Why would I trust any Protestant church, since the gates of hell supposedly prevailed against the church founded by God?

[joe370]

The church at Philadelphia comes quickly to mind. The correct beliefs are the teachings found in the Bible.
The proof is Revelation chapter 3. As far as the churches that Paul wrote to, that could take awhile to unpack. Some he is quite hard on and others not as much.

The church of Philadelphia was or was not a catholic church? If you say that it was not (and we both know that it was not a protestant church) - then I am not sure what else to say. There was only one catholic church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, and if you do not agree with this, again, I really am at a loss as to what to say.

You said: “The correct beliefs are the teachings found in the Bible.”

Did Jesus leave you and I (who have different beliefs regarding certain teachings) - with a way to discern truth regarding said beliefs? If so what is that way? The bible is not the answer for you and I read it and take away from it polar opposite interpretations. Please, just a real simple and straight forward answer. Thanks friend.

 

[Rightlydivide]

And the non symbolic teaching is found in scripture as is batismal regeneration many others that you deny.
Yes St.Paul was particularly hard on the ones in Corinith when it came to receiving the flesh and blood of our Lord in an incorrect manner.

People were doing things wrong at Corinth. That is why he advised them to not overeat or get drunk at what is best known as the Agape meal. He was also insistent that people partake at the same time. Years later, the Agape meal was dropped and only the bread and wine were administered contrary to the pattern described by Paul.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The church of Philadelphia was or was not a catholic church? If you say that it was not (and we both know that it was not a protestant church) - then I am not sure what else to say. There was only one catholic church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, and if you do not agree with this, again, I really am at a loss as to what to say.

You said: “The correct beliefs are the teachings found in the Bible.”

Did Jesus leave you and I (who have different beliefs regarding certain teachings) - with a way to discern truth regarding said beliefs? If so what is that way? The bible is not the answer for you and I read it and take away from it polar opposite interpretations. Please, just a real simple and straight forward answer. Thanks friend.

No. I do not think it was in the sense that they would not have had later developing doctrines. However, the teachings found in scripture certainly would have been supported in this church. So, in those areas we agree, I could say they resembled the Catholic Church in those particular areas.
I am not sure what you mean by one Catholic Church the first 1000 years. I thought we had covered this before…
Yes, He left us the Bible. It is irrelevent if people hold differing views on the Bible or event the Truth of Christianity. This in no way can reflect on Truth. Error does not negate Truth.
There is no way to get around the fact that different people have discerned different truths. That is a fact. But that they have discerned incorrectly, and that someone is right, is also evident.

 

[fbl9]

People were doing things wrong at Corinth. That is why he advised them to not overeat or get drunk at what is best known as the Agape meal. He was also insistent that people partake at the same time. Years later, the Agape meal was dropped and only the bread and wine were administered contrary to the pattern described by Paul.

No, there is no mention of an “agape meal” St.Paul himself uses the words “this bread and this cup of the Lord” no mention of agape.
How can one divide yet seem to come up with more than the sum:shrug:

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7264453]
Jon if the CC and the Lutheran church are both wrong, as many claim, then both churches, liturgically speaking, would be guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, considering the fact that it is the source and summit of our faith - right?

If they were right, which they are not.

There is once church: the church militant here on earth and the church triumphant comprised of those folks in heaven. The promise of Matthew 16 applies to the church militant only for the simple fact that it is a given that the gates cannot prevail against the church triumphant - right?

Where does Matt 16 say that He’s speaking of the Church Militant only? He speaks of one Church. You and I speak of one Church.

I’m confused for the first time regarding something you have said. If BXVI spoke ex Cathedra and said that the Eucharist is symbolic, you wouldn’t consider that as the gates prevailing upon the church? If he did that, and I wanted to continue to belong to the CC then I would have deny the real presence.

Well, Joe, it is so speculative, and so outside the realm of possibilities, but even in that extreme case, no. Actually, I would kind of expect you to stay in the Church and fight for the real presence.

Jon, it would not be temporary if it was spoken from the chair. This would never happen, but if it did, this would certainly be an example of the gates, doctrinally speaking, prevailing. But if you do not agree, that’s cool.

There is one other aspect to it, and that is His Church is not exclusively in residence with the Catholic Church, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. His Church is in Antioch, and Greece, and many other places, including, yes, even Wittenburg.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Say the one officating agrees with the pope; how does this affect the vadlity of the sacrament in question?
Is it your belief; that the belief of the one who recieves the sacrament determines what they recieve?

