Protestant America has forgotten where it came from

[Albion]

It is understandable that you, being Anglican, would want with all your heart to believe this nonsense.

I really don't see where mentioning the fact that the RCC, the EO, the SDA and some other denominations all assert, individually, that they alone are the one true "church" to the exclusion of all other churches--and, furthermore, that it is impossible that this is correct thinking.

How my being an Anglican has anything to do with that, I am not sure, but it's true that we do not believe such a notion as that.

 

[Light of the East]

I really don't see where mentioning the fact that the RCC, the EO, the SDA and some other denominations all assert, individually, that they alone are the one true "church" to the exclusion of all other churches--and, furthermore, that it is impossible that this is correct thinking.

How my being an Anglican has anything to do with that, I am not sure, but it's true that we do not believe such a notion as that.

You don't wish to see it, my dear sir, because to admit that there is one true Church, which was established in the first century, was visible with visible unity and hierarchy, and was called "katholicos" or universal, by the second century, and progressed continuously until the 16th century, would mean that you admit that you are not a part of it.

It would be to admit, per se, that you and all others who are not part of this Church, are in fact, being disobedient to the Scriptures which state that the Church is the place where God places His blessings.

This is not to say you cannot be a good person, and perhaps even a better follower of Christ than this old grouchy coot. It is simply to state the truth - that Christ established one particular body with one particular set of worship rules and one particular location and hierarchy.

 

[Albion]

You don't wish to see it, my dear sir, because to admit that there is one true Church, which was established in the first century, was visible with visible unity and hierarchy, and was called "katholicos" or universal, by the second century, and progressed continuously until the 16th century, would mean that you admit that you are not a part of it.

That's what many people think who've bounced around between denominations and alight on one that insists that it is the only truth and, therefore, the members are the only real Christians. Eureka. It gives a sense of security to them.

The fact is, though, that what you've written here is no more true than that Joseph Smith found golden plates, that the Apostolic church apostasized only to be rediscovered by the Jehovah's Witnesses, or that Ellen G. White was a prophet who finally got Christianity right--and all those churches' followers are as certain of it as you are of your belief.

Christ founded a church, not a club. The New Testament itself teaches this when it says that the foundation of the church is the "household of God." That's all the true believers. It doesn't say "the Church at Rome (or Alexandria or somewhere else), not those other ones."

But at least you were right to point out that the word "catholic" (originating well after the founding of the first churches) meant a characteristic, and was not a name of any denomination.

 

[Light of the East]

That's what many people think who've bounced around between denominations and alight on one that insists that it is the only truth and, therefore, the members are the only real Christians. Eureka. It gives a sense of security to them.

The fact is, though, that what you've written here is no more true than that Joseph Smith found golden plates, that the Apostolic church apostasized only to be rediscovered by the Jehovah's Witnesses, or that Ellen G. White was a prophet who finally got Christianity right--and all those churches' followers are as certain of it as you are of your belief.

Christ founded a church, not a club. The New Testament itself teaches this when it says that the foundation of the church is the "household of God." That's all the true believers. It doesn't say "the Church at Rome (or Alexandria or somewhere else), not those other ones."

But at least you were right to point out that the word "catholic" (originating well after the founding of the first churches) meant a characteristic, and was not a name of any denomination.

Really?????

Are you really....(sheeesh, never mind, I don't want to devolve to insults here).

I cannot understand how, for the life of me, you can look at the historical and chronological progression of that first organization, which had only one hierarchy and one set of leaders, and somehow insist that devolution from that particular organization constitutes remaining in the Church.

Look, guy, it is either the Holy Orthodox and Rome left them, or it is the Catholic Church with Rome as the head of 23 different rites and Orthodoxy left them. I am trying to figure that one out right now.....

but Anglicanism, sir, is not even in the club! Not a part of either one of them. Considering that English Catholics were at one time part of the Western Church, you were once part of the Church by being headed up by Rome. But when Henry the VIII's passions overwhelmed his common sense and he broke ties with Rome....

you guys were out! No longer part of the Church. To make an analogy, it would be like being part of the English Crown and then breaking away, yet still trying to claim that you are English. Nope....it's called the United States of America, and while there is a certain connection in language and culture, the Crown has no governance over us, hence we are not a part of England.

Rome has no governance over the Anglicans (except for the Anglican Ordinariate) and hence, you are not part of the historic Church.

Now you can twist history until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that Rome has apostolic succession which the other named groups you gave do not. JW's, Mormons, Protestants of any stripe, Fundamentalists, Anabaptists, etc, cannot claim to have an unbroken line of authority which reaches all the way back to the Apostles. Only Constantinople and Rome can claim that and have history to prove it. The rest did not exist until a minimum of 15 centuries later.

