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

[By Faith Alone]

If the denominations and communions and independent groups under the broad umbrella of Protestantism cannot decide an agreed set of doctrines that are essential for salvation then doctrinal unity within Protestantism would be impossible, right?

There is only ONE doctrine of salvation and here it is:
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Doesn't take much fanfare and endless catechisms to determine the requirements, now does it?

It is possible that the divisions we see are a sign of the apostasy about which Jesus Christ warned?

And the catholic church being an integral part of that apostasy. As a matter of fact the.... BIGGEST... part. Who do you think was responsible for leading Christendom down that road in the first place?

Page 20 Post 200 of this very same thread.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There is only ONE doctrine of salvation and here it is:
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Your statement implies that anybody who believes that faith apart from works [of the law] saves will be saved and that would include Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, and numerous other groups that very few Protestants accept as Christian. Is that what you teach?

Doesn't take much fanfare and endless catechisms to determine the requirements, now does it?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sola Scriptura was just Luther's way of advocating his dissent from Catholicism's perception of scripture.
He basically tried to ensure that the layman's version would reign over the Church's, who has stood tall through history and knows what they are talking about.

Strangely, you utterly failed to respond to my question, which was, as follows:

"Which Church would that be? I think that every organization in Christendom that claims to be the Church makes that statement. However, you see to have one particular denomination in mind here."

 

[bbbbbbb]

The traditions of the Church are harmless and not demanded.

However, the veneration of Mary for example is not merely tradition, it's true blue Church Dogma, and I think non-Catholics tend to mix the two up sometimes.

Those of us posting on this thread can hardly be accused of not understanding the peculiar RC dogmatization of the four Marian dogmas. What many Catholics fail to understand is that the Church does not recognize these dogmas as being salvific in nature.

 

[Harbingr]

Those of us posting on this thread can hardly be accused of not understanding the peculiar RC dogmatization of the four Marian dogmas. What many Catholics fail to understand is that the Church does not recognize these dogmas as being salvific in nature.

The Church states that even an atheist can potentially be saved.
She does a great job of revealing Jesus' nature; she also does a great job condemning Faith Alone however. It's perception of eternal salvation is not built on arbitrary belief.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Those of us posting on this thread can hardly be accused of not understanding the peculiar RC dogmatization of the four Marian dogmas. What many Catholics fail to understand is that the Church does not recognize these dogmas as being salvific in nature.

What does that mean?

Dogma is divinely revealed truth that ought to be believed without reservation by the faithful once they know it to be church dogma. To reject it is a grave matter and if it is rejected freely and in full knowledge of the gravity of the matter then the one rejectng it would be in a state of mortal sin. Do you understand that?

MORTAL SIN is a grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will. (Glossary of the CCC)

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Seriously my friends, please take this in love, I mean no harm. Wake up. Lets seriously think about Paul's words, lets study and meditate on them. Lets get away from this carnal thinking and lets think about the spiritual realm. No Church today can claim to be the Church, the Church is made up of those who follow the Spirit, its a personal and intimate relationship with God. Any person who is called by God has his spirit, the spirit guides us into the things of God. These things are found in humility, meekness, love, and holiness. They are not found in buildings or teachers, apostles or prophets. They are found inside our hearts and minds. The Scripture is the Word of God and is is a huge part of that. The New Testament writers are the only teacher we need, if any teacher teaches anything it will be their words, the Holy Spirit is the real teacher. We don't need a Pope to guide us, we have the Spirit. We have been greatly blessed to actually be taught by God Himself. Jesus said to seek and we will find. Seek him in His words and in prayer. We are cheating ourselves.

John 6:43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.

63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.

 

[Harbingr]

No Church today can claim to be the Church, the Church is made up of those who follow the Spirit, its a personal and intimate relationship with God.

This is untrue.

The Church perfectly and casually tells you straight up that she is the true, biblical, apostolic church spoken of in scripture.
There is no shying around, she is very open and blatant.

Also, she is in fact the oldest church. Rome and Greece are the epicenter of Christianity, despite the Schism- it's orthodox by it's very existence, it does not need excuse.

She does not, however, condemn denominations. Nonetheless, she can't call a lie the truth either.
You have to accept the fact that the Church cannot and will not ever concede to what it deems as false doctrine.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

This is untrue.

The Church perfectly and casually tells you straight up that she is the true, biblical, apostolic church spoken of in scripture.
There is no shying around, she is very open and blatant.

Also, she is in fact the oldest church. Rome and Greece are the epicenter of Christianity, despite the Schism- it's orthodox by it's very existence, it does not need excuse.

She does not, however, condemn denominations. Nonetheless, she can't call a lie the truth either.
You have to accept the fact that the Church cannot and will not ever concede to what it deems as false doctrine.

Meditate on the meaning of this scripture. I don't follow RCC but i have Gods Spirit. Jesus is Lord of my life. He is Lord. I agree with his words, i delight in them, they truly are a lamp for my feet. Im not a prophet or apostle, but i have Gods spirit who teaches me. Praise the Lord. How great is that? I don't follow any of that RCC stuff but i have Gods Spirit, i love Jesus, he changed my life. Doesn't that make you take notice and open your mind?

2 Corinthians 4:5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”[a] made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

2 Corithians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church states that even an atheist can potentially be saved.
She does a great job of revealing Jesus' nature; she also does a great job condemning Faith Alone however. It's perception of eternal salvation is not built on arbitrary belief.

Again, which Church would that be? Virtually all churches believe that even an atheist can be saved and some believe that all atheists will be saved. A few denominations condemn Faith Alone. You seem to have a particular denomination in mind here. Which denomination are you referring to?

 

[bbbbbbb]

What does that mean?