Actually, no. Lutherans believe that even if the priest is evil, that does not effect the validity of the sacrament. Nor does the belief of the one receiving, else the warning about receiving without discerning would be a hollow warning.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Rightlydivide…

No. I do not think it was in the sense that they would not have had later developing doctrines.

I did not suggest that.

However, the teachings found in scripture certainly would have been supported in this church.

Just as every other church believes that the teachings found in scripture certainly would have been supported in their church.

So, in those areas we agree, I could say they resembled the Catholic Church in those particular areas.

Okay…

I am not sure what you mean by one Catholic Church the first 1000 years. I thought we had covered this before…

Rd we do agree that the EOC and all of the PC’s did not exist for the first 1000 years of Christianity - right or wrong?

Yes, He left us the Bible. It is irrelevent if people hold differing views on the Bible or event the Truth of Christianity.

Well, if this is what you believe then there is really nothing more to be said regarding doctrinal truth.

This in no way can reflect on Truth. Error does not negate Truth.

Agreed. Truth is still truth. The question remains: where can I go to find said truths, and your answer is your church - right? Or is it a combination of all churches? Or is it private judgment?

There is no way to get around the fact that different people have discerned different truths. That is a fact.

Agreed.

But that they have discerned incorrectly, and that someone is right, is also evident.

Finally were back to brass tacks. Who (which church)- is that someone that is right about doctrinal truth because that is where I want to be for the simple fact that if that church is right then the holy spirit must be guiding that church into all truth? John 16:13 and John 14:16

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hey Rightlydivide…

Rd we do agree that the EOC and all of the PC’s did not exist for the first 1000 years of Christianity - right or wrong?

 

[cooterhein]

Every time you respond to my posts, you inject so much hostility and I don’t know why.

I rarely have issues with people on forums of any kind, but you consistently provide examples of it, as you well know. I do try to avoid hostility; however, if you talk to me in a way that is unacceptable, I will tell you that you can’t do it anymore. I understand that it’s impossible to convey tone perfectly on a message board, but I don’t mean to be hostile. What I mean to do is inform you (without boldface type, ALLCAPS, or crazy colors) that when these things come up, your only two options are to change the way you talk to me or stop talking. I try to do this without barking at you and in a way that is matter-of-fact. I’m sorry if it comes across as hostile. If it comes up again, I’ll see what I can do about making sure it doesn’t look hostile at all.

I consider you a brother in Christ but clearly this is not reciprocated so please don’t waste your time responding to my posts; you never address the OP anyway.

That’s not true, of course I address the OP. When I post on one of your threads, who do I ever talk to but you? And what do I ever address besides the reason you made that particular thread?

Anyway, you take care as well. I hope your discussions with non-Catholics go better in the future.

As far as that depends on what non-Catholics do, I suppose you think it will help matters if all deniers of the RP start believing you’re guilty of blasphemy. If that is the case, best of luck in helping your cause there, too.
What’s that? I’m being told that’s how God always intended for “brothers in Christ” to interact.

See? That was an example of addressing the OP. I don’t usually feel like I have to point it out, but if you want me to, I will.

Again, take care.

 

[fbl9]

Actually, no. Lutherans believe that even if the priest is evil, that does not effect the validity of the sacrament. Nor does the belief of the one receiving, else the warning about receiving without discerning would be a hollow warning.

Jon

Thanks Jon wasn’t sure of the Lutheran beleif on this tht’s why i asked:thumbsup:

 

[joe370]

Cooterhein, I always enjoy dialogging, and in the end, if people can’t see eye to eye, well, no biggie. I respect you and your right to believe whatever you want to believe. You take care too brother.

I rarely have issues with people on forums of any kind, but you consistently provide examples of it, as you well know. I do try to avoid hostility; however, if you talk to me in a way that is unacceptable, I will tell you that you can’t do it anymore. I understand that it’s impossible to convey tone perfectly on a message board, but I don’t mean to be hostile. What I mean to do is inform you (without boldface type, ALLCAPS, or crazy colors) that when these things come up, your only two options are to change the way you talk to me or stop talking. I try to do this without barking at you and in a way that is matter-of-fact. I’m sorry if it comes across as hostile. If it comes up again, I’ll see what I can do about making sure it doesn’t look hostile at all.

