Why Be Protestant?

[guanophore]

Nope, never said that. I said it may be sought, not that it may be determined.
Thank you for this post, I agree completely. Don’t worry though, nobody with “Catholic” in their religion field will actually listen to your eloquent explanation, as they’re too busy smugly congratulating each other on “excellent points” that serve to reinforce their belief that only their denomination holds the truth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong. /bitter

It is interesting to read this, as it really does come across as though you are wounded and bitter.

But you are assigning a position to Catholics that is not accurate. Of course we beleive that Jesus only founded One Church, and that all He desired to reveal to man is contained within it. This is the One Faith we have received from the Apostles. Catholicism, also, is not a “denomination”. To denominate is to take one’s name from, or identify oneself in contrast to something. All the Protestant communities define themselves by which parts, and how much of Catholic faith they reject. This is the purpose of denominating. Catholicism cannot denominate, because if it does, it is no longer Catholic. We are not at liberty to reject any part of the once for all deposit of faith that has been entrusted to the saints.

However, it is not true that the Church teaches the Truth can only be found in the Catholic Church. Though the Church is the fullness of His revelation of Himself, He has also revealed HImself in nature, and the HS works in the ecclesial communities of our separated brethren to bring people to Himself. All Protestant communities contain some of HIs revealed Truth, since all have retained some portion of Catholic Teaching.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Beginning when?

I’m not disputing…just seeking clarification.

And just so I understand where you’re coming from, what is your church affiliation?

I would say all along. For example, the Churches of the East seem to have been at least as, if not far more effective at evangelization than the Latinate or Byzantine churches in the first, say 500 years of church history.

I am affiliated with an independent Christian Church. We use Common Worship for our liturgy.

 

[Juliebug108]

A few more thoughts on the Catechism from something I posted last year:

The Catechism – 2,000 Years of Greatest Hits

Imagine that you go to church one Sunday and hear a really good sermon by the pastor of your church. You are so impressed with his talk that you call the church office on Monday to get a copy of his notes. You’re in luck…it turns out that the tape ministry department has just completed duplicating the sermon, and you can stop by to get a copy to listen to while you’re driving. Delighted, you drive over and buy a copy and pick up the notes…

*The following Sunday, the same thing happens. And the next. And the next. After awhile you have a notebook full of your pastor’s talks and a tape library of all your favorites to match. Yes, sir…you’ve learned a lot from this gifted man of God…you’re really being fed in this church. *

The Catechism is sorta like that except that it represents the “Greatest Hits” of the past 2,000 years.

LoL I like that Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions and being patient with me :thankyou:

You made some really good points.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

 

[crazzeto]

Cat-

Are you saying that God allowed Protestantism to divide the body of Christ, to create scandal in the eyes of non-believers and skeptics who may be lost for eternity as a result, and to separate hundreds of millions of His people from the sacraments He gave us as means of receiving grace, just so a relatively small number of people who leave the Church over the pedophile issue could “still worship Jesus”?

Wow.

That concept requires a lot more thought. And not by me.

I have to agree Randy, this theory is not the best thought out. Schism is sin, there is nothing good about the seperation from the sacraments. This can not be a viable viewpoint. I have no real good explanation as to why God permitted the Refermation, other than God allows our free will to dictate our fate, to the point of denying that to which we were predestined.

However if one were to look for a greater reason for the reformation, the best that I have seen is that at a fairly critical moment, well meaninged but seriously misguided individuals did manage to do the good of reminding a good number of lay Catholics about the missionary mission of the Church.

Coming out of the 60’s far too many people saw the church as a “maintenance mode” church. Just maintain the flock, period. No need to evangalize the Gosple, no need to be “imposing” all sorts of “cultural norms” etc. For as many problems, theologically and even practically as I have with evangelical Christians in particular. I do admire their zeel, honestly, ability to pulmigate a Christian culture (if tainted with bad dogma) and of course, evangalism.

I see these things being reborn amongs the lay Catholic believer, perhaps slowly but there and growing. Nurtured by the right and true ancient teaching of the Church, I believe a finally reviatlized Church can do great good combating the current state of the culture.

 

[rainman10]

My issue is not so much on what the church teaches, but rather with what I have witnessed Catholics practicing. I’ve seen people praying to relics.
I’ve also known people to create shrines for relics…and I’ve also known people to be quite superstitious about them. It’s almost like a rabbit’s foot on steroids, so to speak. It troubles me. The scripture passages that you provided me with recognize that relics can have miracles associated with them…but the Bible doesn’t go on to say that people prayed to those relics, built shrines to those relics, or carried those relics around for protection or luck.

