when you call yourself a PROTESTANT, are you even aware of what you are protesting ?

[Norah63]

As to the op, one would think it would be authority.
Just my guess. Next question.

 

[abysmul]

pretty straightforward question


what are Protestants NOT in agreement with ?

I call myself a Christian, so you'll have to ask a Protestant.

 

[bottomofsandal]

As to the op, one would think it would be authority.

agree, papal authority is not recognized by all

a RC can be a Christian, but not all Christians are RC

so what were (are) Protestants in opposition to other than Rome ?



preisthood

means of salvation

definition of grace

how sins are forgiven

communion

 

[classicalhero]

Basically it is used of someone who isn't a Catholic of Greek Orthodox Christian.

As for Baptists, they didn't break away from the Amglicans because they have been around for a long time. The term Anabaptist was used a long time for those who weren't part of Rome an eventually it became shortened to Baptist, even though some groups consider them to be Anabaptist. The term simply means re-baptiser and was oten use derogatorily against those who did not follow Rome's lead.

 

[FreedByte]

Basically it is used of someone who isn't a Catholic of Greek Orthodox Christian.

What about Russian Orthodox? Serbian Orthodox? Oriental Orthodox (coptic, ethiopian, etc)?

As for Baptists, they didn't break away from the Amglicans because they have been around for a long time. The term Anabaptist was used a long time for those who weren't part of Rome an eventually it became shortened to Baptist, even though some groups consider them to be Anabaptist.

Anabaptists were a different group that came from the swiss brethren; the baptists came out of the english reformation.

The term simply means re-baptiser and was oten use derogatorily against those who did not follow Rome's lead.

Presbyterians don't follow Rome's lead, yet they are not called anabaptists.

 

[JesusFo11ower]

I'm definitely a protestant. I believe the catholic church is a lot of what paul was talking about when it came to evil, idolatrous churches in his writings namely the galatians.

 

[BryanW92]

I call myself a Christian, so you'll have to ask a Protestant.

That's an important concept that people who aren't educated in church history need to be taught. Protestants are NOT protesting against ANYTHING that God gave us. Protestants stand in protest to the man-made idea that the church in Rome is the "one true church". We protest against Roman Catholicism, not against the Cross. We protest against the arrogant claim that the church in Rome is "catholic" which means "universal".

Even when Rome talks about unity and ecumenism, they start out by listing our areas of agreement and then start telling us that we can keep those beliefs, but that we need to scrap the rest so we can rejoin the "one true church".

 

[OldStudent]

God gives us the church we need for the age. As the world slips into a new kind of dark age, we might need a new centralized church again. But we aren't there yet. Even in Revelation, we read the letters to the seven churches. Each has a distinctive personality. If there was supposed to be a single church, then there would have only been one letter.

I would like to suggest looking at the 7 churches of Rev 2&3 in a different light. Those 7 churches are not to be likened to 7 denominations. As you noted they had different personalities. They each deserved different guidance as did several churches Paul addressed. Doubtless they had somewhat different traditions in their form of worship. The epistle writers endeavored to establish sound and consistent doctrine rightly implemented. In 1 Corinthians 3 we see that Paul quickly got up in arms about anything smacking of denominationalism.

 

[FreedByte]

In 1 Corinthians 3 we see that Paul quickly got up in arms about anything smacking of denominationalism.

Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church not a denomination?

 

[OldStudent]

For starters:
When God established a priesthood it was married priesthood. They were to be able to bear children. The high priest could not be remarried. When Jesus died as our "Lamb that takes away the sin of the world," He rose and became our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews). The earthy priesthood was closed. Hence we protest several aspects of post Jesus priesthood.

A false Sabbath not authorized by Jesus.

Indulgences, penance, purgatory, "meritorious works"

Adoration of Mary and "saints"

Other intercessors than Jesus.

Requiring an authorized magesterium to provide us an approved set of doctrine which we must accept even if divergent from Scripture.

 

[FreedByte]

For starters:
When God established a priesthood it was married priesthood. They were to be able to bear children. The high priest could not be remarried. When Jesus died as our "Lamb that takes away the sin of the world," He rose and became our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews). The earthy priesthood was closed. Hence we protest several aspects of post Jesus priesthood.

A false Sabbath not authorized by Jesus.

Indulgences, penance, purgatory, "meritorious works"

Adoration of Mary and "saints"

Other intercessors than Jesus.

Requiring an authorized magesterium to provide us an approved set of doctrine which we must accept even if divergent from Scripture.

You didn't answer the question

 

[BryanW92]

The epistle writers endeavored to establish sound and consistent doctrine rightly implemented. .

Yes, they did. The Roman Church is not the church that Jesus created in "sound and consistent doctrine rightly implemented". The Reformation broke Christ out of Rome and gave him back to the people. True, some denominations and individual churches are as bad as Rome, but we are much better off than we would be as a world full of Roman Catholics (in a world where the RCC has no competition).

 

[miamited]

Hi BOS,

Well, I too, am a member of a baptist fellowship and don't consider that line of organization to be a part of what was initially intended as the 'protestant' fellowships. Therefore, you can take my answers for what they are worth.

I do protest against what the catholic organization teaches as the truth of God. Several have been listed and so this list will probably be repetitive in some of what is included here.

Indulgences: It is my understanding that from my own studies of the Scriptures that there is no such things as a plenary or temporal forgiveness of sin through any means other than simple faith in Christ, and with that, the asking of forgiveness from the One to whom we have sinned...God.

