Questions for any Protestants

[LaughingBoy1503]

Seems a bit purposely simplistic. Wisdom, even history, teaches that a departure from truth for some does not mean for all.

Yes, from my point of view those that departed are protestants but im sure you know that and of course you disagree

Someone always picks up the banner to march on

** From my opinion, that was always in The Catholic Church. In my opinion The protestant reformation was the worthless after The Catholic Church took care of the indulgence issues and had a counter reformation. So, why did protestant groups continue to protest after those issues were resolved? Because some men decided they knew better than the 1500 year old Church **

. A remnant always remains . Reformation/revival/restoration come from time to time.

Yes, we have had many in The Church. I am still of the opinion that The protestant Reformation was worthless after The Counter reformation.

Hades has not prevailed. There is a difference between Hades winning some battles and actually winning the war, which he does not. That the reformatiom may be justified in no way says His Promises were unkept, which is what you allude.

That I allude? Don’t put word in my mouth friend, or you risk me getting angry and becoming uncharitable and I do not wish to get banned Of course hades did not prevail because of the reformation. The Church got its act together better and The Church grew to enormous numbers and does more charitable works than any other “Church” in existence

Let me ask you a question. If you do not think that The Catholic Church is teaching error that can cause people to be sent to hell, now that The major corruption of The Indulgence sales are over and selling the gospel is more of a protestant thing these days (See TBN or Televangelist on TV) Why still protest? Why do we need thousands of protestant denominations when The Original Church is not leading people to hell by what it teaches? YOU allude that The reformation was necessary for the gates of hades to not prevail.

Ok, rant over friend. I will be charitable again

 

[joe371]

Seems a bit purposely simplistic. Wisdom, even history, teaches that a departure from truth for some does not mean for all. Someone always picks up the banner to march on . A remnant always remains . Reformation/revival/restoration come from time to time. Hades has not prevailed. There is a difference between Hades winning some battles and actually winning the war, which he does not. That the reformatiom may be justified in no way says His Promises were unkept, which is what you allude.

I agree that a departure from truth for some does not mean for all. As a former Protestant I would often ask myself: How can doctrinal truth vis-a-vis the teachings of Jesus, be known in those cases where people, using scripture alone, are divided on said truth. It can’t be known definitively. I know what the Catholic claim is, and it seems plausible i.e. the Holy Spirit ineffably guides and preserves doctrinal truth within the Church founded by Jesus. As a former Lutheran I was not sure how I could know that I was right about the Eucharist, for example, and my Baptist sister was wrong. After all we both deferred to sacred scripture for our answers, and we both walked away, (based on our unique interpretation), with a different answer i.e. it was pretty much up to what I thought, as I was moved by the Holy Spirit, versus what she thought, as she was moved by the Holy Spirit. Eventually it became clear that that approach was a bankrupt approach…

 

[joe371]

That I allude? Don’t put word in my mouth friend, or you risk me getting angry and becoming uncharitable and I do not wish to get banned Of course hades did not prevail because of the reformation. The Church got its act together better and The Church grew to enormous numbers and does more charitable works than any other “Church” in existence

Let me ask you a question. If you do not think that The Catholic Church is teaching error that can cause people to be sent to hell, now that The major corruption of The Indulgence sales are over and selling the gospel is more of a protestant thing these days (See TBN or Televangelist on TV) Why still protest? Why do we need thousands of protestant denominations when The Original Church is not leading people to hell by what it teaches? YOU allude that The reformation was necessary for the gates of hades to not prevail.

Ok, rant over friend. I will be charitable again

Well, if the reformation was necessary for the gates of hades to not prevail, then Jesus failed, I’m afraid. I think Benhur would agree on this point…

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

As a former Lutheran I was not sure how I could know that I was right about the Eucharist, for example, and my Baptist sister was wrong. After all we both deferred to sacred scripture for our answers, and we both walked away, (based on our unique interpretation), with a different answer i.e. it was pretty much up to what I thought, as I was moved by the Holy Spirit, versus what she thought, as she was moved by the Holy Spirit. Eventually it became clear that that approach was a bankrupt approach…

The protestant answer to that is “It does not matter as long as you love God”

Seriously though, I joke because I love. I use to be Protestant.

 

[benhur]

How does one go about locating the proper interpretation in view of so many different churches in the world today, teaching different things in certain cases?

Locate ? On one hand, "no man seeks after God’ . The other says, “seek and ye shall find, and no one seeks unless he is drawn, even broken”. We are promised divine revelation into important matters , and not sure locating "the’’ best church over all the others is part of that. But for sure He guides us to deep waters, but not to boast it to be “the” location.

 

[benhur]

**

That I allude? Don’t put word in my mouth friend, or you risk me getting angry and becoming uncharitable and I do not wish to get banned Of course hades did not prevail because of the reformation.

