The quiet despair of Protestants

[Albion]

For the most part along with the waldensians, these groups were actually great (though the Cathars dualisitc beliefs was grounded Gnosticism and downright heretic I'll concede). I don't think they have as good a history as the early Anabaptists in my opinion.

Fair enough.

I prefer Anabaptists though because I believe they lived excellent and godly lives

They were considered to be lawless, orgiasts, and public nuisances in their own time, though, so even if that was something of an exaggeration, maybe there's another side to them. The Cathars, by contrast, mainly wanted seclusion.

...and due to them surviving better than the other groups to be a somewhat "popular" movement even to this day.

Yes, that certainly is one difference.

What's ironic is that the Protestants as soon as they got some authority started persecuting just like Rome....

I would say that it was definitely not 'just like' Rome. RC inquisitions lasted until the 19th century, for instance, and were much more severe.

 

[liberty of conscience]

Your argument is that since God has spoken infallibly in the Scriptures that therefore the Roman church teaches infallibly concerning faith and morals. It's a simple non-sequitur. These are two premises that you may personally hold, but the second premise in no way follows from the first.

In fact, the moment that an individual (human sinner) claims infallibility, they are most fallible, and have fallen into the pride of the devil, for the claim of infallibility in such persons, is actually refusal to admit their errors.

Case in point:

"... The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father's throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng--"ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father's will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God's plan, but would exalt the Father's glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. {PP 36.2}

The angels joyfully acknowledged the supremacy of Christ, and prostrating themselves before Him, poured out their love and adoration. Lucifer bowed with them, but in his heart there was [37] a strange, fierce conflict. Truth, justice, and loyalty were struggling against envy and jealousy. The influence of the holy angels seemed for a time to carry him with them. As songs of praise ascended in melodious strains, swelled by thousands of glad voices, the spirit of evil seemed vanquished; unutterable love thrilled his entire being; his soul went out, in harmony with the sinless worshippers, in love to the Father and the Son. But again he was filled with pride in his own glory. His desire for supremacy returned, and envy of Christ was once more indulged. The high honors conferred upon Lucifer were not appreciated as God's special gift, and therefore, called forth no gratitude to his Creator. He gloried in his brightness and exaltation and aspired to be equal with God. He was beloved and reverenced by the heavenly host, angels delighted to execute his commands, and he was clothed with wisdom and glory above them all. Yet the Son of God was exalted above him, as one in power and authority with the Father. He shared the Father's counsels, while Lucifer did not thus enter into the purposes of God. "Why," questioned this mighty angel, "should Christ have the supremacy? Why is He honored above Lucifer?" {PP 36.3}

Leaving his place in the immediate presence of the Father, Lucifer went forth to diffuse the spirit of discontent among the angels. He worked with mysterious secrecy, and for a time concealed his real purpose under an appearance of reverence for God. He began to insinuate doubts concerning the laws that governed heavenly beings, intimating that though laws might be necessary for the inhabitants of the worlds, angels, being more exalted, needed no such restraint, for their own wisdom was a sufficient guide. They were not beings that could bring dishonor to God; all their thoughts were holy; it was no more possible for them than for God Himself to err. The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor. If this prince of angels could but attain to his true, exalted position, great good would accrue to the entire host of heaven; for it was his object to secure freedom for all. But now even the liberty which they had hitherto enjoyed was at an end; for an absolute Ruler had been appointed them, and to His authority all must pay homage. Such were the subtle deceptions that through the wiles of Lucifer were fast obtaining in the heavenly courts. [38] {PP 37.1}

There had been no change in the position or authority of Christ. Lucifer's envy and misrepresentation and his claims to equality with Christ had made necessary a statement of the true position of the Son of God; but this had been the same from the beginning. Many of the angels were, however, blinded by Lucifer's deceptions. {PP 38.1} ..." - Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 1 - Why was sin permitted, pages 36.2-37.1

Did you catch the sad irony? Did you catch the contradiction of Lucifer, that came through pride, claiming infallibility? It's in "red".

Lucifer said, "... They were not beings that could bring dishonor to God; all their thoughts were holy; it was no more possible for them than for God Himself to err. ..."

