Why do you think God allowed Protestantism?

[ron77nyc]

God allowed Protestantism in the same breath he allowed Lucifer and his minions rebel agaist God. He allowed Protestantism in the same way he allowed the existence of evil.

You seem to have some anger in your comment. We should remember that the first Christians were the Protestants of their day.

**Acts 5:38 **“So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Name one or two reasons you think God allowed Protestantism.

I think one reason might be that Catholicism is so… difficult, that maybe God wanted there to be an “easier, softer” way that would lead people to Christ (and He knew that many would then be led to the RC Church)?? Just a thought.

Also, i think that Protestants generally focus on different things than Catholics do, different “aspects” of God, things that are nonetheless very important… like, well… i just think that sometimes they are more… friendly… & i feel they may trust in God’s mercy more than a lot of Catholics…

It’s interesting that you post this on the noncatholic side of the forum, yet you appear to be addressing Catholics. Well I’m not Catholic, but I would like to put in my 2 cents worth.
First you ask, why God “allowed Protestantism”. I think that He not only allowed it but He was the motivating force behind it. I think the heresy of the Catholic church had been allowed to persecute God’s true church (which by the way is not the Catholic church) long
enough and God lifted up the reformers at just the right time in history to answer this heresy. By the way I view the reformation as a work in progress.

Second, there is nothing difficult about the true religion of Jesus. All it takes is an abiding faith in what He did on Calvary’s Cross. That the payment has been made. The debt paid in full. All that is required of us is to accept that gift. We (and by we I mean everybody) can come to God personally with a repentant heart to receive forgiveness. We don’t need to go through some earthly church beaurocracy.

Third, I beleive you are right, especially about receiving God’s mercy. We don’t need to confess our sins to another sinner in a little box. God’s grace is not dispenced by priests, saints or institutions. It is freely given by God.

 

[Worthy5]

It’s interesting that you post this on the noncatholic side of the forum, yet you appear to be addressing Catholics. Well I’m not Catholic, but I would like to put in my 2 cents worth.
First you ask, why God “allowed Protestantism”. I think that He not only allowed it but He was the motivating force behind it. I think the heresy of the Catholic church had been allowed to persecute God’s true church (which by the way is not the Catholic church) long
enough and God lifted up the reformers at just the right time in history to answer this heresy. By the way I view the reformation as a work in progress.

Second, there is nothing difficult about the true religion of Jesus. All it takes is an abiding faith in what He did on Calvary’s Cross. That the payment has been made. The debt paid in full. All that is required of us is to accept that gift. We (and by we I mean everybody) can come to God personally with a repentant heart to receive forgiveness. We don’t need to go through some earthly church beaurocracy.

Third, I beleive you are right, especially about receiving God’s mercy. We don’t need to confess our sins to another sinner in a little box. God’s grace is not dispenced by priests, saints or institutions. It is freely given by God.

My friend, I see you are a Protestant and no doubt read the Bible and believe in it. Here is my questions to you. All language is subject to multiple interpretations and contexts. And then there is that nasty translation problem with the Bible. Are you reading the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew? If so, why not? If not, how can you even make the attempt to discern revelation at all?

Do you believe in divine revelation? If you do, then how can you say you know anything about it because of the problem of the indeterminancy of language. How can divine revelation be known from indeterminate written language? Further, The Bible cannot justify itself-how do you know the Bible is what it says it is-divine revelation? Where does it state in the Bible that you (your personal name inserted here) have any authority to interpret the Bible at all or to say the Bible is what is proclaims to be? In general, what are the justifications for your asserted claims? Just curious Thanks

 

[jmcrae]

jmmccrae: That sounds like a hassle, just to confess your sins, and to a mere mortal man! I can go to the Father(God) through Jesus, the Son and no waiting! I knew there was a reason I didn’t like the idea of confessing to a priest!

You can, yes. But without any accountability, do you? I used to be a Protestant, too, and I used to fancy that I was “confessing” my sins to God “directly” by going into my room and saying to God, “Please forgive me of all my sins.”

It was very rare for me to do even that, but even more rare for me to make an Examination of Conscience and actually confess each and every sin individually. Nor did I pray about remedies, or ask God what I could do to fix the problems that I had created. (I think I thought that that was His job.)

Going to Confession has really forced me to be a lot more specific about my sins, and a lot more accountable for repairing the damage I’ve done, and for breaking my bad habits and avoiding sin in the future. Believe me, I’m a much nicer person, now that I’m Catholic, than I was before. (I can’t say whether I am any holier, but I am certainly a lot easier for other people to be around.)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

My friend, I see you are a Protestant and no doubt read the Bible and believe in it. Here is my questions to you. All language is subject to multiple interpretations and contexts. And then there is that nasty translation problem with the Bible. Are you reading the Bible in the original Greek and Hebrew? If so, why not? If not, how can you even make the attempt to discern revelation at all?

