The Protestant Meltdown

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We could throw in other things, too, and mix them around.

History is so messy.

GKC

Geography may have helped - continental Protestantism was unprotected by natural geographical borders. England & Scotland had only one another to worry about. And after 1603, that problem was resolved. ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A return to paganism. Too bad.

Some paganism was of high moral character, whether or not it was theistic. . If one feels no need of, or is unfamiliar with, the Jewish-Christian God, there is something to be said for it. ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle who ever said Jesus was only human.

Did I say he was ?​

Is that not the point. You are comparing Jesus to luther. You can’t. Luther was human in every way. Jesus was God he was human and divine.

Not on the face of it - is God crucified ? Is God mortal ? Jesus was both of these. His critics did not think he was God - they thought he was a blasphemer, a false teacher, a liar, a demoniac. Just as some people think harsh things of Luther.​

Jesus died on the cross, and took away death. Jesus came back, Jesus fulfilled scripture. Do you not see, the devil got to luther, he never got to Jesus.

Look at the life Luther lived, look at the life Jesus lived, I see nothing at all the same. Complete opposite really. One lived in pure sin, the other totally sinless. I can see your point on alot of views, but not on this one at all.

Also when did luther give sight to the blind, cure the sick. Bring back someone from death. Sorry again, can’t see your point.

The point is, that it is faith, not sight, that sees Luther as a man with a divine mission. Just as it is faith that sees Jesus in that way. Luther’s perceived failings, like the perceived failings of Jesus, are irrelevant to Luther’s work. God does not need to use saints: He can use anyone. Amos was not a “son of the prophets” - he was anything but a likely choice for a prophet, humanly speaking. The first disciples were nonentities - humanly speaking, they were very much like Luther; what’s the difference between insignificant fishermen & an insignificant friar ? If God could work through them, with all their failings, then there is in principle no reason whatever why God cannot work through Luther. The only questuon is, whether in fact God did. And on that, there is going to be disagreement.​

 

[rinnie]

First of all there are several questions that must be answered.

1. Is it really the Roman Catholic Church?
2. if it is; is it comparable to the Catholic Church that Ignatius references or Justin?
3. The Books of the NT were not from Rome and if you look at those councils wasn’t Rome represented by legates rather than the Pope himself?

The Orthodox would question whether you were correct that all Christians were Roman Catholic. There were several metropolitan areas where Christianity centered. Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. Later there would be Constantinople or Byzantium. The orthodox would say that the bishops were in communion (as far as that went because usually they were quareling with each other) with each other and certainly everyone was Catholic. They would deny the Episcopal Monarchy. Maybe they would hold a lead among equals but most church councils were held with only representatives from Rome (legates) rather than the Roman bishop himself. There were other councils where even Rome wasn’t represented. Most of the NT I would wager was writen in these places: Judea, Turkey, Greece, and maybe a couple were actually written in Rome like the Gospel of Mark. I will not Deny that the Holy Spirit lead the council to canonize (make a rule) of books to be included in the biblios. However, it was done in North Africa and many bishops from many areas were represented.

There is a book called Where we got the bible. written by Rev. Henry G Graham. I think it will answer your questions. Sometimes its easier to read it yourself and you will find out what you need to know. Again I recommend that book for you, It will explain things alot better then I can. Then you will understand why I know that the Bible came from the RCC. God Bless

 

[Contarini]

There is a book called Where we got the bible. written by Rev. Henry G Graham. I think it will answer your questions. Sometimes its easier to read it yourself and you will find out what you need to know. Again I recommend that book for you, It will explain things alot better then I can. Then you will understand why I know that the Bible came from the RCC. God Bless

In other words, you simply can’t be bothered to defend your beliefs (or else you haven’t understood the arguments well enough to do so).

Besides, can you tell us what credentials this Rev. Graham has that would make persons not already convinced of his position give a willing ear to what he has to say?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I told you That the Catholic Church under the God and the Holy Spirit with her Divine authority instructed the Church

What does it mean for the “Catholic Church” to instruct the “Church” of something?

what books to include and not include.The Council of the Roman Catholic Church had settled it.

