Misconceptions about Protestants

[PilgrimToChrist]

To say "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which IS the name of Jesus" doesn't make any sense from a language perspective. If anything, it's some weird heresy saying that Jesus encompasses the Trinity.

Specifically Oneness/Swedenborgianism. Thus, that Baptismal formula would be invalid because it does not refer to the actual Trinity, just as "I baptize you in the Name of Jesus" (which is used by Oneness churches) is also not valid. Mormons actually use the Trinitarian formula but because their understanding of the Trinity is so far off-base, they are not actually referring to the real Trinity.

So you are saying that no disagreements within Christianity after the early period count as heresy? This seems quite abitrary, and not really in line with how the people in the early period understood the word. It also seems improbable given that the early heresies are all present within modern Christian contexts. As an example, if modalism was heresy then, wouldn't it also be heresy now? Modalism is pretty common among modern Christians. Or the denial of the divinity of Christ, also common in modern Christianity?

I agree with him that most modern heresies have ancient counterparts -- the Jehovah's Witnesses hold Arian/semi-Arian theology, the Oneness churches are just another form of Modalism/Unitarianism, the Charismatics have similar practices to the Montanists, there are modernists who take an essentially Adoptionist or Ebionite view of Christ, some Evangelicals/Fundamentalists seem to have an essentially Gnostic/Manichean disregard for the material universe, other people have an Antinomianism or even Marcionist view, many people believe in Universalism (if not in actual doctrine, then at least in practice -- to them, if anyone is in Hell, it's only Hitler and Stalin not everyday people), some deny the existence of Original Sin just like Pelagius, some adopt a perverted and extreme view of predestination (God predestines to evil, and Christ did not die for all men but only for the elect) just like Lucidus, etc. etc. etc.

The devil is essentially terribly uncreative -- he repeats the same heresies, he leads people into the same temptations, over and over and over again. A truly original heresy would be surprising. Pope Pius X called Modernism "the synthesis of all heresies" ("omnium haereseon conlectum" -- Pascendi Dominici Gregis) and says, "Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done."

So nearly all heresies found today were also found in the early Church. But it does still seem an arbitrary and unnecessary line that to be considered a heresy it must have originated prior to the year 600.

That is a different argument, and I think has some merit. Unfortunately it also has a negative side - it can make people think that the errors are really unimportant, all just fine as ways of thinking about God, all just different, valid opinions. So denying the Resurrection is just one way of being a Christian, you know? It's not like it is a heresy.

All errors that actually deny dogma are certainly important. The Protestant battles over pre-/mid-/post-trib and the manner of Creation (YEC, OEC, TE, etc.) are what seem silly to me because they don't touch on actual dogma.

Orthodoxy, to me, is less like a series of propositions that must be adhered to and more like a field. Heresy is going out of bounds. If you are going to play the game, you have to be on the field. Take any domatic part of the faith -- for example, Hell exists. There are those who say that Hell does exist but no human is or will ever go there. Then there are those who say that Hell exists and nearly everyone will go there. Where is orthodoxy? Somewhere in the middle. Orthodoxy says that Christ is both fully God and Man. The Gnostics/Docetists emphasized Christ's Divinity so much as to eliminate His Humanity. The Ebionites/Modernists (e.g. Jesus Seminar, the search for the so-called "Historical Jesus") emphasize Christ's Humanity so much as to eliminate His Divinity.

So, stay on the field.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Then this is heretical:

Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

And apparently it's unjustifiable, both by history and Scripture, according to you.

Define "Godhead".

And this IS in line with what I wrote! They used it, to specify specific things. Stick to that, in modern application of those very same things

So, the early Church had the authority to define orthodoxy and say what was heresy but the modern Church does not? Why?

So what you are saying is you disrespect my need and my humanity. Such Christian behavior! No, your broad brushtroke here is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Either that or your vocabulary only contains one word. Which again would paint you as a crazed lunatic hell-bent on torturing, maiming and killing devout believers. Do you really expect me to believe you can't see anything unhealthy in your assertion here? Or do you somehow conveniently forget people actually poured molten lead into living people's veins, hoping to "purge them of their sin?"

I suppose your parents read you Foxe's Book of Martyrs every night before you went to sleep, huh?

Do you object to capital punishment in general or simply to the methods of capital punishment (and torture) that were used in those days?