And in the operational principles of a covenant relationship, the fifth working principle -succession - is in effect here. You have no succession. Period. Covenantal authority is handed down by the laying on of hands. Once that is broken - pffffffft! You're done! That is why in the Scriptures being the first born son was no small deal. The first born got EVERYTHING in covenant inheritance!

So dream on, sir. I wouldn't wish to interrupt your little fantasy!

 

[masmpg]

My comment stands. I was a Presbyterian Calvinist. I know what the teaching of the "invisible church" is all about and I know why the Reformers invented it.

Type in the words "invisible church" in an online Bible search engine and see what you get. Funny how you "sola scriptura" types never have a problem with making things up for the scriptures when it suits your need to fit your unbiblical theology!

I googled "invisible church" I am right you have no idea what it is. Every denomination has its definition of what it is, and the first one I found said that the "orthodox" church is the invisible church. If you would have read my comment you would see that what I wrote is an opinion of what I believe the invisible church to be. I know what the RCC believes about which church is what.

I never make things up when it comes to bible study. The bible has ONE interpretation and that comes from the Comforter. Please read John 14-17, and study it and pray that the Comforter will reveal it to your heart, because there is no man that can do that! My understanding, your understanding or even the popes understanding has very little if anything to do with what the Lord reveals to anybody at any given time. Christians, TRUE Christians are all on a different walk on the same path, and when we are listening to the Comforter we will be certain we are on the right path

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Every denomination has its definition of what it is, and the first one I found said that the "orthodox" church is the invisible church.

Whoever wrote that was not accurately describing Orthodox ecclesiology. We believe our church is the visible church.

 

[Albion]

Really?????

Yeh, it's common.

I cannot understand how, for the life of me, you can look at the historical and chronological progression of that first organization, which had only one hierarchy and one set of leaders, and somehow insist that devolution from that particular organization constitutes remaining in the Church.

Well, for one thing, there are churches/denominations that are way off from that organization...but others are not. And yet the 'one true church, i.e. denomination" POV is based upon there being only one (obviously).

For another, if it's the RCC that's making the claim, there was no papacy nor about the first 300 years of Christian history, nor even bishops of Rome claiming such a thing...and yet that's an indispensable element in the "one true church" argument for the RCC. Again, "obviously."

Look, guy, it is either the Holy Orthodox and Rome left them, or it is the Catholic Church as the head of 23 different rites and Orthodoxy left them. I am trying to figure that one out right now.....

Yes, but the pursuit is misplaced. A denomination or communion may be orthodox or heretical, but the whole idea of only one being "the one that Christ had in mind" as an institution is not substantiated by either scripture or history.

 

[Light of the East]

I googled "invisible church" I am right you have no idea what it is.

I didn't say to Google the term. I said look those words up in the Bible. There is no such term. When the word "church" is used in the Bible, it is referring to a visible body with visible hierarchy and visible Liturgy.

Every denomination has its definition of what it is, and the first one I found said that the "orthodox" church is the invisible church.

And you got called out on that one (Post # 26) because we Orthodox recognize no such entity. So you would be wrong again.

If you would have read my comment you would see that what I wrote is an opinion of what I believe the invisible church to be. I know what the RCC believes about which church is what.

Since there is no such thing as the "invisible church," speaking biblically, you can believe it is full of flying dragons and unicorns for all I care. It is a fond Protestant invention, a theological novum with no scriptural support. It was invented by the Protestant Rebellion to take away from the authority of the visible Church and calm the fears of the massa damnata, that great unwashed mass of ignorance, so they would follow the leaders of the rebellion.

I never make things up when it comes to bible study.

The bible has ONE interpretation and that comes from the Comforter.

OH LORDY!!! I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe! News Flash! The Holy Spirit promised to be with the CHURCH, not with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who learned to read "See Spot Run" and now thinks he is a theologian.

The reason I am laughing so hard is because when you say something like this, I think of all the other people who have said the same thing: 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, JW's, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Fundamentalists, Oneness Pentecostals, etc etc etc....all of whom say that the Holy Spirit has directly taught them

and all of whom disagree with each other!!!!!!

Is the Holy Spirit that schizophrenic, or perhaps you take to yourself more than you should in your claims that the Holy Spirit has led you to believe what you believe.


Please read John 14-17, and study it and pray that the Comforter will reveal it to your heart, because there is no man that can do that!

