Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[Standing Up]

Excuse me if I'm misunderstood your intention. These are supposed to be considered errors BY most Protestants, then?

1) Eucharist Adoration (the worship of the created bread via the priest, rather than the Creator)
2) Accepting bad theology from children who have visions (devotions to "sacred" hearts)
3) Believing visions as truth that contradict scripture (Fatima)
4) Accepting "regenerative" baptisms of heretical groups as on par with Christian baptism
5) Baptizing babies as salvific (contradicts scripture)
6) Maintaining the clergy/laity split, rather than promoting the biblical priesthood of believers

That may make it clearer to me, but item 6 is certainly not considered an error by most Protestants and certainly not by Lutherans or Anglicans which you seemed to hold up as agreeing with you. And item 4 does not seem to belong on this list, either. Both are pet peeves of yours, I know. Finally, 66 Bible books is not considered to an error by any Protestant church I know of, so what your list is intended to identify, I am having a hard time figuring out.

Yeah, it's a bit tricky to talk of errors held that are actually correct and true, like the 66 books are accurate as to God-inspired, though MoreCOffee maintains it as an error.

Do Anglicans "re"baptize anyone? If so, who, from what previous groups?

On #6, correct some Protestants agree with you that it is not an error. Other's disagree.

 

[Standing Up]

Some, yes, but you should know from past and reading the responses of historic traditional Anglicans, and Confessional Lutherans (those who actually hold "Lutheran Theology" that there is much that we hold that you have posted that you consider error; conversly, there is much that you hold that we would consider not only error, but heterodox.



Thanks Albion, there's a couple right up front!



Yup Luther was a heritic for including the Apocrypha, as were the translators of the original KJV!



Well, Lutherans are considered "protestant" by the RCC. That being said, Lutherans are the single largest group of protestants in the world, which makes them (by your own definition) "most protestants".

We "DO" adore the Eucharist as Christ's very body and blood within the context of the Mass.

Items 2, 3, and 4 are out.

We do teach that baptism saves both infant and adult.

Item 5 is correct, but the duties of the ordained clergy is quite different that that of the laity.

Thanks for the feedback.

Unfortunately, I've sorta decided to follow MoreCoffee's lead on these things. He was shown many times by many people that many parts of his error list were wrong (iow, they were true) and that many things were held by fringe groups. He's ignored the replies in his quest to hit his personal 66 error number.

Anyway, I did provide the link showing Anglican and Lutheran eucharist adoration (like RC). Strange bedfellows perhaps, but worshipping the created is forbidden, regardless of the denomination.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thanks for the feedback.
<snip>
Anyway, I did provide the link showing Anglican and Lutheran eucharist adoration (like RC). Strange bedfellows perhaps, but worshipping the created is forbidden, regardless of the denomination.

Not when it's the body and blood of (in the words of the Athanasian Creed) "the son uncreate"

 

[MoreCoffee]

I watched some video clips from a long debate between four KJV only chaps and three general editors for more modern translations - the NASB, NIV, and NKJV - and wow! the KJV only folk seemed hell bent on twisting, misrepresenting, misquoting and being illogical and irrational in almost every way they could. At one point in the debate one KJV-only chap asserted that a Russian speaker who wanted to know the "infallible word of God" would have to learn English so he (or she) could read the KJV because God has only one infallible word in the world at this time and it is the KJV! The video clips were from a series of four John Ankerberg shows recorded in 1995.

Way to go Protestant errors and inventions!

 

[smashed4christ]

The Holy Bible is Holy and good for doctrine.

since it is the teachings of the first century church, then all other religious church denominations must be compared to the original.

Without it how do you know which of what came later is in fact based on the original?

Counterfeit money is also compared to the original undefiled legal tender note. Without the original, what are we then comparing to?

 

[MoreCoffee]

smashed4christ, I am not sure I know what you're getting at; could you explain further?

For example, are you comparing scripture to counterfeit vs legal tender? If so what is the legal tender and what the counterfeit?

 

[Standing Up]

Not when it's the body and blood of (in the words of the Athanasian Creed) "the son uncreate"

Sure, that's the argument to justify the worshipping of the bread. The bread, however, is created. The bread isn't the Creator.

Do you think Israel worshipped the manna from heaven or God who sent it?

 

[Standing Up]

The Holy Bible is Holy and good for doctrine.

since it is the teachings of the first century church, then all other religious church denominations must be compared to the original.

Without it how do you know which of what came later is in fact based on the original?

Counterfeit money is also compared to the original undefiled legal tender note. Without the original, what are we then comparing to?

Right. Pretty simple. I'm all for tracing beliefs backward to the apostles (aka scripture). If we can't do that, we should jettison the belief as divisive at best and counterfeit at worst.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sure, that's the argument to justify the worshipping of the bread. The bread, however, is created. The bread isn't the Creator.

Do you think Israel worshipped the manna from heaven or God who sent it?

As Jesus said, the manna that Moses gave (instrumentally with God as the source) was not the bread from heaven; that bread is Jesus himself.

... Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses did not give you bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. (John 6:32)​

 

[Standing Up]

As Jesus said, the manna that Moses gave (instrumentally with God as the source) was not the bread from heaven; that bread is Jesus himself.

... Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses did not give you bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. (John 6:32)
​

Right. Christ is the true bread from heaven. Christ is not the piece of matza (RC/P) or leavened bread (EO) the priest holds up to which people worship. Well said.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Sure, that's the argument to justify the worshipping of the bread. The bread, however, is created. The bread isn't the Creator.

Do you think Israel worshipped the manna from heaven or God who sent it?

As Jesus said, the manna that Moses gave (instrumentally with God as the source) was not the bread from heaven; that bread is Jesus himself.

... Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses did not give you bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. (John 6:32)​

Right. Christ is the true bread from heaven. Christ is not the piece of matza (RC/P) or leavened bread (EO) the priest holds up to which people worship. Well said.

Please, do not seek to twist what was written in my post.

Then Jesus said to them: "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I say to you, that even though you have seen me, you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me shall come to me. And whoever comes to me, I will not cast out. For I descended from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. Yet this is the will of the Father who sent me: that I should lose nothing out of all that he has given to me, but that I should raise them up on the last day. So then, this is the will of my Father who sent me: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:35-40)

 

[Standing Up]

Please, do not seek to twist what was written in my post.

Then Jesus said to them: "I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I say to you, that even though you have seen me, you do not believe. All that the Father gives to me shall come to me. And whoever comes to me, I will not cast out. For I descended from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. Yet this is the will of the Father who sent me: that I should lose nothing out of all that he has given to me, but that I should raise them up on the last day. So then, this is the will of my Father who sent me: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:35-40)

Again, you got it. Christ is the bread of life. Go to Him. Believe on Him.

The piece of bread the priest is holding up, requesting your worship, is not Christ.

Why do people think the piece of consecrated bread is Christ?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Again, you got it. Christ is the bread of life. Go to Him. Believe on Him.

The piece of bread the priest is holding up, requesting your worship, is not Christ.

Why do people think the piece of consecrated bread is Christ?

But Christ is present in the bread, coming to us so that we can receive his true body, broken for us, and his true blood, shed for our salvation.

 

[Standing Up]

But Christ is present in the bread, coming to us so that we can receive his true body, broken for us, and his true blood, shed for our salvation.

Present in the bread. So, the bread is not Christ. Why do some worship the bread?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Present in the bread. So, the bread is not Christ. Why do some worship the bread?

Catholics hold to the theory of transubstantiation, whereby the bread is not actually bread, but is actually Christ under the appearance of bread. So they worship the bread, because it isn't bread, but is Christ.

No one worships bread.

 

[smashed4christ]

smashed4christ, I am not sure I know what you're getting at; could you explain further?

For example, are you comparing scripture to counterfeit vs legal tender? If so what is the legal tender and what the counterfeit?

How can you know beyond a shadow of doubt that what you believe is based on the original and not the counterfeit?

If we take the testimony of the first century church as the genuine article to be used as the benchmark.

What is your benchmark for testing that why you believe what you believe, is based on originality?

 

[smashed4christ]

Words on their own don't mean anything unless they are tied to the original faith.

We are told in scripture there is a counterfeit gospel, a counterfeit Jesus and counterfeit Spirit.

Very simple question guys is your bread based on the Original word of God

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

The Holy Bible is Holy and good for doctrine.

since it is the teachings of the first century church, then all other religious church denominations must be compared to the original.

Without it how do you know which of what came later is in fact based on the original?

Counterfeit money is also compared to the original undefiled legal tender note. Without the original, what are we then comparing to?

Of course you need the Bible to judge error and truth within and between denominations. You also need history.

Since the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church all exist in direct historical continuity with the first century church, well, if you're going to judge them based on the Bible, you'd better A. really know your Bible, backwards and forwards, and B. be able to show exactly where they went wrong- where the first century, apostolic interpretation of the Bible was perverted.

This is as true for judging between Catholics, Orthodox, and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox as well.

 

[smashed4christ]

Look no one can judge except God.

What if the history does not line up with the first century church on basic doctrinal issues.

Just because there is a one street team in town doesn't guarantee it to be the original.

Bigger is not better friend, there is no safety in numbers when it comes to deception. A third of the angels of God were cast down. I bet they thought based on their numbers that they were the big boys in town.

God tells us that he uses the ridiculously small and nothing to overthrow the well established and strong.

The first century church faced such opposition in the form of the only Pharisee religion in town.

Paul thought hey were bigger and better let us make an example of these nothing fishermen, oh wait for it they better know their Bible's better than we when we bring then in the Sanhedrin.

Sadly the fishermen did know the Scriptures forwards, backwards and the rest better than the University qualified Pharisees of their time.

One such Pharisee would tell Saint Peter you better not speak about that Jesus of yours anymore, is the same the mainstream church has tried to snuffout the Holy Spirit inspired men of God who interpret scripture.

After all it goes back to the question of who is the judge in all this fiasco, either it is the Pharisees or it had always been God.

 

[shturt678]

Words on their own don't mean anything unless they are tied to the original faith.

We are told in scripture there is a counterfeit gospel, a counterfeit Jesus and counterfeit Spirit.

Very simple question guys is your bread based on the Original word of God

Where do we access "...the Original word of God"? btw, your correct, eg, IICor.11:4, ie, a definite reality in today's time especially.

Just ol' old Jack