 

[simonthezealot]

Define "Godhead".

???
All the fullness of divinity dwelt in Him


Godhead
G2320
θεότης
theotēs
theh-ot'-ace
From G2316; divinity (abstractly): - godhead.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The denial of the divinity of Christ is very common among what might loosely be described as "liberal Christians." So you see a lot of it in some Anglican communities - I had a Bishop who argued that the Resurrection was metaphorical - or the moderator of the United Church of Canada a number of years ago subscribed to the idea that Jesus was just a really good guy. It is a large popular group, by no means a cult.

I heard a sermon on Trinity Sunday at an Episcopalian Cathedral a few years ago (the only time I went there). In the sermon, she said she didn't believe in the Trinity and said that Jesus was the "Son of God" in that he was a man who was really close to God. It actually took another year before she was suspended.

I had only been there once but I'm pretty sure it was this woman. It wasn't surprising that in the vestibule, there was a board with a lot of information on their regular "Interfaith gatherings" and "discussions". Apparently, someone went so "interfaith" as to be no longer Christian.

I also went to a talk / dinner on youth/young adults in the Episcopal Church that Bp. Schori (for those who don't know, the controversial head of the ECUSA) gave. She didn't say anything heretical in the talk but she has elsewhere. We got a new bishop shortly before I left the Episcopal Church and his suggested diocesan-wide Lenten reading was a book on the "emergent church". I insisted in my discussions with the bishop that the leaders emergent church were promoting heterodoxy (I know, I used to be involved with it!) but he couldn't see it. I left during that Lent.

I became involved with the Episcopal Church, in part, because of its more liberal stances while retaining much of the traditional Catholic "feel" (although Episcopal parishes vary widely). I was in a long-term lesbian relationship at the time and if I was going to become a Christian, I wanted somewhere that was pro-gay. I actually became involved with my community first but it took several months before I would go to church with them because I was wary of "organized religion", even though I would say Morning and Evening Prayer with them (I was very anti-Christian for a long time, largely because of my homosexuality, so it took a lot of effort to get over that -- even to the point of being a liberal Episcopalian!).

But anyway, the point is that heresy is mainstream now -- it is constantly preached from the pulpits and seminars of Liberal and Mainline Protestant churches (and sadly, even some Catholic parishes). Not just more subtle issues of predestination and soteriology and the nature of the Sacraments, but actual out-and-out denial of the divinity of Christ (usually through the lens of the "search for the historical Jesus" and the "historical-critical method", see the NAB comments) and other major dogmas that, I hope, all of us here can agree on.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

???
All the fullness of divinity dwelt in Him


Godhead
G2320
θεότης
theotēs
theh-ot'-ace
From G2316; divinity (abstractly): - godhead.

Correct. I was just trying to figure out how "razeontherock" could say "the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost... IS the name of Jesus" and justify it with this verse.

Someone else on this forum a while ago insisted that "Godhead" meant "Trinity". "Godhead" is the word used in the KJV instead of "Godhood" or "divinity". The verse simply says that Jesus is fully divine and fully man ("For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.").

That is why I asked for a definition of "Godhead".

 

[DanuckInUSA]

I see.

 

[Heavens]

Anybody... What is the Name of THIS person being spoken of here? Can anybody tell me this PERSON'S NAME??

(Isa 9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

 

[MKJ]

Ok, I'll bite. From your "language perspective" what IS the name of Father/Son/Holy Spirit if not "Jesus"??

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus only refers to the Son, not the father or the Holy Spirit.

 

[MKJ]

I heard a sermon on Trinity Sunday at an Episcopalian Cathedral a few years ago (the only time I went there). In the sermon, she said she didn't believe in the Trinity and said that Jesus was the "Son of God" in that he was a man who was really close to God. It actually took another year before she was suspended.

I had only been there once but I'm pretty sure it was this woman. It wasn't surprising that in the vestibule, there was a board with a lot of information on their regular "Interfaith gatherings" and "discussions". Apparently, someone went so "interfaith" as to be no longer Christian.

I also went to a talk / dinner on youth/young adults in the Episcopal Church that Bp. Schori (for those who don't know, the controversial head of the ECUSA) gave. She didn't say anything heretical in the talk but she has elsewhere. We got a new bishop shortly before I left the Episcopal Church and his suggested diocesan-wide Lenten reading was a book on the "emergent church". I insisted in my discussions with the bishop that the leaders emergent church were promoting heterodoxy (I know, I used to be involved with it!) but he couldn't see it. I left during that Lent.

