Where's the ecumenical council in protestantism?

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,868.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
same challenge to you. Show us all where Jesus tells us to listen to the Bible.

Well, it's kind of 'inferred' when Jesus resorts several times to stating, "It is written ..."! (i.e. in the O.T., of course!)

Can we stop arguing with each other now?
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Site Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,160
5,685
68
Pennsylvania
✟791,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
No leader? Then who's preaching every Sunday? Their claim is false but in practice they do have leader.
No, I said the denomination --not the individual meeting groups. The group that meets in any certain church has a pastor and elders, no doubt, but I'm not meaning that. We have no pope, no hierarchy as such, over the denomination. The denomination has no say, does not own our building, does not fire our pastor, nor even hold us to the denomination if our view changes.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,780
2,579
PA
✟274,884.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, it's kind of 'inferred' when Jesus resorts several times to stating, "It is written ..."! (i.e. in the O.T., of course!)
Jesus was quoting from the Tanakh. This does not infer that Jesus told us to listen to the Bible.
Can we stop arguing with each other now?
I'm not arguing. I'm just holding people accountable for what they post.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,868.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus was quoting from the Tanakh. This does not infer that Jesus told us to listen to the Bible.
It kind of does (or at least it affirms the substance and relevance of the O.T. for us in the Church.)

You notice, though, that you have to quote the Bible in order to assert that Jesus doesn't want us to listen to the Bible, right? Isn't that kind of ... circular and incoherent?

On top of that, while I every bit agree that we should see the deposit of Faith as centering within "the Church," we do need to realize too that the New Testament is MORE authoritative than any pronouncements made in the Church that have come AFTER the 1st century. And this is the case because the Apostles of Christ served to express the foundational aspects of our faith in Christ.

Of course, you already knew this.

I'm not arguing. I'm just holding people accountable for what they post.

That's fine. Hold me accountable. :dontcare: I promise I won't let you down in offering to you the same favor that you offer to me. And that, my friend, is a good start for fellowship.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,780
2,579
PA
✟274,884.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You notice, though, that you have to quote the Bible in order to assert that Jesus doesn't want us to listen to the Bible, right?
I never said dont listen to the bible. Please dont mis-quote me.
Isn't that kind of ... circular and incoherent
as long as you mis quote me, I bet you will view things as incoherent.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mark Quayle
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,175
9,960
The Void!
✟1,132,868.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I never said dont listen to the bible. Please dont mis-quote me.
as long as you mis quote me, I bet you will view things as incoherent.

Far be it from me to have a desire to misquote you.

So, I can assume you'd say with me that we should listen to the Bible, right? If so, then we're on the same page, or at least we're on a similar page. So far, so good! :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
The two sacraments of the Gospel
The involvement of the laity in worship
...and more

Are you saying that all Protestant denominations agree 100% on these essentials you listed here? Also, if this is the case, who determines these essential doctrines? Would a Lutheran pastor be able to preach his/her belief of Baptismal regeneration in a Calvinist church? Also, would you agree Albion, that might be a problem, for many Protestants, the idea of baptism as a means of salvation is seen as a direct violation of sola fide.... correct?
How about the Eucharist, again, would a Lutheran or Anglican pastor be able to preach of the Real Presence at a Baptist church service

...and more

I would like to see the 'more' of the essentials you say there are, but would not want to take this thread off topic. Maybe I will start a new thread on the essentials and non-essentials of Protestant denominations.


Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Are you saying that all Protestant denominations agree 100% on these essentials you listed here?
For all intents and purposes, yes. As we all know--and folks like you are fond of saying--there are thousands of denominations classified as "Protestant," some just because they aren't either Roman Catholic or Orthodox. But the items I listed are overwhelmingly applicable to Protestant denominations. Those items were, by the way, mainstays of the Reformation, whether Lutheran, Reformed, or Anglican.

Also, if this is the case, who determines these essential doctrines?
They are based upon Scripture and Apostolic practice.

Also, would you agree Albion, that might be a problem, for many Protestants, the idea of baptism as a means of salvation is seen as a direct violation of sola fide.... correct?
That sounds like question based upon a misunderstanding of Sola Fide.

At this point, you will want to ask about every item, important or not, that is understood differently by different Protestant churches, I realize; but the question that was asked and to which I replied was about there being any "basics" that Protestants agree upon: ("What are these "essentials" you speak of that these different Protestant denominations have in common?").
 
Upvote 0

Llewelyn Stevenson

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2015
655
319
63
✟21,990.00
Faith
Pentecostal
?? Some may...but none actually do?

