What are some of the main reasons that people are attracted to the Protestant faith?

[House_Harkonnen]

:curtsey:

I simply ask HH and Sy, and all the others on this thread: is there some teaching that is in your church that you don’t personally agree with, but to which you conform because God declared it to be so?

If so, what is it?

If you can’t say that you have conformed to what God has revealed, but rather left a church and shopped for one that conforms to your own theology, then you have created a god after your own image.

Sure. I struggle with the theological concept of monergistic salvation. Confessional Lutherans embrace it wholeheartedly, but I struggle because I always feel I need to do something to effect my own salvation, but God affirms it, the Lutherans teach it, so I accept it.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes for instance a church I’m currently considering teaches not just a spiritual presence but the actual physical RP and I struggle with that concept. Fortunately they have open communon while I struggle and wouldn’t turn me away if I felt called to receive.

So you don’t believe that Christ is really present there in the Eucharist, or you do believe?

I’m not understanding your point.

Although I don’t know why you think a person has to disagree with something if they believe they have found a church representing as best as humans on earth can, what Christ meant His to be.

And I don’t understand this either.

I haven’t proposed that “a person has to disagree with something if they believe they have found a church representing as best as humans on earth can, what Christ meant His to be.”

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. I struggle with the theological concept of monergistic salvation. Confessional Lutherans embrace it wholeheartedly, but I struggle because I always feel I need to do something to effect my own salvation, but God affirms it, the Lutherans teach it, so I accept it.

Excellent.

I applaud your deference to an outside authority.

However, as this authority does not claim infallibility, are you not concerned that you are subjugating your own logic and reason to an entity that is going to be wrong at some point?

 

[PRmerger]

No. Not at all. Sola Scriptura is a practice of the church, not of individuals. That’s what the first reformers taught and their subsequent communions today.

Source for this, please.

No. Because Jesus elsewhere condemns adultery and he doesn’t contradict himself.

Except when He gives this alleged adultery loophole, yes?

Who are you to tell me what you’re “certain of” about me? Get off your high horse and repent of such arrogant behavior. Do you think you’re going to be winning many souls over with such an arrogant and triumphal attitude?

Ah. Very good, then.

So you won’t attend the wedding ceremonies of folks who are in second marriages unless they were cuckholded?

I doubt that you have ever made that part of your consideration in the past, but I am glad to hear that you are now aware of this. And will never attend a second wedding that celebrates an invalid union.

That’s very Catholic of you.

Also, can you point me to your pastor’s policy on divorce and re-marriage in his church?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Excellent.

I applaud your deference to an outside authority.

However, as this authority does not claim infallibility, are you not concerned that you are subjugating your own logic and reason to an entity that is going to be wrong at some point?

All the cultists that show up on my doorstep claim their cult is the sole infallible church.

Because a group of folks claimed to be infallible doesn’t mean they are, especially when they have erred.

That the RCC has declared that “pornea” actually means “unlawful marriage” in this instance, it has declared itself to be in error and unfortunately uninfallible when interpreting this particular verse.

 

[AbideWithMe]

because it is the same thing. illicit marriage=fornication.

Mathew 19:9 (Vulgate) dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur

The etymology of “fornication” shows that fornication and illicit marriage are not the same thing. Fornication originally meant the sexual immorality associated with brothels. In Jerome’s time, in the use of “fornicationem”, I’m willing to bet he chose that word to translate the Greek “pornea” with something close to its root meaning in mind.

 

[AbideWithMe]

It was implicitly understood by Jesus’ hearers that Jewish religious practice never condoned sexual immorality. He didn’t need to state the obvious. His audience understood this as a question about the differing views of the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel—could a man unilaterally divorce his wife for any reason (Hillel) or only for sexual immorality (Shammai)? Jesus seems to have endorsed Shammai’s restriction.

I’ll provide a link after my workday if I’m home, but the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on divorce should help clear things up.

Except when He gives this alleged adultery loophole, yes?

I’m sorry, it’s late here and I’m really tired out, but once again I’ll recommend the online Jewish Encyclopedia’s entry for “Divorce” to put this Matthew 19 discussion with the Pharisees in context.

 

[PRmerger]

All the cultists that show up on my doorstep claim their cult is the sole infallible church.

Source, please.

I haven’t heard of any cults that claim to be infallible, but I am willing to entertain that concept.

Regardless, you ought to be very, very careful about what you are proposing here, HH. That a particular cult professes something ought not mean it’s necessarily false.

If we apply your logic here, we have to assume that when JWs claim that Scripture is inspired by God, that you believe that Scripture is not inspired because a cult has proclaimed that it is.

Because a group of folks claimed to be infallible doesn’t mean they are, especially when they have erred.

We are agreed here.

However, if you don’t believe that the CC is infallible, you ought to tread very very carefully whenever you quote from the NT, HH.

Because if you can’t be sure that the CC got it right about discerning that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos, then how can you be sure what you’re reading is God’s Word?

That the RCC has declared that “pornea” actually means “unlawful marriage” in this instance, it has declared itself to be in error and unfortunately uninfallible when interpreting this particular verse.

Again, even if we accept that it means adultery, what you are professing is that Jesus gives us permission to divorce, as long as we go ahead and sleep with the one we lust after.

And, even if we accept that it means adultery, what you are professing is that Christian churches ought to deny all sorts of second marriages, for they were not dissolved because of adultery, but rather due to “irreconcilable differences”.

However, we all know that they do not do this. At least, the ones that have divorced themselves from Rome on this. (No pun intended. )

Get off your high horse and repent of such arrogant behavior. Do you think you’re going to be winning many souls over with such an arrogant and triumphal attitude?

 

[PRmerger]

LOL, that’s why prominent Catholics like old Newt Gingrich had three wives right? Ted Kennedy? How many wife’s did he have?

I think you are confusing what Catholics do with what Catholicism professes.

To leave Catholicism because of people like Ted Kennedy and Newt Gingrich would be as absurd as leaving Jesus because of Judas.

Get off your high horse and repent of such arrogant behavior. Do you think you’re going to be winning many souls over with such an arrogant and triumphal attitude?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry, it’s late here and I’m really tired out, but once again I’ll recommend the online Jewish Encyclopedia’s entry for “Divorce” to put this Matthew 19 discussion with the Pharisees in context.

Even if we accept this adultery loophole, are you telling me that your pastor won’t marry someone who divorced her husband for, let’s say, the fact that he was a jerk? He was faithful from Day 1 of his marriage–not a pornographic thought entered his mind–but he was a jerk and she decided to take her 3 kids and leave him.

Your pastor wouldn’t permit her to marry again in his church?

Yes? or No?

 

[PRmerger]

Unless your pastor refuses to permit wedding ceremonies of divorced folks who divorced for “irreconcilable differences”?

House Harkonnen: would you mind answering the question above?

Thanks.

Get off your high horse and repent of such arrogant behavior. Do you think you’re going to be winning many souls over with such an arrogant and triumphal attitude?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Source, please.

I haven’t heard of any cults that claim to be infallible, but I am willing to entertain that concept.

Regardless, you ought to be very, very careful about what you are proposing here, HH. That a particular cult professes something ought not mean it’s necessarily false.

If we apply your logic here, we have to assume that when JWs claim that Scripture is inspired by God, that you believe that Scripture is not inspired because a cult has proclaimed that it is.



We are agreed here.

However, if you don’t believe that the CC is infallible, you ought to tread very very carefully whenever you quote from the NT, HH.

Because if you can’t be sure that the CC got it right about discerning that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos, then how can you be sure what you’re reading is God’s Word?

Again, even if we accept that it means adultery, what you are professing is that Jesus gives us permission to divorce, as long as we go ahead and sleep with the one we lust after.

And, even if we accept that it means adultery, what you are professing is that Christian churches ought to deny all sorts of second marriages, for they were not dissolved because of adultery, but rather due to “irreconcilable differences”.

However, we all know that they do not do this. At least, the ones that have divorced themselves from Rome on this. (No pun intended. )

I haven’t heard of any cults that claim to be infallible, but I am willing to entertain that concept.

Regardless, you ought to be very, very careful about what you are proposing here, HH. That a particular cult professes something ought not mean it’s necessarily false.

Both the LDS and JWs claim their organization to be infallible. The LDS even declare their leader to be the very prophets God.

Even so, they got some things right, even false religions get some things right. No one claims otherwise.

We are agreed here.

However, if you don’t believe that the CC is infallible, you ought to tread very very carefully whenever you quote from the NT, HH.

Because if you can’t be sure that the CC got it right about discerning that the Epistle to the Hebrews is theopneustos, then how can you be sure what you’re reading is God’s Word?

Nonsense. Christians knew Hebrews was inspired long before your Pope or magisterium declared it so. No pope or magisterium was necessary. That’s how Athanasius knew what was inspired a few decades before the local council of Rome.

Again, even if we accept that it means adultery, what you are professing is that Jesus gives us permission to divorce, as long as we go ahead and sleep with the one we lust after.

No it’s not. And its a silly line of thinking to declare that Jesus contradicts himself by condemning adultery then condoning adultery.

And, even if we accept that it means adultery, what you are professing is that Christian churches ought to deny all sorts of second marriages, for they were not dissolved because of adultery, but rather due to “irreconcilable differences”.

However, we all know that they do not do this. At least, the ones that have divorced themselves from Rome on this.

LOL. I know many Catholics who are divorced and remarried, not for adultery either.

There’s no way around it except for mistranslation. Pornea doesn’t mean “illicit marriage”.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I suspect it’s because the publishers don’t believe it’s an error.

And if my suspicions are correct, then it’s just another example of people creating a god after one’s own image, rather than conforming to God’s.

I mean, really, wouldn’t it be nice to say that we can all divorce and re-marry?

Why is the CC being a big meanie on this?

I can’t imagine a single reason why the Church would insist that divorce and re-marriage is adultery…except that she doesn’t feel she has the authority to edit the Word of God.

Was St. Jerome “creating a god in his own image” when he went with “fornication” in Matthew 19.9 for the Vulgate?

 

[Darryl_B]

Wasn’t it Moses who wrote the second-law (deuteronomy) containing divorce? There are two laws the law of Moses (deuteronomy for slaves) the law of God (at Sinai for sons).

Jesus Christ reverted the law away from Moses law, back to the law of God.

No longer slaves but sons.

That would put the Catholic Church in the law of God’s realm, and sons. And it would put much of protestantism under the law of Moses, and slaves.

 

[PRmerger]

Both the LDS and JWs claim their organization to be infallible.

Source, please!

Get off your high horse and repent of such arrogant behavior. Do you think you’re going to be winning many souls over with such an arrogant and triumphal attitude?

 

[PRmerger]

I know many Catholics who are divorced and remarried, not for adultery either.

Exactly my point. Thank you.

They were married in *your *Protestant churches, because they couldn’t be married in my Church, unless it was determined that no first marriage took place initally.

The fact that these folks could be married in a Protestant church (“not for adultery either”–your words) PROVES MY POINT, friend.

It is satisfactory, although disheartening, to see you acknowledge that your Protestant churches do not abide by Matthew 19:9 but simply ignore it–“not for adultery either”.

My Church NEVER “re-marries” after divorce. It’s not permitted. Not our choice. Not our rules.

But we defer to the Word of God because we are creatures. Not the Creator.

You have determined that you don’t like what Matthew 19:9 says and have elected to say, “God wouldn’t want couples to not find happiness, so therefore God agrees with me and it’s ok to divorce and re-marry cause it’s NOT adultery.”

That’s creating a god in one’s own image.

There’s no way around it except for mistranslation. Pornea doesn’t mean “illicit marriage”.

Even if it is, you can see how none of the Protestant churches abide by Matthew 19:9, but have rather taken to editing its message because it is unpalatable.

Unless you can say that your churches won’t marry someone who leaves her jerky husband for reasons other than adultery?



House Harkonnen: think about this really, really hard. You have left a Church which understands that it cannot change God’s message to accommodate our sinful and disordered desires, in favor of a church which which has changed the Word of God to make it more likeable.

 

[Cat]

I’ve been reading through the last few pages of the discussion about marriage and divorce, but have no intention of responding, since I know very little about the issue.

However, it occurred to me that this is one of the main reasons why people are attracted to the Protestant faith–because lively discussions about the Bible are the NORM in many Protestant churches, especially Evangelical Protestant churches!

Sunday school classes, Bible studies (men’s, ladies, and mixed), and even social gatherings are often quite lively, with Christians speaking up and debating various points, and using Scripture and various commentaries to support their point. And most of the time, these are friendly debates, although there are definitely those who get hurt and end up leaving their church. That’s Protestantism, especially Evangelical Protestantism.

I’m sorry, folks, but after 10 years in the Catholic Church, I find that the majority of Catholics still can’t find the book of Hosea in their Bible (which they seldom carry around) unless they have those plastic tabs on their Bibles. And if they do find the book of Hosea, chances are very good that they’ve never read it. So they stay quiet if a discussion about the Bible pops up, which it usually doesn’t in any Catholic setting. Even Catholic Bible studies tend to be question and answer–the study guide asks the questions, the studier fills in the answer, and then everyone checks the answer key to see if their answer is correct.

I know plenty of Catholics who switched to Protestant churches because they love the Bible and love to delve into it and discuss it. Hopefully they have found CAF and have seen all the Catholics who DO love to discuss the Bible!

 

[PRmerger]

Was St. Jerome “creating a god in his own image” when he went with “fornication” in Matthew 19.9 for the Vulgate?

Are you operating under the misapprehension that St. Jerome was infallible?

 

[PRmerger]

House Harkonnen: you’ve made at least 3 claims to which I asked for sources.

Could you please provide your sources?

(NB: merely repeating your assertion without providing primary sources is not acceptable.

Thus, when I ask for sources which say that they are an infallible church, simply saying, “The JWs and LDS do!” is not acceptable. Please provide sources from their own words which demonstrate this.

You also made 2 other claims (one about every Anglican bishops and priests granting divorces ad lib in 16th century England. And another claim about the Reforms declaring that SS is a practice of the church and not of individuals).

Thanks.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Nonsense. Christians knew Hebrews was inspired long before your Pope or magisterium declared it so. No pope or magisterium was necessary. That’s how Athanasius knew what was inspired a few decades before the local council…

Nonsense?

Christians also thought that the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement I, 3rd Corinthians and others were inspired. In fact, Christian thought has given birth to heresies.

Christian thought… Lol

Nonsense?

Do you realize Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria? IOW, part of the very same Magisterium you “thought” was not needed.

Now that doesn’t make much sense… :nope: