Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I am sure that there are many many more errors and inventions to be added. So many that I believe the post length limit would easily be exceeded if all of them were listed.

This may fall under No. 14, OSAS... Reduction-ism, the cheapening of Grace. Because one is "saved" forever they believe that they can no longer sin; so it becomes a licence to sin.

 

[MamaZ]

To God, there is no space and time. The Sacrifice exists now, it exists in the future, it exists in the past. Christ's sacrifice works in the past, the present, the future. We celebrate the sacrifice of Christ. Our worship of Him is a re-presentation of His one sacrifice. It is not a past event.

In humans there is space and time. Therefore we do not teleport back to the time when Christ layed His life down for His sheep. It was a one time for all time meaning it does not need to happen again and again. He shed His blood as it dropped on the ground for my sins. Good enough for me. His broken body was also for me.. Good enough for me. For what He did was Holy. What we are are sinners saved by the blood He shed.

 

[Stryder06]

I clipped your post so as to avoid forays into soul sleep theology, which is one of the errors in the list - I think it is

#53 Soul Sleep: Death is an unconscious, sleep-like state. When Jesus Christ comes again, He will resurrect the dead who believe in Him and will take them to heaven. The dead who are unbelievers will be resurrected 1000 years later.
​

Anyway, "let the dead bury their dead" doesn't help you with your claim that the dead are asleep (unconscious) in Christ.

"Let the dead bury their dead" wasn't meant to support the idea of a sleep like state when dead. It was meant to show how Jesus spoke figuratively. So you can't take "He is the God of the living" to mean that the dead are actually alive in heaven.

THe following verses however are definitiely meant to support the sleep like state. I think you may have missed them:

Gen 3:19 - In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Deut 31:16 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them

2 Samuel 7:12 - And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom

1 Kings 1:21 - Otherwise it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers, that I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders.

MAtt 9:24 - He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.

Ecc 9:5 - For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten

 

[Albion]

In humans there is space and time. Therefore we do not teleport back to the time when Christ layed His life down for His sheep. It was a one time for all time meaning it does not need to happen again and again. He shed His blood as it dropped on the ground for my sins. Good enough for me. His broken body was also for me.. Good enough for me. For what He did was Holy. What we are are sinners saved by the blood He shed.

That "re-presentation" thing is one of the least convincing examples of religious double talk IMO.

1. Why, exactly, does the Father need to be constantly reminded that the Incarnation and Crucifixion occurred? Is he THAT forgetful? And

2. If it's just a re-presenting of that one sacrifice, it can't BE a separate sacrifice with the quality or nature of a real sacrifice. Yet the claim is that it obtains the same benefits as any real sacrifice would--releasing souls from Purgatory, for example.

 

[Stryder06]

Because all men are fallen, and he had no choice. (Why would Jesus appoint Judas an apostle when he knew Judas would betray Him?) Humanity demanded the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. When one comes to join the Church they profess belief in Christ, and all He said, part of which is that Peter would be the leader of His church. You believe that's flawed? Well then!

Why would Christ setup His church on a fallen man when He could set it up on Himself? Why would it be necessary to procfess Peter as the head when Christ never made that decleraion?

I've shown texts where Jesus promised the Holy Spirit and sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church. Why would he leave it to mere humanity?
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church.
Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.
John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals.
John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith.
John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will "guide" the Church into all truth.

Our point of contention is not Christ being with His church, or the leading of the Holy Spirit. It's the protection from error theory that you present which is non-existent. To keep someone from teaching error the Spirit would have to force that individual to speak truth. That would be against God's nature as God does not interfere with man's freedom of choice.

Jesus appointed apostles, right? When Judas killed himself, the first thing the apostles did was appoint a successor.

Jesus appointed disciples. They later on became apostles. And they did not appoint a successor, but a replacement, and that came through prayer and the casting of lots? Is this how your church operates?

Paul, who was appointed by Christ (and ordained by the other apostles), writes to Timothy, whom he appointed bishop. This shows succession. So since Christ appointed Peter to be his representative on Earth, when Peter was martyred, the Church in Rome did the same thing-appointed a successor.

Where does scripture show Paul appointing Timothy as Bishop? Where does scripture show Christ establishing Peter as His representative on earth? Christ's representative on earth is the church. No one man occupies that role. This is an fabrication of your church that they use to excuse the role of Pope and the primacy of that office.