Hi,Julie. Just a thought that occurred to me. If Jesus were standing in front of you and you were discussing His Church with him, would you tell Him, I am sorry Jesus, but I would not ever join Your Church because of what I see the people in Your Church are doing. Your Church may be the True Church, but because of what I have see the people do, I would never join.

 

[kathmandu]

What makes it better, and is it so much better that someone should leave the Catholic Church to become Anglican?

Both versions are in the Book of Common Prayer. It is up to the priest as to which version they use when they say Mass.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Not entirely true. Time to read history my friend. First of all,read the ORIGINAL creed (325) and compare it to the 381 Creed?

What is not entirely true? In neither the 325 Creed nor in the 381 Creed did it say “proceeds from the Father and the Son”. And quoting a few fathers that supported the wording “from the Father through the son” does not mean that they would have had that wording, or the more troublesome filioque, inserted in the Creed. I don’t follow your reasoning.

Your claim or position is false. Basically you are stating the RCC changed it without no cause or reason. And what were some of the major reasons the 325 creed and 328 creed differ? And the fact the filioque was not added until later does not prove either the ECF’s disagreed with it either. Show me one place in scripture were the word ‘infinite’ is used to describe God? Does it render it false since it is not mentioned in scripture?

Quote:
Did the Church IMPERIOUSLY change it?

No, the Bishop of Rome imperiously changed it. Orthodox and Protestants do not accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And as a result of this change, he was excommunicated by the other four apostolic sees.

There you go again with the term imperiously? If you believe the pope is am emperor,then you have a lot to learn. As for primacy of the Bishop of Rome? You are also WRONG to believe the Orthodox rejected the primacy of Rome. The current position today is more common,but do your homework and you will find plenty of Easterners in support of the primacy of Rome long before the 1054 split.

Quote:
What you fail to understand is the fact the church can make changes due to its AUTHORITY.

Yes, the Church could theoretically make changes to the Creed by calling an Ecumenical Council. Whether she would is another question.

Aaahhh…she has many times,but the East refused to attend. More important, how many ecumenical councils has the East hel since the 8th century?

You equate “the Bishop of Rome” with “the Church”. This is the main issue. As the Great Schism unequivocally shows, Rome could not “make changes due to its authority”. Whatever the merits of the filioque, however well it can be reconciled today with orthodox Christianity, the fact is that the Bishop of Rome sought to change the wording of the Nicene Creed and the Church rejected his authority.

WRONG! And you assume to much and your assumptions are faulty as well.

Since the Great Schism of 1054, the Bishop of Rome has innovated further with the dogma of purgatory, indulgences, the immaculate conception and papal infallibility. These are all troublesome for Protestant and Orthodox alike and do not, in my opinion, enjoy support from the consensus of the Fathers.

I beg your pardon? The Bishop of Rome has innovated dogma? No offense,but your ignorance of doctrinal development is evident. It is troublesome for many as yourself because you do not comprenhend doctrinal developments,plain and simple.Inventions-eh ?The Trinity was ratified in 325 A.D. Is that an innovation too? The RCC has not invented any dogma. But guess what,you belong to a church innovated by a KING…a fact of history!

Why be Protestant (or Orthodox)? Because one rejects the notion that the Bishop of Rome is somehow above the apostolic Deposit of the Faith (as reflected in Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers).

WRONG again! Instead of assuming what you believe is fact and what the RCC truly teaches, I suggest you start doing some serious research and stop parroting everything you merely hear.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juliebug108
You seem to be completely minimizing the horrendous abuse that happened. I’m not quite sure how to take your statement. When the people in charge fail to protect children from dangerous clergy and sex abuse, that’s incredibly serious.

Yes it is very sad what has happened. But that in no shape or from takes away from the church Christ sanctified. Christ left a church full of sinners and this is a very simple fact so many forget.

 

[Nicea325]

In my view, once you move beyond this highly selective Western canon of Patristics the amount of diversity that has always existed in Christianity comes into greater focus. This makes the diversity found within Protestantism less troublesome–at least to me. But not to say that it’s all good either.

Relativism! And the fact diversity has existed from the beginning does not negate the fact Christ founded ONE church and taught ONE truth. So in other words, it is better to join them,then accept the facts Christ never founded diversity.

 

[crazzeto]

Hmmm…nope…the fact that pagans looked down on that doesn’t help at all…Just like it wouldn’t help if Muslims or Hindus were looking down on it. I’m not concerned with with the opinions of non-Christians when it comes to judgments against anything within the Christianity because their perspective is already skewed. Just because the pagans were disgusted by it doesn’t mean that I, as a Christian, should approve of it.