 

[benhur]

I agree that a departure from truth for some does not mean for all. As a former Protestant I would often ask myself: How can doctrinal truth vis-a-vis the teachings of Jesus, be known in those cases where people, using scripture alone, are divided on said truth. It can’t be known definitively. I know what the Catholic claim is, and it seems plausible i.e. the Holy Spirit ineffably guides and preserves doctrinal truth within the Church founded by Jesus. As a former Lutheran I was not sure how I could know that I was right about the Eucharist, for example, and my Baptist sister was wrong. After all we both deferred to sacred scripture for our answers, and we both walked away, (based on our unique interpretation), with a different answer i.e. it was pretty much up to what I thought, as I was moved by the Holy Spirit, versus what she thought, as she was moved by the Holy Spirit. Eventually it became clear that that approach was a bankrupt approach…

Thank you for honestly sharing. I followed your story with your sister but you ended it too short. I still think you both end up with “what I think the HS has revealed to me”. I am sure you will say you finally rested upon the revelation of resting upon a particular “church” and therefore it is no longer “private”/bankrupt. Something like that except you leave your sister “alone”, apart from any church/tradition. I say you both are identical. In the end you both think you are being “apostolic” or as Paul said, “do as I do” (even believe as I do). You both have a “body/church” that believe likewise. You both have a tradition, even history to believed dogma. You both have “catholic” roots…I don’t know, just shaking my head, and saying thankfully, Christianity is about a relationship ( as I look at the Lord’s face at the top of this page next to “Tim Staples defends the Eucharist”, howbeit He does puts you in a body/church.

 

[benhur]

The protestant answer to that is “It does not matter as long as you love God”

Seriously though, I joke because I love. I use to be Protestant.

Actually , not sure but I think Rinnie stresses "as long as you love’’ also or at least as a strong indicator of spiritual status, and just when you want to argue/debate some more.

 

[joe371]

benhur;12606595]Thank you for honestly sharing. I followed your story with your sister but you ended it too short. I still think you both end up with “what I think the HS has revealed to me”.

Her and I are in sharp disagreement. However, she insists that she is right; I don’t believe that God sent me the Holy Spirit, to guide me into all truth i.e. John 16:13 does not apply to me, but rather Jesus’ church. I am simply not bold enough to make such a claim. :shrug:My sister and I have reached a perpetual impasse. Luckily, at least in my humble opinion, the infallible Holy Spirit preserves doctrinal truth within Jesus’ established church i.e. fallible church leaders, beginning with the apostles. Where that church is in the world today, is up to each individual in terms of locating it.

I am sure you will say you finally rested upon the revelation of resting upon a particular “church” and therefore it is no longer “private”/bankrupt.

Well, I searched for the only church that could trace its lineage back to the apostles, and was left with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.

Something like that except you leave your sister “alone”, apart from any church/tradition.

She says she only trusts the holy Bible, but at the same time defers to church leadership regarding sola scriptura, in the end.

I say you both are identical. In the end you both think you are being “apostolic”

Well, her church was founded hundreds and hundreds of years after the apostle walked the earth, which is why she rejects the need for apostolic succession.

or as Paul said, “do as I do” (even believe as I do). You both have a “body/church” that believe likewise.

You both have a tradition, even history to believed dogma.

Tradition - yes. The history of her church goes back only so far. Any thing after that she pretty much rejects.

You both have “catholic” roots…

I dare you to tell her that. LOL.

I don’t know, just shaking my head, and saying thankfully, Christianity is about a relationship ( as I look at the Lord’s face at the top of this page next to “Tim Staples defends the Eucharist”, howbeit He does puts you in a body/church.

I absolutely agree: Christianity is about a relationship with God and others. The question that remains: how does God preserve doctrinal truth?

 

[benhur]

Her and I are in sharp disagreement.

On some things yes, but not all.

However, she insists that she is right;

I would think you both insist on not being wrong ( as I do).

I don’t believe that God sent me the Holy Spirit, to guide me into all truth i.e. John 16:13 does not apply to me, but rather Jesus’ church. I am simply not bold enough to make such a claim.

Who told you that promise is not for you ? The apostles and successors were to make “disciples”. You are a ‘‘disciple" are you not ? Baptized to that end ? A disciple is to be "likewise’’ as in duplicating . That would be impossible if you cut off the means thereof that they employed (such HS guidance that we discuss). It is sad to hear one say," that is not for me" (like JW’s saying heaven is not for most of them) . I would not cloak that particular unbelief in false piety. False not due to insincerity but wrong assumption. The apostle Paul says you can be bold . John in his epistles is very clear “dear children” that this unction, this HS guidance, is for all, very clear. This does not do away with special giftings and being subject to offices.