I became involved with the Episcopal Church, in part, because of its more liberal stances while retaining much of the traditional Catholic "feel" (although Episcopal parishes vary widely). I was in a long-term lesbian relationship at the time and if I was going to become a Christian, I wanted somewhere that was pro-gay. I actually became involved with my community first but it took several months before I would go to church with them because I was wary of "organized religion", even though I would say Morning and Evening Prayer with them (I was very anti-Christian for a long time, largely because of my homosexuality, so it took a lot of effort to get over that -- even to the point of being a liberal Episcopalian!).

But anyway, the point is that heresy is mainstream now -- it is constantly preached from the pulpits and seminars of Liberal and Mainline Protestant churches (and sadly, even some Catholic parishes). Not just more subtle issues of predestination and soteriology and the nature of the Sacraments, but actual out-and-out denial of the divinity of Christ (usually through the lens of the "search for the historical Jesus" and the "historical-critical method", see the NAB comments) and other major dogmas that, I hope, all of us here can agree on.

There is some crazy stuff out there.

 

[Heavens]

Jesus only refers to the Son, not the father or the Holy Spirit.

Oops! Sorry, no carnal 'rational' please. Just answer the question from scripture if you would? Thanks

What is the NAME of that person? Can you confess His Name? (You will have to humble the carnal self to do it.)
hint;
(Joh 14:8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
(Joh 14:9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thouthen,Shew us the Father?

Do you see the pure truth that the God of the universe is laying out in front of you here MKJ?

(Isa 9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

This is some crystal clear good news for you if you can receive it

It will be the same "NAME" as this NAME;

(Mat 28:19)Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Just say His Name


May you be Blessed!

 

[chilehed]

Misconception is that "protestants are their own popes"

I've always been curious as to what that accusation meant exactly. It never seemed to make sense to me, considering the many protestant denominations that don't even have ordained clergy.

When I was a Protestant I struggled with the question of how I could determine true doctrine. Christ correctly observes that the Scriptures are often difficult to understand, and the ignorant and unstable distort them to their own ruin. Since the ignorant and unstable don't know that they're ignorant and unstable, how was I to know that I wasn't one of them?

I could search the scriptures more diligently, but, being ignorant and unstable, that couldn't give me any more assurance than before. I could rely on teachers wiser and more learned than I, but to find them I'd have to make judgments of their teaching based once more on my ignorant and unstable understanding of Scripture. Again, this couldn't help.

Ultimately I fell back on the understanding that I didn't need to worry about it, because having given myself to Christ He would lead me within myself to a correct understanding of Scripture. In retrospect it's obvious that in doing so I was assuming that my understanding of the relevant Scriptures wasn't subject to the problem of ignorance and instability, but at the time I (perhaps subconsciously) decided to ignore that.

That began a period of bouncing from one congregation and denomination to another, the decision to jump ship being made by the fact that the congregation or pastor taught things that contradicted my understanding of the meaning of Scripture. Was it possible that the pastor or congregation was correct, and I was wrong?... NO, because I knew that the Holy Spirit would lead me, individually, to a correct understanding of Scripture.

In other words, I believed that as a follower of Christ I was protected by the Holy Spirit from coming to erroneous conclusions about the meaning of Scripture, to the point that I could confidently shake the dust off my feet as I left one congregation and denomination after another. What I believed was precisely what the Catholic Church teaches about the Pope: that I was protected by a charism of the Holy Spirit that would protect me from error in matters of determining revealed truth.

And I am far from the only Protestant to believe that. In fact I've never met a single non-Catholic who would accept a difficult teaching that contradicted their own understanding, merely because they recognized that the person attempting to teach them had the authority to tell them "because I said so and God has placed me in doctrinal authority over you".

That's what is meant by "protestants are their own popes" - and it's not a misconception. I would have denied it vehemently if anyone accused me of it, but it was true nonetheless.

 

[Lively Stone]

I don't "take him to mean" anything at all, other than to intentionally and repeatedly disrespect the purpose of the thread. Further, I knew good and well what he meant by the usage of the word "religion" the first time he used it, which I fully expect Lively Stone did not. Laconic Student and I have seen one another in the same threads, ever since my join date.