Peace and blessings,
Julie

The question being (sorry for the late reply is), where then did the veneration of relics come from Julie. Do you know? Because you see, typically, it would seem to me, that the Christian who looks down upon this does so over some belief that this practice comes from peganism. That it has nothing to do with Christianity, or Christ but rather it’s peganism infiltrating and politing the true faith.

But this is flatly wrong Julie, it didn’t come from peganism. It originated with Christianity. It’s an ancient Christian practice, one of many for which we were persecuted. I mentioned Julian the Apostate earlier, he was fully pegan. He reignaited the Christian persecutions after Constitine legalized Christianity, and promoted every single religion over Christianity, he even tried rebuilding the Jewish tempal, only to find fireballs from heaven being flung at it.

Julian, as it turned out, martyred two of his soliders, now venerated as Saints in both the east and the west (both churchs venerate relics incidently). Do you know what got them in trouble? It was the veneration of relics that martyred Saints Juventinus and Maximus.

The veneration of relics is not some bizzar form of ansestor worship, or whatever else. It is a very Christian thing that goes back to the very foundation of the Church.

I would invite you, Julie, to read what the Church fathers have to say about it. These after all, are the very people who shed their blood as a faithful witness to the risen Christ (the very meaning of the word Martyr). Isn’t it worth knowing what Christian faith they died for?

 

[CMatt25]

Why do I bother? Science is not the same as faith because it relies on evidence that is not entirely spiritual. You cannot make a formula for God. People will have different ideas of what God is.

Good point. Because after all is said, people of faith, be they Catholic or non Catholic, are going to believe what they are going to believe. Faith can not be proven. That’s why it is called faith. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Of course, but you are forgetting that many aren’t at all sure that the Catholic Church is the one that has the objective truth. The objective truth is something that by definition is practically impossible to determine, and what one person (or church, or organisation, or belief system) believes to be the objective truth is in fact still their subjective view of truth in the eyes of others. It remains an opinion, and regardless of what evidence, empirical or spiritual, is presented, it remains incomplete. I appreciate that members of a faith believe it to be the one truth, but not everybody will agree, and people will leave.I beg to differ. Seeking God does not always involve pride and idolising oneself. It is usually just that: seeking God. Seeking the objective truth, if you wish.

:clapping: Exactly. Very well said.

 

[CMatt25]

Nope, never said that. I said it may be sought, not that it may be determined.
Thank you for this post, I agree completely. Don’t worry though, nobody with “Catholic” in their religion field will actually listen to your eloquent explanation, as they’re too busy smugly congratulating each other on “excellent points” that serve to reinforce their belief that only their denomination holds the truth, and anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously wrong. /bitter

I think “their belief” are the key words here. So if and to the degree someone might do this, perhaps they confuse the concept of faith and belief with having the truth.

 

[CMatt25]

Relativism!

I’ve seen this accusation used before. Is it supposed to have negative connotations? Because it does not to those who understand faith and belief does not equate to what is the proven absolute certain truth.

 

[guanophore]

Of course, but you are forgetting that many aren’t at all sure that the Catholic Church is the one that has the objective truth. The objective truth is something that by definition is practically impossible to determine, and what one person (or church, or organisation, or belief system) believes to be the objective truth is in fact still their subjective view of truth in the eyes of others. It remains an opinion, and regardless of what evidence, empirical or spiritual, is presented, it remains incomplete. I appreciate that members of a faith believe it to be the one truth, but not everybody will agree, and people will leave.I beg to differ. Seeking God does not always involve pride and idolising oneself. It is usually just that: seeking God. Seeking the objective truth, if you wish.

:clapping: Exactly. Very well said.

This may be “well said” to you, CMatt,and you can applaud such falsehoods, but to embrace such a position is to embrace lies.

You see, God is the Source of all Truth, and He has revealed to mankind the Truth He intends for us to know. To say that it is “impossible to determine” is to say that God’s arm is too short. That God is not capable of making His creatures understand His Will for them.

God’s Revelation of HImself is not a matter of “opinion”. His Truth is not a matter of majority vote, or agreement.

Col 2:8-11

8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

The idea that we cannot know objective truth is a philosophy of emty deceit, according to human tradition, and spawned by no less thatn the demons.

Jesus embodies the fullness of the Godhead, and those who come to him have the fullness of life in Him. This is the objective Truth.

 

[guanophore]

I think “their belief” are the key words here. So if and to the degree someone might do this, perhaps they confuse the concept of faith and belief with having the truth.