Transubstantiation: It is my understanding that the purpose of the communion is to be a time of remembrance and the bread and cup are merely instruments through which we are drawn to remember that our Lord gave up his flesh and his blood for me.

Veneration of Mary: It is my understanding that Mary was a woman, a sinner just like the rest of us, who was blessed to be chosen of God to be the vessel through whom His Son would be brought forth to the earth. Just as God chose Daniel and the many other prophets to do their part in completing His great work.

Infant baptism: No one can make another born again. Just as Jesus said, baptism must be coupled with belief. Any baptism where the one being baptized does not have a cognitive understanding of who Jesus is, in my understanding, is not a valid baptism.

Prayers for the dead: The dead are dead. Their final disposition on the day of God's judgment has been set. Just as with baptism, where the person being baptized must themselves have a knowledge of the Lord and willingness to believe, so to, must prayers for ones salvation come from the individual seeking God's salvation. I can pray and pray and pray that a loved one of mine might come to know the truth and find God's salvation, but ultimately the person being prayed for must accept that truth and seek after God's salvation for themselves.

Celibacy of the priesthood: While Paul said that it is good for a man, if he can, to not be married, the responsibility of one's being married is up to the individual person. Further, there is no indication in the Scriptures that any teacher need be unmarried. In fact, Paul makes it clear that they can, but that they must be pure in their marriage. He even gives an example that a man with a failed marriage or family won't be able to be head of any fellowship by telling us that if such a man can't control his own family, he certainly won't be able to control any part of God's.

Special dress of the heads of the fellowship: I'm absolutely confident that Paul, Peter, et.al., didn't put on some fancy outfit to stand before the body of God's people to teach them. There is absolutely no Scriptural justification that special clothes make anyone special to God under the new covenant. Paul didn't wear the priestly garb of the old covenant temple to preach or lead the early church. Neither did anyone else.

Purgatory: There is no condemnation or 'working off' of earthly sins for those who die as born again believers in the Lord, Jesus.

Annulment of marriage: I'm not even going to get into all the evil and wickedness that this single doctrine manifests.

These are just a few of the several dozen 'catholic church' doctrines that I protest of the catholic organization. All I can say is that I do know that one day, we will all know the truth. We will know who are those who have been deceived and who are those who have made themselves worthy to receive God's great gift of eternal life.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[adara likes sapphire]

protestent beacuse we no longer tolerate idolatry in catholism

i have one question why do we call catholics christians, christians and catloics do not believe the same at all

 

[pyramid33]

I think all Christian's like Christ. Christian's can be from any country, anyplace, any race, gender. I don't think it is about who attend's for the ceremony's or service's, instead, the one that is genuinely a lover of God, in the heart. A love for God, whether having heard of God or not. One that is wholeheartedly given to love, at any cost.

 

[OldStudent]

Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church not a denomination?

Yes.

Especially since the reformation the Christian church has been fractured.

As I see it, "the non-denominational" movement is a whole set fractures in its own right being a set of essentially autonomous groups. The unifying factor is that they don't have a general hierarchy as in Baptist, Nazarene, RCC. Each one being right is its own eyes.

I must also leave room for the possibility that the Spirit can engender considerable unity among desparate groups as in the scattered 1st century church. Now that I think of it I have to open a channel of observation watching for that possibility. Some may be acheiving that.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t question the faith of anyone seeking to honor Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Paul detested the idea of some following this one and others following that one. Despite Paul there is nothing we can do about it now. We are left to seek God’s leading to the fellowship that best serves His desires in and through us.

 

[FreedByte]

Yes.

Especially since the reformation the Christian church has been fractured.

As I see it, "the non-denominational" movement is a whole set fractures in its own right being a set of essentially autonomous groups. The unifying factor is that they don't have a general hierarchy as in Baptist, Nazarene, RCC. Each one being right is its own eyes.

I must also leave room for the possibility that the Spirit can engender considerable unity among desparate groups as in the scattered 1st century church. Now that I think of it I have to open a channel of observation watching for that possibility. Some may be acheiving that.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t question the faith of anyone seeking to honor Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Paul detested the idea of some following this one and others following that one. Despite Paul there is nothing we can do about it now. We are left to seek God’s leading to the fellowship that best serves His desires in and through us.

So what historical evidence is there that there was no hierarchy in the early church? And if this hypothesis is true, then what is your hypothesis as to when the church's hierarchy originated? What evidence can you use to support that hypothesis?

 

[OldStudent]

You didn't answer the question

Please refine your question then.

I listed some points of protest with the tradition of Rome as did folks in other posts. Reading the 95 theses of Luther might be a next good stop. Many Christians have never heard why they come under the label of "Protestant." Many Catholics are unaware that there might have been reason for the "Rebellion."

 

[OldStudent]

So what historical evidence is there that there was no hierarchy in the early church? And if this hypothesis is true, then what is your hypothesis as to when the church's hierarchy originated? What evidence can you use to support that hypothesis?

Yes. I hear you.

Perhaps the better observation is that variations, contrasts, even oppositions in important doctrines were not codified into distinctive "denominational" orders as seen in the likes of RCC, Baptists, JWs (add SDAs to really mix things up). Indeed, much of the letter writing was clarifying, correcting, unifying. In a sense the early church may appear to resemble the "non-denominational" movement of today. But there were "overseers" that provided links and accountability among them. It would be interesting to try to compare the level of general doctrinal similarity of the churches of the early years with the level of general doctrinal similarity of independant churches of today. What accountability and unifying links exist within the non-denominational movement? If such links were to form what then would happen with the "non-denominational" status?