The end of Protestantism

  • Thread starter Thread starter smead2942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aidanbradypop said:
I meant LCMC(the Baptist of Lutheranism lol)
Click to expand...
Great portrayal… the LCMS is the Baptist of Lutheranism with their Pope is in the seat of the AntiChrist, and the Papist asses language from the Concord book etc.

Peace in Christ,
Dustin, my friend.

Mary.
 
MaryT777 said:
Great portrayal… the LCMS is the Baptist of Lutheranism with their Pope is in the seat of the AntiChrist, and the Papist asses language from the Concord book etc.

Peace in Christ,
Dustin, my friend.

Mary.
Click to expand...
Hi, Mary,

You would have to include all the Lutherans in that because they all base their doctrines (or should) on the Book of Concord.

Maybe I shouldn’t be a Lutheran but I don’t believe that Pope Frances is the anti-Christ. At the time that was written there was a lot of corruption within the Catholic hierarchy. I will be asking some of my Lutheran Apologist friends what the LCMS in particular believes now about the AntiChrist and the Pope.

God bless!

Rita
 
pablope said:
Well…Luther did change the Bible, not by removing books, but by re-arranging it according to his whim, and he did this even to the NT.
Click to expand...
What does the order of books mean at all? I received a pocket New Testament from a Catholic friend. Does this mean Catholics have cut up and rearranged the Bible too?
pablope said:
But it was his views that took it to the extreme…forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

The Canon and the Council
Refuting the Argument that Canon was not established until the Council of Trent
By Gary Michuta

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.
Click to expand...
First of all, this is not some newfangled argument that some Protestants came up with. Prior to Trent, it was perfectly acceptable for Catholic scholars to consider on their own whether the antilegomena (that is, the “disputed books” whose authority had been questione since the early church). This has been around since the beginning of the church! It’s precisely how the early Christians weeded out the various Gnostic gospels and spurious books. It was simply Luther’s scholarly opinion as a doctor of theology that the disputed books were not on par with the remainder of Scripture. He was not alone in this view, and he explicitly said that he did not force this view on others.

Secondly, Michuta conveniently omits the fact that some of Luther’s most ardent Roman Catholic adversaries actually agreed with Luther on this topic, notably Erasmus and Cardinal -yes, that’s right- Cardinal Cajetan.

Thirdly, how can you possibly say Luther subtracted books from the bible when his translation literally had 74 books?! Count them. That’s one more than your post-Trent bible.
pablope said:
The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.
Click to expand...
The only dishonesty here is Michuta’s use of utter speculation as if it were incontrovertible fact. I didn’t know he could read Luther’s mind.
pablope said:
In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).
Click to expand...
What is Michuta trying to show here? This proves nothing. Luther simply states the obvious; the Church cannot give greater weight to a book than it possesses. The Gospels will always carry more authority than Jude, for example. So what if thr local church in Rome made it part of its canon at Florence? They couldn’t give Jude more weight than Matthew if they tried!

Also interesting that Michuta can’t quote Luther directly, but has to use a secondary source to make Luther say what he wants him to say.

In closing, it’s one thing to say that your church has led you to a “Fuller Understanding” of the canon or something, but it’s entirely another to revise history to support your position over and against other Catholics throughout history.
 
aidanbradypop said:
I would love to see more people differing faith traditions to come here. Maybe you should start scouting other forums. 😃
Click to expand...
As would I. I have lurked and scouted other forums; and 99.99% of them have no desire to listen to anything that a papist romanist minion such as myself would ever have to say. That’s assuming that I could ever get my foot in the door, of course.
I think it also depends on what type of Lutheran you are speaking with. ELCA and LcMC are not interested in unity with Catholicism.
Click to expand...
True. By and large I (and I can only speak for myself) have found the Lutherans to be at least the most civil of our seperated bretheren. We don’t always agree, but I (again only speaking for myself) can at least discuss religion rationally with them and exchange ideas without having to bring out the claws and fangs.
Are far as Evangelicals like myself, we unity is much different to us than what the average Catholic would believe.
Click to expand...
Very true. It seems to me that the vast majority of Evangelicals are more than happy in their own local congregation and see no need to attatch themselves to a larger congregation. That is, of course, if they ever give any thought to such a thing at all. A great many Protestants hold their independence very dear. The thought of subservience to the spiritual tyranny of a pope is unthinkable.
Try being an Arminian that joins a Calvinist board. Lol My time here is a cake walk compared to that lol
Click to expand...
I bet. Calvinists in my own personal experience are not that welcoming of opinions that are not Calvinist.
I would say that some(mostly fundamentalist) have a strong dislike for Catholicism. I do not hate Catholicism, but simply disagree is all.
Click to expand...
I have no beef with you, my friend. Yes, we disagree on some very serious theological issues; but that does not mean that we can’t discuss them like gentlemen. You are a benefit to this discussion and an asset to the greater forum here.
 
