Why Be Protestant?

[guanophore]

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?

Yes, we are in agreement on this point.

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.

No, CMatt is saying that we cannot know the portion of God’s Truth that has been revealed to mankind,a nd will not be able to know it until He comes again. He is saying it is impossible for us to determine who “got it right” with 100% certainty, since none of us were present for the events of His life.

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.

Another matter than what? I addressed this in a post above in reply to you.

By fullness of Truth, is meant of course, that part of Himself that God the Father has revealed to mankind through Jesus. The Church does not claim to know “all Truth”, only all that God has committed to her so that she can follow Christ’s commission “teach all that I have commanded”. You will not that this duty was given to His apostles, not to the Scriptures.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt is saying that we cannot know the portion of God’s Truth that has been revealed to mankind,a nd will not be able to know it until He comes again. He is saying it is impossible for us to determine who “got it right” with 100% certainty, since none of us were present for the events of His life.

Not exactly. What he is saying is it takes faith in God to begin with. Then for Christians faith in the NT story of the Risen Christ Lord and Savior. Then for Catholic Christians for instance, faith in what the RCC teaches and Her compiled history. For Protestants, a faith and belief in needed reform. He is saying it takes a lot of faith steps to get to the point where someone might think and determine in their mind that they know their faith is the correct one. But take for instance eternal life and Christ’s 2nd Coming. Beliefs many of us Christians walk by in faith. Yet if we are truly honest with ourselves, we aren’t going to really know with 100% absolute certainty if our faith was true until we are at the stage of death or for those still alive, who see Him descending from the clouds. Until then we walk by faith not by sight. So he is just realisistic enough to admit faith and belief and knowing with 100% absolute certainty are not exactly the same things. He actually thinks others probably know it too but perhaps they just feel better to think they know with total certainty. And whatever works for them is fine with him. Hope that clarifies what he thinks. Peace to all on our faith journeys.

 

[SnakeMauler]

The reason Protestant started was because people stop being like children to enter the kingdom of God and having the faith the size of a mustard seed and started whining.

 

[guanophore]

:hmmm:  Not exactly.  What he is saying is it takes faith in God to begin with.

“it” being what, exaclty? To begin what?

I don’t think you are saying that everyone has faith in God, are you?

Everyone has faith, but not everyone has faith in God.

Then for Christians faith in the NT story of the Risen Christ Lord and Savior. Then for Catholic Christians for instance, faith in what the RCC teaches and Her compiled history.

For Catholics, there is no separation between the Risen Christ, and the One Church He founded. The Apostles taught that, to believe in HIm was to be in communion with the Apostles He chose and appointed, and their successors. If one departs from this communion, they have departed from Christ to that extent.

The Catholic Church, though, is not “Roman”.

For Protestants, a faith and belief in needed reform.

I agree with this. How do you think that Protestants decide what needs reform? Where is that faith placed? In the “needed reform”. It is sayings like this that leave me wondering why there is no “God” in your formula.

He is saying it takes a lot of faith steps to get to the point where someone might think and determine in their mind that they know their faith is the correct one.

It seems like you don’t believe one can have faith without “determination of mind”. If this is true, why does Jesus say that we must be as little children to enter the Kingdom? Children have not even developed the rational aspects of the mind yet.

But take for instance eternal life and Christ's 2nd Coming. Beliefs many of us Christians walk by in faith.  Yet if we are truly honest with ourselves, we aren't going to really know with 100% absolute certainty if our faith was true until we are at the stage of death or for those still alive, who see Him descending from the clouds.

I have always been confused with your “100% certainty” element. I just don’t get it. Why do you need this?

I have asked you before, and you never answered. If I told you there was a 90% chance that the tsunami that is headed this way would wipe out your house, would you not evacuate? 75%? How about 50%? If it was 50/50, and you evacuate, have you done this “by faith”?

 Until then we walk by faith not by sight.  So he is just realisistic enough to admit faith and belief and knowing with 100% absolute certainty are not exactly the same things.

I know from previous discussions with you, though, that what this means is that you believe we cannot know for certain what God has revealed to mankind. You say none of us really know, and won’t know for sure until He comes again. This is how you avoid the obedience of faith.

 He actually thinks others probably know it too but perhaps they just feel better to think they know with total certainty.

No, others don’t confuse the revelation of God to mankind with human science, and the need for “scientific proofs”. Others realize there are ways to have certainty that stand outside of the human mind and human science.

It seems like your God is really to weak and inadequate to reveal Himself in a convincing manner to man.

 And whatever works for them is fine with him.  Hope that clarifies what he thinks. .

Your relativism was clear all along.

 

[guanophore]

The reason Protestant started was because people stop being like children to enter the kingdom of God and having the faith the size of a mustard seed and started whining.

To be fair, they had very good reasons to reject the wicked wolfish shepherds that were leading many astray from the true gospel. How are they to be formed in the faith when they were being fed moldy bread?

