Misconceptions about Protestants

[Tangible]

I think another misconception about protestants is that we can address them as if they subsist as one body. Truly, in order to give the dignity and honor each believer deserves, I must consider them individually or at least at the denominational level.

To lump them all together does a disservice to both them and me.

/breaks out in tri-fold amen!

 

[razeontherock]

She has not explained why her Word-of-Faith/Neo-Pentecostalism/Prosperity/"Name It and Claim It" religion is not faithfully represented by those who are considered the leaders of her religion -- Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Benny Hinn, Suzanne Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, etc.

She is free to explain then what she means by "the anointing" that she says I don't believe in and how I am denying the existence of the Holy Ghost by not participating in these activities.

Well this is a backwards way into trying to sort out misconceptions about Pr, but I'll give you credit that here you at least leave a door open for healing to occur. I do feel the need to remind you of the Scripture:

Romans 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;"

I also need to point out that from my side of the computer screen, it looks like you're on the wrong side of that bolded part! Why else would you feel the need to include "name it and claim it?" That was de-bunked before you were born - which was also before I turned down the opportunity to be ordained.

More specifically, faith is not necessary for Baptism to impart a character. We recognize Protestant baptisms as long as they are done correctly ("I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost") and not Jesus-Only
Thus faith is not necessary for the character of Baptism to be imparted, but it is necessary for the effect of Baptism -- that is, the remission of sins and thus salvation.

I feel the need to rely on what Sunlover posted recently:

Scripture makes everything so clear and simple. When I read you, it makes everything seem so complicated.

In my utter disbelief at you even mentioning the issue of "formula for Baptism," I really have to ask you your opinion on the following:

some will declare a Baptism NOT done in the Name of Jesus to be invalid. Others will say the Trinity needs to be invoked. Now a thinking person would say that "I Baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which IS the Name of Jesus," would cover all bases. How do you stand?

Now, heretics do not have faith.

So it would seem that Protestants do not have the effect of Baptism but only character.

Ah - here you make things simple! All Pr's are heretics, do not have Faith, and therefore do not have "the effect of Baptism." So those are your true colors but the question is - is that your final answer?

Or perhaps things are a tad more complicated than that?

Again I object to your usage of the word "heresy." IF you can pinpoint, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, how some historic error, resolved within the Church before 600AD, is being repeated in our time - I say the word "heresy" is not unduly divisive.

Big little word, "IF."

 

[razeontherock]

Obviously, God does the healing. He gives the gifts as he wishes.
See below for doctrinal backgroups and information of a healing center a couple of hours from where I live. I've gone to a retreat with them in the past. I think that you find that they are very orthodox in their orientation.


Christian Healing Ministries
Doctrinal Statement

Christian Healing Ministries affirms the historic Christian beliefs as contained in the creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed), which have served as the basis of Christian belief since the first century. Because of the nature of our prayer ministry, we stress in particular the need for the power of the Holy Spirit, in order that we might serve as vessels of God’s healing power.
We also affirm the value of the medical and counseling fields since they, too, are ways in which God’s healing power is manifested. Beyond medicine and human means, we believe God can work miracles of healing through Jesus Christ, and we see this as part of His role as our Savior.
As our name, Christian Healing Ministries, suggests, we are explicitly Christian and accept Sacred Scripture as our guide and norm. We realize that there are many denominations, and we do not want to further divide but to bring together all strands of Christian truth. What we do exclude, by the very nature of our ministry as Christians, is anything that goes counter to established Christian truth, as well as any kind of healing that relies upon a spiritual power other than that of Jesus Christ (e.g., spiritualism). We pray that our courses on prayer for healing draw students closer to our Lord and His Holy Spirit.

I like the "Spirit" of that! Also sounds VERY much like everything I have ever been actively involved in.

 

[razeontherock]

No, therefore he isn't impeccable, which is not claimed. He is able to teach infallibly in certain restricted situations, just as an Ecumenical Council may teach infallibly -- that is, without error.

We believe the Church is indefectible -- that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18). We also believe that an Ecumenical Council or the pope in certain cases can bind the Church to believe something irreformably as a dogmatic truth or definitive moral teaching (cf. Mt 18:18). If we were bound to believe an error (say, had Arianism prevailed and a Council declared that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" but not God Himself) then the Church would have fallen into error and hell would have prevailed against it. The same is true for those things which have not been formally defined but have been believed "everywhere, always, by all." (St. Vincent of Lerins, "Commonitory", Ch. 2, para. 6), if these things were in error then the Church would have fallen to the Enemy.

That's it. Infallibility does not say that nobody in the Church sins or may say or do things that are really stupid or wrong (yes, even the pope). It doesn't even say that the true faith will not be eclipsed, as we saw in the Arian crisis or the present modernist crisis. Infallibility simply says that the Church as a whole will not fall into error and therefore cease to be the Church but will maintain the true faith (on a dogmatic, not a personal, level) until Christ comes again in glory. This is also why the Church is still the Church, even after Vatican II -- despite the rhetoric of rupture, nothing was dogmatically defined contrary to previously defined dogma (the teachings must only be understood in a continuity with previous teachings, they do not replace them simply because it is newer).

