Where were the Protestants before the 1500's?

[QuestLove]

In all the several hundred posts on CAF about catholics vs protestants, has anyone ever been converted/changed their mind (in either direction)? I have a hunch it’s a very small amount.

Many protestants are aware that their church is not as old as the catholic church or anglican church etc. Does this preclude them from worshipping God? If the answer is no, then I suspect they are happy being in the denomination they are.

 

[jmcrae]

For one, your very statement here, that you definitely “are of Peter” (in the context that Paul used it). By the way, none of our churches are without fault, right ? And I could and have just as easily fall into quibbling that," I am of Paul".

Sorry, no. Paul was no Protestant, and he dealt with heretics just as fiercely as any Spanish Inquisitor, minus the instruments of torture. Paul stands with Peter, so if you want to be with Paul, then you need to get with Peter, who is with Christ, and was given his appointment by Christ.

 

[benhur]

So you need to be consistent and apply the same principle to

What is the principle, that nothing is alone ? Each verse has it’s context and we should not twist to fit ,though we probably think we both do it.

It cannot mean Scripture Alone is what is necessary to make us perfect.

Fine then assume that scripture is insufficient and Paul was wrong. All the things that you think make Scripture not alone (and I agree there are other things) must be scriptural at best.

Faith in Holy Writ alone sounds very much like Bibliolatry.

Yes it does as faith in a particular church is chucholatry. But we both don’t say that . My question led to your improper assumption, not sure why you think I would think differently to such a universal question as : we are to persevere in our faith and I ask," faith in what" ? Pretty basic, persevere in the Christian faith, faith in Christ , faith in Calvary , faith in His rewards etc., etc., etc… How do we get this “faith” ? “Faith cometh by hearing and that by the word of God” The Word of God being many things but for sure His written word, and any other word will not contradict it and must be in harmony with it. That is all I was trying to say in readers digest form in earlier post .

 

[PRmerger]

In all the several hundred posts on CAF about catholics vs protestants, has anyone ever been converted/changed their mind (in either direction)? I have a hunch it’s a very small amount.

Firstly, it’s irrelevant if “it’s a very small amount.”

Jesus walked on the earth 2000 years ago and converted only “a very small amount”.

Secondly, look at my profile page and you will see an example of at least 1 poster here who was converted after being on the CAFs.

QED

Many protestants are aware that their church is not as old as the catholic church or anglican church etc. Does this preclude them from worshipping God? If the answer is no, then I suspect they are happy being in the denomination they are.

We ought to desire to worship God in the way that He desires. In the manner He desires. Through the Church He founded.

Not in the way that makes us “happy”.

 

[PRmerger]

Fine then assume that scripture is insufficient and Paul was wrong.

Scripture is sufficient?

Where does Paul say that?

 

[benhur]

Sorry, no. Paul was no Protestant, and he dealt with heretics just as fiercely as any Spanish Inquisitor, minus the instruments of torture. Paul stands with Peter, so if you want to be with Paul, then you need to get with Peter, who is with Christ, and was given his appointment by Christ.

Totally agree. Just that it is not the context of the scripture that I referenced. I am of Peter or I am of Paul is a way of saying “hooray for my side”, or my experience, or my church, is better than yours.

 

[benhur]

F]aith is not a state of mind (i.e. faith in something), it is a state of being, a state of action. We’ve got to get away from thinking of Faith, Hope, Love, etc… as abstract concepts.It is not having faith which imparts Grace to us. It is being in faith, which is a matter of deeds.

Agree. I have heard it like this . A tightrope artist crosses the niagara falls carrying someone. He then asks the audience if they believe he can do it again. Most respond “yes” . He then asks for volunteers. Only those with the faith to get "on board’’ as opposed to those not have this type of saving faith in action as you say.

In conclusion, with regard to the reformers; the following verse displays not only that they had no business interpreting scripture; but that the very premise of the reformation, that is, personal interpretation of the scriptures, is by its very nature contrary to scripture.

There are others who can address Luther’s madness as you say, but think you partly misrepresent Him in totality ,that is, not considering his writings to the very end, all of them. Don’t think all reformers had trouble with James as many would not consider their doctrine on this as apart from divine revelation ( or just personal interpretation.Personal conscience, yes, but on what God has personally revealed) . The Jews in the Lord’s day would say that Peter also had a “private” interpretation as to who Jesus was.