rfournier103 said:
As would I. I have lurked and scouted other forums; and 99.99% of them have no desire to listen to anything that a papist romanist minion such as myself would ever have to say. That’s assuming that I could ever get my foot in the door, of course.
Click to expand...
I suggest we both stay away from CARM lol
True. By and large I (and I can only speak for myself) have found the Lutherans to be at least the most civil of our seperated bretheren. We don’t always agree, but I (again only speaking for myself) can at least discuss religion rationally with them and exchange ideas without having to bring out the claws and fangs.
Click to expand...
I believe terminology like “seperated brethen” and Catholic’s have the “fullness of truth” or theat the RCC is THE Christian Church, will automatically bring out the claws. To an informed and faithful Evangelical, those terms are simply untrue and as my grandma would say, “thems fighten words boy!” Lol
“Very true. It seems to me that the vast majority of Evangelicals are more than happy in their own local congregation and see no need to attatch themselves to a larger congregation. That is, of course, if they ever give any thought to such a thing at all. A great many Protestants hold their independence very dear. The thought of subservience to the spiritual tyranny of a pope is unthinkable.”
Click to expand...
As much as people would like to think, Evangelical is not really a denomination but rather a way of thinking and believing. You can have an Evangelical in the UMC or in AoG like myself. Many, if not all, non denom are Evangelical in nature. I believe that is why people think they are a denom.
I bet. Calvinists in my own personal experience are not that welcoming of opinions that are not Calvinist.
Click to expand...
Oddly, I see the same with Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Calvins will listen, yet tell you that you are wrong and a heretic every time.
I have no beef with you, my friend. Yes, we disagree on some very serious theological issues; but that does not mean that we can’t discuss them like gentlemen. You are a benefit to this discussion and an asset to the greater forum here.
Click to expand...
I have ran into a few uber zealot Catholics on here that condemn all Protestants to hell just for being Protestant. Sadly, some Protestant do the exact same. 🤷
 
aidanbradypop said:
I believe terminology like “seperated brethen” and Catholic’s have the “fullness of truth” or theat the RCC is THE Christian Church, will automatically bring out the claws. To an informed and faithful Evangelical, those terms are simply untrue and as my grandma would say, “thems fighten words boy!” Lol
Click to expand...
In what way are the terms, “separated brethren” untrue? Are Lutherans full members of the Catholic Church, and do they consider themselves as such?
 
Denise1957 said:
In what way are the terms, “separated brethren” untrue? Are Lutherans full members of the Catholic Church, and do they consider themselves as such?
Click to expand...
Denise

I cannot speak for Lutherans for I am not one
 
Denise1957 said:
My mistake. Okay…so how are the terms “separated brethren” untrue for any Protestant or evangelical?
Click to expand...
The RCC claims it is THE Church. A Baptist will claim they are THE Church. LDS will claim…you get my drift lol.

A Evangelical like myself believes that there is one church and that church is the Christian Church, not the RCC.

Now I do not care that Catholics use that term because I agree we are seperate from the Catholic Church. Some may take it as you are implying that they are seperate from the Christian Church.
 
aidanbradypop said:
The RCC claims it is THE Church. A Baptist will claim they are THE Church. LDS will claim…you get my drift lol.

A Evangelical like myself believes that there is one church and that church is the Christian Church, not the RCC.

Now I do not care that Catholics use that term because I agree we are seperate from the Catholic Church. Some may take it as you are implying that they are seperate from the Christian Church.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know how Catholicism would define “the Christian Church” exactly. IMO, it would seem that if Protestants or Evangelicals want to have a definition such as the “Christian Church,” that’s fine, and I think it’s a different issue, since it doesn’t have anything to do with the Catholic Church. I’m glad you agree that you are separate from the Catholic Church. So, it’s true that Evangelicals are separated brethren. They are our brethren (fellow Christians) if baptized in the proper formula, though separated, or in an imperfect sort of communion with us.
 
