If Protestantism is true, why they are not united? (2)

[Gxg (G²)]

Good for me anyway. Lessons in humility are valuable. Even if not generally enjoyable.

So true

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by sculleywr

why reform when you can return? Reform assumes it was lost, that the gates of hell prevailed over the Church.
​

Originally Posted by Rick Otto

Why return to what the gates of hell prevailed over when all that's needed is reform?
​

As long as the Pope has the "keys", the RCC is safe

Mat 16:
18 'And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly,
and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
19 "I shall be giving to thee the Keys of the kingdom of the heavens.
.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7465159
Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

.

Peter was not a pope and the pope is not an apostle...
Peter pactised Judaism untill he died as did the other apostles in the sect of the way

I agree. However, Catholicism teaches that Peter was the first Pope.
But that is a topic for another thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7482717-5/#post55230984
If not Peter, who was the first RC Pope?
.

Might want to make sure he is not locking you inside

I doubt he could do that to me, I am in Texas and he is in Italy....or is he?


.

 

[Rick Otto]

yeah, and is never seen or heard from, and left no mark on history. It was such a colossal failure at the great commission that nobody ever heard of them. And now that "outside the camp" has taken over the camp in the US. I realize that it is easier to believe that a giant conspiracy hid the existence of the true church. But it is academically bankrupt.

No one can see or hear what they don't know it looks like and sounds like. What mark was it supposed to leave on history? I thought God marked history. History is a story with more than the official published version, a version that usually serves the writers of it.

The great commission was only given to 11 men who were very successful at it. Even you have heard about it.

How can, and why should, a Godly institution (as opposed to worldly),"take over" anything? That sounds like an assault, not a mission of mercy.
You have done your banking at the world's academy, friend.

Besides,... grand conspiracies shouldn't evade you as you acknowlege the one in Rome and disassociate from it.
Thanks for not calling me name, btw.

 

[sculleywr]

No one can see or hear what they don't know it looks like and sounds like. What mark was it supposed to leave on history? I thought God marked history. History is a story with more than the official published version, a version that usually serves the writers of it. The great commission was only given to 11 men who were very successful at it. Even you have heard about it. How can, and why should, a Godly institution (as opposed to worldly),"take over" anything? That sounds like an assault, not a mission of mercy. You have done your banking at the world's academy, friend. Besides,... grand conspiracies shouldn't evade you as you acknowlege the one in Rome and disassociate from it. Thanks for not calling me name, btw.

The Church didn't take over squat. The church was made legal. However, we know that most every heresy was responded to by the church fathers. They were quite rabidly against heresy. Anything that claimed Christ's name was responded to quite thoroughly. Even the least influential movements and most minuscule differences were debated at length. Reading the history written before our textbooks, we can see no sign of any Protestant teachings. No. The Protestant teachings started at the reformation.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove preexisting status to those teachings you claim to be true. It isn't hard to show Orthodox teachings. I mean we still have functionally the same service as the 7th century. Some even use the liturgies of the third and fourth centuries.

You claim the truth was in hiding, now prove it by showing where the truth was hiding in the third century. Or through the political squabbling of the 5th century.

If you can't prove your statement, with at least reasonable doubt, then your argument is irrelevant.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church didn't take over squat. The church was made legal. However, we know that most every heresy was responded to by the church fathers. They were quite rabidly against heresy. Anything that claimed Christ's name was responded to quite thoroughly. Even the least influential movements and most minuscule differences were debated at length. Reading the history written before our textbooks, we can see no sign of any Protestant teachings. No. The Protestant teachings started at the reformation.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove preexisting status to those teachings you claim to be true. It isn't hard to show Orthodox teachings. I mean we still have functionally the same service as the 7th century. Some even use the liturgies of the third and fourth centuries.

You claim the truth was in hiding, now prove it by showing where the truth was hiding in the third century. Or through the political squabbling of the 5th century.

If you can't prove your statement, with at least reasonable doubt, then your argument is irrelevant.

Interesting logic here - the Church Fathers debated every single possible issue concerning Christianity at mind-boggling length BUT they did not consider a single Christian doctrine believed or taught by Protestants.

Thus, we have proof positive that the Orthodox do not consider any of the doctrines of Protestantism to be heretical in nature.

 

[sculleywr]

Interesting logic here - the Church Fathers debated every single possible issue concerning Christianity at mind-boggling length BUT they did not consider a single Christian doctrine believed or taught by Protestants.

Thus, we have proof positive that the Orthodox do not consider any of the doctrines of Protestantism to be heretical in nature.

No, that shows that they didn't have awareness of any of the major Protestant Doctrines. Most importantly, they did not show awareness of the concept of the solas.