" We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Peter 1:19-20 (again the precious King Jamie translation)

Agreed. That scripture means that God is the author, deliverer, interpreter and enlightener of scripture. Any interpretation other than the right one, that is God’s interpretation/intent, is “private” or “apart” from the Light.

 

[benhur]

1. Faith is in Christ, not the Bible. The Bible can’t save you.

Last paragraph in post #242 addresses your misreading of my post (partly my fault, sorry, I thought we could easily be in synch following my questions )

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Fine then assume that scripture is insufficient and Paul was wrong.

1. Formally sufficient or materially sufficient?
2. What did Paul use for Scriptures?

 

[jmcrae]

They did.
There have been “protesters” and Christian groups with different sets of beliefs since the day Jesus died.
There is a lot of history on this out there.
The groups were forced to stop after Constantine took the helm, but a few centuries they assembled again–and with much fervor, it seems.

.

Which ones, the Arians,(Jesus isn’t God), or the Nestorians (Jesus isn’t human), or the Gnostics (Jesus never physically existed - and neither do we; we are figments of our own imagination)? Which of the Reformers taught any of these?

 

[Dalphon]

There were no protestants before the 1500’s just as there were no roman-catholics in the bible. Both are spin-offs of the early christian faith with variation in beliefs, doctrines and traditions. The apostles did not pray to mary or the saints because mary walked the earth with them and they were the saints. The mass as we know it today is not mentioned in scripture. This is what happened when they met for worship.

1 Cor 14:26 When you gather, everyone has a psalm, teaching, revelation, foreign language, or interpretation. Everything must be done for upbuilding. 27 If anyone speaks in a foreign language, only two or three at the most should do so, one at a time, and somebody must interpret. 28 If an interpreter is not present, the speaker should remain silent in the church and speak to himself and God.29 Two or three prophets should speak, and others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to another person who is seated, the first person should be silent. 31 For everyone can prophesy in turn, so that everyone can be instructed and everyone can be encouraged.

The apostles had wives.
1 Cor 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,

The churches in the book of revelation were not catholic churches. If they were all catholic churches under one pope there would be no need for 7 messages. There would only be one message to the catholic church.

(1) Ephesus - the church that had forsaken its first love
(2) Smyrna - the church that would suffer persecution
(3) Pergamum - the church that needed to repent
(4) Thyatira - the church that had a false prophetess
(5) Sardis - the church that had fallen asleep
(6) Philadelphia - the church that had endured patiently
(7) Laodicea - the church with the lukewarm faith

 

[Jack007]

Which ones, the Arians,(Jesus isn’t God), or the Nestorians (Jesus isn’t human), or the Gnostics (Jesus never physically existed - and neither do we; we are figments of our own imagination)? Which of the Reformers taught any of these?

small corrections
Nestorianismis aChristologicaldoctrine advanced byNestorius*(386–450),Patriarch of Constantinoplefrom 428–431. The doctrine, which was informed by Nestorius’ studies underTheodore of Mopsuestiaat theSchool of Antioch, emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures ofJesus.

Rejection of humanity of Jesus is called Docetism, which is yet another heresy reformers thought they were not.

 

[guanophore]

Faith is not a state of mind (i.e. faith in something), it is a state of being, a state of action.

Great post!

 

[guanophore]

Fine then assume that scripture is insufficient and Paul was wrong.

Scripture is perfectly sufficient for the purpose God intended. Paul is not wrong, it is your understanding of what he wrote that is in error.

You have misunderstood the verse,and you are trying to force it to say something it does not, something in fact that is contradicted by other writings of Paul (such as Ephs.4)

All the things that you think make Scripture not alone (and I agree there are other things) must be scriptural at best.

No, the Apostles taught that the Word of God is not confined to the Scriptures.

   The Word of God being many things but for sure His written word, and any other word will not contradict it and must be in harmony with it. That is all I was trying to say in readers digest form in earlier post .

Yes, and this is how the Sacred Tradition works. The Scriptures and the ST are two complimentary strands of a single cord of divine revelation.

 

[guanophore]

There were no protestants before the 1500's just as there were no roman-catholics in the bible. Both are spin-offs of the early christian faith with variation in beliefs, doctrines and traditions.

Yes, I agree that the New Testament, written in the very first decades of the Church, shows the Church in it’s small seed form, and what we have today is a large tree into which it has grown.

Growth, though, is different than " spin-offs of the early christian faith with variation in beliefs, doctrines and traditions". What this statement does describe are heresies, and there were plenty of those in the early church.