The pope is a sinner and goes to Confession like everybody else. That has no bearing on his ability to teach the dogmas of the faith infallibly.

Ya know, you defending RC passionately is something that doesn't bother me, and is actually kinda cute. You Love the Lord and have His Spirit

Can you see how your mission here is just COMPLETELY off-topic for this thread?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Absolutely NOT, why? because they don't view scripture as the only infallible word.

That is my view also
I coined a new word for that "solO scriptura

http://www.christianforums.com/t7526866/
Solo Scriptura...A heresy?

 

[razeontherock]

[/B]Do you know what the English word "religion" even means? Its rather absurd to say that Christ didn't establish one.

Brilliant argument, LS. Saying "absurd" is terribly convincing. Perhaps, in this thread at least, it might be more appropriate for you to find out what is meant by "Jesus didn't come to establish a religion," and clear up your misconceptions about that?

 

[razeontherock]

As for the 1970s, I was not alive. But I have heard many things from people who grew up in there and have read things from then. The early '70s was when my grandmother and my mother fell away from the faith (as very many people did) because of the post-Vatican II / New Mass chaos in the Church. So yes, I do resent what that movement did, a great many souls were lost because of it. It will take at least another 100 years to undo the effects of the modernist crisis.

That's an awfully optimistic viewpoint, thinking that we're headed in the right direction, globally.

 

[razeontherock]

The Catholic Church wanted to ensure that people were being educated against the Protestant errors so they started putting sermons in the middle of Mass.

IOW, the center of RC worship is "to educate against Pr."

You represent that very well here. This begs the question, how much of what you're taught is misconceptions?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by PilgrimToChrist The Catholic Church wanted to ensure that people were being educated against the Protestant errors so they started putting sermons in the middle of Mass.

IOW, the center of RC worship is "to educate against Pr."

You represent that very well here. This begs the question, how much of what you're taught is misconceptions?

When did that practice of sermons start in the RCC mass?

 

[razeontherock]

Just taking an opportunity to point out where I agree w/ PTC, and possibly even RC:

Okay, well, you just said it -- "if one abides in Christ". It's not like you are just going to randomly lose your salvation, that God is going to drop you as a lark, people actually do something to lose their salvation

You are saying that those who fall away have never been "illuminated" and have never "tasted also the heavenly gift" and were not "made partakers of the Holy Ghost" nor have "tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come". The Bible says that some people do and yet still fall away.

It is impossible for people to start over -- to be baptized again and be cleansed of their sin that way. But that doesn't mean they are entirely lost and reprobate. They can come back.

Yup. Sobering truth, too. I wonder if it would help Lively Stone to see where we're coming from if I inject the words of Jesus, "no man can pluck them from My Father's hand," (John 10:29) and contrast that to Him NOT saying we couldn't simply walk away, by our own choice?

A clear illustration that we can see is Paul saying some made shipwreck concerning the Faith. (1 Timothy 1:19)

I think a good modern illustration of HOW we walk away by our own choice is:

YouTube - Slow Fade by Casting Crowns with lyrics

(There are some good vids of this, I chose this one because it types out the lyrics)

You are saying that after people are baptized and have faith, they lose their free will.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, excusing you that you're trying to understand. I just need to point out this isn't a good way to accomplish that. Paraphrasing would mean asking if this is what is meant. Putting words in other people's mouths can be both divisive and inflammatory. It is consistent with sitting under teaching about what others supposedly think though ... good thing that part of the teaching isn't ex-Cathedra nor infallible, eh?

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is no doubt that there were sermons (homilies) in Catholic masses pre- Vatican II. I attended a few masses during that time and the homilies were always focussed on extracting more money from the faithful. If that is combatting Protestant error, then i vote for Protestantism which, as a rule, rarely focusses on getting money from their members.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
It is consistent with sitting under teaching about what others supposedly think though ... good thing that part of the teaching isn't ex-Cathedra nor infallible, eh?

http://www.christianforums.com/t2996289-5/#post24073854
Ex Cathedra?

Okay this is not meant as an attack on Catholics or to be a debate it is meant to ask a few questions about it after I obtain some form of understanding so I am not speaking from ignorance.

So the questions:

1. Please define
2. Please tell me who was the first person to call it this when was the first time a Pope actually used ex cathedra and please cite some other times when this happened
3. How do we know that Peter was the first Pope

 

[razeontherock]

Many people I have talked to believe that we lose our salvation every time we sin. That is an error that must be declared loud and clear.

This is significant, too! Esp for new believers, unsound thinking in this area can lead to being tossed to and fro, sifted like wheat, etc. Our Good Shepherd is FAR more Gracious, and that should be the focus of Church teaching, IMHO. It's how we stay connected!

There is no such thing as a mortal (or otherwise) sin.

In the interest of being fair and balanced, Jack the Catholic and I were having a productive dialogue right before Christmas. (Maybe even into Christmas Eve?) I concluded I needed to start a thread defining specific terms we use, to mean very different things. I never found that thread, let alone his posts that inspired me to do such a thing, nor did I consider "mortal sin" to be a term that needed to be included.

