestants who seemingly take offense being labeled Protestant as if they do not want to be associated with other non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians and their similar protesting doctrines. That is perfectly fine, but to suggest that a Lutheran, Anglican, etc. is not a Protestant, then what are we to label them when grouped with other non-Catholic/non-Orthodox Christians?
 
tgGodsway said:
The One True Church is firstly, spiritual, not literal. Why? Because Jesus is our Chief shepherd, and He leads us from His throne in heaven, a place outside of time and space.
Click to expand...
This formulation contains a fatal mistake made by many evangelicals. It creates a false dichotomy between what is “spiritual” and what is “literal”. It suggests that something which is “spiritual” is not actually physically real, or does not have evidence in the tangible plane. The word “spiritual” is translated to mean “figurative” rather than “real” (tangible).

This statement constitutes a heresy on many levels, beginning with the denial that Jesus’ took his physical body into heaven, and suggesting that a state outside of time and space cannot accommodate His “literal” (physical) body. Secondly it denies that Jesus did establish a “literal” (physical) church on earth. He commanded that disputes be taken to than Church, which would not be possible if the One True Church could not be “literally”(physically) located.
 
tgGodsway said:
He is invisible to us, yet He rules His church every day.
Click to expand...
This statement denies that Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, and in the authority He has appointed over His One Body, the Church.
AlNg said:
Some people will say that a true church is a church which will lead them to heaven by their teachings and by the good example of their members, especially of their clergy.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ideally, since Jesus said we will be known by our fruits, and they (the world) will know us by our love. However, people are people wherever you go and you will find people with shortcomings in every ecclesial community.

Yet these are not the only signs of the true church we have from the apostles.
mmsyther said:
They have nothing to do with justification. The most dangerous doctrine that Rome presents is the rejection of the complete and sufficient work of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion. I
Click to expand...
It appears you have been misled about what the Church teaches.
mmsyther said:
Works can only serve as a fruit of faith . They have nothing to do with justification.
Click to expand...
For some reason you have been misled to think that Catholics believe they can be saved by works. How did this happen?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top