Well, **I searched **for the only church that could trace its lineage back to the apostles, and was left with the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.

It is interesting that the church that says "tracing’’ is the key has that key lead to herself. Tracing should be true but is it ? Being sons and daughters of Abraham ( OT key) should have made true sons in the faith but did it for Jesus’s contemporaries ?

The method suggested by a particular church for locating the true church could be self serving. It would be like taking certain qualities we both agree are scriptural, historical and applying them cause they “fit”. The Lutherans could say " be ware when all men speak well of you(popular) or narrow is the gate and be part of true remnant and true prophets have always been persecuted by popular,“magisteriums” and stand for truth even if it separates you from father, mother, brother even spiritual leaders if they are wrong. Find the true church there… Those indicators are true (but not conclusive or in totality). See how self serving that would be to suggest . Your/our tracing must be taken with a grain of salt. By itself it is not the key.

She says she only trusts the holy Bible, but at the same time defers to church leadership regarding sola scriptura, in the end.

See, she is not alone or apart from a church on her faith evidences either

Well, her church was founded hundreds and hundreds of years after the apostle walked the earth, which is why she rejects the need for apostolic succession.

But you and I and Vat 2 both know her church sprang out of CC (with some explanation) and therefore has a type of succession. No one rejects our foundation resting on the Lord and the apostles and faithful church (leaders and all ) that has come down to our generation. As before, we both define “succession” that could be considered self serving by others.

Tradition - yes. The history of her church goes back only so far. Any thing after that she pretty much rejects.

Well rejection can be emotional but don’t think she rejects anything truthful. There is truth and then there is its carrier. It can be examined line by line besides all or nothing.

I absolutely agree: Christianity is about a relationship with God and others. The question that remains: how does God preserve doctrinal truth?

We are not far apart for we both have found doctrinal truth and churches that preserve it ( just differ on what or how much needs to be preserved) . Just as OT world had salvation by Jews/Israel despite her diversity, NT world has christians/church despite her diversity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who told you that promise is not for you ? The apostles and successors were to make “disciples”. You are a ‘‘disciple" are you not ? Baptized to that end ? A disciple is to be "likewise’’ as in duplicating.

benhur-

Are you personally infallible?

 

[benhur]

benhur-

Are you personally infallible?

Do you mean is the Christ in me (“open and I will sup with you”, His mind in me (“we have the mind of Christ”), the HS in me(“He shall be in you”), infallible ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Do you mean is the Christ in me (“open and I will sup with you”, His mind in me (“we have the mind of Christ”), the HS in me(“He shall be in you”), infallible ?

I mean is it true that your positions on doctrinal matters (as presented here in these forum threads) are without error and that it is not possible for you to be in error because the Holy Spirit guides you personally into all truth?

 

[benhur]

I mean is it true that your positions on doctrinal matters (as presented here in these forum threads) are without error and that it is not possible for you to be in error because the Holy Spirit guides you personally into all truth?

Only when I post ex cathedra.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Only when I post ex cathedra.

Okay, so John 16:13 doesn’t really apply to each and every Christian individually, does it?

Consider just a few of the many doctrines about which Protestant believers who carefully study the Word of God disagree:

• Baptismal Regeneration
• Infant Baptism
• Eternal Security (OSAS)
• Ordination of Women
• Contraception

If the Holy Spirit is leading all believers individually into all truth, why does He lead Methodists to baptize infants and Baptists to not baptize infants? Are there two truths - a Methodist truth and a Baptist truth?

So, in the Protestant understanding of the “Church”, does doctrine even matter at all? Or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable in the one church Jesus promised to build?

 

[benhur]

]Okay, so John 16:13 doesn’t really apply to each and every Christian individually, does it?

It was told to the apostles and they in turn made disciples(you and me) of all nations.Yes, with 1 John 2:20, “little children”, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” and 27, “And as for you, let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; *but as his unction teacheth you of all things, *and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him.”. This does not deny church or scripture or the preacher or the apostle form which words came that initiated new life and then allowed the HG to take over and really teach.

Augustine alludes to this also .The church, the preacher, scripture, prompting,laying seed but Jesus really teaching, making the former come alive.

So where were we ? Differences under that model. Yes, another topic but it does not do away with the above formula for truth and illumination.

Consider just a few of the many doctrines about which Protestant believers who carefully study the Word of God disagree:

• Baptismal Regeneration
• Infant Baptism
• Eternal Security (OSAS)
• Ordination of Women
• Contraception

If the Holy Spirit is leading all believers individually into all truth, why does He lead Methodists to baptize infants and Baptists to not baptize infants? Are there two truths - a Methodist truth and a Baptist truth?

So, in the Protestant understanding of the “Church”, does doctrine even matter at all? Or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable in the one church Jesus promised to build?