Do you believe in divine revelation? If you do, then how can you say you know anything about it because of the problem of the indeterminancy of language. How can divine revelation be known from indeterminate written language? Further, The Bible cannot justify itself-how do you know the Bible is what it says it is-divine revelation? Where does it state in the Bible that you (your personal name inserted here) have any authority to interpret the Bible at all or to say the Bible is what is proclaims to be? In general, what are the justifications for your asserted claims? Just curious Thanks

So you are saying that we are unable to not only not communicate with each other, but that God is not able to communicate with His creatures because of as you call it the “indeterminancy of language” a language that God Himself has given to us. The bible doesn’t need to “justify itself”. It is the word of God and I know this because of faith. Also there is Isaiah 8:20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. And 1Timothy3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now you don’t have to beleive these verses, but if you can’t I feel sorry for you and I will pray that the Spirit of the one true God will open your heart to the faith that is necessary to please Him.

 

[Erchomai_Kyrios]

Why did God allow over half the world to be in poverty, for people to be starving, getting diseases, dying in childhood, and why did God allow Natural Disasters that kill thousands of people.

Mankind chose it’s own poverty for true riches are found in God alone.
Pointing the finger at God & not taking responsibility is what mankind has been doing for millennia? Mankind chose it’s own poverty when they chose to go their own way instead of God’s way, commiting spiritual suicide. God’s warning

Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Man’s disobedience
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Gen 3:12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
So Adam blamed both God and his wife
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
And then in turn the woman blamed the devil, Did God not equip her with the ability to overcome deception? She was making excuses for herself for it was she who gave into covetness according to her own free will, complaining about being allowed to be deceived. The endowment of free will was a blessing from God
Gen 3:2-6 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ " Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

God does not desire death for us. Quite contrary to this, He desires abundant life for us and exhorts us to choose life!

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live;

As for violent crimes God also warned Cain about sin before he, being filled with a graver covetness than his mom’s, rose up and slew his brother Abel.

Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

So it is man in his corrupt nature which we have inherited from our first parents that chooses sin over the goodness of God. What about natural disasters? If we look at them from the aspect of geology or the natural generation of plant life, earthquakes, tsunami’s & forest fires are part of the natural makeup of the earth. Talk to a geologist & they will tell you they are necessary. If we didn’t have volcanic activity and the shifting of plates the inner core of the earth would be dead and with it we would be also. If, however, we were truly connected to God wouldn’t we be natural caretakers of the earth & knowledgeable about how to live within the parameters of the earth? There are many times in the Bible that God warned people to flee or to move to different lands. Within the will of God is life outside of it is only corruption and death. How do the birds of the air sense danger and flee. This sense is innate. Yet man seems to be ignorant of dangers. Are we less important than the birds of the air in God’s sight? I think not for Jesus taught us:

Mat 6:26 Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

But you may ask if mankind be the pinnacle of God’s creation qhy does He allow us, though through our own devices to die? Did not He make a way through His Son to be reconciled to Himself? God didn’t wink at sin & corruption He judged it. But for love & mercy He allowed all judgment to fall upon the Son, Christ Jesus.

Eph 2:13-18 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, [that is], the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man [from] the two, [thus] making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.

It is up to each of us to believe God or stay in unbelief. The choice is still yours. God has not taken that away. If we choose to follow Him we can only do so by embracing His cross.

Phl 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, [and] coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to [the point of] death, even the death of the cross.

In Christ, Erchomai Kyrios.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

So you are saying that we are unable to not only not communicate with each other, but that God is not able to communicate with His creatures because of as you call it the “indeterminancy of language” a language that God Himself has given to us. The bible doesn’t need to “justify itself”. It is the word of God and I know this because of faith. Also there is Isaiah 8:20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. And 1Timothy3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now you don’t have to beleive these verses, but if you can’t I feel sorry for you and I will pray that the Spirit of the one true God will open your heart to the faith that is necessary to please Him.

No-one is arguing that God can’t communicate with us. But Christ Himself gave certain instructions in the Scriptures which Protestants plainly ignore. When Christ appointed Peter the Rock, he was setting up an office eg. “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Protestants plainly overlook that. Protestants plainly overlook the Petrine supremacy also, which is very clearly pronounced in Scripture.

Likewise, “If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part in me.” There’s a bit more to that than mere symbolism, for even the disciples asked, “How is He going to give us his flesh and blood to eat?” When Christ spoke to John at the cross, and said, “Behold, your mother”, He was appointing Mary as spiritual mother to all of us, using John as one of the disciples. Likewise when He said the same thing to Mary, “This is your son.”