 

[billt9]

As a new member of this forum I have followed this thread with great interest. I joined the forum because I wanted to know more about the beliefs of my Catholic brothers and sisters (not thinking about converting: a life long Methodist here)

And since this section is entitled “Non-Catholic Religions”, my assumption is that it is for Catholics who want to know more about “Non-Catholic Religions.” And I further assume it is for us “Non-Catholics” to answer your questions, since I further assume most of the forum members are Catholic. So when we answer questions we are doing what we are asked, not trying to berate or convert you, and I assume vice-versa, in light of the moderator’s non-proselytizing message.

One other caveat. I could/should never try to speak for “all or even most Protestants.” I have no such authority, no such knowledge, not all Protestants have the same views, and (a very regretful effect of the Reformation) there are more splintered denominations than can be counted. With that disclaimer -----

Most Protestants accept the Nicene Creed, which is what this thread originally asked about. Even “non-creedal” churches (“We have no creed but the Bible”) agree that the contents of the Creed are consistent with the Bible. In fact, the Methodist Church has never “officially” adopted the Nicene Creed (although it is printed in its hymnal). It has adopted Articles of Faith which, in the opinion of most, are entirely consistent with and reflect the Nicene Creed. Therefore, at least in my opinion, the Nicene Creed is the test – the standard – for orthodox Christianity.

[there are churches like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses which do not accept the Nicene Creed. In the opinion of most/many Protestants they are not Protestant and, probably, not Christian; correction, let me say more tolerantly “not orthodox Christian”.]

So the Creed is not the problem; it is accepted, and yes I know it was written by the holy catholic church (you know we don’t capitalize catholic in “our” printed creed.) The “problem” as accurately described by Juliebug108 from a Protestant perspective and by Randy Carson from a Catholic perspective is the “extra” Catholic doctrines NOT in the Nicene Creed (and not in the Bible, in our view).

And, in my opinion, the real fundamental difference is Sola Scriptura. Protestants do not accept as the inspired word of God anything not in the Old and New Testaments. Catholics, as I understand it, treat subsequent revelations of additional truths “by the Church” through the power of the Holy Spirit (not getting into whether it has to be a council, which council, a pope speaking officially, whatever) as inspired revelations of God equivalent to the Bible. Hence, the difference in beliefs.

PS. The existence of the “extra” inspired word of God to Joseph Smith is one of the major problems Protestants have with the Mormons, wonderful people though they are.

I hope this in some way answers your question; not to convince you, but to inform.

Since this is the day after Easter, I affirm the faith of the holy catholic church for 2000 years:
He is risen indeed.

 

[heathnprotstnt]

I thank you for your thoughtful replies. Each could be a thread by itself. I am also skimming the 130+ pages of reference material referred to me by another on this blog regardomg the Eucharist. Much to digest…(no pun or disrepect intended )

 

[heathnprotstnt]

Yes, we are in agreement on this point.



No, CMatt is saying that we cannot know the portion of God’s Truth that has been revealed to mankind,a nd will not be able to know it until He comes again. He is saying it is impossible for us to determine who “got it right” with 100% certainty, since none of us were present for the events of His life.

To expand on my point, we were blessed with scripture…however…we are a fallen people and will unquestionably differ on what scripture means. We will only know the fullness of the truth when we are “welcomed home” in God’s Kingdom.

Another matter than what? I addressed this in a post above in reply to you.

By fullness of Truth, is meant of course, that part of Himself that God the Father has revealed to mankind through Jesus. The Church does not claim to know “all Truth”, only all that God has committed to her so that she can follow Christ’s commission “teach all that I have commanded”. You will not that this duty was given to His apostles, not to the Scriptures.

Given the myriad of changes the RC Church has under gone in her doctrine and dogma, it would appear the she is not as 100% sure of herself as you are From where do the Apostles get their Authority? What is the basis of their teaching? When we stray from scripture…we introduce “Man’s” doctrine.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned … and that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for all good works.

ps…sorry for messing up the “quote” above…my response is mixed in with your quote.

 

[heathnprotstnt]

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?

Thank you. “Heathen protestant” is a term of endearment given to me by a friend and former co-worker who is RC. It seemed an appropriate user name for an RC blog. I would think you would have thought of it as redundant, not a contradiction As you know, us HPs reject certain portions of the RC bible.

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

Not at all. It is not my belief that RC’s should become protestants at all. ALL church’s fall short, as we (all Christians) make up the body of the Church. We are a fallen people who must deal with each others shortcomings with love, mercy and grace. “Churchianity” will not matter when you stand before Christ.

 

[Publisher]

We are a fallen people who must deal with each others shortcomings with love, mercy and grace. “Churchianity” will not matter when you stand before Christ.

No where in the testimony of scripture is ANYONE ever asked by God or Christ…“Which “church” did you belong to?” The questions asked were more along the line or “I was hungry, thirsty, in prison…and you did not…”

 

[heathnprotstnt]

No where in the testimony of scripture is ANYONE ever asked by God or Christ…“Which “church” did you belong to?” The questions asked were more along the line or “I was hungry, thirsty, in prison…and you did not…”

My point exactly!

 

[guanophore]

Are you suggesting that the Church gets her authority and doctrinal basis from man and his teaching?