No Ecumenical Council settled this (not until Trent, unless you count Basel). Local councils crystallized the already existing consensus. By the definition I’ve given, these were not councils of the “Roman Catholic Church,” and using that term begs the question. You have not shown that the See of Rome played a decisive role. You simply keep asserting it. Just why do you think I am bound to believe whatever you assert to be true?

I already explained this.

No, you asserted it.

The Church had the Power of the H,S. she accepted or rejected and decided what was what. She had evidence before her, she had tradition and the HS to help her.

No disagreement there.

These books came from Rome

You keep saying it. But a thousand assertions do not make an argument.

and without the RCC they would have not gotten them. Without the RCC there would be no bible. The decrees of Carthage 397 and 418A.D. when all Christians were Roman Catholic.

If you mean that all Christians were in communion with Rome, then that is true. However, all Christians at that time did not adhere to the canons of Trent or the dogma of papal infallibility decreed by Vatican II (both of which, from my perspective as an Anglican, are essential to what I would now call “Roman Catholicism”). In fact, no Christians did.

I said before the Church existed long before the bible.

Depends on how you define “Church” and Bible. You seem to mean “the Church existed long before there was a firmly defined Christian canon of the Bible.” And I certainly agree with that.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Did I say he was ?​

Not on the face of it - is God crucified ? Is God mortal ? Jesus was both of these. His critics did not think he was God - they thought he was a blasphemer, a false teacher, a liar, a demoniac. Just as some people think harsh things of Luther.​

The point is, that it is faith, not sight, that sees Luther as a man with a divine mission. Just as it is faith that sees Jesus in that way. Luther’s perceived failings, like the perceived failings of Jesus, are irrelevant to Luther’s work. God does not need to use saints: He can use anyone. Amos was not a “son of the prophets” - he was anything but a likely choice for a prophet, humanly speaking. The first disciples were nonentities - humanly speaking, they were very much like Luther; what’s the difference between insignificant fishermen & an insignificant friar ? If God could work through them, with all their failings, then there is in principle no reason whatever why God cannot work through Luther. The only questuon is, whether in fact God did. And on that, there is going to be disagreement.​

 

[rinnie]

In other words, you simply can’t be bothered to defend your beliefs (or else you haven’t understood the arguments well enough to do so).

Besides, can you tell us what credentials this Rev. Graham has that would make persons not already convinced of his position give a willing ear to what he has to say?

Edwin

No it’s not that I can’t be bothered to defend my beliefs but I can see no matter what I have to say you will attack me. I don’t want to do that. ITs lent and I want to keep alot of peace in my life now, and take my time with the Stations, etc. All I can do is share that book with you and I can see that you want credentials from him and are already hostile before you even tried. I am sure you will demand credentials from me also, down the line. God Bless you, and I hope you find the peace and Love in your faith as I do in mine.

 

[Contarini]

No it’s not that I can’t be bothered to defend my beliefs but I can see no matter what I have to say you will attack me. I don’t want to do that. ITs lent and I want to keep alot of peace in my life now, and take my time with the Stations, etc. All I can do is share that book with you and I can see that you want credentials from him and are already hostile before you even tried. I am sure you will demand credentials from me also, down the line. God Bless you, and I hope you find the peace and Love in your faith as I do in mine.

Rinnie,

Your rebuke is well-deserved. It is Lent and I ought to be thinking about my sins instead of what I believe to be other people’s errors.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

No it’s not that I can’t be bothered to defend my beliefs but I can see no matter what I have to say you will attack me. I don’t want to do that. ITs lent and I want to keep alot of peace in my life now, and take my time with the Stations, etc. All I can do is share that book with you and I can see that you want credentials from him and are already hostile before you even tried. I am sure you will demand credentials from me also, down the line. God Bless you, and I hope you find the peace and Love in your faith as I do in mine.