John 14-17 was directed to a SPECIFIC GROUP OF MEN - the Apostles:

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Do you see that little word "you" in the red? I can't tell you how many times I have seen folks take that verse and make it their claim that they have been led into "all truth" for their heretical and nonsensical notions. "You" does not mean "all the believers who will ever show up from now until the end of the world." If that was what Christ had meant, He would have said exactly that.

He meant "YOU" - as in the men standing right in front of Him. And history has shown this to be true as we have seen cadres of heretics, schismatics, and crazies claim the most bizarre and strange teachings. Apparently "YOU" did not mean them. And it doesn't mean you or me for that matter. It means the Church and those who hold the apostolic office!

My understanding, your understanding or even the pope's understanding has very little if anything to do with what the Lord reveals to anybody at any given time. Christians, TRUE Christians are all on a different walk on the same path, and when we are listening to the Comforter we will be certain we are on the right path

BALONEY!!!! (I can't say what I really think)

You are either following the "faith once given to the saints" through the Apostles, or you are following yourself and your own ideas, which are usually not from God. We are not "all on the same path." One is either obedient to the Church which Christ gave to the world through the Apostles, or one is a rebel, pure and simple. There is no middle ground.

I have no idea what Christ's judgment will be for those who have decided they are smarter than the Apostles, the Church, and 2000 years of teaching, but I will stick with the Church, thank you.

 

[Tangible]

Where did Protestant America come from? Scots Presbyterians, Quakers, Puritans, Methodists, and Baptists. But what did they become? Something about the American experience birthed a motley crew of Restorationists, Revivalists (holiness groups), and sects like the Russellites and various Adventist/Sabbattarian groups. Then there was the Mormons. Still later, the Pentecostals. And on and on as groups merged, faded, evolved, devolved, and split. It is a messy and complicated history and partially an immigrant tale. A Protestantism shaped not by the European scholar, but the country parishioner - more folk religion than scholastic religion.

The 19th Century was a dark time overall in the history of the Church, especially in the USA. So much confusion. So many false teachers. Seeds were sown that bore a rich harvest of heresy, conflict, and division.

 

[Albion]

The 19th Century was a dark time overall in the history of the Church, especially in the USA. So much confusion. So many false teachers. Seeds were sown that bore a rich harvest of heresy, conflict, and division.

Very true, and it was a very difficult time for the Catholic Church as well as for the Protestant churches.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Yeh, it's common.


Well, for one thing, there are churches/denominations that are way off from that organization...but others are not. And yet the 'one true church, i.e. denomination" POV is based upon there being only one (obviously).

For another, if it's the RCC that's making the claim, there was no papacy nor about the first 300 years of Christian history, nor even bishops of Rome claiming such a thing...and yet that's an indispensable element in the "one true church" argument for the RCC. Again, "obviously."


Yes, but the pursuit is misplaced. A denomination or communion may be orthodox or heretical, but the whole idea of only one being "the one that Christ had in mind" as an institution is not substantiated by either scripture or history.

There was a Papacy, but it was in Alexandria.

 

[Shane R]

Look, guy, it is either the Holy Orthodox and Rome left them, or it is the Catholic Church with Rome as the head of 23 different rites and Orthodoxy left them. I am trying to figure that one out right now.....

but Anglicanism, sir, is not even in the club! Not a part of either one of them. Considering that English Catholics were at one time part of the Western Church, you were once part of the Church by being headed up by Rome.

Your grasp of church history is deficient. I would think that someone actively studying Holy Orthodoxy would not speak of Constantinople in the monolithic terms you have employed at times in your argument. There were many great and ancient sees. And the fact will always stand that Jerusalem and Antioch predate Rome as apostolic centers.

As for English Catholics, they were Celtic Christians for many centuries before they were finally brought under the jurisdictional umbrella of Rome. The story of even the Western church, not to mention the East and Orient, is not so clean and linear as some imagine.

 

[masmpg]

Where did Protestant America come from? Scots Presbyterians, Quakers, Puritans, Methodists, and Baptists. But what did they become? Something about the American experience birthed a motley crew of Restorationists, Revivalists (holiness groups), and sects like the Russellites and various Adventist/Sabbattarian groups. Then there was the Mormons. Still later, the Pentecostals. And on and on as groups merged, faded, evolved, devolved, and split. It is a messy and complicated history and partially an immigrant tale. A Protestantism shaped not by the European scholar, but the country parishioner - more folk religion than scholastic religion.

Many of the founding fathers were atheists, masons, humanists, etc. They were weary of the persecution emanating from the formal churches in Europe (catholic and anglican). The constitution was based on principles of freedom that were denied by these persecuting bodies. When any church body causes the civil powers to enact laws in favor of its creeds and dogmas we will see the persecution of the inquisition all over again.