Matt 16:18-20.

Peter - Petros
Rock upon which the church will be build - Petra

You have a small rock vs a big rock. A moveable rock vs an immovable one. An insecure rock vs a secure one. Peter was small, moveable, and insecure. The truth that Christ was the Son of God was big, immovable, and secure.

The language there comes from Isaiah 22.

And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

This is most certainly referring to Christ as He was the one who established David's throne forever and ever. And if we need to see more, compare this to:

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

One thing that God said He would never do is share His glory with another. He is the One who establishes and upholds His church. Peter was a servant the same as the rest of us. His was not a special place of honor as your church would have us believe.

 

[Stryder06]

Souls do not die. Bodies die. The Saints in heaven are alive.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

You were saying?

 

[Stryder06]

Dear Isatis, neither you nor I need worry too much about that because we are not likely to meet him face to face. And your protestant vocal chords and protestant tongue will probably never utter those sounds

No man should utter that sound when speaking about another man. THe One Holy Father sits upon a throne between the seraphim. Makes you wonder why the pope has a throne with two angels at the side of it. Oh that's right.

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God

 

[Standing Up]

This may fall under No. 14, OSAS... Reduction-ism, the cheapening of Grace. Because one is "saved" forever they believe that they can no longer sin; so it becomes a licence to sin.

You have that backwards. It is the priest/sacrifice model carried over from the Levitical priesthood into certain Christian groups whereby they think they may sin apace daily and be absolved by eating some bread over and over and over again.

Some don't know what Paul said in regards to this. We've been saved by grace, should we then have a license to sin? Heavens no.

 

[Standing Up]

That "re-presentation" thing is one of the least convincing examples of religious double talk IMO.

1. Why, exactly, does the Father need to be constantly reminded that the Incarnation and Crucifixion occurred? Is he THAT forgetful? And

2. If it's just a re-presenting of that one sacrifice, it can't BE a separate sacrifice with the quality or nature of a real sacrifice. Yet the claim is that it obtains the same benefits as any real sacrifice would--releasing souls from Purgatory, for example.

Besides, everyone knows it is NOT the same. Everyone says it is NOT the same. It is sans blood.

 

[Standing Up]

In humans there is space and time. Therefore we do not teleport back to the time when Christ layed His life down for His sheep. It was a one time for all time meaning it does not need to happen again and again. He shed His blood as it dropped on the ground for my sins. Good enough for me. His broken body was also for me.. Good enough for me. For what He did was Holy. What we are are sinners saved by the blood He shed.

To have priests standing up sacrificing daily for sins not forgiven as if they resacrifice/represent Christ (in their view) is in full contradiction to NT scripture.

 

[Standing Up]

I could rebuke the pope if I felt it necessary. What's your point?

What? How so? For what error does he need rebuking?

 

[Albion]

Besides, everyone knows it is NOT the same. Everyone says it is NOT the same. It is sans blood.

Well, that would be another issue. If we do consider it to be blood in some sense, it still isn't a sacrifice.

 

[Standing Up]

Primarily because brother MoreCoffee decided to toss in various aberrant beliefs and practices common only to the outer fringes of Protestantism.

That and ignore arguments to the contrary. For example, that his own books (Maccabbees) disclaims any inspiration for itself. So, point #1, bible is 66 books is true, not an error.

 

[tadoflamb]

Why would Christ setup His church on a fallen man when He could set it up on Himself? Why would it be necessary to procfess Peter as the head when Christ never made that decleraion?

For the same reason Christ might enlist a fallen man (or woman) to start another protestant denomination. Why is it so hard for the protestant mind set to see that God enlists human beings to continue His work on earth? I know He doesn't have to, but He did and does invite us into the vineyard.

Our point of contention is not Christ being with His church, or the leading of the Holy Spirit. It's the protection from error theory that you present which is non-existent. To keep someone from teaching error the Spirit would have to force that individual to speak truth. That would be against God's nature as God does not interfere with man's freedom of choice.