 

[Standing Up]

The Church didn't take over squat. The church was made legal. However, we know that most every heresy was responded to by the church fathers. They were quite rabidly against heresy. Anything that claimed Christ's name was responded to quite thoroughly. Even the least influential movements and most minuscule differences were debated at length. Reading the history written before our textbooks, we can see no sign of any Protestant teachings. No. The Protestant teachings started at the reformation.

The burden of proof lies on you to prove preexisting status to those teachings you claim to be true. It isn't hard to show Orthodox teachings. I mean we still have functionally the same service as the 7th century. Some even use the liturgies of the third and fourth centuries.

You claim the truth was in hiding, now prove it by showing where the truth was hiding in the third century. Or through the political squabbling of the 5th century.

If you can't prove your statement, with at least reasonable doubt, then your argument is irrelevant.

If one can't claim apostolicity in the 16th century (protestants), then surely the same problem exists for those so claiming same in the 7th century or even third and fourth centuries. Give us a break.

Ancient is just another word for broken lineage, unless it ties clearly and directly to apostles via the single thing we all agree upon; that is, 27 books of the NT.

 

[Standing Up]

No, that shows that they didn't have awareness of any of the major Protestant Doctrines. Most importantly, they did not show awareness of the concept of the solas.

Of course they held up scripture alone as the standard, even when suggesting a lineage of bishops, it was "in so far as" they taught what scripture taught.

 

[sculleywr]

Of course they held up scripture alone as the standard, even when suggesting a lineage of bishops, it was "in so far as" they taught what scripture taught.

Really? Example?

 

[sculleywr]

If one can't claim apostolicity in the 16th century (protestants), then surely the same problem exists for those so claiming same in the 7th century or even third and fourth centuries. Give us a break.

Ancient is just another word for broken lineage, unless it ties clearly and directly to apostles via the single thing we all agree upon; that is, 27 books of the NT.

Yeah, 27 books that weren't recognized by anyone as all apostolic until the 4th century, and even then not accepted universally until the 7th century, declared as Scripture by people who you just said weren't connected to the Apostles. If we can't trust the people, then we can't trust the canon

 

[Standing Up]

Really? Example?

For it will be well if, persuaded by the Scriptures, you are circumcised from hard-heartedness:
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

And didst thou pretend to read in Scripture concerning Him
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

There's much more ...

None of them (and I would agree) would dare to opinionate. Their arguments were based solely upon scripture. They'd be aghast at doctrines and practices today that source, as you said, to the 7th century or 3rd century at best.

They constantly argued against men and doctrines that came after the apostles.

 

[Standing Up]

Yeah, 27 books that weren't recognized by anyone as all apostolic until the 4th century, and even then not accepted universally until the 7th century, declared as Scripture by people who you just said weren't connected to the Apostles. If we can't trust the people, then we can't trust the canon

Your argument falls on its face, believing men gave us God-breathed scripture. Again, give us a break.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE=sculleywr; The Church didn't take over squat.

It certainly "overtook" Constantine.

The church was made legal.

And to great tactical advantage in a decisive battle, but I'm sure that's an irrelevant coincidence, right?

The burden of proof lies on you to prove preexisting status to those teachings you claim to be true.

Some refuse to see the proof.

You claim the truth was in hiding, now prove it by showing where the truth was hiding in the third century. Or through the political squabbling of the 5th century.

I don't think I ever claimed the truth was in hiding. I may have claimed it is invisible to uncircumcised eyes, though.

If you can't prove your statement, with at least reasonable doubt, then your argument is irrelevant.

If you would've proved I made the statement by quoting it, I would be interested in at least providing a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, regardless of what doubts you may consider reasonable, sir.

Thank you for your kind attention.

 

[Alive_Again]

I'll answer a few of these I wanted to get to...,

...the vast array of divided groups of Christians who - through tradition - are separated from the Church and have little or no desire to be reconciled with her.

It's tough to think outside of paradigms. The church never separated from the church or the Body never separated from the Body. These groups are still the cnurch, still the Body. No one has left (that are the church). Just because some object to the expression of their beliefs, does not mean they "left". One of the biggest hangups for many early protestant types is the idea of a man as head of the church. Then you add to what he often says and does, and it finally led to a split.

...and one until only the name of Jesus Christ and possibly one or two other facts remain in the tiny core.

I would like to encourage you to believe otherwise. The "core" truths are the Trinity and the Word of God. We may not agree completely with the true practice of them all, but as long as you desire to follow scripture, you're facing the right direction. It's about lifting up Jesus and preaching the covenant of righteousness and peace with God. It's about the ministry of the Holy Spirit. It's more than just believing He's here. It's experiencing His person and attributes just like the disciples experienced Jesus when He walked the earth.

Sadly, many churches don't have much of a move and so they boast of it, but the fruits tell otherwise. But as long as people lead people to Jesus and to what God has said, and is at least asking for what He is saying, God can work with that. We have more in common than we have differences.