But Protestants skirt around these issues, and only talk about the ones that favour their particular viewpoint, particularly the Pauline quote about faith “alone” (which word in fact was inserted by Luther, and playing around with Scripture is a sin). They’ve taken one quote and built their whole movement on it. Scripture is meant to be taken as a whole.

I used to be Protestant, and to quote my old Protestant pastor, “When it comes to theology, Protestants couldn’t agree how far to spit”.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No-one is arguing that God can’t communicate with us. But Christ Himself gave certain instructions in the Scriptures which Protestants plainly ignore. When Christ appointed Peter the Rock, he was setting up an office eg. “What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Protestants plainly overlook that. Protestants plainly overlook the Petrine supremacy also, which is very clearly pronounced in Scripture.

Well, actually Worthy5 was arguing just that with his “indeterminancy of language” premise. Well, I can’t speak for all Protestants as you seem to be able to, but as for me I’m not ignoring anything. I just disagree with you or should I say with your church on who Jesus is talking about. Christ wasn’t setting His church up on Peter. He was setting it up on Himself THE ROCK OF AGES. This is affirmed over and over again in the bible.
Psalm18:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
Psalm18:31
For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?
Psalm18:46
The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the God of my salvation be exalted.
Psalm28:1
Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock; be not silent to me: lest, if thou be silent to me, I become like them that go down into the pit.
Psalm31:1-3
1In thee, O LORD, do I put my trust; let me never be ashamed: deliver me in thy righteousness.
2Bow down thine ear to me; deliver me speedily: be thou my strong rock, for an house of defence to save me.
3For thou art my rock and my fortress; therefore for thy name’s sake lead me, and guide me.
Palm42:9
I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?
I could go on and on but you get the point.

Peter himself tells us who Jesus is talking about in 1Peter2: 4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

And in Acts4:8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
9If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
10Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Likewise, “If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no part in me.” There’s a bit more to that than mere symbolism, for even the disciples asked, “How is He going to give us his flesh and blood to eat?”

I’m not quite sure what you mean here by “mere symbolism”. Are you saying whenever Christ talked in symbolic terms it was insignificant? Consider Matt13: 10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

The King James is a little different for John6:53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. John 1:14 tells us what He is talking about 14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Jesus Himself says the same thing in v. 63b the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. This is also affimed by Peter in v. 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. continued

 

[Richard_Kastner]

When Christ spoke to John at the cross, and said, “Behold, your mother”, He was appointing Mary as spiritual mother to all of us, using John as one of the disciples. Likewise when He said the same thing to Mary, “This is your son.”

Again we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I can’t for the life of me figure out how you get this interpretation from Jesus telling John to take care of His mother. He knew that she would have noone to take care of her and a woman alone at that time was extremely vulnerable. To say that He was exalting her to some position as the spiritual mother of mankind is nonsense.

But Protestants skirt around these issues, and only talk about the ones that favour their particular viewpoint, particularly the Pauline quote about faith “alone” (which word in fact was inserted by Luther, and playing around with Scripture is a sin). They’ve taken one quote and built their whole movement on it. Scripture is meant to be taken as a whole.

What v. would you be talking about, maybe Rom3:27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
or possibly Rom4: 1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
or maybe
Galatians 2:16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
could it be
Galatians 3:2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
maybe
Galatians3:22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
how about
Galatians5: 5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
maybe it’s
Ephesians2:8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ther are many more.Where they all added by Luther? If we can’t trust one v. in the bible we can’t trust any of it. I beleive 2Tim3;16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: and John17;17 Sanctify them through the truth; thy word is truth.
I’m thinking the one playing around with scripture is you Bob.

I used to be Protestant, and to quote my old Protestant pastor, “When it comes to theology, Protestants couldn’t agree how far to spit”.

What does theology have to do with how far you can spit?

 

[w_stewart]

You seem to have some anger in your comment.

I am sorry if my statement was so strong that led you to think there was anger on it. The truth is there was none.

We should remember that the first Christians were the Protestants of their day.

**Acts 5:38 **“So in the present case, I say to you, stay away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown; 39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them; or else you may even be found fighting against God.”
40 They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.

It is my understanding that the threadstarter used the word “Protestant” to refer to the people who rebelled against the society founded by Christ. By that definition, the apostles or even the first Christians could never be qualified as people rebelling against the Church.

 

[ron77nyc]

I am sorry if my statement was so strong that led you to think there was anger on it. The truth is there was none.

It is my understanding that the threadstarter used the word “Protestant” to refer to the people who rebelled against the society founded by Christ. By that definition, the apostles or even the first Christians could never be qualified as people rebelling against the Church.

God had established an everlasting covenant with the Jews and these apostles were telling them there was a new covenant. Jesus was claiming to have the power to forgive sins; making Himself equal to God. Paul was so convinced of their error that he dedicated his life to eliminating all of them.