And yet, just previous to that, God had made known the true position of the Son, in relation to all created beings/things. Therefore, if Lucifer really meant that it was not possible for God to err, then what should Lucifer have done? Admitted his error of pride. What did he do instead? He claimed infallibility for himself instead, in that he could not err, and that in reality though he said God could not err, God in fact had erred in the events concerning His Son (Jesus).

There is a religio-politico system on earth that carries the same heart as Lucifer, who desires to "sit" upon the "waters" (Jeremiah 51:13; Isaiah 14:13-14; "clouds" (angels) are "waters" (peoples) in the heaven; Revelation 17:1, and so Lucifer's "body" on earth desires the same as he does, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, that it "sitteth" "over" the flock of God (Daniel 11:45; Acts 20:28-30) and it's seat is in Rome.

You may listen to the Audio here (still in progress of recording all chapters) - FREE PP Audio Book

Chapter 1 here - https://www.thedesireofagesproject....ers_media_-_music_score_and_sound_effects.mp3

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Reverand Alex.

You made the following statement regarding the Roman Catholic Church.

So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!

What do you mean by the phrase, 'modern Church'?

 

[Albion]

So, I do agree with the OP. The sheer amount of diversity in Protestant thought on vital and central points demonstates that something is not right. There is some wiggle room or capacity for diversity of thought / opinion within Catholic and Orthodox theology, but not to the extent that one sees in the Protestant world.

You may be correct about the diversity of belief, but that is mainly because there are so many more Protestant denominations than there are Catholic ones. Most never had anything to do with each other and certainly did not split from each other over any dogma.

In addition, we are dealing with that old favorite trick with the language by which a wide range of churches that are classified as Protestant only because they share a handful of doctrines are compared with one Catholic church--the Roman Catholic or Papal one. In reality, there are at least a dozen separate Catholic denominations, with no two of them sharing the same doctrines. It is not just internal squabbling within the largest one of these churches that we are talking about.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

The church is the collective body of believers with Jesus Christ as the head.
His Word is infallible NOT the Catholic church or ANY other denomination.
Period.

 

[Chris V++]

How do most Catholics feel about Charismatic Catholics speaking in tongues? Is everyone in the RCC on the same page about that? How do you feel about canonized Saint Francis preaching the gospel to animals? Is that a sound practice? It's ok to disagree, doesn 't mean you're out of communion with one another. It's the same for most protestants who bicker over doctrine.

 

[NW82]

And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical.

The RCC still teaches indulgences, where is that biblical?

 

[GingerBeer]

Good day,

Most of what you have stated here and the conclusions you have adopted for yourself lie out side of the Scholarship of the Roman Church herself...

You are an island.

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Continuing in the next sentence, Brown says, “Moreover, church interpretations of Scripture in Roman Catholicism are affected by qualifications laid out in reference to church teaching in general which have the effect of recognizing historical conditioning.” Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 31-32.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

In Him,

Bill

Raymond E. Brown is - as far as I know - not a bishop in the Catholic Church so aren't you overstating your position by citing him as authority for what the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[GingerBeer]

This is remarkably untrue ...

Would you explain why?

 

[Chris V++]

In reality, there are at least a dozen separate Catholic denominations, with no two of them sharing the same doctrines. It is not just internal squabbling within the largest one of these churches that we are talking about.

Do you mean the different orders like the Dominicans or Jesuits?

 

[Albion]

The RCC still teaches indulgences, where is that biblical?

You have a point there, all right. The Catholic Church itself says that it determines doctrine by the Bible OR by Tradition.

The church itself does not stand behind the claim that all of its doctrines are Biblical. If there is something in the Bible that can be made to seem to support the dogma in question, all the better; but there are those that clearly are not supported by Scripture. They are defended on the basis that the church allegedly always has taught them, so God must be revealing them through the consensus of opinion.

 

[Albion]

Do you mean the different orders like the Dominicans or Jesuits?