Dogma is divinely revealed truth that ought to be believed without reservation by the faithful once they know it to be church dogma. To reject it is a grave matter and if it is rejected freely and in full knowledge of the gravity of the matter then the one rejectng it would be in a state of mortal sin. Do you understand that?

MORTAL SIN is a grave infraction of the law of God that destroys the divine life in the soul of the sinner (sanctifying grace), constituting a turn away from God. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be present: grave matter, full knowledge of the evil of the act, and full consent of the will. (Glossary of the CCC)

Yes, I understand that. And I also understand that untold millions of Catholics committed mortal sin yesterday by consciously failing to attend mass.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is untrue.

The Church perfectly and casually tells you straight up that she is the true, biblical, apostolic church spoken of in scripture.
There is no shying around, she is very open and blatant.

Also, she is in fact the oldest church. Rome and Greece are the epicenter of Christianity, despite the Schism- it's orthodox by it's very existence, it does not need excuse.

She does not, however, condemn denominations. Nonetheless, she can't call a lie the truth either.
You have to accept the fact that the Church cannot and will not ever concede to what it deems as false doctrine.

I see. The Church is the Eastern Orthodox Churches by your definition stated above.

 

[Albion]

No Church today can claim to be the Church, the Church is made up of those who follow the Spirit

This is untrue.

In a way he is correct, and in a way you are correct--depending on how we understand "church."

But in the institutional sense, yes, there are a number of churches/denominations that claim to be "the Church." The oldest of them, the Eastern Orthodox churches do; the Catholic Church does; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does; the Jehovah's Witnesses organization does...and so do other, less well known church bodies also.

 

[Rick Otto]

To say scripture is tradition is to make an egregiously misleading equation.

 

[Albion]

To say scripture is tradition is to make an egregiously misleading equation.

I agree. Whenever I read that claim being made, I think that it's just a line that sounds good even though it's completely untrue.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Restoresmysoul

No Church today can claim to be the Church, the Church is made up of those who follow the Spirit, its a personal and intimate relationship with God.
​

This is untrue.

The Church perfectly and casually tells you straight up that she is the true, biblical, apostolic church spoken of in scripture.
There is no shying around, she is very open and blatant.

Also, she is in fact the oldest church. Rome and Greece are the epicenter of Christianity, despite the Schism- it's orthodox by it's very existence, it does not need excuse.

She does not, however, condemn denominations. Nonetheless, she can't call a lie the truth either.
You have to accept the fact that the Church cannot and will not ever concede to what it deems as false doctrine.

I see. The Church is the Eastern Orthodox Churches by your definition stated above.

The great Schism of 1054 was a biggy...........
After that came the great Protestant Reformation

John 19:20
This then the Title many read of the Judeans, that near was the place of the city whence was crucified the Jesus,
and was having been written to Hebrew/ebraisti <1447>, to Greek/ellhnisti <1676>, to Roman/rwmaisti <4515>.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43066817
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

Results 1 - 10 of about 43,300 for GreatSchism of 1054.

Following the rule of Charlemagne, Christianity spread throughout Europe which served as a unifying force for the continent. This was in part due to the Great Schism of 1054 where two competing religious authorities, Pope Leo IX of the Roman Catholic Church, and Patriarch Michael I of the Eastern Orthodox faith, excommunicated each other in a dispute over authority..............

The major event that is often cited as the separation of the East and West is the Great Schism of 1054. Actually at the time it was seen as simply another temporary schism between the two regions. But this one never resolved as the two Churches drifted farther apart. Also, though the date seems to be an easy reference, it must be seen as wider political and theological context which lead to the division.............

The cardinal excommunicated the patriarch who, in turn, excommunicated the cardinal. The main point of contention was the use of leavened bread during the celebration of Mass, according to MacMillan Publishing's

.

 

[Standing Up]

It is possible that the divisions we see are a sign of the apostasy about which Jesus Christ warned.

Only if you include the ones in 155ad (Rome split from apostolic teaching) and 1054.

 

[Standing Up]

One problem with the Pharisees is that they taught the "tradition of the elders". When Israel came out of Babylon they brought Babylonian ideas with them and made God's Word none-effect with their Talmud, which was extra-Biblical. Kinda like Catholicism with their "catechisms", Didache, Council declarations, etc.

As an example, they began teaching the supremacy of the priests (see Jubilees).

 

[Albion]

Only if you include the ones in 155ad (Rome split from apostolic teaching) and 1054.

By definition, the "divisions" CANNOT be apostasies. An apostasy is an abandonment of Christianity altogether. So if we're actually speaking of apostasy, we wouldn't be speaking of divisions WITHIN Christianity.

And if the point is rather that divisions foretell a coming apostasy, there isn't any evidence of that. The divisions have been with Christianity since the Apostolic age, so this would be a pretty weak argument, to say the least.

 

[Standing Up]

Saint Paul commended the Corinthians for keeping traditions as he haded them on to them:

(1 Corinthians 11:2 NJB) I congratulate you for remembering me so consistently and for maintaining the traditions exactly as I passed them on to you.​

And saint Paul urged the faithful in Thessamonica to stand form in the traditions he taught them:

(2 Thessalonians 2:15 NJB) Stand firm, then, brothers, and keep the traditions that we taught you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.​

And Jesus Christ handed on to the twelve apostles what he himself had received from God the Father.

It is a commonplace to ridicule traditions that are received from the apostles but it is not what the apostles taught the faithful to do. Those who mock traditions ought to take a step back, hold their tongues, and consider from whom the traditions have come. Remember that scripture is tradition.

You must have missed the discussion a few pages earlier in this thread. Provide us those oral traditions from Paul. Paul wasn't writing a blank check upon which later bishops could draw. Tell us the oral instructions from Paul.