That’s not what Contarini is saying. He works in the world of academia, and part of judging a work is assessing the qualifications of its author. Not the only part, but part. Credibility is important, and some of that can come from academic qualifications, an objective track record, or personal experience of a topic.

GKC

Added: And he’s gracious, too.

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox would question whether you were correct that all Christians were Roman Catholic.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

Your rebuke is well-deserved. It is Lent and I ought to be thinking about my sins instead of what I believe to be other people’s errors.

God bless,

Edwin

We all should Love, I promise another place another time I would be glad to discuss this with you. And I am sure we could both be a better person for it. Sometimes these threads seem to turn ugly, if you know what I mean. Its lent and I feel that I should be ashamed of myself for not being able to come across as a better person which I hope and feel I am. So I need to spend some time with God now for these next 2 weeks. They are so so important. Thank-you. Lent is our time to repent, and become closer to God. I need to get back to that. I know the devil is strong at this time of the year, he hates us and he hates God. He loves to see us at eachother and I want HIM to suffer. I hate when we all go at eachother. And it seems like so much of that seems to happen lately. And I know you feel the same way. thanks again for being so understanding.

Hi Mickey, :wave:do you miss me?

 

[Mickey]

Hi Mickey, :wave:do you miss me?

Terribly!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

**I have answered every one of your questions but you are not happy because they coincide with your own beliefs. You have stated the following:
“you have no understanding”…
“you do not read correctly”…
“you must try to read carefully”…
you are snarky Marsha"…
“you are being snotty”…**these are not very charitable comments.

The first three are not attacks on any person, they are observations about what was said. I assume you know what an ad hominem statement is.

I defined Marsha’s remarks as “snarky” calling Protestantism a "sect’ which is inflamatory. It has nothing to do with her. She was acting in a certain matter, it had nothing to do with her, she is mostly always friendly and polite. Again, learn what ad hominem means

Snotty refers I believe to rinnie calling me a fool. Again, i referred to his behavior not who he is.

You answer nothing. You have failed to answer why you start a thread based on a source you now admit is a “cult” and “nothing but liars” That is but one instance.

Enough. I think it’s not worth continuing to try to talk with you.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

The first three are not attacks on any person, they are observations about what was said. I assume you know what an ad hominem statement is.

I defined Marsha’s remarks as “snarky” calling Protestantism a "sect’ which is inflamatory. It has nothing to do with her. She was acting in a certain matter, it had nothing to do with her, she is mostly always friendly and polite. Again, learn what ad hominem means

Snotty refers I believe to rinnie calling me a fool. Again, i referred to his behavior not who he is.

You answer nothing. You have failed to answer why you start a thread based on a source you now admit is a “cult” and “nothing but liars” That is but one instance.

Enough. I think it’s not worth continuing to try to talk with you.

That’s because you “misinterpret” things the wrong way. Go to my post that says just because the CSM is not Catholic, doesn’t mean they are liars. Get it? I never called them liars, but you interpreted it that way…This is why there are 30,000 denominations, becuase each quibbers about what their interpretation of the bible is. Same thing here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That’s because you “misinterpret” things the wrong way. Go to my post that says just because the CSM is not Catholic, doesn’t mean they are liars. Get it? I never called them liars, but you interpreted it that way…This is why there are 30,000 denominations, becuase each quibbers about what their interpretation of the bible is. Same thing here.

Let’s take your quotes directly instead of how you have now attempted to clean them up.

Post #239 in Evangelicals thread: And just because they truly are a cult, doesn’t make them any less a liar.

Post # 252 in Evangelicals thread: As I said DOESN’T MAKE THEM ANY LESS LIARS! And YES they are a cult.

That in plain English means you claim they are liars. Period, end of issue. I accept your apology. …and the bit about 30,000 of course has absolutely nothing to do with this, and is added as usual only to express your abject disgust with all things not RC.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

[Q**they are not liars.****UOTE=SpiritMeadow;5017829]Let’s take your quotes directly instead of how you have now attempted to clean them up.