No. Those are not churches. I was referring to such as these (not a complete list):

Roman Catholic Church (and all of its other, non-Latin, rites)
Eastern Orthodox Churches
Oriental Orthodox Churches
Church of the East
Old Catholic Churches
Liberal Catholic Churches
Philippine National Catholic Church
Society of St. Pius V
Society of St. Pius X

 

[liberty of conscience]

Canon Law:

Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Can. 1406 §1. If the prescript of ⇒ can. 1404 is violated, the acts and decisions are considered as not to have been placed.

§2. In the cases mentioned in ⇒ can. 1405, the incompetence of other judges is absolute.

 

[Just Another User]

They were considered to be lawless, orgiasts, and public nuisances in their own time, though, so even if that was something of an exaggeration, maybe there's another side to them. The Cathars, by contrast, mainly wanted seclusion.

Of course they were considered lawlessness because the rejected the church and the state being one. That and they literally followed the Sermon on the Mount inherently put them in conflict with the culture at the time. If anything, they had the highest level of personal ethic out of all the major factions during the reformation and didn't want any worldliness. I'll concede they were public nuisances though. They were slandered just like the early Christians when they were called out on their suspected crimes of incest, cannibalism and child sacrifice.

Furthermore, they wanted freedom of religion and that was a big no no back in the 1500s for the church and the state and one of the main reasons for them being perpetually murdered.

I would say that it was definitely not 'just like' Rome. RC inquisitions lasted until the 19th century, for instance, and were much more severe.

Fair enough.

 

[RDKirk]

Of course they were considered lawlessness because the rejected the church and the state being one. That and they literally followed the Sermon on the Mount inherently put them in conflict with the culture at the time. If anything, they had the highest level of personal ethic out of all the major factions during the reformation and didn't want any worldliness. I'll concede they were public nuisances though. They were slandered just like the early Christians when they were called out on their suspected crimes of incest, cannibalism and child sacrifice.

That stuff will get you in trouble with Christians in America today.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Fair enough.


They were considered to be lawless, orgiasts, and public nuisances in their own time, though, so even if that was something of an exaggeration, maybe there's another side to them. The Cathars, by contrast, mainly wanted seclusion.


Yes, that certainly is one difference.


I would say that it was definitely not 'just like' Rome. RC inquisitions lasted until the 19th century, for instance, and were much more severe.

Actually over the years most historians agree that the Inquisition was greatly exaggerated by Protestant press. They estimate out of the 160k trialed in the two inquisitions, only 1% of that were actually executed.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually over the years most historians agree that the Inquisition was greatly exaggerated by Protestant press. They estimate out of the 160k trialed in the two inquisitions, only 1% of that were actually executed.

The rest were highly inconvenienced, however.

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Unless I have misread that paragraph, what you are describing does not amount to "they believe that we don't have a Biblical truth."

It simply means that there is some disagreement among Christians of different denominations about what IS Biblical truth. You are referring to a gathering composed of members of different churches (you included), aren't you?

I know this doesn't apply to everyone, but many of the Protestants I talk to believe that there is a Biblical truth, we just can't find it. Looking back at it, I suppose that would've been a better way to word it. You're very good at rephrasing my statements, @Albion ; thank you as always for your input.

Thanks for posting this. I don't think you'll get a lot of agreement from most protestants that the RCC teachings are thoroughly Biblical, hence the reformation. Some doctrines are more controversial than others. Select verses are cited as possible support for various doctrines, but there seems to be a lot of stretching of verses or a lot of extrapolation to make a few verses support much larger doctrines or dogmas which are then said to be confirmed thru tradition and papal infallibility. I do hope the subject can be discussed with the gentleness and self control that you request and deserve. I'm sort of confused myself right now and don't really wish to debate.

This was a very good, peaceful post, but it means so much more to see it coming from a non-Catholic (I assumed you were Catholic at first!). It's posts like this that bring about unity & legitimate discussion across people of different groups.

May the Good Lord rain down His blessings on all of us!

 

[☦Marius☦]

The rest were highly inconvenienced, however.

Sure but that's not murder.

 

[seeking.IAM]

Unofficial Reverend Alex, can you please enlighten me as to the relationship between your thread title and your OP? My dictionary defines "despair" as "the complete loss or absence of hope." I don't understand how the premise of your text supports the thread title's supposition that Protestants are in despair, or said otherwise "without hope." I am not making the connection. Please tell me what you mean.