Protestant Doctrine

mesue said:

I have been to this church.

Click to expand...

Me too. Their doctrines all come from men who lived in the sixteenth century or later. None of them lived in the time of the Apostles. I used to be a member before I discovered the Church which Jesus Christ founded.

Lynn73 said:

Why assume that everything you read in the catacombs is automatically a doctrine of the early church of Christ? All it means is that someone believed those things. There were, no doubt, many sects besides Christianity, how do you know they didn't also use the catacombs and write on the wall. I wouldn't take writings on a wall as gospel truth of what the early church believed.

Click to expand...

We know historically that Nero persecuted the Christian Church in the 1st century. He falsely accused Christian of the burning of Rome.

It's not that it' s just something written. It is the continuity and consistency of the doctrines of the Church that have been found in archeological evidence.

It is was some sect that wrote those things in the catacombs do you honestly belive that those beliefs would have survived for 2000yrs?

Peace

lionroar0]It is was some sect that wrote those things in the catacombs do you honestly belive that those beliefs would have survived for 2000yrs?

Click to expand...

Why not? Paganism has been around for a lot longer than 2000 years. People who worship other "gods" have been around for longer than 2000 years.

FreeinChrist said:

Yes, there was a problem VERY early in the church - gnostics, Judiazers to name two.

I personally shake my head at the claims that we Protestants don't have beliefs that are from the beginning of the church - after all, we follow what is written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul....are there earlier church fathers?

Click to expand...

Exactly. They're the church fathers we should be listening to above all others.

FreeinChrist said:

Yes, there was a problem VERY early in the church - gnostics, Judiazers to name two.

I personally shake my head at the claims that we Protestants don't have beliefs that are from the beginning of the church - after all, we follow what is written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul....are there earlier church fathers?

Click to expand...

And once again . . . .

Protestant breaking away from the catholic church was a freedome from the errors.
There were and are lots of errors.
DO you guys know one could get points for certain rituals? You read extra, you get more sinning without punishment?
Oh yes and more.
Thank God Christianity broke free and showed what it is to Live in Christ without rituals and unnecessary rules.
Grace is here now.

Lynn73 said:

Why not? Paganism has been around for a lot longer than 2000 years. People who worship other "gods" have been around for longer than 2000 years.

Click to expand...

excellent, You totally demolished that argument.

Lynn73 said:

Exactly. They're the church fathers we should be listening to above all others.

Click to expand...

And we Catholics do!!!

HowardDean said:

Protestant breaking away from the catholic church was a freedome from the errors.
There were and are lots of errors.
DO you guys know one could get points for certain rituals? You read extra, you get more sinning without punishment?
Oh yes and more.
Thank God Christianity broke free and showed what it is to Live in Christ without rituals and unnecessary rules.
Grace is here now.

Click to expand...

Again, so many misconceptions...Enough with the Catholic bashing already!

What I posted is true. They were called indulgences.

a_ntv said:

not of the Roman Catholic Church, as well
not of the Calvinist Church, as well
not of the Lutheran Church, as well
not of the Anglican Church, as well
not of the Baptist Church, and so on

No Church is perfect here on the earth

Click to expand...

QFA

HowardDean said:

What I posted is true. They were called indulgences.

Click to expand...

MYTHS ABOUT INDULGENCES

By James Akin


http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411toc.asp
This Rock
Questions

Subscribe

Permissions

Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This is a common misunderstanding, one that anti-Catholic commentators take advantage of, relying on the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics. But the charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God's eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one's eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).

Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3: A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina norm 1). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4: Indulgences were invented to money for the Church.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person's case.

Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church's seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."

FreeinChrist said:

hmmmm....

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lutherltr-indulgences.html

"Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter's are circulating under your most distinguished name, and as regards them, I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions which the people have conceived from them; to wit, -- the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory; furthermore, that these graces [i.e., the graces conferred in the indulgences] are so great that there is no sin too great to be absolved..."

Click to expand...

Of course, that is what MARTIN LUTHER said about indulgences. Please read the Myths again (and what the Catholic Church says they are)...BTW, I never said that indulgences weren't abused by some PEOPLE in the Catholic Church - Just as in any church, there are saints and sinners. And these ABUSES were part of the reason for the Catholic Church's counter reformation.

Lynn73 said:

They're the church fathers we should be listening to above all others.

Click to expand...

remember seeing that no one is to call anyone a father in Church but Christ/God...

were there any other Church Fathers after the ones in the scipture? If not, then how did anyone follow the Church Fathers and take the lead as in the NT as in OT, when they always gave the staff and leadership to another when one was old or before death.?

Peace

FreeinChrist said:

I could post more - canons of the Catholic church from that time...but that is really going off topic to this thread IMHO.

And no, I am not interested in reading the 'spin' that has developed since. We will have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Ok. I would like to say that I do realise that there were substantial abuses at the time that Martin Luther broke away and I am not proud of how individuals in the Church handled those abuses. I can understand where your perspective comes from. I was just trying to show that it was not the "truth" of the Church - ie, the Church's doctrines etc that were at fault, but some of the individuals in the church. Hard to explain - not sure I am doing a great job. I would like to also mention that the Catholic counter reformation had already begun from within at this point.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

Me too. Their doctrines all come from men who lived in the sixteenth century or later. None of them lived in the time of the Apostles. I used to be a member before I discovered the Church which Jesus Christ founded.

Click to expand...

I'm a Protestant. My doctrines all come from the Bible.