 

[miamited]

HI guys,

Whew!!! What a sad state of affairs we find here on this thread.

I'm sure there won't be a lot of agreement with my words and that's ok, but I feel it needs to be said.

I'm not really sure what value there is for anyone in understanding or remembering 'where' the protestant denominations came from. I'm sure for those who feel beholden to tradition that such knowledge does appeal, but...

The walls of the 'church' are invisible. The people of the 'church' are not. One can be a part of the 'called out ones' without knowing one whit of historical information about any of the various and sundry denominations that exist today upon the earth. All it takes to be a member of the body of the Jesus' 'church' is to be born again. All one needs to be born again is to understand who God is and have the deepest heartfelt desire to trust and obey and love Him. If any individual shall choose to live a life devoted to loving God and the things of God, then that person is a part of Jesus' 'church'.

It's really just that simple, but I'm assured it isn't that easy for those outside of the 'church' to understand. Man has always and forever made true faith in God, the faith that God asks of us, much more difficult than it need be. Jesus was telling us the truth. If one seeks to keep all the commands of the Scriptures and the prophets, love the Lord your God with all that you are and others as yourself.

God bless you all,
In Christ, ted

 

[ViaCrucis]

I like the use of the word "Protestant" as though that word has ever referred to anything resembling a cohesive group of people.

And the use of "Protestant America" as though America were a Protestant nation when many of the founders and framers of the Constitution weren't Protestant in any sense--many were Episcopalians, Deists, Catholics, or Unitarians. There were some Presbyterians and Congregationalists, but that's about the extent of "Protestant" depending on whether one wants to include Episcopalians (well, Anglicans really) under the Protestant umbrella.

America has never been Protestant.
And Protestants have always been a diverse group--there is no such thing as "Protestantism" for example. There are instead a great many different "Protestantisms"--various groups which came out of the Reformation directly, indirectly, or otherwise by a series of ongoing schismatic breaks in various groups.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The constitution was based on principles of freedom that were denied by these persecuting bodies. When any church body causes the civil powers to enact laws in favor of its creeds and dogmas we will see the persecution of the inquisition all over again.

Ah, so that's why America should enforce Christian religion (of which variety is anyone's guess) on everyone; and why we should oppose the secular principles upon which our republic was founded. Because America was founded on secular principles of religious freedom and individual liberty and enforcing any one creed results in persecution.

I think I get it now.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[masmpg]

Ah, so that's why America should enforce Christian religion (of which variety is anyone's guess) on everyone; and why we should oppose the secular principles upon which our republic was founded. Because America was founded on secular principles of religious freedom and individual liberty and enforcing any one creed results in persecution.

I think I get it now.

-CryptoLutheran

This country was founded on PROTESTANT PRINCIPLES NOT biblical legislation. Protestant principles like freedom of conscience, which any organization that assumes to usurp God's authority for arresting people for not following certain creeds or dogmas does not promote! The inquisition was the most oppressive thing to ever happen to mankind and it was all done in the name of "Christianity" which is not Christianity but churchianity! Legislating morality is far worse than legislating immorality!
Please stop adding your conjecture to what I write, and kindly read what I have written before you try to put me down with your rhetoric!

 

[Light of the East]

The inquisition was the most oppressive thing to ever happen to mankind and it was all done in the name of "Christianity" which is not Christianity but churchianity! Legislating morality is far worse than legislating immorality!

Hot air and nonsense. You have no idea what the Inquisition was all about.

Defense of the Inquisition - District of the USA

4 Sources to Understand and Even Defend the Catholic Inquisitions

Read the articles and kindly step out of the cesspool of ignorance in which you are steeped.

 

[Thursday]

The Catholic Church?

 

[miamited]

Hi LotE

You responded to masmpg:

Honestly, you really think that the people you are following are Simon-pure and only want the truth?

You do know that doesn't have any application to the point being made, right?

If I say to a young man, "Your mother's a harlot!", and he responds to me, "So, I saw your mom out with a sailor last night", the second response doesn't address or have any bearing on whether or not the first young man's mother is a harlot.

Masmpg has made an accusation that the inquisitions were a part of the history of the Catholic organizations and that the result was a lot of dead believers at the hands of that organization. For you to respond with, "So, do you think the people you follow are more pure?" doesn't address the claim. It generally confirms the claim. The way such a statement is usually understood is: That claim is correct, but you don't follow pure people either.

So, I just want to clear up, is it your intention to agree with masmpg's claim regarding the inquisitions and the Catholic organization, but you don't think the faith that he follows is any more pure?

God bless you,
In Christ, ted