Protestant Doctrine

[calmcoolandelected]

I realize you only believe in only two sacraments because you think that is all Scripture warrants. But in your understanding of sacraments do you believe the God has ordained certain elements of the temporal world to convey grace. Such and those of the Lords Supper and water in Baptism. There is also some spoken formula like that od a trinitarian baptism.

I guess the question is, outside of Scripture do you think God conveys his grace to those who are married with God as their witness. Do they receive special grace to live a out thier marriage commitments? Or would this be an ordinance that conveys no grace.

What confuses me is that in RCC, marriage is a sacrament but priests may not marry. Why are they excluded from this means of grace?

CC&E

 

[Metanoia02]

What confuses me is that in RCC, marriage is a sacrament but priests may not marry. Why are they excluded from this means of grace?

CC&E

They receive thier grace through another sacrament, holy orders.

 

[Tonks]

What confuses me is that in RCC, marriage is a sacrament but priests may not marry. Why are they excluded from this means of grace?

CC&E

Also note, that Marriage, as it were, is not something that is necessary for salvation.

 

[JJB]

I am in full agreement with it.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

True. However, they might as well be sedevacantists. They do require the SSPX "converts" to undergo rebaptism etc.

AWC-

The SSPX were birthed during the theological and disiplinary (including praxis et al) reforms that occured during VII. They formed in 1970.

The point I was making is that Catholicism is not the one, big, unified, happy, monolithic family that most Roman Catholics try to protray it to be.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Also note, that Marriage, as it were, is not something that is necessary for salvation.

What then, in your estimation, is neccessary for salvation?

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

They receive thier grace through another sacrament, holy orders.

How much "grace" do you need to be saved?

 

[Tonks]

The point I was making is that Catholicism is not the one, big, unified, happy, monolithic family that most Roman Catholics try to protray it to be.

While this is true, those that truly hold to what the SSPX believes could be called schismatic at best - let us not even get into the worst.

You'd get further dealing with this topic if you were talking about the Neocatechumenal Way or some of the other sillier variations of Catholicism.

That being said - we all hold the same fundamentals though the praxis may be a bit foreign.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

True. However, they might as well be sedevacantists. They do require the SSPX "converts" to undergo rebaptism etc.

AWC-

The SSPX were birthed during the theological and disiplinary (including praxis et al) reforms that occured during VII. They formed in 1970.

Most of the SSPXers I know certainly consider themselves to be sede vacantists, in principle.

 

[Tonks]

Most of the SSPXers I know certainly consider themselves to be sede vacantists, in principle.

This is quite true - any peek at some of the more trad Catholic boards will confirm this. As such, to large extent, they have placed themselves outside of the theological (if not spiritual) boundaries of Rome.

 

[GQ Chris]

Protestants do have doctrine as is evidenced by our confessions. Just as the RCC has doctrine that it can openly site here on CF, I would like to openly present this Protestant doctrine.

The Belgic Confession of 1619
Article 29
The Marks of the True Church
We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church-- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of "the church."

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves "the church."

The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church-- and no one ought to be separated from it.

As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works.

Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him.

As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other.

excellent!

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

The disunitu between apostolic churches is not huge[/quote]

All genuine churches who consitute the Bride of Christ are apostolic by virtue of the Apostolic teaching of the Scriptures.

As far as disunity goes, it was certainly a huge enough disunity for a major schism in 1054 that last to this day, with no real signs of re-unification of communion.

Which would fall under the horseshoes principle;

"A miss is as good as a mile."

There are differences, but really minor in comparison with Calvinist and Baptist Churches....think to Eucharistic, Penance, bishop role, Mary...

See the above.

By the way, most "Baptists" churches are 3 or 4 point Calvinist, but all Protestants are united in Christ, united in the Lord's Supper, sola gratia, sola fide, sola Christus, sola scriptura, Soli Deo Gloria, baptism and many other Biblical doctrines.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

Rituals don't save souls, faith in Christ saves souls. A person can have all the rituals and rites and sacraments in the word bestowed upon him but if there isn't a real faith in Christ, it's for nothing.

I think God addressed the problem of a reliance on ritual with Israel, saying, "I do not desire sacrifice of bulls and goats, but mercy."

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

I realize you only believe in only two sacraments because you think that is all Scripture warrants. But in your understanding of sacraments do you believe the God has ordained certain elements of the temporal world to convey grace. Such and those of the Lords Supper and water in Baptism. There is also some spoken formula like that od a trinitarian baptism.

Odd, the first century Church and early Church did not have any belief in what the Roman Church developed as the seven sacraments.

No, they had two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

I guess the question is, outside of Scripture do you think God conveys his grace to those who are married with God as their witness.

That depends on what kind of "grace" you are talking about?

Salvific grace? No.

Some may ever consider marriage to be a curse, like one said a long time ago, "I know there is a devil because I was married to his sister."

Do they receive special grace to live a out thier marriage commitments? Or would this be an ordinance that conveys no grace.

God gives grace to perform what God has given us to do.

Does that grace save? Is it neccessary for salvation as is taught by Rome? No. It is neccessary for keeping with Ephesians 2:10, "doing the works that God has prepared beforehand for us that we should walk in them."

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

While this is true, those that truly hold to what the SSPX believes could be called schismatic at best - let us not even get into the worst.

You'd get further dealing with this topic if you were talking about the Neocatechumenal Way or some of the other sillier variations of Catholicism.

There were no intentions to "get into the worst".

The only intent was to demonstrate in answer to the common false charge that "Protestants" are not "united", mostly put in the context of not being united in anything, which is as far from the truth as the east is from the west, by demonstrating that Catholicism is not as "united" as most purport it to be.

While most Roman Catholics rely on the disclaimer, "We are united in the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Magesterium", even that is not true, as is evidenced by the SSPX and sede vacantists.

That being said - we all hold the same fundamentals though the praxis may be a bit foreign.

Protestants hold the same "fundamentals" as well, some of which I noted.

 

[Augustine_Was_Calvinist]

This is quite true - any peek at some of the more trad Catholic boards will confirm this. As such, to large extent, they have placed themselves outside of the theological (if not spiritual) boundaries of Rome.

I have certainly found it to be the case, as most SSPXers I know, which is not a small number, consider Rome to be apostate.

 

[lionroar0]

I have certainly found it to be the case, as most SSPXers I know, which is not a small number, consider Rome to be apostate.

They consider any one that does not belive as they do apostate.

Peace

 

[Abiel]

So anyway, isn't this thread about protestant doctrine?

 

[Tonks]

I have certainly found it to be the case, as most SSPXers I know, which is not a small number, consider Rome to be apostate.

Sort of like Catholic-flavored Protestants...

 

[Metanoia02]

Odd, the first century Church and early Church did not have any belief in what the Roman Church developed as the seven sacraments.

No, they had two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper.



That depends on what kind of "grace" you are talking about?

Salvific grace? No.

Some may ever consider marriage to be a curse, like one said a long time ago, "I know there is a devil because I was married to his sister."




God gives grace to perform what God has given us to do.

Does that grace save? Is it neccessary for salvation as is taught by Rome? No. It is neccessary for keeping with Ephesians 2:10, "doing the works that God has prepared beforehand for us that we should walk in them."

You speak of "salvific grace". Do sacraments contain or transmit "salvific" grace. Or some other grace that is as you put it comes from doing the works God has prepared beforehand.