Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[bbbbbbb]

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.

I think a brief perusal of Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures should provide another large set for you. When you are finished with that, I can recommend a few other choice texts for your consideration.

 

[Albion]

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

I see...but there is a difference. After all, there actually ARE Eastern Orthodox churches.

Tadoflamb has simply invented something he calls the "Protestant Church" in order to vilify Protestants.

 

[Tzaousios]

Tadoflamb has simply invented something he calls the "Protestant Church" in order to vilify Protestants.

Well, Albion, if you disagree with the term, and feel confident enough to declare that it is being used for the dastardly deed of vilification, what specific Protestant denominations do you think he should have named?

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Yes, bleeding bread happens at every Catholic mass when the priest intones the magic incantation and presto bingo the bread begins to gush rivers of blood all over the altar. Because it is Catholic doctrine that the bread becomes bleeding flesh at the Mass all one has to do is attend any mass at any Catholic church to see this happen. Not!

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

It doesn't happen again and again. It's the same sacrifice. I understand that you don't understand it, the how and why of it. I didn't say I understand it. But the fact is the fact.

 

[Stryder06]

It doesn't happen again and again. It's the same sacrifice. I understand that you don't understand it, the how and why of it. I didn't say I understand it. But the fact is the fact.

Problem with this is that it's not a fact. You're not even trying to think about this logically. What you're proposing is simply impossible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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?

He did set it up upon himself. But the visible Church on Earth is what he put Peter as head of.

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.

There's a lot of ways to guide someone without force. The Holy Spirit does it all the time. As an analogy, how could we stop someone from falling into a hole in the ground? We could put a sign in front of it, we could put a rope around it, we could fill the hole so it doesn't exist anymore. We can build a path that goes so far around the hole that we don't notice there's a hole at all. Lots of ways to guide...when the spirit is willing.

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?

He still succeeded Judas. Prayer and casting lots is an equivalent of asking the Holy Spirit to guide our decision.

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.

Was Timothy the head of a local Church? Yes, and Paul considered him his son. Paul taught Timothy.
Matt 16:18-20.
Where does Scripture say that the Church is Christ's representative on earth?

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.

That would all be fine if Christ was speaking Greek. But he was speaking Aramaic. Kephas was Peter's Aramaic name. Translated into Greek, it's Petra. Male is Petros.

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.

It could refer to Christ, but that's not the only meaning. Scripture has many senses. Or didn't you know that?

 

[Stryder06]

He did set it up upon himself. But the visible Church on Earth is what he put Peter as head of.

Except He didn't. Paul puts it plainly. We are the body and Christ is the head.

There's a lot of ways to guide someone without force. The Holy Spirit does it all the time. As an analogy, how could we stop someone from falling into a hole in the ground? We could put a sign in front of it, we could put a rope around it, we could fill the hole so it doesn't exist anymore. We can build a path that goes so far around the hole that we don't notice there's a hole at all. Lots of ways to guide...when the spirit is willing.

Indeed. However, if said individual ignores the sign and goes around the rope you'd have to put your hands on them to keep them from going in. That's force. If you fill it with sand, you invalidate your point. The Spirit has His way, it's a collection of 66 books. How did Christ put it "If they won't listen to Moses..."

He still succeeded Judas. Prayer and casting lots is an equivalent of asking the Holy Spirit to guide our decision.

Not a point worth arguing. Your selection process is part of your tradition which is fine. The office that you're filling however is not.

Was Timothy the head of a local Church? Yes, and Paul considered him his son. Paul taught Timothy.
Matt 16:18-20.

Paul thinking of Timothy as a son doesn't make Timothy Paul's successor. How did John address the congregation in his letter? Didn't he say "My little children?"

And again, scripture says nothing about Timothy being head of any local church. You're appealing to your churches teaching for that.

Where does Scripture say that the Church is Christ's representative on earth?

2 Cor 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

That would all be fine if Christ was speaking Greek. But he was speaking Aramaic. Kephas was Peter's Aramaic name. Translated into Greek, it's Petra. Male is Petros.

It doesn't matter if it's Greek or Aramaic. You're clinging to a language barrier in hopes to establish a weak point. Peter is not the rock upon which Christ would be His church. Even if we just took it for what it was and didn't bother trying to use the Petra Petros argument, Christ is still the Rock spoken of in scripture. He is the Cornerstone, and the Stone of offense that causes men to stumble. If you think about the church being built upon a rock you can't help but admit that you visualize a stedy, firm, unmovable foundation. Peter was not firm, or unmovable. He had a lot of growing that he had to do. Christ on the other hand was immovable, and is a firm foundation. It doesn't take much to realize He is the Rock upon which He built His church.

It could refer to Christ, but that's not the only meaning. Scripture has many senses. Or didn't you know that?

Not that it could. It does. It just makes it hard for you because the prophecy can't refer to Christ and Peter. If Matt alludes to Isa 22 and Christ confirms in Revelation that He is the One that the same prophecy speaks of, than Peter isn't an option. That goes back to the whole "not sharing His glory" thing I was telling you about.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think a brief perusal of Science and Health, With Key to the Scriptures should provide another large set for you. When you are finished with that, I can recommend a few other choice texts for your consideration.

Very kind of you to offer the above suggestion. Alas, Christian Science is not normally considered a Christian denomination. So, sadly, your suggestion is contrary to the stated purpose of the list.

 

[Albion]

Very kind of you to offer the above suggestion. Alas, Christian Science is not normally considered a Christian denomination.

That was my first thought too. However, your "list" includes items that are taken from similar groups and I don't see any interest in keeping them from being peddaled as Protestant "errors and inventions."

 

[Root of Jesse]

Except He didn't. Paul puts it plainly. We are the body and Christ is the head.

And this rules out a head of the visible church...how?

Indeed. However, if said individual ignores the sign and goes around the rope you'd have to put your hands on them to keep them from going in. That's force. If you fill it with sand, you invalidate your point. The Spirit has His way, it's a collection of 66 books. How did Christ put it "If they won't listen to Moses..."

If said individual ignores the sign and goes around, he's on his own.
The Holy Spirit gave the Church 72 books...who made the decision to change it to 66? A man. This is the perfect example of men not following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That happens a lot, by the way. But never to the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

Not a point worth arguing. Your selection process is part of your tradition which is fine. The office that you're filling however is not.

Trying to limit how the Holy Spirit works is not a point worth arguing? A Biblical manifestation of the Holy Spirit at work? Too funny. Your determination is not such a manifestation, though.

Paul thinking of Timothy as a son doesn't make Timothy Paul's successor. How did John address the congregation in his letter? Didn't he say "My little children?"

Read the first part of the first letter. To Timothy, my child in faith...then he instructs him to remain in Ephesus. Chapter 4 gives Timothy instructions about how to be a good bishop. Earlier, he was taught how to choose a good bishop. Paul named Timothy head of the Church where he left him.

And again, scripture says nothing about Timothy being head of any local church. You're appealing to your churches teaching for that.

Well, we don't confine ourselves to only Scripture.

2 Cor 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.



It doesn't matter if it's Greek or Aramaic. You're clinging to a language barrier in hopes to establish a weak point. Peter is not the rock upon which Christ would be His church. Even if we just took it for what it was and didn't bother trying to use the Petra Petros argument, Christ is still the Rock spoken of in scripture. He is the Cornerstone, and the Stone of offense that causes men to stumble. If you think about the church being built upon a rock you can't help but admit that you visualize a stedy, firm, unmovable foundation. Peter was not firm, or unmovable. He had a lot of growing that he had to do. Christ on the other hand was immovable, and is a firm foundation. It doesn't take much to realize He is the Rock upon which He built His church.

It doesn't matter? There's no distinction in Aramaic between pebble and boulder. For one.

Christ is certainly the Rock, but that does not preculde Peter from being the Rock, as Christ named him. Jesus didn't make Peter head of the Church while Christ was still walking the hills of Galilee. And Christ chose fallible men to further his ministry. Peter took the position at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit manifested in him and the other apostles. The Early Church knew what Christ did with Peter. Why did it take a thousand years for anyone to question it?

Not that it could. It does. It just makes it hard for you because the prophecy can't refer to Christ and Peter. If Matt alludes to Isa 22 and Christ confirms in Revelation that He is the One that the same prophecy speaks of, than Peter isn't an option. That goes back to the whole "not sharing His glory" thing I was telling you about.

Who says it can't refer to Christ and Peter? You? By what authority?

 

[MoreCoffee]

That was my first thought too. However, your "list" includes items that are taken from similar groups and I don't see any interest in keeping them from being peddaled as Protestant "errors and inventions."

Care to name the items and the groups that are "similar to [Christian Science]"?