Post #239 in Evangelicals thread: And just because they truly are a cult, doesn’t make them any less a liar.

Post # 252 in Evangelicals thread: As I said DOESN’T MAKE THEM ANY LESS LIARS! And YES they are a cult.

That in plain English means you claim they are liars. Period, end of issue. I accept your apology. …and the bit about 30,000 of course has absolutely nothing to do with this, and is added as usual only to express your abject disgust with all things not RC.

Do you wear reading glasses? Because my posts say **they are not liars. **Anyway I never owed you an apology, because I never said anything I didn’t mean. But if it makes you feel good, and if it makes you feel you are correct, well, then, go ahead and I will pretend I offered you one. But yes I did say they are a cult. And?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

[Q**they are not liars.****

UOTE=SpiritMeadow;5017829]Let’s take your quotes directly instead of how you have now attempted to clean them up.

Post #239 in Evangelicals thread: And just because they truly are a cult, doesn’t make them any less a liar.

Post # 252 in Evangelicals thread: As I said DOESN’T MAKE THEM ANY LESS LIARS! And YES they are a cult.

That in plain English means you claim they are liars. Period, end of issue. I accept your apology. …and the bit about 30,000 of course has absolutely nothing to do with this, and is added as usual only to express your abject disgust with all things not RC.

Do you wear reading glasses? Because my posts say **they are not liars. **Anyway I never owed you an apology, because I never said anything I didn’t mean. But if it makes you feel good, and if it makes you feel you are correct, well, then, go ahead and I will pretend I offered you one. But yes I did say they are a cult. And?

There are only two possible options here:

1. You are trying to pretend that you didn’t say what you said.
2. You truly don’t understand what you in fact said. The latter can be corrected by taking it up with an English teacher.

In either case, it seems that any further conversation is fruitless between us. I have no desire to discuss things with a 1. and I haven’t the admitted patience to deal with a 2.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Do you wear reading glasses? Because my posts say **they are not liars. **Anyway I never owed you an apology, because I never said anything I didn’t mean. But if it makes you feel good, and if it makes you feel you are correct, well, then, go ahead and I will pretend I offered you one. But yes I did say they are a cult. And?

There are only two possible options here:

1. You are trying to pretend that you didn’t say what you said.
2. You truly don’t understand what you in fact said. The latter can be corrected by taking it up with an English teacher.

In either case, it seems that any further conversation is fruitless between us. I have no desire to discuss things with a 1. and I haven’t the admitted patience to deal with a 2.

I truly believe there is something wrong with someone who tries to insinuate words into someone else’s head as you do. Case closed, I already admitted as in my posts that I did not call CSM liars, but you claim I did. Pretty bizarre, but I tend to see who I am dealing with.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Rinnie,

Your rebuke is well-deserved. It is Lent and I ought to be thinking about my sins instead of what I believe to be other people’s errors.

God bless,

Edwin

yes let’s all contemplate our sins together? Hmmm, I’ve lied (but little white lies & pretty inconsequential), I’ve drank too much on rare occasion (but very rarely), but overall I’m a real productive and a generally cool guy. OK I forgive myself (did I do this thing right?).

I remember as a kid telling my sins to a priest in confession, only to later find out the guy was a hopeless drunk (no doubt because of his sexual frustration). Here’s a guy who preached to us on countless occasions telling us how our great society is immoral, focuses too much on sex, bla, bla, bla. I wanted to say … welcome to the human race buddy. Heck, are we any worse than when we were enslaving people, when the Germans were tossing Jews in the gas chamber, or when the Romans were raping and pillaging their way through the planet? If you ask me we’re on a pretty good track.

What was it that brought us here? Was it an invisible God, or those rare moments in history when men rebelled from allowing absurd ancient mythology to rule their lives (you know like the English enlightenment, our revolution, the industrial age, electricity, the internet, etc.)? I can’t think of one major contribution in any of these areas that any church or pretentious so called man of god ever contributed to, they’ve only served as an obstruction to progress.