Faith and belief are the human elements, the Truth is the object of them. Truth is objective (outside of human experience). We can apprehend it through the faculty of faith, but it is not conjecture, speculation, or a figment of our imagination.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve seen this accusation used before. Is it supposed to have negative connotations? Because it does not to those who understand faith and belief does not equate to what is the proven absolute certain truth.

Yes. Relatavism is contrary to the commandments of God.

I agree, since faith is a human faculty through which we apprehend Truth, it does not equate to “proven absolute certain” anything.

The Truth of God, revealed by His own self disclosure to mankind, stands far away and above our puny human abilities to “prove” anything.

“Proof” is an element of scientific inquiry, and although valuable to understanding God’s creation, has limitations. The mysteries of the Divine are beyond the reach of human science.

Isa 55:8-9
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says 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.

Those who rely upon “proof of absolute certainy” rob themselves from the Gifts of God.

John 20:29
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

 

[heathnprotstnt]

The Nicene (and Apostles Creed for that matter) certainly line up with what I was raised to believe and, after “growing up” and reading scripture for myself, continue to believe.

While I certainly would take issue with some Roman Catholic beliefs, I also take issue with certain beliefs held at the national level of the local church that I attend. Fortunatley, my local pastor and church are Evangelical and scriputural. I reject all teaching that is not supported by scripture, both protestant and catholic. Read 2 Timothy 3:14-17 …Paul is very clear about scripture.

Too many folks put their faith in their CHURCH and put their CHURCH ahead of Christ and his teachings…BIG mistake. I would recommend to any Christian that they convert from any church that teaches and requires beliefs that contradict Christ and scripture.

 

[heathnprotstnt]

This may be “well said” to you, CMatt,and you can applaud such falsehoods, but to embrace such a position is to embrace lies.

You see, God is the Source of all Truth, and He has revealed to mankind the Truth He intends for us to know. To say that it is “impossible to determine” is to say that God’s arm is too short. That God is not capable of making His creatures understand His Will for them.

God’s Revelation of HImself is not a matter of “opinion”. His Truth is not a matter of majority vote, or agreement.

Jesus embodies the fullness of the Godhead, and those who come to him have the fullness of life in Him. This is the objective Truth.

The truth of Christ and what is taught in scripture we know. However, God did not reveal ALL to mankind or even the Son of Man for that matter. Did Christ himself not say that only the Father knew when the “end time” will come? CMatt appears to be simply stating that man knows only what God HAS revealed. Someday we will know as we are known…this implies that we do not yet fully know all truth.

I was recently told that the Roman Catholic Church holds and teaches the fullnes of the the truth. That my good friend…is entirely another matter.

 

[guanophore]

Welcome to CAF! Is there such a thing as a heathen protestant? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? Besides, I thought heathens did not believe in the Bible?

The Nicene (and Apostles Creed for that matter) certainly line up with what I was raised to believe and, after “growing up” and reading scripture for myself, continue to believe.

You have made a good point that you understand what you read from the point of view of your perceptions.

While I certainly would take issue with some Roman Catholic beliefs, I also take issue with certain beliefs held at the national level of the local church that I attend.   Fortunatley, my local pastor and church are Evangelical and scriputural.   I reject all teaching that is not supported by scripture, both protestant and catholic.  Read 2 Timothy 3:14-17 ...Paul is very clear about scripture.

So you agree that Scripture is useful, and profitable?

You are not mistaking that for being the final authority are your? Because this passage does not say that.

Too many folks put their faith in their CHURCH and put their CHURCH ahead of Christ and his teachings…BIG mistake.

It is indeed a mistake if the Church is not the one founded by Christ. However, the Church founded by Christ (Catholic) is the custodian of HIs teachings, and they are protected infallibly in her by the power of the HOly Spirit. Moreover, He does not distinguish Himself from His Holy Bride, the Church, and therefore, when she Teaches, she expresses His Teachings. There is not dichotomy between the two. They have become one.

I would recommend to any Christian that they convert from any church that teaches and requires beliefs that contradict Christ and scripture.

This is a common misunderstanding that emanates from the Reformation, the roots of your spiritual heritage. The idea that the One Faith, deposited once for all to the Church could be extracted from the pages of scripture 1600 years after it was written is what gets many Christians off track today. They do not realize that people interpet everything they read, and when they read scripture, they believe their understanding is from the Holy Spirit. HOwever, the HS does not reveal something to an individual opposite of what He has already revealed to the Church.

I think you are saying, in response to the OP (that is original post) that it is better to be a Protestant because they don’t have as many beliefs that contradict Christ and Scripture, is that right?