One reason I have a greater respect for the SDA than your average protestant denomination is that they do believe themselves to be 100% doctrinally pure. At least that's what one SDA here on GT has led me believe. Never-the-less, without the charism of infallibility, or protection from error, it's easy to see within the protestant tradition just what results. Hence, we're on our third round of protestant errors and inventions with no end in sight. Strange that protestants are so good at detecting error within others groups with no real mechanism to discern the Truth in their own.

Is this really what Truth Incarnate intended for His Church?

 

[Albion]

It's easy to see within the protestant tradition just what results. Hence, we're on our third round of protestant errors and inventions with no end in sight. Strange that protestants are so good at detecting error within others groups with no real mechanism to discern the Truth in their own.

Is this really what Truth Incarnate intended for His Church?

Actually, there are plenty of Protestant churches which offer the same claim of infallibility, if that's what you're after.

And BTW, your own church's claim to infallibility is so compromised that there are only a handful of teachings that are considered to have been rendered infallibly. Most doctrines are changed regularly.

 

[tadoflamb]

You guys are forgetting about we Virginians! Surely the camp meetings of yore were errors and inventions. All that love, shouting, evangelism, circuit riding, spending hours on end around the mourners bench. Just not Catholic I tell ya!

Mourner's Bench? I never heard of that one. Thanks.

 

[rockytopva]

Mourner's Bench? I never heard of that one. Thanks.

The Morner's Bench... Something that regrettably disappeared long ago. Which makes following the Methodist/Pentecostal church so tough, they change with every wind of doctrine.

 

[Stryder06]

For the same reason Christ might enlist a fallen man (or woman) to start another protestant denomination. Why is it so hard for the protestant mind set to see that God enlists human beings to continue His work on earth? I know He doesn't have to, but He did and does invite us into the vineyard.

No one is talking about doing the work of Christ. It's obvious that God uses the human agent to do this work. What God didn't do was make the foundation of His church a fallen man. That's not even logical. It's like you taking your child and entrusting their wellbeing with a drug addict. It is undeniable that the disciples helped to establish the church as a group. Peter however was not the foundation or leader of that church.

One reason I have a greater respect for the SDA than your average protestant denomination is that they do believe themselves to be 100% doctrinally pure. At least that's what one SDA here on GT has led me believe. Never-the-less, without the charism of infallibility, or protection from error, it's easy to see within the protestant tradition just what results. Hence, we're on our third round of protestant errors and inventions with no end in sight. Strange that protestants are so good at detecting error within others groups with no real mechanism to discern the Truth in their own.

I can say I do have a great level of respect for Catholics in that they pretty much believe the same thing.

The mechanisim to discern truth is here, and I presented it. To the law and the testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.

Is this really what Truth Incarnate intended for His Church?

Christ intended that His church carry on the work of spreading the gospel. That however has been made difficult because men have turned to the doctrines of men in the stead of the word of God. Satan tried to snuff the church out through blood. When that worked against him, due to the death of the faithful being seed to the soil, he changed his operation to one of deception, sewing error in among truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If there were a "the Protestant Church."



The point is that your unfunny list of acts and beliefs doesn't describe Protestantism. It describes SOME, a few, Protestants--just like Catholics believe amulets and "holy water" can ward off demons, burying a statue of St. Joseph upside down will get your house sold, or the bread actually bleeds when the priest raises it up for people to worship.

Yeah, I agree. There is no one all-encompassing set of doctrines. Which, in and of itself, contradicts the prayer of unity Christ prayed to His Father in John 17. Whereas, if you want to know 'what Catholics believe', you go to the Catechism. There's a lot of practices that are useable by Catholics but aren't necessary. Regading bread actually bleeding, this is a fact, and is documented to have happened. Our belief in it as a miracle is not required.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If the Protestant Church had some self-definition of itself this wouldn't be an issue. But since it only exists invisibly and can only exist invisibly that can't happen. Therefore, while it's easy to see where Protestantism begins, it's more difficult to discern where it ends. Thus the question: When is a protestant not a protestant?

When referring to the 'outer fringes of protestantism', in the face of the absence of a formal answer from the 'Protestant Church', is it safe to assume that those on the 'outer fringes of protestantism' are those whose beliefs and practices are those who have deviated most from the Catholic Church?

If not, then where's the standard? What's authentic protestantism?

Hmmm, this reminds of the Orthodox platitude that we know where the church is, but don't know where it is not.