The Church in Rome, established shortly after Pentecost, when Roman Jews returned home as Christians, had the same beliefs, doctrines and traditions as all the other Churchs planted by the Apostles. Those communities that did not were considered “spinoffs” who had departed from the One Faith.

The apostles did not pray to mary or the saints because mary walked the earth with them and they were the saints.

I am glad you can see this, but they did pray to them (ask them for their prayers) and there was no reason for them to stop when they went on for their heavenly reward, because they believed that those who were in Christ would live forever.

The mass as we know it today is not mentioned in scripture. This is what happened when they met for worship.

Of course it is, Dalphon. You are just reading Scripture with your anti-Catholic glasses, so you don’t see it.

I had a member of CAF tell me once that Christian baptism has nothing to do with water. It is really amazing what one cannot “see” in scripture when one’s mind is closed.

1 Cor 14:26 When you gather, everyone has a psalm, teaching, revelation, foreign language, or interpretation.

I don’t know what translation you are using, Dalphon, but it is not an accurate one. These words do not accurately represent what is in the original.

The apostles had wives.
1 Cor 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,

Very Catholic!

Did you know that the New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics? It is about the Catholic faith.

The churches in the book of revelation were not catholic churches. If they were all catholic churches under one pope there would be no need for 7 messages. There would only be one message to the catholic church.

This is a fantasy, Dalphon. All the Churches were Catholic until the Reformation. Each of the communities had a bishop, called in the letters “angel”, who acted as the shepherd and messenger of God in that community. All the Bishops were in unity with each other, and with the One Faith.

 (1) Ephesus - the church that had forsaken its first love

(2) Smyrna - the church that would suffer persecution
(3) Pergamum - the church that needed to repent
(4) Thyatira - the church that had a false prophetess
(5) Sardis - the church that had fallen asleep
(6) Philadelphia - the church that had endured patiently
(7) Laodicea - the church with the lukewarm faith

Each of the Catholic communities had different issues that needed to be addressed. That does not mean they were not all Catholic.

 

[Jamma]

Great post!

Scripture is perfectly sufficient for the purpose God intended. Paul is not wrong, it is your understanding of what he wrote that is in error.

You have misunderstood the verse,and you are trying to force it to say something it does not, something in fact that is contradicted by other writings of Paul (such as Ephs.4)

No, the Apostles taught that the Word of God is not confined to the Scriptures.

Yes, and this is how the Sacred Tradition works. The Scriptures and the ST are two complimentary strands of a single cord of divine revelation.

Yes, I agree that the New Testament, written in the very first decades of the Church, shows the Church in it’s small seed form, and what we have today is a large tree into which it has grown.

Growth, though, is different than " spin-offs of the early christian faith with variation in beliefs, doctrines and traditions". What this statement does describe are heresies, and there were plenty of those in the early church.

The Church in Rome, established shortly after Pentecost, when Roman Jews returned home as Christians, had the same beliefs, doctrines and traditions as all the other Churchs planted by the Apostles. Those communities that did not were considered “spinoffs” who had departed from the One Faith.

I am glad you can see this, but they did pray to them (ask them for their prayers) and there was no reason for them to stop when they went on for their heavenly reward, because they believed that those who were in Christ would live forever.

Of course it is, Dalphon. You are just reading Scripture with your anti-Catholic glasses, so you don’t see it.

I had a member of CAF tell me once that Christian baptism has nothing to do with water. It is really amazing what one cannot “see” in scripture when one’s mind is closed.

I don’t know what translation you are using, Dalphon, but it is not an accurate one. These words do not accurately represent what is in the original.

Very Catholic!

Did you know that the New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics? It is about the Catholic faith.

This is a fantasy, Dalphon. All the Churches were Catholic until the Reformation. Each of the communities had a bishop, called in the letters “angel”, who acted as the shepherd and messenger of God in that community. All the Bishops were in unity with each other, and with the One Faith.

Each of the Catholic communities had different issues that needed to be addressed. That does not mean they were not all Catholic.

Great posts, guanaphore!

I am Jack007

 

[QuestLove]

We ought to desire to worship God in the way that He desires. In the manner He desires. Through the Church He founded.

Not in the way that makes us “happy”.

Not every protestant joins a church to make ourselves “happy”. It doesn’t mean just because one is not a member of the catholic church, that we are not seeking God and seeking to worship him in the way he desires. There are many, many reasons that one joins a particular church, at the end of the day a believer should choose a church where he/she can freely worship God.
All I am saying is that one is not necessarily condemned to hell because you don’t belong to a church that did not exist before 1500s (I know you did not say that, but some have expressed this sentiment).