 

[1beleevr]

I have to agree with Richard Kastner on the issue of what Jesus told John from the Cross, in regards to Mary. And not just because he is a fellow non-catholic, but because the wording in your post was vague, as to what Jesus meant by saying,“Here is your mother,”. I read this(John19:27), and hear compassion from Jesus, and it appears, that because John is the"disciple that Jesus loved", Christ is entrusting her care to John:thumbsupon’t underestimate we non-catholics; we do not simply discount Mary’s contribution to the entire plan of salvation, and her worth to God> We just don’t place her in as high of a position of importance as the catholic church does

 

[Derek_24ca]

By that logic, only the desperately ill should become doctors, only the insane should become psychiatrists, and only divorced people should do family law.

Priests know about marriage because they know a lot of people who are married (including their own parents), and because they make a study of the subject when they are at school, studying for the priesthood.

I am a married person, but I’m pretty sure that not all marriages are exactly like mine, and I’m very sure that there are people out there experiencing problems that I will never have.

You are talking about two different things here. Apbriest studies the bible, doctrine and quote scripture. I am sure a priest didn’t study relationships most of his time. A doctor spent many hours in the books, labs, studying medicine and diseases, and interacts with the sick trying to cure them. You don’t need to be desperately ill to become a doctor, but relationship between spouses is different, a priest do not have that experience to councel couples, and it is not their full time training.

 

[Worthy5]

You are talking about two different things here. Apbriest studies the bible, doctrine and quote scripture. I am sure a priest didn’t study relationships most of his time. A doctor spent many hours in the books, labs, studying medicine and diseases, and interacts with the sick trying to cure them. You don’t need to be desperately ill to become a doctor, but relationship between spouses is different, a priest do not have that experience to councel couples, and it is not their full time training.

Derick you might want to take a look at how the Church defines the marital relationship. The Church defines the nature of a man and a women’s relationship in marriage as a sacramental reality, not just an egotistical self indulgent experience like a civil contract-ie I do this only if you do that and if not I am gone.

Marriage at its core is about the complete self-donation of one person to another with both giving themselves together to Christ. The self-donation to each other mirrors the self-donation of Chirst to His people and His people to Him. A priest, being well versed in sacramental theology, can certainly talk about this to a married couple.

Further, a priest does have a real experience of total self-donation because he himself is married-to the Church. He gives his complete life to the Church and stays with the Church in good times and bad times and accepts the Church despite some of its human member shortcomings. Priestly celebacy not only works economically and practically for the Church given its mission of education and charity in this world, but to live a celebate life for the benefit of the Church and Her mission shows the priest’s love for God.

You see if you look hard enough you really can see the rationale behind the teachings of the Church. Whether you decide to follow them in the life you have chosen is, of course, up to you-it is a free country.

 

[jargon631]

God allowed Protestantism in the same breath he allowed Lucifer and his minions rebel agaist God. He allowed Protestantism in the same way he allowed the existence of evil.

are you equating protestantism with the existence of evil?..WOW…fd…

 

[jargon631]

It is my understanding that the threadstarter used the word “Protestant” to refer to the people who rebelled against the society founded by Christ.

they didnt “rebel against the society founded by christ”…they were sickened by, and rebelled against the gross corruption of the rc…you know…indulgences, simony and such……frederick

 

[Worthy5]

It is my understanding that the threadstarter used the word “Protestant” to refer to the people who rebelled against the society founded by Christ.

they didnt “rebel against the society founded by christ”…they were sickened by, and rebelled against the gross corruption of the rc…you know…indulgences, simony and such……frederick

Be careful about the history, there were contemporaries at the time that were critics of the Church but saw Lutheranism (Luther was an ex Catholic monk) as a movement motivated by two objects “money and women.” (see Erasmus)

 

[SteveGC]

God had established an everlasting covenant with the Jews and these apostles were telling them there was a new covenant. Jesus was claiming to have the power to forgive sins; making Himself equal to God. Paul was so convinced of their error that he dedicated his life to eliminating all of them.

And as Paul was eventually corrected for his benefit and the benefit of all of us, so too we pray that Protestantism is corrected for the benefit of those who protest and indeed, for all of us.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

W_Stewert, you have not the right to say that the Protestants are evil that is a miss quote or statement. there are alot of Protestants that are very loving and giving and they are Christains also. We are not here to condem or pass judgement. you are Loved Nancy

 

[jargon631]

But no - the Bible writers didn’t know that there were going to be Lutherans and Presbyterians, etc., so they didn’t write “follow the Catholic Church.” They did say, don’t follow anyone who comes up with a different Gospel, though.

they also said things like “dont harm children” and “thou shalt not kill”…so has the past behavior of the rc eliminated it from the “only church status”?..if not, why ?..it would be right in line with the logic that you have put forth…fd…