That is the sad part of the Reformation, how it veered away so sharply from what the core of the reform was to be about and turned into a grab-bag of different policies.

Think of it as an evolution of belief that has always taken place. For a long time (centuries), the Catholic Church used leavened bread. They required no yearly confessions, and priests married. Paul said he had a right to lead a wife. Get that... a right(!) So leadership promotes things that aren't required in the Word. The so-called "Protestants" identify these things and conscientiously object. Some are more "Catholic" and they want to keep the riite and the confessional. So you have a group that keeps that in. Others confess sins only to Jesus (at least for reconciliation). They're still forgiven!

Things like buying offices and indulgences and concubines were just the start for the reformation. The idea that a man (the Pope) could tie you up in the "bonds of anathema" (with the expectation that you'll go to Hell if you don't repent to him) is seen to be like mind control. It's something to shake free of. Trent listed off a big list of curses (which is what they really are) in response.

so selling indulgences was a terrible wrong that warranted the 30 years war and a host of other wars and civil wars because paying money for a piece of paper was more terrible than any war, right?

The paper was another mind control tactic that seemingly empowered the Pope and the church to provide access to Heaven (for money) -- a horrible crime. The purgatory thing continued along the same lines that doing certain things like pilgrimages to shrines and offerings could get your Mom out of the flames is again a great abomination. Funeral masses said for fees and things like that were put into the light and many people agreed the time had come to speak out against it. The Papal and council's response provided the break from the Catholic Church, because they issued the anathemas.

The Pentecostal and Charismatic groups are hard to properly characterise, their divisions can be related to visions and prophecies from within one or more of the groups

The early Methodist church was charismatic and revivals during the revolutionary and civil wars showed that the Holy Spirit maintained a strong presence in early America. I'm not aware of any divisions based on visions or prophesies. People either bear witness to them or not. Most see a large revival coming up that will unite the church (not in a denominational name, but in Spirit. The ones who don't will likely join in when it starts.

 

[sculleywr]

For it will be well if, persuaded by the Scriptures, you are circumcised from hard-heartedness:
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

And didst thou pretend to read in Scripture concerning Him
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

For [the Scripture] saith in a certain place, “Thou shalt raise me up, and I shall confess unto Thee
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

There's much more ...

None of them (and I would agree) would dare to opinionate. Their arguments were based solely upon scripture. They'd be aghast at doctrines and practices today that source, as you said, to the 7th century or 3rd century at best.

They constantly argued against men and doctrines that came after the apostles.

Well, here is Irenaeus on Tradition AND Scripture side by side:

2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;..

2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Irenaeus on Tradition - from Adversus Haereses
​

In this, we see the Tradition is placed next to existent Scripture in authority, so that it, TOO comes from the Apostles.


Let's see some of the other lines from that series:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.
​

Here we see that the Tradition, unlike the written Scripture, was manifested throughout the whole world.

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
​

And now we see that Scriptures from the Apostles did exist, but that their Tradition existed in marriage thereto.

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.


​

And finally we see that, without a written Scripture, the Gauls were capable of knowing the truth thanks to the Tradition, rebuffing the heresies of Marcion and clinging to Christ.

 

[sculleywr]

It certainly "overtook" Constantine.


And to great tactical advantage in a decisive battle, but I'm sure that's an irrelevant coincidence, right?




Some refuse to see the proof.


I don't think I ever claimed the truth was in hiding. I may have claimed it is invisible to uncircumcised eyes, though.

If you would've proved I made the statement by quoting it, I would be interested in at least providing a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, regardless of what doubts you may consider reasonable, sir.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Saying it is invisible to uncircumcised eyes is like saying I don't have the faith to understand it or that I just don't believe the truth. Post your evidence for public purview.

 

[Rick Otto]

It would most likely waste our time. You don't seem to be able to appreciate Constantine's obvious political reasons for legalization, so you likely won't be cognizant of political motives in religious activities. Once one learns to see wolves in sheep's clothing, one begins to notice sheep in wolve's clothing. It's a result of living in a world that calls evil good & evil, good.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No, that shows that they didn't have awareness of any of the major Protestant Doctrines. Most importantly, they did not show awareness of the concept of the solas.

Therefore, of course, they proved themselves to be fallible humans who either approved these doctrines by default or, at best, provided no guidance regarding their veracity, leaving to a future generation to deal with aspects of Christianity that had escaped their attention.

 

[Targaryen]

Therefore, of course, they proved themselves to be fallible humans who either approved these doctrines by default or, at best, provided no guidance regarding their veracity, leaving to a future generation to deal with aspects of Christianity that had escaped their attention.

Just like the earlier churches before them.

 

[Albion]

Saying it is invisible to uncircumcised eyes is like saying I don't have the faith to understand it

Or we could just say that you don't understand it.

We've explained it to you a number of times, but if you still don't understand what "invisible" means in this case, maybe we should just let it go at that.