Let’s get one thing out of the way for starters… I don’t think there is any Catholic out there that would deny the label of “Christian” to any Protestant that believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, lived here on Earth, died for our sins, and rose from the dead three days after being Crucified. To not be a member of the Catholic Church, does not mean one is not a Christian.

Secondly… The term “seperated bretheren” is not MY invention. It is an official term of the Church (used quite frequently in the documents of the Second Vatican Council). Here’s why:
  1. Jesus Christ founded the Universal (Catholic) Church.
  2. Over the course of time the Orthodox and Protestants left of their own accord. Thus SEPERATION.
  3. It is the Catholic Church’s position that only it has a priesthood that can consecrate the Eucharist and hear confessions. Thus FULLNESS OF FAITH/TRUTH.
NONE of the above is used or intended to disparage any Protestant community or suggest that they aren’t Christians. They are claims that the Church makes of itself and is NOT criticising anyone else. Saying that it has the Fullness of Faith is NOT a condemnation of anyone else. The Church is merely talking about itself.

The Protestants seperated from the Universal Church and that is historicaly undisputed. Mr. H. H. Halley (a raging Catholic-hating theologan) in his Bible Handbook readily admits that the Protestants broke away from the Church. Granted, HE asserted that Protestantism is a CONTINUANCE of the ORIGINAL Church, whereas the Church does not.

Also, I could nitpick at the term “Roman” or RCC when referring to the Church. As far as I am concerned, I do not belong to the ‘Roman’ Universal Church - just the Universal Church that Christ Jesus Founded.

I view Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and Anglicans as Christians - as does the Church; even if many in those groups do not extend us the same courtesy.
 
Denise1957 said:
Well, I don’t know how Catholicism would define “the Christian Church” exactly. IMO, it would seem that if Protestants or Evangelicals want to have a definition such as the “Christian Church,” that’s fine, and I think it’s a different issue, since it doesn’t have anything to do with the Catholic Church. I’m glad you agree that you are separate from the Catholic Church. So, it’s true that Evangelicals are separated brethren. They are our brethren if baptized in the proper formula, though separated, or in an imperfect sort of communion with us.
Click to expand...
Yes. We are all brothers and sister in Jesus Christ and are part of the Body(Christian Church).

We are seperated as far as our faith traditions, yet we are all still disciples of Jesus Christ and place our faith and trust in Him.
 
rfournier103 said:
Let’s get one thing out of the way for starters… I don’t think there is any Catholic out there that would deny the label of “Christian” to any Protestant that believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, lived here on Earth, died for our sins, and rose from the dead three days after being Crucified. To not be a member of the Catholic Church, does not mean one is not a Christian.

Secondly… The term “seperated bretheren” is not MY invention. It is an official term of the Church (used quite frequently in the documents of the Second Vatican Council). Here’s why:
  1. Jesus Christ founded the Universal (Catholic) Church.
  2. Over the course of time the Orthodox and Protestants left of their own accord. Thus SEPERATION.
  3. It is the Catholic Church’s position that only it has a priesthood that can consecrate the Eucharist and hear confessions. Thus FULLNESS OF FAITH/TRUTH.
NONE of the above is used or intended to disparage any Protestant community or suggest that they aren’t Christians. They are claims that the Church makes of itself and is NOT criticising anyone else. Saying that it has the Fullness of Faith is NOT a condemnation of anyone else. The Church is merely talking about itself.

The Protestants seperated from the Universal Church and that is historicaly undisputed. Mr. H. H. Halley (a raging Catholic-hating theologan) in his Bible Handbook readily admits that the Protestants broke away from the Church. Granted, HE asserted that Protestantism is a CONTINUANCE of the ORIGINAL Church, whereas the Church does not.

Also, I could nitpick at the term “Roman” or RCC when referring to the Church. As far as I am concerned, I do not belong to the ‘Roman’ Universal Church - just the Universal Church that Christ Jesus Founded.

