Question for Protestants

[Atreyu]

A Christian’s standard in evaluating spiritual teachings should be the Bible. In looking at the Scriptures, we can tell if current teachings or practices meet the Biblical standard or not…even if we can’t say when, exactly, those teaching strayed from the Biblically mandated path.

Wait a minute, the Catholic Church was the agent that collected and preserved the Scriptures, correct? In that case, if the Catholic Church had already fallen into heresy in the early 4th century - actually before the Bible was collated - then how do you know the Catholic Church didn’t modify the Scriptural books in order to promote her so-called heresy? Conversely, why would the so-called heretical Catholic Church not modify difficult passages of Scripture, in order to favour her heresies, in the proceeding centuries?

To have faith in the accuracy of the Bible is to have faith in the Catholic Church.

 

[rr1213]

And why are you ex-Episcopalian…?

Because, unfortunately, the Episcopal Church as a body has essentially descended into heresy and apostacy, although there certainly remain many faithful Christians in the Episcopal Church.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

rr1213

Here’s a question for you…if the oral tradition of the Church is so important, why did God insure that the Scriptures were written down?

To assist in establishing the authority of the Church that created the Bible. The Bible didn’t write itself. Also, and more importantly, to provide as complete a record as possible for authentic CHURCH teachings, not BIBLE teachings. By the way, you seem not to have a grounding in when and where the books of the New Testament were written. The Gospels were not written until **after **Paul had written his epistles. Protestant and Catholics agree on this. So how could all those Christians who were BIBLE Christians only have been Bible Christians if there were no Gospels to read?

If the Catholic Church taught heresy within the first couple centuries (I don’t know whether it did or not), where was the “true church”? It existed among those who did not believe the heresy, no doubt within a remnant of the Catholic Church itself.

But there is no record of this remnant, is there? Not one Lutheran for the first 1500 years of Christianity! Not one Henry VIII. Not one John Calvin. Not one John Wesley. Not one John Knox. Not one John Smyth. Not one Roger Williams. Not one william Penn. Not one Alexander Campbell. Not one Mary Baker Eddy. Not one Joseph Smith. Not one Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie or Rick Warren.

What say you about the Orthodox? You know that they claim that the Catholic Church is the church in error and that it was the Catholic Church that separated itself from the true (Orthodox) church.

There you go again, trying to change the topic of this thread. Start another thread on Orthodoxy and I’ll join you there. I’m looking to understand specifically how Protestants view their rebellion against Catholicism, since they never did rebel against the Orthodox. Come to think of it, a lot of Protestants never even rebelled against the Catholic Church because they were too busy rebelling against each other.

Do you think Christ meant to found several thousand denominations of Protestant Christians and waited 1,500 years to begin doing so?

 

[Truthstalker]

If the Catholic Church is a “false” religion, at what point did this “false” religion begin? In what century? What was the first false teaching of the the Catholic Church? Any Protestant who is “steeped” in the history of Christianity should be able to answer this question.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

You need to read Calvin’s Institutes, volume 4, and understand the difference between the concepts of the visible and invisible church to see a Protestant answer to this question.

 

[rr1213]

Wait a minute, the Catholic Church was the agent that collected and preserved the Scriptures, correct? In that case, if the Catholic Church had already fallen into heresy in the early 4th century - actually before the Bible was collated - then how do you know the Catholic Church didn’t modify the Scriptural books in order to promote her so-called heresy? Conversely, why would the so-called heretical Catholic Church not modify difficult passages of Scripture, in order to favour her heresies, in the proceeding centuries?

To have faith in the accuracy of the Bible is to have faith in the Catholic Church.

Where did I say that the Catholic Church fell into heresy before the 4th Century? I’ve avoided stating an opinion on that assertion because I don’t know if it is true or not. How do we know that the Scriptures are true? Because they are the inspired Word of God. Does the Catholic Church deny that they are the inspired Word of God? Of course not…so there is no debate on that issue between Catholics and Protestants. How do we know that the Catholic Church did not nefariously modify the Scriptures for its own purposes? Because there would have been indications of that in the historical record. Also, we would have found differing manuscripts over the years. I am no Bible Scholar, but I don’t recall any such allegations.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Truthstalker

You need to read Calvin’s Institutes, volume 4, and understand the difference between the concepts of the visible and invisible church to see a Protestant answer to this question.

At my age I’m not in the habit of reading whole volumes to answer a simple question of when and why the Catholic Church ceased to be the true Church. However, if you’d like to provide a brief summary of volume 4, I’ll gladly oblige.

rr1213

Where did I say that the Catholic Church fell into heresy before the 4th Century?

O.K., if you didn’t say that, when and who approved the final form of the Bible? Was it in the 4th century? Was it the modern Protestants or the ancient Catholics who approved the final Bible?

 

[rr1213]

rr1213

Here’s a question for you…if the oral tradition of the Church is so important, why did God insure that the Scriptures were written down?

