Protestantism has done more harm than good.

[parousia70]

Except for the whole of the Eastern Christian churches, including the Greek Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, the Arminian Church, and all the smaller ones there as well, plus the English church, the Ethiopian church, and ....

Feel free to elaborate with any evidence you care to present so we may examine the veracity of the claim

A quick examination of your claim that the Church of England split from Rome before the 1500's revealed this:

• The split between the Catholic Church and England occurred in 1534 after the pope denied King Henry VIII's request for a marriage annulment. More than the result of this single cause, the break with Rome and the creation of a new English church was driven by a combination of personal greed, financial temptation and true religious dedication.

What Caused England & the Catholic Church to Separate? | Synonym

And The Great Schism of 1054 between east and western Orthodoxy was not because the Eastern Rite Churches DOUBTED that the Papal Authority itself was Christ Ordained and passed on through Apostolic succession, the way the Protestants do. They simply disagreed on the scope of that authority... but never doubted, and still do not doubt to this day, that the Roman Bishopric was Christ Ordained and remains in unbroken succession from St Peter to Today, the way the Protestants do.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Really? You seriously think that Protestantism junked this ^??

Maybe you mean something other than it seems to the reader, but if not, it's a stunning comment.


"Many" is always going to be controversial. If you are referring to some sort of OSAS Christians they certainly are not typical of "Protestantism."

Well Calvinism is one example where OSAS is absolutely taught to be true. Calvin’s whole theology is hinged in the concept of eternal security.

 

[Albion]

Well Calvinism is one example where OSAS is absolutely taught to be true. Calvin’s whole theology is hinged in the concept of eternal security.

Very well, but orthodox Calvinists represent only a small segment of "Protestantism."

 

[Albion]

They simply disagreed on the scope of that authority... but never doubted, and still do not doubt to this day, that the Roman Bishopric was Christ Ordained and remains in unbroken succession from St Peter to Today, the way the Protestants do.

Some nice footwork there, but the Eastern Churches have NEVER accepted the idea of the Papacy, and the GOVERNMENT you have been talking about certainly was meant by you to include the Pope.

Of course they acknowledge that there is a bishop in Apostolic Succession residing in Rome, much like the bishops of their own churches, but that's quite a different matter.

And some of the largest and most prominent Protestant churches DO have bishops in an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles, contrary to what Catholics often assume.

 

[parousia70]

And some of the largest and most prominent Protestant churches DO have bishops in an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles, contrary to what Catholics often assume.

Name one, and demonstrate this succession.

I'll go first:
List of popes - Wikipedia

 

[bekkilyn]

Regardless of human governmental structures, we all have "apostalic succession" direct from Jesus Christ, who is the head of the entire church body of all believers who accept him as Lord and Savior and we are thus ordained directly through the gift of the Holy Spirit. Each and every individual has rights to directly approach God's throne boldly with Jesus Christ as our ONLY mediator. No popes, no bishops, no cardinals, no other human individual required.

Of course when a human governmental institution gets to a certain size, it makes sense to have some degree of structure for the sake of organization, but it isn't in any way mandated to replace God, and certainly not to be used as a political weapon of control against others.

Would think we would have learned that lesson through Jesus' interactions with the religious authorities of his day.

 

[Albion]

Name one, and demonstrate this succession.

I'll go first:
List of popes - Wikipedia

There are many lines of succession and every bishop can trace his lineage through a number of them. Most churches do not display all of this on their websites but a few are available. For instance the Patriarch of Constantinople's lineage is available on Wikipedia and is easy to follow.

But you specified a Protestant, not just the bishop of some non-RCC church.

Sometimes individual bishops publish theirs on their own. The following is the Apostolic Succession of Bishop Sean Alexander of the Anglican Church in North America.

20030419-apostolic-succession-archbishop-sean-alexander.pdf

 

[Albion]

Regardless of human governmental structures, we all have "apostalic succession" direct from Jesus Christ, who is the head of the entire church body of all believers who accept him as Lord and Savior...."

You are borrowing a term that has a particular meaning in order to use it to refer to a different concept altogether.

 

[bekkilyn]

You are borrowing a term that has a particular meaning in order to use it to refer to a different concept altogether.

Hence the quotes. My (perhaps implied) argument is that there is much more to legitimacy than real or perceived organizational succession among human institutions, and thank goodness our true legitimacy is through Jesus Christ considering the various questionable methods and politicking that has happened over the course of overall church history.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Rather, Jesus appointed a GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURE that Protestantism REJECTS.

Please address why you believe the Governmental structure of the Church, instituted by Christ and carried forward by His apostles, by the laying on of hands in ordination, is to be rejected by any Christian today.

Titus 1:5
5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge;


And how are those Gifts appointed?
By the laying on of Hands in ordination:

2 Timothy 1:6
6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

1 Timothy 4:14
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.



Acts 1:20

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

I do not say that protestantism is perfect by any stretch. It's just a vast improvement on Rome's system. Protestant denominations in general still have too much of the trappings of Rome. Protestantism's faults do not make Catholicism correct. It just means that the whole of Catholicism is equally flawed.

 

[bekkilyn]

When all is said and done, God isn't going to care if you're Catholic or Protestant or some other thing. His interest is what's in your heart.

"But the Lord said to Samuel, 'Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.'" (1 Samuel 16:7)

Protestantism, Catholicism, Non-Denominationalism (and any other -isms) are external things and religious appearance. The shadows that might sometimes point to the substance who is Christ.

"Therefore do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food and drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths. These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Do not let anyone disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the whole body, nourished and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God." (Colossians 2:16-19)

To argue over whether any of these -isms are correct (as if it matters) is a "human way of thinking."

 

[Artorius Lacomus]

Are you aware that we have protected denominational areas here on this very forum? Why would we need that if everyone gets along just fine?

We have rules in place to prevent posters from making derogatory remarks against a particular denomination's beliefs.

If you don't believe me, go onto any denominational area and read the statement of faith. I picked this up from the Baptist denominational area.
House Rules:
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

Rules like that are for the very few who think of other Churches as their enemy....which they aren't. You should get over that notion.

 

[Saint Steven]

Rules like that are for the very few who think of other Churches as their enemy....which they aren't. You should get over that notion.

I didn't make the rules. But I understand why they are there.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Are you aware that we have protected denominational areas here on this very forum? Why would we need that if everyone gets along just fine?

We have rules in place to prevent posters from making derogatory remarks against a particular denomination's beliefs.

If you don't believe me, go onto any denominational area and read the statement of faith. I picked this up from the Baptist denominational area.
House Rules:
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

 

[Artorius Lacomus]

That doesn't have anything to do with enemy Churches.
Those other Churches are not your enemy.

 

[Albion]

Actually it WAS the case decades ago. All bunches of mixed up denominations playing together at recess, no big deal, nobody cared. And nobody not allowed to not play with other denoms. Also, no such thing as an enemy Church. In truth I've never heard of an enemy Church until reading your post.

Possibly that was the picture in your community, but I assure you that it was not that way at all in many parts of America; and I can attest to it from personal experience as well as from incidents that my father recounted from his early adult life.

Your charming scenario to the contrary may have held up somewhere or other, but that's about the most we can say for it.