You now make me think it should be Seriously, if we saw what she means by it, we might be a bit more inclined to find common ground even on this issue. I do think a LOT of misconceptions could be cleared up by the premise of the thread I just alluded to ... and yes that's a shameless plug for anyone who can point me to "those posts" by Jack. What I found really interesting was he was using all sorts of long theological terms expecting I should know what he meant, but he couldn't define Grace.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I think the homily has been part of the Liturgy from the get go. St Chrysostom was known for giving VERY lengthy sermons.

 

[Heavens]

The Sacrament is one way that God chooses to show his faithfulness to us.

God is certainly not limited to working through the Sacraments. If we take your line of argument here, it would also be incorrect to say people are saved through faith, because then it would be faith that saves and not God. Of course both are true in a sense and are related; faith saves and God saves. The Sacraments have a relation to God, and also with our faith.

Breaking bread with members of Christ, is a remembrance of Christ and His sacrifice, and a participation in His sacrifice. That is how I read it in scripture and experience it
I am saved by Jesus through faith, I'm not confused as above as though it isn't Jesus that saves me through faith though!
It is odd to think that something else saves us other than faith, such as, being "sprinkled" by an organization with big buildings. That has nothing to do with the salvation of God that I can see in scripture.

 

[razeontherock]

Snipped to voice only that which expresses my own heart so thoroughly I could've / should've written it ...

Not having come from either, but of Jewish persuasion, I'm amazed at both RC and Pr and their bloody wars.

Ok I'm not Jewish but was raised Episcopalian which has (I think wrongly) been described as 1/2 way btw RC and Pr.

"I'm reaching across the aisle, take my hand you pagan", lol.

Good summary! Here's the part that resonates with me SO deeply:

I've found Jesus as my God in every manifestation, the Messiah of Israel, come as promised.
My Jewish family has hidden rejection toward me. They think they are God's chosen. But I'm not now, because I became a follower of who I know is Christ come and they are against Christ.
So not seeing any Church of the true living God on the earth, I bring what little church of the living God I have in me and all the spirits of just men made perfect, in the Heavenly City Jerusalem, Mt Sion, My Church... I bring all that to them. To you! My new home. I have no other church home, but I invite everyone to Jesus, whether RC or Pr.
Love and grace just seems so much more important to me right now than wondering if others are right or wrong. That stuff all works out in the wash without me having to deal with it. I'd rather be like Jesus in not finding fault en mass. There are more important things little lambs, you dears!

Does anyone not see evidence of the Holy Spirit in this??

 

[Archivist]

There is no doubt that there were sermons (homilies) in Catholic masses pre- Vatican II. I attended a few masses during that time and the homilies were always focussed on extracting more money from the faithful. If that is combatting Protestant error, then i vote for Protestantism which, as a rule, rarely focusses on getting money from their members.

Money isn't often mentioned in the Lutheran church that I attend other than listing weekly giving in the bulletin and conducting an annual stewardship campaign. However given that many megachurches have their own in-house ATMs, I don't think that "extracting more money from the faithful" is limited to the RCC.

 

[razeontherock]

Uh, what? Everybody and anybody needs to explain their beliefs. Doesn't matter who they are.



Protestantism characterizes the groups that came out of the Reformation and the theology they created. Non-Denominationalism falls under that umbrella, despite how much some of its members may want to deny it. Many Non-Demoninational Christians are fundamentalist Calvinists (read: Protestant). Others lean more towards Pentecostal-esque "spirit-filled" belief (read: Protestant). Almost all of them believe in Sola Scriptura, and I doubt you'll find any Non-Denominational church that believes in sacraments and apostolic succession like the ancient Churches.

Thank you Mr Moderator, for re-inforcing misconceptions about Pr, in a thread designed to resolve same. Now OTOH, if you were to hear straight from the horse's mouth, you would have a very different picture ...

 

[razeontherock]

I think another misconception about protestants is that we can address them as if they subsist as one body. Truly, in order to give the dignity and honor each believer deserves, I must consider them individually or at least at the denominational level.

Sadly, this is true. Even to lump together per denomination only represents those that haven't thought things through ..

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A catholic nun asks her class of young students what they want to be when they grow up. One particular girl raises her hand. The nun calls on her and the girl says, "When I grow up I want to be a prostitute." "WHAT did you just say?", replies the nun, in absolute shock from what she just heard. The girl, afraid she just said something wrong, hesitantly responds with, "I... I want to be a prostitute...?..." The nun, relieved, and with a light laugh says, "O, thank God! I thought you said you wanted to be a PROTESTANT."

Gives new meaning to Reve 17 and 19

Revelation 17:1 And came One out of the seven Messengers, of the ones having the seven bowls and He speaks with me saying to me
"Hither thou! I shall be showing to thee the judgement of the Prostitute/Protestants /pornhV <4204>, the Great, the one sitting upon the many waters"

Reve 19:2 That true and just the judgings of Him, that He judges the Prostitute/Protestants/pornhn <4204>, the Great, who-any blights the Land in the prostitution/porneia <4202 of Her...............