That’s not true, of course I address the OP. When I post on one of your threads, who do I ever talk to but you? And what do I ever address besides the reason you made that particular thread?

Anyway, you take care as well. I hope your discussions with non-Catholics go better in the future.

As far as that depends on what non-Catholics do, I suppose you think it will help matters if all deniers of the RP start believing you’re guilty of blasphemy. If that is the case, best of luck in helping your cause there, too.
What’s that? I’m being told that’s how God always intended for “brothers in Christ” to interact.

See? That was an example of addressing the OP. I don’t usually feel like I have to point it out, but if you want me to, I will.

Again, take care.

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide;7268016]

Hey Rightlydivide…

Christian churches outside of the two you listed did exist. We have covered this before Joe.

 

[ignatius777]

“Heretical” is a lighter charge than “blasphemous,” though, don’t you think?

Yes its true protestants are more heretical then blasphemous, which is why I said heretical and not blasphemous

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes, calling someone a heretic is far more complimentary and warm than blasphemer!

Yes its true protestants are more heretical then blasphemous, which is why I said heretical and not blasphemous

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide;7268016]

My view of the first two centuries does not differ in substance from anything that you could read in any history book. There were several competing forms of Christianity in the first few centuries. I do not mean to suggest that all of them were saved, to us the terminology scripture uses and we use as well, however I recognize that much of the information we get from this era are from groups that are opposed to them. In other words, its difficult to get an accurate portrayal of someone’s beliefs from someone opposed to them. Take for example a group that existed later called the Paulicians. For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church and their historians defined them. Only when a document from the Paulicians themselves was uncovered and able to be examined by scholars did we learn that much of what we thought we knew (ie what the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 says), is in fact inaccurate. I can only assume the same for other groups.

You are right and I am wrong.

The schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and the rest of the CC occurred in the 5th century, which meant that there were 2 churches prior to the east west Were there any other schism prior to the 5th century, or was there just one church?
There was not one church. Not at all. Take for example the Montanists. While there is a great deal of misinformation on the internet, they were baptized using a Trinitarian formula etc. Now, the internet is not interested in providing objective information but we digress…
Go to any university, find their online library in which you can access scholarly journals like a dissertation database like ProQuest or access a journal research portal…type in Montanists or some of the other groups from the first 500 years.

Via my private judgment - correct or incorrect?

You will ultimately, everyone does, use your private judgement to ascertain whether or not you accept the teachings of the Bible, but that is not the method that we learn from the Bible to instruct others in the faith. Many other posts have cited relevent passages…No need to repeat them…or I can I suppose…

[/QUOTE]

 

[joe370]

Hey RightlyDivide…

My view of the first two centuries does not differ in substance from anything that you could read in any history book. There were several competing forms of Christianity in the first few centuries. I do not mean to suggest that all of them were saved, to us the terminology scripture uses and we use as well, however I recognize that much of the information we get from this era are from groups that are opposed to them. In other words, its difficult to get an accurate portrayal of someone’s beliefs from someone opposed to them. Take for example a group that existed later called the Paulicians. For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church and their historians defined them. Only when a document from the Paulicians themselves was uncovered and able to be examined by scholars did we learn that much of what we thought we knew (ie what the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 says), is in fact inaccurate. I can only assume the same for other groups.

This off subject but oh well. The CC was not inaccurate.

The Paulicians believed there were two principles, two kingdoms. The evil Spirit, who was the author of, and lord of, the present visible world and the good Spirit, of the future world. Of their views about the creation of man, we are left with the ambiguous words which seem to teach that Adam’s sin of disobedience was a blessing in disguise, and that a greater sin than his is the sin against the Church. The Paulicians accepted the four Gospels; fourteen Epistles of Paul; the three Epistles of John; the epistles of James and Jude; and an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which they professed to have, which means that they had a different bible then yours: 4 books out of 27 are missing and one that is not found in the your bible was found in there bible, and they rejected the Old Testament, as well as the Catholic-Marian title Theotokos (“Mother of God”). Also, reverence for the Cross they looked upon as heathenish. They also rejected the administration of the sacraments of the Lord’s supper and baptism.

You call that accurate?

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide, you said:

There was not one church.