…The Bible didn’t write itself… By the way, you seem not to have a grounding in when and where the books of the New Testament were written. The Gospels were not written until **after **Paul had written his epistles. Protestant and Catholics agree on this. So how could all those Christians who were BIBLE Christians only have been Bible Christians if there were no Gospels to read?

Of course the Bible didn’t write itself. Moreover, I believe it is uncontroverted that the Apostle Paul wrote Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy. Correct me if I am wrong. I believe that it is also uncontroverted that Paul wrote those books while he was still alive. So, in addition to the Old Testament Scriptures, early Christians had the writings of Paul contemporaneously with Paul’s oral teachings. The same with the writings of Peter, James and John. That’s a whole lot of scripture there, even if the Gospels were written a few years later.

If the Catholic Church taught heresy within the first couple centuries (I don’t know whether it did or not), where was the “true church”? It existed among those who did not believe the heresy, no doubt within a remnant of the Catholic Church itself.

But there is no record of this remnant, is there? Not one Lutheran for the first 1500 years of Christianity! Not one Henry VIII. Not one John Calvin. Not one John Wesley. Not one John Knox. Not one John Smyth. Not one Roger Williams. Not one william Penn. Not one Alexander Campbell. Not one Mary Baker Eddy. Not one Joseph Smith. Not one Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie or Rick Warren.

***You assume that any dissenters would: (i) wish to risk the wrath of the Church by publically expressing dissent at a time when that would have gotten them excommunicated and (ii) that they would have chosen to become schismatic as opposed to remaining in the Church. For all we know, we could be looking at little old ladies who faithfully adhered to the teachings of the apostles. We don’t know one way or the other. ***

What say you about the Orthodox? You know that they claim that the Catholic Church is the church in error and that it was the Catholic Church that separated itself from the true (Orthodox) church.

There you go again, trying to change the topic of this thread. Start another thread on Orthodoxy and I’ll join you there. I’m looking to understand specifically how Protestants view their rebellion against Catholicism, since they never did rebel against the Orthodox. Come to think of it, a lot of Protestants never even rebelled against the Catholic Church because they were too busy rebelling against each other.

Do you think Christ meant to found several thousand denominations of Protestant Christians and waited 1,500 years to begin doing so?

I still think that the schismatic history of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are relevant to the discussion because they served as 500 year old examples to the Reformers. Nonetheless… As for what Jesus desires, we know that he desires us to worship him in unity and truth. But, as sinful men, that has not happened for many reasons. The schisms arising out of the Reformation had many causes, some of which were Catholic in origin as well.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213

Where did I say that the Catholic Church fell into heresy before the 4th Century?

O.K., if you didn’t say that, when and who approved the final form of the Bible? Was it in the 4th century? Was it the modern Protestants or the ancient Catholics who approved the final Bible?

The Bible was canonized by the unified Church prior to the great schisms of the 11th and 16th centuries. We all know that. It doesn’t mean that the Bible is “owned” by the Catholic Church or that the Catholic Church as a “bye” on conforming its teachings to the teachings of Scripture.

 

[Atreyu]

Where did I say that the Catholic Church fell into heresy before the 4th Century? I’ve avoided stating an opinion on that assertion because I don’t know if it is true or not.

True, I should have left this date out of my post.

How do we know that the Scriptures are true? Because they are the inspired Word of God.

The fundamental fallacy of Protestantism. Along with Augustine of Hippo, I know the Scriptures are true because of the authority of the Catholic Church.

Does the Catholic Church deny that they are the inspired Word of God? Of course not…so there is no debate on that issue between Catholics and Protestants.

Well actually, Protestants deny the inspiration of seven books of the inspired written word of God, and so there is debate. Also, even if there were no debate, the Catholic is happy to point to the authority of the Church to proclaim the canon of Scripture. Therefore the question of “how do you know the Bible is inspired?” is a very relevant one for Protestants. The various modes of reaching the conclusion that the Bible is the inspired written word of God is different between Catholics and Protestants, and so it is up for debate.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

rr1213

The Bible was canonized by the unified Church prior to the great schisms of the 11th and 16th centuries.

Precisely, the unified Church, which is still the Catholic Church since all the other churches are against each other as well as the unified Catholic Church.

 

[Amicus7]

Atreyu, if I can add a point to your arguement? It may be equally important to note that the KJV translation of the bible, a common translation used by many protestants, DID indeed include these 7 books in the KJV of 1611. I guess it depends what version he is referring to, pre-1611 or the later versions that did not include them?

 

[tabcom]

tabcom

So are you saying the Catholic Church began with Constantine, and that it was corrupted by him (the gates of hell prevailed against it)?

**
The Roman Catholic Church began with Constantine. However, the corruption began long before he put his politically motivated stamp of approval on the Church.