Moreover, Laconic Student could and SHOULD know perfectly well how religion is being used in this thread, by Pr's. So my point stands, that in a thread designed to remove misconception, he belligerently clings to misconception.

I understood completely, raze. Hence, the differentiation.

 

[MKJ]

When I was a Protestant I struggled with the question of how I could determine true doctrine. Christ correctly observes that the Scriptures are often difficult to understand, and the ignorant and unstable distort them to their own ruin. Since the ignorant and unstable don't know that they're ignorant and unstable, how was I to know that I wasn't one of them?

I could search the scriptures more diligently, but, being ignorant and unstable, that couldn't give me any more assurance than before. I could rely on teachers wiser and more learned than I, but to find them I'd have to make judgments of their teaching based once more on my ignorant and unstable understanding of Scripture. Again, this couldn't help.

Ultimately I fell back on the understanding that I didn't need to worry about it, because having given myself to Christ He would lead me within myself to a correct understanding of Scripture. In retrospect it's obvious that in doing so I was assuming that my understanding of the relevant Scriptures wasn't subject to the problem of ignorance and instability, but at the time I (perhaps subconsciously) decided to ignore that.

That began a period of bouncing from one congregation and denomination to another, the decision to jump ship being made by the fact that the congregation or pastor taught things that contradicted my understanding of the meaning of Scripture. Was it possible that the pastor or congregation was correct, and I was wrong?... NO, because I knew that the Holy Spirit would lead me, individually, to a correct understanding of Scripture.

In other words, I believed that as a follower of Christ I was protected by the Holy Spirit from coming to erroneous conclusions about the meaning of Scripture, to the point that I could confidently shake the dust off my feet as I left one congregation and denomination after another. What I believed was precisely what the Catholic Church teaches about the Pope: that I was protected by a charism of the Holy Spirit that would protect me from error in matters of determining revealed truth.

And I am far from the only Protestant to believe that. In fact I've never met a single non-Catholic who would accept a difficult teaching that contradicted their own understanding, merely because they recognized that the person attempting to teach them had the authority to tell them "because I said so and God has placed me in doctrinal authority over you".

That's what is meant by "protestants are their own popes" - and it's not a misconception. I would have denied it vehemently if anyone accused me of it, but it was true nonetheless.

You know though that this type of individualism isn't necessarily part of Protestantism. The earliest Protestant groups saw the authority to determine doctrine as lying in the ecclesiastical community, and many would still argue that.

Now, you could argue that the rampant individualism is the ultimate and necessary conclusion of what those communities believed - Luther complained about it so it was a pretty early development.

 

[MKJ]

Oops! Sorry, no carnal 'rational' please. Just answer the question from scripture if you would? Thanks

What is the NAME of that person? Can you confess His Name? (You will have to humble the carnal self to do it.)
hint;
(Joh 14:8) Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
(Joh 14:9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thouthen,Shew us the Father?

Do you see the pure truth that the God of the universe is laying out in front of you here MKJ?

(Isa 9:6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

This is some crystal clear good news for you if you can receive it

It will be the same "NAME" as this NAME;

(Mat 28:19)Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Just say His Name


May you be Blessed!

Oh good grief.

 

[hedrick]

In fact I've never met a single non-Catholic who would accept a difficult teaching that contradicted their own understanding, merely because they recognized that the person attempting to teach them had the authority to tell them "because I said so and God has placed me in doctrinal authority over you".

That's what is meant by "protestants are their own popes" - and it's not a misconception. I would have denied it vehemently if anyone accused me of it, but it was true nonetheless.

That's not my experience at all. I find that most members are not experts in theology. They are inclined to defer to people who are more informed. Most of our members accept the Trinity on that basis: they couldn't argue for it themselves, but they understand that everyone that they trust who knows theology accepts it.

What's harder is when someone has done significant study, and comes to a conclusion different from the Church. In my own case, my study involves the same sources that others in my church use (I don't claim to be a theologian or Biblical scholar on my own), so it's unlikely that this would happen to me. So in a somewhat different basis than our typical member, I also normally follow my church's theology. It's not that I conclude X and the Church asserts not-X, so I have to abandon my belief. Rather, it's that I form my conclusions in dialog with others in my tradition, using the same type of scholarship.