What would make you think that? The Church preceded the Scripture…The Church produced the Scripture. She did not come out of the Scripture. She was founded by Christ, upon the Apostles and Prophets

So you are saying the RC Church can contradict Christ's teaching as she is the "custodian" of same? The body cannot function by cutting off the Head. Nor can the body go left, when the Head says right. If the Church teaches anything contrary to the word, she errs.

Yes.

So you do not believe in the sufficiency of scripture?

Material, but not formal.

Your statement reminds me of the people interviewed when the last Pope passed. The wanted a newer, hipper Pope who was with the times…after all that scripture stuff is so old…I afraid we shall have to agree to disagree there.

Can you in any way substantiate a view that the HS would reveal something contrary to what He has already revealed?

I fully agree that Christians will interpret scripture differently. The RC Church’s own history is testament enough to that. “Protected Infallibly?” Wow

What does that mean? What is "protected infallibility?

Not at all.   It is not my belief that RC's should become protestants at all.   ALL church's fall short, as we (all Christians) make up the body of the Church.   We are a fallen people who must deal with each others shortcomings with love, mercy and grace. "Churchianity" will not matter when you stand before Christ.

This statement represents a grossly deficient view of the church. It is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[guanophore]

No where in the testimony of scripture is ANYONE ever asked by God or Christ…“Which “church” did you belong to?” The questions asked were more along the line or “I was hungry, thirsty, in prison…and you did not…”

Of course not! Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH, and all who are in Him are members of it.

 

[rainman10]

No where in the testimony of scripture is ANYONE ever asked by God or Christ…“Which “church” did you belong to?” The questions asked were more along the line or “I was hungry, thirsty, in prison…and you did not…”

This is true, because there was no need to ask this question. How many pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, JW’s, etc were there at that time? None!!! Besides, Jesus only started One Church, and that question did not need to be asked.

 

[crazzeto]

This is true, because there was no need to ask this question. How many pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, JW’s, etc were there at that time? None!!! Besides, Jesus only started One Church, and that question did not need to be asked.

Yep, basically there were members of the church and then heretics where were typically considered to be outside of the church and thus the body of Christ. This can be seen, at least hints of, in scripture and it becomes all the more clear when one reads the fathers from the very earliest days.

 

[josephback]

That is one long Creed!

I grew up Protestant and would never consider going back - there’s no way to tell which of their many “churches” is telling the truth. They all disagree with each other on SOMETHING and it’s very uncertain. Too much of a maze for me.

 

[heathnprotstnt]

What would make you think that? The Church preceded the Scripture…The Church produced the Scripture. She did not come out of the Scripture. She was founded by Christ, upon the Apostles and Prophets

I agree. We, however, no longer has the blessing of Apostles or Prophets. Scripture was HS inspired and is unchanging. Scripture speaks much about the Church, her role, structure, etc. Compare that to all denominations of which RC and Protestant alike have changed over the years.

Yes.

You sincerely hold the belief that the RC Church can contradict Christ’s teaching as the custodian of the Truth?

Below you appear to be concerned that I would suggest the HS would contradict itselft in His teaching to the Church…but it is Ok to for Man (via the RC Church) to do so…

Material, but not formal.

What do you mean by that?

Can you in any way substantiate a view that the HS would reveal something contrary to what He has already revealed?

I am not suggesting that the HS would do anything of the kind. God cannot contradict Himself or His character. What I am stating very empahtically is that MAN and the Church can misinterpret something as having been “revealed” to him. MAN and Church can misinterpret scripture.

God’s truth does not change. Yet every church, including the RC has.

What does that mean? What is "protected infallibility?

That was from you regarding the RC Church in response to my post…you tell me.

This statement represents a grossly deficient view of the church. It is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

I disagree. It reflects that truth as expressed in Romans. We are all sinners and fall short. Are you suggesting that the RC Church has not strayed from the Truth? I read on the Coming Home Network (Chris Robinson - How I Got This Way) that before the Reformation the RC Church was undisputably corrupt. The Apostles were a truly humble bunch and acknowledge their own failings quite clearly.

 

[heathnprotstnt]

Of course not! Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH, and all who are in Him are members of it.

Does that include Protestants in “defective” churches?

 

[rainman10]

misinterpret scripture.

God’s truth does not change. Yet every church, including the RC has.

I disagree. It reflects that truth as expressed in Romans. We are all sinners and fall short. Are you suggesting that the RC Church has not strayed from the Truth? I read on the Coming Home Network (Chris Robinson - How I Got This Way) that before the Reformation the RC Church was undisputably corrupt. The Apostles were a truly humble bunch and acknowledge their own failings quite clearly.

You are correct, God’s truth does not change, that is why the Catholic Church has never changed its doctrine. Disciplines have changed, yes, but doctrines, no. When you claim that the Catholic Church has changed doctrine, most likely you are repeating what you have heard/been taught by protestants or taking scripture out of context, or are referring to disciplines. Typical protestant errors.

Correction. The Church was not corrupt. Some of the leaders and members were undoubtedly corrupt, but the Church was not.

 

[rainman10]

Does that include Protestants in “defective” churches?

As separated brethren not in full communion with His One True Church? Yes.