 

[Dalphon]

Originally Posted by Dalphon View Post
The apostles did not pray to mary or the saints because mary walked the earth with them and they were the saints.

I am glad you can see this, but they did pray to them (ask them for their prayers) and there was no reason for them to stop when they went on for their heavenly reward, because they believed that those who were in Christ would live forever.

Is there any mention anywhere of the apostles praying to Moses, Abraham, Noah or any other Old Testament saint after the resurrection of Jesus? If they believed the faithful were in heaven interceding for them they should have been praying to their Old Testament heroes?

I don’t know what translation you are using, Dalphon, but it is not an accurate one. These words do not accurately represent what is in the original.

The gifts of the spirit were encouraged at the mass they were celebrating. Here’s a Catholic and a Jewish translation.
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 Cor 14:27 If any speak with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course, and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to himself and to God. 29 And let the prophets speak, two or three; and let the rest judge. 30 But if any thing be revealed to another sitting, let the first hold his peace. 31 For you may all prophesy one by one; that all may learn, and all may be exhorted: 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

39 Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy; and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 But let all things be done decently, and according to order.

THE ORTHODOX JEWISH BIBLE, Third Edition
1 Cor 14:27 If anyone speaks in a lashon (tongue), let the speakers be shenayim (two) or at most shloshah (three), and by turn, and let one give the pitron (interpretation). 28 But if there is no one to give the pitron, let the one with the lashon (tongue) be silent in the kehillah and let him instead speak to himself and to Hashem. 29 And let shenayim or shloshah nevi’im speak and let the other nevi’im be used with discernings of ruchot (spirits) (12:10). 30 And if a dvar hisgalus (a word of revelation) is given to a navi sitting by, let the first navi become silent. 31 For you all are able one by one to speak forth a dvar hanevu’ah (word of prophecy), in order that all may learn and receive chizzuk (strengthening).

Did you know that the New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics? It is about the Catholic faith.

I know the Catholic Church compiled the writings of Jewish authors such as Paul, Peter, Matthew, John, Jude, the Book of Hebrews. I like to think of them as the first “Jews for Jesus.” These early Christians were not Roman Catholics. The Roman Church took over and of course the Catholic Church today can be traced back to the first century Christians much the same as the American Indians today can be linked to the original American Indians but the Indians had a culture forced upon them which made them lose theire true identity. So Christians today (and I include all Christians including myself) are not turning out the same product as the early Christians. Jesus said "
whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." So where is the church that is doing these greater things?

This is a fantasy, Dalphon. All the Churches were Catholic until the Reformation. Each of the communities had a bishop, called in the letters “angel”, who acted as the shepherd and messenger of God in that community. All the Bishops were in unity with each other, and with the One Faith.

Egyptian, Greek and Russian Orthodox are a few legitimate churches not under Roman authority. They had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not every protestant joins a church to make ourselves “happy”. It doesn’t mean just because one is not a member of the catholic church, that we are not seeking God and seeking to worship him in the way he desires. There are many, many reasons that one joins a particular church, at the end of the day a believer should choose a church where he/she can freely worship God.

Agreed. But it is pretty easy to go “church shopping” when you’re not happy. I did it with my folks when I was a kid.

All I am saying is that one is not necessarily condemned to hell because you don’t belong to a church that did not exist before 1500s (I know you did not say that, but some have expressed this sentiment).

Nope. Not. Necessarily.

(Jesus did build a single Church, however, for a reason.)

 

[guanophore]

Not every protestant joins a church to make ourselves "happy". It doesn't mean just because one is not a member of the catholic church, that we are not seeking God and seeking to worship him in the way he desires.

This is certainly true (that most Protestants are sincere in seeking God and desiring pure worship).

But human beings, by nature, tend to want to worship God the way we want, rather than what He wants (ref. Cain and Abel).

…8"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. Isa 55:9

Although we seek and desire pure worship, we cannot attain it by our own seeking, however sincere.

There are many, many reasons that one joins a particular church, at the end of the day a believer should choose a church where he/she can freely worship God.

I agree, if for no other reason than I believe we should all have freedom of religion. That being said, if God had revealed to mankind how He wanted to be worshipped, should that not be the biggest factor?

All I am saying is that one is not necessarily condemned to hell because you don’t belong to a church that did not exist before 1500s

And this is the teaching of the Catholic Church.