I respectfully disagree, but you believe what ever you want to believe. Mutual respect should always be employed. Jesus said: I will build my church, (singular). All the other churches are break away churches, and if you are right then the CC is also a break away church, which again, begs the question: where is the visible church of Matthew 16?

Not at all. Take for example the Montanists. While there is a great deal of misinformation on the internet, they were baptized using a Trinitarian formula etc. Now, the internet is not interested in providing objective information but we digress…Go to any university, find their online library in which you can access scholarly journals like a dissertation database like ProQuest or access a journal research portal…type in Montanists or some of the other groups from the first 500 years.

Montanism was an early Christian movement of the early 2nd century, named after its founder Montanus. I want to belong to the church founded by Christ circa AD 33. Montanism is a break away movement. Jesus did not establish that Montanist movement in the 2nd century. This is what I will find if I took the time to find an on line university:

The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.

The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying,contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in orthodox Christianity at the time and since.

The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, also in contrast to the orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner’s restoration to the church.

They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage, (and I am not talking about the priesthood) - and even the dissolution of some marriages, in particular, their prophetesses abandoned their husbands.

You will ultimately, everyone does, use your private judgement to ascertain whether or not you accept the teachings of the Bible, but that is not the method that we learn from the Bible to instruct others in the faith.

Exactly. So, if not private judgment then what? Each respective church is the only logical conclusion to draw but many SS advocates won’t admit that, and all of these churches are break away churches from the CC or break away churches from other Protestant Churches. All I see are man-made churches, including the Catholic Church, if you are right, unless of course you believe that the CC was the church of Matthew 16 but eventually derailed. I can’t remember. Either way, the church of Matthew 16 foundede by God is gone forever if you are right.

Many other posts have cited relevent passages…No need to repeat them…or I can I suppose…

There is no need to repeat them for the simple fact that there is no universal consensus among SS advocates, regarding Sola scriptura.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

For 1500 years the Catholic Church, founded by God (long before, even one Protestant Church existed) - according to most Protestant/Evangelical Church leadership, has been guilty of blasphemy regarding the Eucharist.

I’m not Catholic and I don’t think this. Who are these people? Jimmy Swaggert?

If they are right then the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ church, again, long before any Protestant Church ever existed.

As some others have noted, I take the “gates of hell” to be referring to an eschatological result.

 

[joe370]

[Dave Noonan;7277780]I’m not Catholic and I don’t think this. Who are these people? Jimmy Swaggert?

I was not speaking of any specific person. Said people are right if the bread is nothing but bread. Catholics view the Eucharist as the source and summit of their faith, and if it does not become Jesus’ body and blood upon the words of consecration, then liturgically speaking they are guilty of Eucharistic idolatry, in my opinion, but of course I believe that Jesus’ blood is real drink and that Jesus’ flesh is real food.

As some others have noted, I take the “gates of hell” to be referring to an eschatological result.

True but I believe that the gates of hell will prevail if doctrinal truth is undermined. The CC, structurally speaking, might look great but if they started teaching that the Eucharistic bread is nothing more than mere bread, as opposed to Jesus’ body, then gates of hell would have prevailed, but this will never happen.

If you disagree with me then, to whom can you and I defer for the truth? Jesus is not here to settle the matter and the bible does not seem to settle the matter either.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Hey RightlyDivide…

This off subject but oh well. The CC was not inaccurate.

The Paulicians believed there were two principles, two kingdoms. The evil Spirit, who was the author of, and lord of, the present visible world and the good Spirit, of the future world. Of their views about the creation of man, we are left with the ambiguous words which seem to teach that Adam’s sin of disobedience was a blessing in disguise, and that a greater sin than his is the sin against the Church. The Paulicians accepted the four Gospels; fourteen Epistles of Paul; the three Epistles of John; the epistles of James and Jude; and an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which they professed to have, which means that they had a different bible then yours: 4 books out of 27 are missing and one that is not found in the your bible was found in there bible, and they rejected the Old Testament, as well as the Catholic-Marian title Theotokos (“Mother of God”). Also, reverence for the Cross they looked upon as heathenish. They also rejected the administration of the sacraments of the Lord’s supper and baptism.

You call that accurate?

Joe
There is a lot of recent research on the Paulicians involving documents they actually wrote, not what their critics said. Documents not available in 1894…which is the year of your source
://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/h_paul.php