I don't think my experience is unusual. But then I'm part of a confessional tradition (Reformed -- I'm a member of the PCUSA).

 

[Heavens]

Oh good grief.

There's the written record you give before God and man. I pray for you.

 

[sunlover1]

When I was a Protestant I struggled with the question of how I could determine true doctrine. Christ correctly observes that the Scriptures are often difficult to understand, and the ignorant and unstable distort them to their own ruin. Since the ignorant and unstable don't know that they're ignorant and unstable, how was I to know that I wasn't one of them?

You betcha, and how do you know you're not ignorant even now?
Personally, I am not ignorant OR unstable.
I have power and love and a strong mind. In fact, I do have the mind
of Christ, holding the thoughts and purposes of Christ in my heart.
God has energized me and given me ALL things that I need for life
and for godliness...
He actually said to STUDY to show yourselves approved.. (Maybe you
didn't study enough??)

I could search the scriptures more diligently, but, being ignorant and unstable, that couldn't give me any more assurance than before. I could rely on teachers wiser and more learned than I, but to find them I'd have to make judgments of their teaching based once more on my ignorant and unstable understanding of Scripture. Again, this couldn't help.

You've been reading the wrong book.. The one you shoulda been studying
woulda fixed this dilemma for you.

Seriously, Let God's curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from
heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you.

Nobody is infallible.
His Word abides forever.

And I am far from the only Protestant to believe that. In fact I've never met a single non-Catholic who would accept a difficult teaching that contradicted their own understanding, merely because they recognized that the person attempting to teach them had the authority to tell them "because I said so and God has placed me in doctrinal authority over you".

Dude, ya need to get out more!

That's what is meant by "protestants are their own popes" - and it's not a misconception. I would have denied it vehemently if anyone accused me of it, but it was true nonetheless.

[/QUOTE]
Now, for the rest of the story

That's not my experience at all. I find that most members are not experts in theology. They are inclined to defer to people who are more informed. Most of our members accept the Trinity on that basis: they couldn't argue for it themselves, but they understand that everyone that they trust who knows theology accepts it..

Exactly.
People blindly accept what they're told..

 

[razeontherock]

No. You can say each of the persons are fully God, but not that each person contains the other two.

Except the Scripture that says the fulness of the Godhead dwelled in Jesus bodily doesn't say that the 2nd person is fully G-d.

The denial of the divinity of Christ is very common among what might loosely be described as "liberal Christians." So you see a lot of it in some Anglican communities - I had a Bishop who argued that the Resurrection was metaphorical - or the moderator of the United Church of Canada a number of years ago subscribed to the idea that Jesus was just a really good guy. It is a large popular group, by no means a cult.

Well we'll agree to disagree here. These types are by no means Christian, they are cults. You are free to excuse them however you wish. I will not back away from my duty to confront such to their face, should G-d be pleased to press me into such a situation.

I have no problem labeling ideas as heretical based on what the Church has said - and some devout, influential, and important Christians have had some heretical ideas. Origen had heretical ideas without being a heretic in the proper sense. Eriugena, one of my favorite Christian authors, had some heretical ideas without being a heretic.

I agree with your premise, and accept the usage of the word "heretical" in such cases. Even though the connotative meaning still makes my skin crawl. There are Scriptures that guide your actions in such cases

Given that in another thread you were talking about Protestants kicking Catholic butt

You do know that is NOT what I said!

and the predations of your Viking ancestors, I have trouble taking your scruples really seriously.

Yeah, gotta watch out for those unscrupulous Vikings, 1500 years removed

I also notice that you have in no way addressed the problem of failing to use clear language about heretical (or whatever word you would substitute that means heretical) ideas.

Yes I have, repeatedly. What's wrong with error? False teaching? Not medieval enough for ya? Those terms are perfectly clear, and carry plenty of weight.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, I'll bite. From your "language perspective" what IS the name of Father/Son/Holy Spirit if not "Jesus"??

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Waitaminnit, what are you dong introducing Scripture into this? I thought we talked about that?!?

I mean, does your denomination know you're thinking for yourself?

 

[razeontherock]

Specifically Oneness/Swedenborgianism. Thus, that Baptismal formula would be invalid because it does not refer to the actual Trinity

So to say "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, which is the name of Jesus," does not refer to the Trinity - according to you. Thank you for answering the question!

Why do you not find this unneccesarily divisive?