If item #57 is on your mind then by all means mention it and explain why it ought to be excluded.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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.
...

"His Holiness" or "Your Holiness" was the title in question, dear brother Stryder06.

Now, I prefer to call folk "Your worship" at times. Or "Your Highness". But if you prefer some other title, for example "Mister" then have at it

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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.

No sir, you are, despite it being explained many times, the one who is mistaken. There is not a single Church which has maintained the early Church's teaching regarding the efficacy of the Sacraments as a means of grace that uses it as an excuse to sin. We have maintained the sacraments for the reason that no one, that means you too Standing Up, can keep the law well enough to satisfy God... Only Christ could and did.

Likewise these, Churches all teach that the efficacy of the sacraments is null and void if the person receiving them lacks true repentance; that is, true sorrow for their sins, and not only a desire to, but an active and sincere effort to amend their sinful ways. If one receives the Eucharist in the manner that you are saying all traditional liturgical orthodox Christians do, they are eating and drinking Christ's blood to their eternal damnation.

This has been explained to you many times in many different ways, and it's very apparent that your Holiness Pope Standing Up I are, speaking Ex Cathedra, and have no need to listen to us self admitted poor miserable sinners.

I am truly humbled to be in the presence of such authority, infallibility and omniscience. I am almost overcome with the desire to bow down before you, but alas, it is not your graven image that is on our Altar, but that of the One in whom I have the deepest faith, trust blindly, and love most dearly; my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

You have become that which you condemn the most; Papal envy any one?

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Actually, in order to be absolved of any sin, we really must be contrite, and resolute not to do them again. If we're not, then it really does not good to eat anything.

OTOH, if you're saved once forever, you really can do whatever you want. You're saved! YAY! Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And knowing how it works in those Churches where we believe we're working out our salvation, would help you along tremendously...

 

[Albion]

Care to name the items and the groups that are "similar to [Christian Science]"?

If item #57 is on your mind then by all means mention it and explain why it ought to be excluded.

That's one of them. But I've called this to your attention already.

You pretended to do some housekeeping, yet a number of invalid items remain and you seem to be able to identify #57 without even being prompted. But it's still there on the list.

What would really be interesting is the compilation of a SERIOUS list, omitting items that are uncharacteristic of Protestants and held by only a small minority of Christians and identified with a particular denomination. This list is no more than a game and no more valid than if I were to compile a list of Catholic errors, listing acceptance of homosexual clergy, women priests, reincarnation, and universal salvation. All of those are held by some members of some Catholic churches.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's one of them. But I've called this to your attention already.

You pretended to do some housekeeping, yet a number of invalid items remain and you seem to be able to identify #57 without even being prompted. But it's still there on the list.

What would really be interesting is the compilation of a SERIOUS list, omitting items that are uncharacteristic of Protestants and held by only a small minority of Christians and identified with a particular denomination. This list is no more than a game and no more valid than if I were to compile a list of Catholic errors, listing acceptance of homosexual clergy, women priests, reincarnation, and universal salvation. All of those are held by some members of some Catholic churches.

Prove that this is held by official teaching of the Catholic Church. Show, in the Catechism, where that is. Otherwise, stop it. You see, with the Catholic Church, it doesn't matter what some of the members think. It matters what the Church teaches, which is what Christ taught. With Protestants, if you disagree with a particular denomination, you take their creed, change what you want, and start your own. Doesn't work that way in Catholicism.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Prove that this is held by official teaching of the Catholic Church. Show, in the Catechism, where that is. Otherwise, stop it. You see, with the Catholic Church, it doesn't matter what some of the members think. It matters what the Church teaches, which is what Christ taught.
With Protestants, if you disagree with a particular denomination, you take their creed, change what you want, and start your own.
Doesn't work that way in Catholicism.

One doesn't need to be RC to adhere to the creed.

Btw, which "creed" are you talking about?



.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

One doesn't need to be RC to adhere to the creed.

Btw, which "creed" are you talking about?



.

Betcha it's the same three Creeds that we hold!

 

[Rev Randy]

Yes, bleeding bread happens at every Catholic mass when the priest intones the magic incantation and presto bingo the bread begins to gush rivers of blood all over the altar. Because it is Catholic doctrine that the bread becomes bleeding flesh at the Mass all one has to do is attend any mass at any Catholic church to see this happen. Not!

Magic?Is that like the magical prayer that once said saves no matter what?

ELO-Strange Magic - YouTube