You have misunderstood what I meant by "some may". I was actually referring to the Biblical fact that such services [ministries] do exist, and it is likely that, in our local body [gathering] we all fill one of these parts, since we are an expression of the body of Christ in which each member has a part. For instance, we would consider the most mature in the ways of Christ a bishop among us [a bishop being an elder by Scriptural definition] but we do not exalt the position. Respect is given to the ministry recognised as having the authority of Christ. We acknowledge that there are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers among us and, should we observe such a gift, would encourage that individual in it. However we do not label those who show such a gift other than to acknowledge that Christ has placed such among us for our own spiritual growth and the benefit of the body as a whole.

A comment of the oldest among us was made some 45 to 50 years ago. It wen something like this, "Here we are among all these ministers and each one is called 'Pastor This' or 'Pastor that.' But Bill is just Bill."

Yet he was very much a recognised pastor of that denomination and pioneered many assemblies for which others have taken credit. It is of no concern to him because all the glory belongs to God. therefore we would recognise him as having the office of a bishop but no fuss is made of it.
 
Upvote 0

Llewelyn Stevenson

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2015
655
319
63
✟21,990.00
Faith
Pentecostal
The protestant will affirm the early few ecumenical council. but later, since they split so much among themselves, they have bishop/leader in their own denomination... then the followers of these leader fight with each other with different theological stands.

so it's like you can choose you can side which side with your own conscience but for the leaders, it's like 'I say this is truth and I believed it as this is what the bible says, here's my argument...' and each of them claim they're right...

since the truth isn't subjective but objective, there can't be 2 contradicting doctrines are both right.

These things may be true because we are yet carnal [immature and lack spiritual understanding]. And I must conclude myself under that.

1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
1Co 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

To me, 1 Corinthians 3:11 is the key. The unity of the church is not in its unanimous agreement but in its foundation: Jesus Christ.

Now this Jesus Christ is clearly explained in the gospels and apostolic teachings and therefore we know who he is: the Son of God and eternal in oneness with God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Through him [the gift of grace] and by all three our salvation is secured.

The church is one because Christ is one and there is salvation by none other, nor do any other build the Church, for he said, "I will build my church."

Men may build denominations but they cannot build the church.

1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Now these denominations, what sort are they? Are they gold, silver and precious stones? Or wood, hay, and stubble? The Bema judgment will make this known. Until then men will keep building and denominations may multiply like the empires of this world, but these will not last for eternity for they are made with the hands of men and not by God.

By its foundation the Church is actually one and cannot be divided, no matter what.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Llewelyn Stevenson

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2015
655
319
63
✟21,990.00
Faith
Pentecostal
If I may continue my discourse in replying to Jesusthekingofking here.

If you turn to the 7 churches in the Book of Revelation [it is a bit long to quote here] you will get a picture of what I am saying.

1. Notice that Christ identifies each as "The church".

By this he identifies with each one that they claim to be his. He does not say they are not the church he only rebukes and calls for change.

2. See how different each church was in doctrinal practises and administration.

You could put forward a case to show how none of these churches would recognise the other for doctrines and practises they disapproved of. What were their chosen building materials? Things of this world, or eternity?

3. See how Christ calls for repentance and defers judgment to the end of this age.

So the churches became denominations recognised by their locality in this case. Each one practised what it thought was good and right yet, as observed elsewhere in this discussion, were obviously not.

Now we know that the Church revealed when Christ returns for it will have no spot or wrinkle, so let us put aside the wrinkles of denominational schisms and recognise that, in nearly all of these churches Jesus said, "I have some who have not done these things,"and, should we recognise anything within us that should bring about rejection at the judgment, repent and do as he has commanded.

The wrinkles are still joined, brother and sister, by Jesus Christ the cornerstone.
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
For all intents and purposes, yes.

Okay, so you are saying, "for all intents and purposes" a Lutheran pastor would be welcomed with open arms, to preach his/her church teachings regarding Baptismal regeneration in a Calvinist church service, with no disagreement at all? Fascinating!

Or:

Again, for all intents and purposes about the the Eucharist, you are saying then, that a Lutheran or Anglican pastor would be welcomed with open arms, to preach their churches teachings of the Real Presence in the Eucharist at a Baptist church service..... no problem or disagreement at all? Again.... Fascinating!!

As we all know--and folks like you are fond of saying--there are thousands of denominations classified as "Protestant,"

Well.....They are "protesting" the Catholic Church. ;)

But the items I listed are overwhelmingly applicable to Protestant denominations.

But 100% agreed upon? Not so sure about that! I gave a good example above in regards to Baptism. Do you not agree, that many Protestant denominations can't even agree on Baptism by sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? or in Jesus’ name only?

You put sacraments on your list of essentials, and you say that they are "overwhelmingly applicable to Protestant denominations." Well many of these Protestant denominations can't even agree on how many sacraments there are? Or is there even such a thing as sacraments? Or is the Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday? This is just to mention a few of these essentials on your list and within Protestantism.

Those items were, by the way, mainstays of the Reformation, whether Lutheran, Reformed, or Anglican.