Well I would not then factionalize to make your church the genuine one as Paul warns against, even interpreting John differently than intended ( that only a select few(Catholic succession) have full truth).

 

[joe371]

benhur;12609568]On some things yes, but not all. I would think you both insist on not being wrong ( as I do).

True, but who has the God-given authority (in a world with so many divided/autonomous churches) to resolve our differences when we reach an impasse about some things?

Who told you that promise is not for you ? The apostles and successors were to make “disciples”. You are a ‘‘disciple" are you not ? Baptized to that end ? A disciple is to be "likewise’’ as in duplicating . That would be impossible if you cut off the means thereof that they employed (such HS guidance that we discuss). It is sad to hear one say," that is not for me" (like JW’s saying heaven is not for most of them) .

God never promised to use me to preserve doctrinal truth, especially in those times when people disagree; not me; not my sister and not you - correct? I do believe that God sent the Holy Spirit, (ergo the royal priesthood of all Christians) to every single person upon their baptism. I do not believe that God sent the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth i.e. John 16:13 does not apply to me, but rather Jesus’ church leadership, beginning with His apostles. I am simply not bold enough to make such a claim.

I would not cloak that particular unbelief in false piety. False not due to insincerity but wrong assumption. The apostle Paul says you can be bold . John in his epistles is very clear “dear children” that this unction, this HS guidance, is for all, very clear.

I could not agree more my friend. However, when it comes to resolving doctrinal differences, the Holy Spirit does not guide each and every person into all truth. If God did, then God failed miserably.

This does not do away with special giftings and being subject to offices.
It is interesting that the church that says "tracing’’ is the key has that key lead to herself. Tracing should be true but is it ? Being sons and daughters of Abraham ( OT key) should have made true sons in the faith but did it for Jesus’s contemporaries ?

Apostolic succession is not required to discern truth? OK. It seems logical and absolutely necessary, and biblical to me, but I respect your right to reject it.

The method suggested by a particular church for locating the true church could be self serving.

I guess I’m self-serving. LOL. I just wanted to belong to the historical church to which the apostles belonged.

See, she is not alone or apart from a church on her faith evidences either
But you and I and Vat 2 both know her church sprang out of CC (with some explanation) and therefore has a type of succession.

I have to disagree and so would she. If I worked for Home Depot and then broke away from that place and started my own home-improvement store, calling it the Home Depot…well you get the point…

No one rejects our foundation resting on the Lord and the apostles and faithful church (leaders and all ) that has come down to our generation. As before, we both define “succession” that could be considered self serving by others.

I would not define “succession” as being self serving; perhaps others, but not me…

Well rejection can be emotional but don’t think she rejects anything truthful.

She rejects both baptism by water and the Eucharist, calling it a mere symbolic meal, so I have to disagree…

We are not far apart for we both have found doctrinal truth and churches that preserve it ( just differ on what or how much needs to be preserved) .

I found doctrinal truth in the church founded by Jesus, or at least that is my faith…

Just as OT world had salvation by Jews/Israel despite her diversity, NT world has christians/church despite her diversity.

Totally agree, as per the catechism of the Catholic Church - 817…The fullness of doctrinal truth is found in the church established by Jesus in my humble opinion; doesn’t mean I am right; just what I believe.

 

[joe371]

Randy Carson;12611327]Okay, so John 16:13 doesn’t really apply to each and every Christian individually, does it?

I hope not or God failed, making scripture a lie.

Consider just a few of the many doctrines about which Protestant believers who carefully study the Word of God disagree:

• Baptismal Regeneration
• Infant Baptism
• Eternal Security (OSAS)
• Ordination of Women
• Contraception

If the Holy Spirit is leading all believers individually into all truth, why does He lead Methodists to baptize infants and Baptists to not baptize infants? Are there two truths - a Methodist truth and a Baptist truth?

Great question; no one has ever attempted to answer it when I ask…

So, in the Protestant understanding of the “Church”, does doctrine even matter at all? Or are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable in the one church Jesus promised to build?

 

[joe371]

Only when I post ex cathedra.

Funny. However, you make a great point when it comes to the notion that each individual has the authority to teach and discern truth, as well as settle disputes as the CC did in the 4th century for example e.g. the Catholic Ecumenical Councils. A silly notion…

 

[joe371]

Do you mean is the Christ in me (“open and I will sup with you”, His mind in me (“we have the mind of Christ”), the HS in me(“He shall be in you”), infallible ?

He means: can we trust your authority, as coming from God, regarding the resolution of doctrine i.e. when it comes to doctrinal disputes were you entrusted with the authority to settle said disputes as you are guided by the Holy Spirit - seriously? I was not!!!

I think it is safe to say that the Holy spirit was not sent to you or me to settle doctrinal disputes when they arise - yes or no?