I view Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and Anglicans as Christians - as does the Church; even if many in those groups do not extend us the same courtesy.
Click to expand...
Well said. I would think that any non-Catholic who has been posting here for awhile would understand how the Church (and Catholics) view non-Catholics. We believe as our Church believes. Sometimes I think that non-Catholics are just trying to goad us into saying that the non-Catholics aren’t Christians, when they know full well that we believe that they are Christians.
 
rfournier103 said:
Let’s get one thing out of the way for starters… I don’t think there is any Catholic out there that would deny the label of “Christian” to any Protestant that believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, lived here on Earth, died for our sins, and rose from the dead three days after being Crucified. To not be a member of the Catholic Church, does not mean one is not a Christian.
Click to expand...
I also believe Catholics are Christians so we are on the same page.😃
Secondly… The term “seperated bretheren” is not MY invention. It is an official term of the Church (used quite frequently in the documents of the Second Vatican Council). Here’s why:
  1. Jesus Christ founded the Universal (Catholic) Church.
  2. Over the course of time the Orthodox and Protestants left of their own accord. Thus SEPERATION.
  3. It is the Catholic Church’s position that only it has a priesthood that can consecrate the Eucharist and hear confessions. Thus FULLNESS OF FAITH/TRUTH.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you believe that or you would not be Catholic. I have no issue with the term.
NONE of the above is used or intended to disparage any Protestant community or suggest that they aren’t Christians. They are claims that the Church makes of itself and is NOT criticising anyone else. Saying that it has the Fullness of Faith is NOT a condemnation of anyone else. The Church is merely talking about itself.
Click to expand...
Correct.

The Protestants seperated from the Universal Church and that is historicaly undisputed. Mr. H. H. Halley (a raging Catholic-hating theologan) in his Bible Handbook readily admits that the Protestants broke away from the Church. Granted, HE asserted that Protestantism is a CONTINUANCE of the ORIGINAL Church, whereas the Church does not.

This is correct as long as one believes the Catholic Church)is the only Christian Church.
I view Evangelicals, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, and Anglicans as Christians - as does the Church; even if many in those groups do not extend us the same courtesy.
Click to expand...
I guess it is like I do)not call Yankee fans real baseball fans. 😃

I believe Catholica are Christians. You would run into)trouble if you asked a fundamentalist that question.
 
Burdock said:
The catholic church has its own divisions too
Click to expand...
This is the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Firstly, the fact that there are divisions simply means that folks are following their own agendas. Individual’s refusal to submit to the Church’s authority no more undermines her authority than individual’s refusal to submit to St. Paul undermined his authority.

Divorce from the faith, given once for all, is NOT something that is encouraged.

However, with Protestantism, that is what the Prot Reformation was founded upon: divorce from authority.

Secondly, these divisions in the Church are so minor as to be inconsequential–whether to receive communion in the hand or on the tongue, confession face to face or behind a screen, guitars at Mass or organs…#trivial
 
PRmerger said:
This is the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Firstly, the fact that there are divisions simply means that folks are following their own agendas. Individual’s refusal to submit to the Church’s authority no more undermines her authority than individual’s refusal to submit to St. Paul undermined his authority.

Divorce from the faith, given once for all, is NOT something that is encouraged.

However, with Protestantism, that is what the Prot Reformation was founded upon: divorce from authority.

Secondly, these divisions in the Church are so minor as to be inconsequential–whether to receive communion in the hand or on the tongue, confession face to face or behind a screen, guitars at Mass or organs…#trivial
Click to expand...
There are no divisions in the Catholic Church. If one doesn’t want to follow Her teachings, that’s their personal problem, we do have a free will and the Catholic Church respects that as God does. The Catholic Church teaches the same Doctrine for everyone. There are OPTIONS, such as Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Confession face to face or in the confessional etc but those are NOT divisions. Those who do not want to follow Her teachings can leave, join another denomination, interrupt Scripture to suit themselves, make up their own rules, or even start their own denomination if they choose. Many have and looks whats happened to them. God Bless, Memaw
 
Memaw said:
There are no divisions in the Catholic Church. If one doesn’t want to follow Her teachings, that’s their personal problem, we do have a free will and the Catholic Church respects that as God does. The Catholic Church teaches the same Doctrine for everyone. There are OPTIONS, such as Communion in the hand or on the tongue, Confession face to face or in the confessional etc but those are NOT divisions. Those who do not want to follow Her teachings can leave, join another denomination, interrupt Scripture to suit themselves, make up their own rules, or even start their own denomination if they choose. Many have and looks whats happened to them. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
👍
 
There are divisions, ive seen them on here.There are those who think only the latin mass is valid, those who do not recognise vatican 2. I could go on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top