I can't help but notice you didn't mention if they are also the "mainstays" of all the different Protestant denominations that splintered into there own churches/sects within the last 500 years.

They are based upon Scripture and Apostolic practice.

"Apostolic practice?" Meaning something other then the "Bible Alone?" I have a feeling Albion, some of your fellow Protestant brothers and sisters just may disagree with you on that! I means, Sola Scriptura did top your list of essentials. ;)

That sounds like question based upon a misunderstanding of Sola Fide.

Who's misunderstanding, and who makes that determination? Tell me if I got this right when it comes to Sola Fide.

Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, and many Anglicans understand sola fide in a way that requires one to repent of one’s sins in order to be justified, right? Well, there are some Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, and especially many Dispensationalists hold that, if repentance is understood as involving a behavioral change whereby one turns away from one’s sinful pattern of life, then salvation is in some measure “by works,” violating Sola Fide, Right?

Again, I must mention Albion, that "Sola Fide" was second on your list of essentials, so which of these Protestant groups are misunderstanding the essential of Sola Fide, and by who's or what authority determines which Protestant denomination is in error?

At this point, you will want to ask about every item, important or not, that is understood differently by different Protestant churches, I realize; but the question that was asked and to which I replied was about there being any "basics" that Protestants agree upon: ("What are these "essentials" you speak of that these different Protestant denominations have in common?").

Yes, as I mentioned before, I may start a new thread on the subject of "Protestant essentials and non-essentials" so to give the various Protestant groups within this forum a chance for their input. I find the subject very interesting.

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,113.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
That's what I'm trying to say, the reformers can't have a council, they have way more disagreements than ever, that's why we have so many churches that teach different things in different denominations although we have the essential in common.

Who can't have a Council? We might start with a council that presupposed the first 7. After all the WLF agreed to the seven when meeting with the patriarch of Constantinople. I suggest that the WLF, the Anglican Communion, and some Methodist and Presbyterian groups might welcome a council with EO, OO, and the RCC.

If you are saying the thousands of non-denominational churches, Baptists and some others couldn't have a council, that is certainly true. Having a council presupposes accepting the doctrine of the universal Church.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,113.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well, there are...and you just identified one. So if you want to think that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church, the Old Catholics are probably thinking that theirs are the genuine Catholic Churches, too; and the Eastern Orthodox, who have probably the best claim of anybody on the term Catholic, certainly do not consider that Rome is the only true church or the original one!!

To consider the Roman Catholic Church as the only Catholic Church is perhaps something that would be uncomfortable to the pope. Clearly, there are others, starting with Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics. There are even Eastern Catholics that accept the pope.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,113.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Well we can also say or claim the anglican church is the true Catholic church of the west, we split from Rome because the pope perverted the gospel hehe
I guess for some it is laughable that the Archbishop Of Canterbury shouldn't be considered Patriarch of the British Isles, since Rome split from them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark46

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,066
4,740
✟839,113.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I was prepared to debate the idea of Protestants generally accepting the essentials. Then I read Albion's post carefully. I AGREE that the traditional Protestant denominations generally agree on the essentials.

As an aside, I believe that these denominations could sit down in council with EO, OO and the RCC. Clearly, there have been joint meetings and joint declarations for a hundred years.

Someone asked whether a Lutheran pastor could preach about the communion in a Baptist church. I don't think so. Baptist don't even recognize the doctrine of Church. However, I could seen ELCA Lutherans preaching at Anglican churches as they do in the US.

For all intents and purposes, yes. As we all know--and folks like you are fond of saying--there are thousands of denominations classified as "Protestant," some just because they aren't either Roman Catholic or Orthodox. But the items I listed are overwhelmingly applicable to Protestant denominations. Those items were, by the way, mainstays of the Reformation, whether Lutheran, Reformed, or Anglican.


They are based upon Scripture and Apostolic practice.


That sounds like question based upon a misunderstanding of Sola Fide.

At this point, you will want to ask about every item, important or not, that is understood differently by different Protestant churches, I realize; but the question that was asked and to which I replied was about there being any "basics" that Protestants agree upon: ("What are these "essentials" you speak of that these different Protestant denominations have in common?").
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Okay, so you are saying, "for all intents and purposes" a Lutheran pastor would be welcomed with open arms, to preach his/her church teachings regarding Baptismal regeneration in a Calvinist church service, with no disagreement at all?
I "am saying" what I said. And I answered the question that you asked.

If you want to pass over that without confronting it and instead go to some other issue, we could take up something else, surely. But here it's the case that there are indeed basics that virtually all Protestant denominations agree upon and have done so since the Reformation. I listed some of them for you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I was prepared to debate the idea of Protestants generally accepting the essentials. Then I read Albion's post carefully. I AGREE that the traditional Protestant denominations generally agree on the essentials.

Thank you.
 
Upvote 0