Babel began a series of “world order” beast (ruling) systems (Dan. 2:31-45; 7:3-7). These empires, (beasts) ruled all the civilized world and fell as one conquered the other (Babylon, Persia/Medes, Greece, Rome. USA). The harlot was the ancient Chaldean idolatry passed down through the empires in the form of Greek and Roman gods (mystery religions). Outlawed in Rome, the worship of idols was reinstituted in the Roman church by Constantine (the deadly wound healed - Rev. 13:3). America has dispensed with icon (statue) worship and retained the “self-esteem” (pride) system of Rome/Babylon and is polluting the world with it. Babylon fell once as a literal empire never to rise again (Jer. 51:26). The second time she will fall as a wicked idolatrous religious system of “self-esteem” and “pride”. (Babylon is fallen, is fallen - Rev. 18:2).
**

If so, who carried on true Christianity after Constantine up until the modern Protestants?

**
First off, we need to come to an understand as to what words mean. For instance, the English word church did not mean a brick building with a steeple and stain glass windows in the first century.

John 10:3,4,11,27,28 - he calleth his own sheep by name - the sheep follow him for they know his voice - the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep - my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me - and I give unto them eternal life.

Ephesians 5:25 – Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

* church - Greek: ekklesia - "a calling out"; hence "the called" of God.

Proverbs 20:12 – The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them.

Isaiah 50:5 – He wakeneth mine ear to hear as the leaarned - the Lord God hath opened mine ear.

Matthew 11:15 – He that hath ears to hear, let him hear –

* hear - Greek: akouo - to understand by imperative command; having the same effectual work of God as when he said "Let there be light" - It is so.

In ancient Israel the kingdom was considered a sheepfold, ruled by a shepherd-king. The subjects were called sheep (Ezek. 34:2-10). The whole people of Israel was designated “the church” as a divinely called congregation. The early Christians believed themselves to be this “church” or true sheep of Israel. Stephen spoke of this church being in the wilderness with Moses (Acts 7:38). The church (called out) and sheep are equivalent terms. The sheep are “called out” of this world to live righteously as the kingdom of God (Luke 17:21). Israel was called The Kingdom of God (or heaven). Jesus as the shepherd-king died only for His sheep (the church)
**

please locate Christianity’s presence in the Western World and who its leaders were.

Answers: Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.

 

[rr1213]

The USA conquered Rome! I must have missed that one.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

The USA conquered Rome! I must have missed that one.

It’s more than that… Aparently the US is one of the nations that

“ruled all the civilized world and fell as one conquered the other (Babylon, Persia/Medes, Greece, Rome. USA”

To the best of my knowledge the U.S. is still standing; so I guess that means tabcom believes that the U.S. still ruels the all civilized world. I shoulda paid more attention in my history class.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Still no answer from a Protestant as to what happened to true Christianity between Constantine and Martin Luther. Where was it located geographically? Who were its leaders? Who were its famous theologians and missionaries? Where were its main areas of growth? Etc. Is it possible that it ceased to be and only came to light again with Martin Luther? John Calvin would never agree to that. Neither would Henry VIII, or Roger Williams, or William Penn, or the Campbells. Nor would any of them honor each other as the true faith. At one time, soon after the Reformation, Lutherans might have been able to make a case (to itself anyway) that true Christianity had been restored. But Protestantism is today fragmented beyond repair. It cannot be possible that Christ intended to found several thousand different sects. On the contrary:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21

One thing Protestants have in common today is that they are united in *Protesting *against the oldest Church in Christendom. That, of course, but they are also united in *Protesting *against all the other Protestants … namely all the youngest Churches in Christendom.

If they would only go to their own Bible, their absolute rule of faith, they would have to find in John 17:20-21 a direct repudiation of Protestantism (Fragmentationism) from the very lips of Christ himself. And if they knew their own Bible as they are supposed to, they would know that disunity of belief was strongly preached against not only by Paul, but also by many of the other Church Fathers long before the so-called corruption of Constantine.

"For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you were baptized in my name."

1 Cor. 1:11-15

 

[awantz]

I am protestant and I do not see catholicism as a false religion. If I did I wouldn’t be married to a catholic.

 

[tabcom]

To the best of my knowledge the U.S. is still standing;

opps…I gave away the end of the story. My bad.

 

[a_cermak]

I am also Protestant and don’t consider the Catholic faith to be a false Church. In fact I can tell you exactly where, when, who, and some of the whys of the break with Rome that my Church made.

rr1213,

I wish you well in your non-Episcopalian future. As for me, I find my three-legged stool quite comfortable.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

awantz

I am protestant and I do not see catholicism as a false religion.

Then it’s a true one? Doesn’t it have to be one or the other?

If it’s not false, why not join it?

 

[a_cermak]

awantz

I am protestant and I do not see catholicism as a false religion.

Then it’s a true one? Doesn’t it have to be one or the other?

If it’s not false, why not join it?

Well, because I just left it last year.

I believe it is a true religion. As true as Anglicanism, Methodism, Anabaptism, Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy…