What do Protestants think of the church built by Jesus?

[Contarini]

Eden:

You make a good point about the issue of moral clarity and the Inquisition. My initial respose is that I don’t have one. If I come up with a good response to that, I’ll let you know.

I really appreciate that response! Honesty always impresses me. I understand how easy it is to get defensive in a forum like this (given how many people are willing to use any stick to beat the Catholic Church), but I salute you for not falling into that trap.

Eden:

The one problem I have with your reasoning, is that you are using the fact that the Church condoned the execution of heretics as an illustration that both the Church and Protestant churches have been influenced by contemporary culture. The reasoning that the Reformers had in breaking away from the Church was that they were *improving *upon a corrupt Church. It’s not a valid argument to say that Protestant churches are guilty just as the Church was (in your argument) guilty.

I don’t see why not, because I’m not defending the claim that the Protestants improved the Church. I think they improved it in some ways and made it much worse in others. In terms of morals, the Protestants did push for the abolition of legalized prostitution, which the medieval Church tolerated. And while I don’t expect you to see their championship of clerical marriage as an improvement (I have mixed feelings about it myself), the double standard in place at the time (by which clerical concubinage was widely tolerated while clerical marriage was regarded as abominable) was certainly worse. While no Protestant regime was tolerant by our standards, Protestant governments (especially the Lutherans) were on the whole more willing to forego the use of the sword against heretics (or to exercise it with restraint) than Catholic governments. (Yes, you can find counterexamples–Catholic Poland was far more tolerant than Protestant England or Geneva.) Ideas of religious tolerance developed largely among Protestants, so we deserve some (though limited) credit on that score.

At any rate, my claim had nothing to do with any alleged improvement. I was responding simply to the claim that doctrinal infallibility is necessary so that the Church can speak with moral clarity. I don’t think that will fly. That is all I’m arguing. Of course the schism of the Reformation was a horrendous disaster for the Church, and I have no problem admitting that the Protestants should shoulder at least 50% of the blame (we might disagree on how much more than that was their fault). If I lived in the 16th century and had the choice to stay loyal to the Catholic Church or join the Protestants (if, for instance, I were in John Calvin’s shoes), I would do the former without any serious hesitation. But that’s not my situation. I am a Protestant born and bred, and I cannot but recognize the Catholic Faith in Protestantism. This doesn’t justify the schism. But I’m not willing to invalidate the Word and Sacraments found within Protestantism.

 

[Contarini]

Eden:

Today every Protestant church teaches at least one of these un-Christian values: abortion in some cases, contraception, divorce, homosexual unions/practicing homosexual ministers.

No, that’s not true. Granted that the vast majority of Protestants accept contraception, but there are those who don’t (and who in fact are more conservative on this point than the current Catholic position, since they reject NFP as well as ABC). I’ve met them. And this is far truer of divorce (again, these Protestants are in practice considerably more conservative than Catholics, since they don’t allow for the annulment of ostensibly valid marriages). It’s also dubious to say that Protestants “teach divorce.” Protestant denominations have a wide range of positions on divorce, but all would agree that it’s something to be avoided except in cases of serious abuse. Only the most liberal denominations are willing to speak of it as other than a serious evil. If you want to say every major Protestant denomination has at least a somewhat wooly position on one of these issues, I’ll have to agree with you.

Eden:

I was not there in the Middle Ages so I can only read various historical analyses to reach conclusions on the Church at that time. What I do know is that the Catholic Church is the only Christian Church that presents moral clarity today. That is clear proof to me that the Church is the Church established by Christ and that the Protestant churches were a fallible experiment of men.

Experientially I understand your point–in fact this is one of the things that first drew me to Catholicism and it remains one of the biggest points in Catholicism’s favor. But logically your argument doesn’t work. If Catholicism’s clarity on several major moral issues today is the result of special divine protection, then the same clarity would have to appear in Catholicism’s treatment of all issues at all times. But this isn’t the case.The historical record seems pretty darned clear to me.

The claim I think Catholics can make legitimately is that infallibility allows Catholicism to learn from its mistakes rather than repeating them. A good case can be made that permanent moral progress is possible only within Christianity, and specifically within Catholicism. I have no serious fears that Catholicism will ever again waffle regarding slavery or endorse religious persecution. Given the chameleon-like nature of Protestantism, it’s highly likely that under favorable social circumstances major Protestant groups might appear that would favor both those things just as they have in the past. (One could argue that the comparison isn’t fair, since they probably wouldn’t be the same Protestant groups now existing; this is an example of how comparing Protestants and Catholics is sometimes like comparing apples and oranges. But Protestantism offers no real safeguards against such a relapse, whereas I believe Catholicism does.) Infallibility allows Catholicism to have a stable, permanent moral memory. That I think is something you can legitimately boast of.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[jusher7281]

Shibboleth:

A few things here…

First I also agree that it is sad that some Protestants disregard the Church Fathers unless they support their point of view.Shibboleth,

I agree, it is sad because, although not inspired, the writings of the Fathers still give us a clear view of what the earliest Christians believed.

In regards to some of the comments on the above post… Protestants believe in the writings of Paul because they are inspired – that is they are actually God’s words.

How do we know the words of Paul are inspired? His words themselves are no indication that they are. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says that “All Scripture is inspired…” but it doesn’t say what Scripture. For that we must rely on the Church’s declaration of what Scripture is. There’s simply no other way to know.

The Ecumenical Councils didn’t give us the inspired Books of scripture it simply infallibly confirmed which books are part of the Canon.

The ecumenical councils may not have given us the books of Scripture, but the Catholic Church did. Every New Testament author was Catholic.

In regards to the Canon of scripture it was compiled originally by those without any authority of any kind. So in that sense the Protestants were the same as those in the Early Church.

This simply isn’t true. How can you say that those who compiled the canon of Scripture had no authority? If that’s true, then the Bible is nothing more than a great history book, and I know neither of us believes that. They had to have the necessary authority to determine the canon of Scripture. The only reason you even have a Bible today is because the Catholic Church has told you what constitutes the Bible.

Since Protestants don’t believe in infallibility they simply hold to the fact that we are still like the Early Christians and the guide on what belongs in Canon is careful study and prayer.

What if my “careful study and prayer” leads me into error? Am I infallible? Hardly. There is no guarantee that the Holy Spirit will lead each of us to the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s one of the reasons why Jesus established His Church, giving her the gift of infallibility, so that we wouldn’t go off on our own and misinterpret Scripture. Protestantism itself is clear evidence of the failure of private interpretation.

In Christ,
JU

 

[Shibboleth]

jusher7281:

Shibboleth,
How do we know the words of Paul are inspired? His words themselves are no indication that they are. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says that “All Scripture is inspired…” but it doesn’t say what Scripture. For that we must rely on the Church’s declaration of what Scripture is. There’s simply no other way to know.

I am not sure what you are getting at in this statement. First off I agree with the authority of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils but that is beside the point. The Protestants believe that Paul’s wittings are scriptural because he was an Apostle and there isn’t any reason to doubt the historic validity of the texts. Other apocryphal writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas; however, contradict the other scriptures and by that measure they doubt the Canonical validity. This was the same criterion that the early Catholic individuals utilized in identifying what was Scripture and what was not…

The ecumenical councils may not have given us the books of Scripture, but the Catholic Church did. Every New Testament author was Catholic.

Well the Protestants would argue that they were Christians, the Orthodox would argue that they were Orthodox, and the Catholics will argue that they were Catholic. I would argue that they were Christian. orthodox, and catholic - and that their writings as inspired by God were for all the world to hear and it neither belongs or is to be coveted by anyone group, it is the property of God that is to be shared in unconditional love for all who wish to hear.

This simply isn’t true. How can you say that those who compiled the canon of Scripture had no authority? If that’s true, then the Bible is nothing more than a great history book, and I know neither of us believes that. They had to have the necessary authority to determine the canon of Scripture. The only reason you even have a Bible today is because the Catholic Church has told you what constitutes the Bible.

Because the Canon of Scripture was compiled before it was infallibly defined by an Ecumenical Council hence it was done so before the involvement of authority. Read the writings of the Councils on this matter that is one of their arguments is that the Canon of Scripture comes to us by way of Sacred Tradition.

color=black]

What if my “careful study and prayer” leads me into error? Am I infallible? Hardly. There is no guarantee that the Holy Spirit will lead each of us to the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s one of the reasons why Jesus established His Church, giving her the gift of infallibility, so that we wouldn’t go off on our own and misinterpret Scripture. Protestantism itself is clear evidence of the failure of private interpretation.

In Christ,

Not necessarily true. Often times the gift of infallibility doesn’t protect against someone going off and misinterpreting something so much as it combats that which is being misinterpreted. Ecumenical councils are usually in response to a misinterpretation and not used as a preventative measure.

 

[azcelt]

so the people in charge of the catholic churches moral teachings=the pope,bishops,priests,cover up something as immoral as child molestation and that has nothing to do with the moral clarity of what the church teaches?smacks of hypocrisy to me,if you talk the talk,you,d better walk the walk,or there is no moral clarity! in christ,celt

 

[Lillith]

azcelt:

so the people in charge of the catholic churches moral teachings=the pope,bishops,priests,cover up something as immoral as child molestation and that has nothing to do with the moral clarity of what the church teaches?smacks of hypocrisy to me,if you talk the talk,you,d better walk the walk,or there is no moral clarity! in christ,celt

First off 1.7% of priests have made this grave error in judgement…this horrible, horrible deed and you would condemn all Catholics? If protestant Churches had more Unity you would see that this is not a Catholic only problem.

Secondly, the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be condemned because of sin of her members.

Thirdly…:yawn:

 

[Shibboleth]

azcelt:

so the people in charge of the catholic churches moral teachings=the pope,bishops,priests,cover up something as immoral as child molestation and that has nothing to do with the moral clarity of what the church teaches?smacks of hypocrisy to me,if you talk the talk,you,d better walk the walk,or there is no moral clarity! in christ,celt

Well Judas was one of Jesus’ disciples… does this discredit Jesus? Peter rejected Christ 3 times and behaved incorrectly in regards to the gentiles… does this discredit his writings? Luther wrote vitriolic words in the Jews and their Lies… does this discredit Protestantism? What of the Calvinist behavior towards supposed witches – does this make the writings of the Calvinists incorrect?

 

[azcelt]

I wasn,t the one who said the catholic church was the ONLY one speaking and teaching moral clarity now was i,i,m just pointing out that there is a lack of moral clarity in her as well.in christ,celt

 

[Lillith]

azcelt:

I wasn,t the one who said the catholic church was the ONLY one speaking and teaching moral clarity now was i,i,m just pointing out that there is a lack of moral clarity in her as well.in christ,celt

Then maybe you should show the quote (when you want to reply to a specific post you find that post and click on quote)…because I didn’t see anyone say the Catholic Church is the ONLY one teaching moral clarity…and I seriously doubt anyone did. This is a misconception. What the Catholic Church has is the Fullness of truth, and you will see that posted…truth is different from moral clarity…you can be moral and not know the entire truth.

 

[Lillith]

azcelt:

eden,for the most part i agree with you that the catholic church is the only church teaching moral clarity,although i.m not roman catholic i do put a lot of stock in what the church teaches,and even grant that the pope is first among equals of the western churches,though i don,t concede infallibility,you may consider what the moral teachings of the lutheran church-missouri synod are they seem to be very close to the catholic church on morality,stridently pro-life,against gay marriage,male only pastors,no gay clergy,etc.on moral issues the catholic church has a strong friend there. in christian unity,celt

Actually Azcelt…I see that you are arguing against yourself…You were the one who said it

 

[azcelt]

Lilith,i,m half irish what can i say!I,ve been known to argue with myself from time to time. in christian unity,celt

 

[Lillith]

azcelt:

Lilith,i,m half irish what can i say!I,ve been known to argue with myself from time to time. in christian unity,celt

Allrighty then…now you make me laugh…

 

[Eden]

azcelt:

Lilith,i,m half irish what can i say!I,ve been known to argue with myself from time to time. in christian unity,celt

Hey, azcelt, I’m Irish too! My maternal grandmother is 100% Irish!

http://www.college-football--tickets.net/notre_dame/fighting_irish.gif

 

[ChristFollower]

The church built by Jesus was the Jewish people who bacame followers of the new way, or “the way” - those who recognized and beleived he was the Messiah - later this included gentiles (us) - those first followers of the way were called “saints” because they were experienceing a new life in Christ on their way to sanctification.

 

[Ignatius]

azcelt:

I wasn,t the one who said the catholic church was the ONLY one speaking and teaching moral clarity now was i,i,m just pointing out that there is a lack of moral clarity in her as well.in christ,celt

There are sinners in every church, including yours.

 

[EA_Man]

abcdefg:

Jesus obviously built a church. do Protestants think

1. the church Jesus built is their church or
2. the gates of hell has prevailed against the church Jesus built?

if it’s the first case why Jesus built a church that has been teaching wrong doctrines from the beginning and for ~1500 years? the 2nd idea is obviously against the scripture

You’ve committed the fallacy of the false choice.

 

[Eden]

EA_Man:

You’ve committed the fallacy of the false choice.

Ah, the ever-popular message board “fallacy of the false choice” - that wonderfully repetitive redundancy!

Yikes! These questions are not mutually exclusive to you? So you mean you believe that the Protestant churches were the church built by Christ and the gates of hell have prevailed against the Protestant churches that are the church built by Christ?

Or are the options a “false choice” because you believe that the Protestant churches are not the church built by Christ and the gates of hell have not prevailed against the church built by Christ?

Neither of those options sound like a Protestant answer to me. In that case, you have to pick one. That means it is not a false choice.

Here are the questions for reference:

**Jesus obviously built a church. do Protestants think

1. the church Jesus built is their church or
2. the gates of hell has prevailed against the church Jesus built?**
   **

**

 

[EA_Man]

Eden:

Here are the questions for reference:

**Jesus obviously built a church. do Protestants think **
****1) the church Jesus built is their church or
2) the gates of hell has prevailed against the church Jesus built?

The answer is 1 for some Protestants, like Protestants who believe the Pope is the anti-Christ and ALL Catholics are going to Hell - “Jack Chick Protestants”.

For other Protestants the answer is 1 because they believe that their Church is the Body of Christ. They don’t (or do) believe that their denomination necessarily is the church that Jesus built, but that all who believe in Jesus Christ are the Church that Jesus built.

I have not met any Protestants that believe that 2 has happened or even could happen. Which is why this is a false choice. There is no choice here. But I think I clarification of number 2 is necessary.
The phrase the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it doesn’t just mean that the Church will withstand any onslaught from Hell - it does mean that. But it also means that Hell cannot withstand the onslaught of the Church through the Power of Jesus Christ.

This “either or” pick one or the other mentality is fine for polemics and hyperbole - but does little to gain any understanding of where the other is coming from.

Peace