Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good luck with your proof.Ah yes, it's "documented". Just as it's "documented" that I threw a baseball 300 kilometers after which it turned into an egg that I made an omelet with, and I can totally prove it because I paid someone to corroborate it!
You may be 'saying the same thing' in words, but your meaning is different. I don't waste my time on such drivel.And so - you validate what I have said all along.
GoT = Game of Thrones. In an episode, one of the characters eats the heart of a horse.
You may be 'saying the same thing' in words, but your meaning is different. I don't waste my time on such drivel.
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18
How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18
How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true.
Probably not. You're asking them to define Christ's Church as some particular club of disciples--almost a mystery religion, in other words-- rather than what it really is and always has been.
No. Far from it. In fact, historians are emphatic that one of the strengths of the young Christian religion was that, in a Roman world filled with many "Mystery Religions," Christianity was unlike them.Christianity is a mystery religion.
The church is the people of God. We were promised that it would persevere. It has. There is no question about that since it is the world's largest faith and the Gospel has now just about been preached to all the nations of the world. There was no promise of any particular organization of Christians being continuous or anything like that.I was asking how Protestants understand continuity in the church and how we are to understand the continuity of the presence of the People of God.
Christianity is a mystery religion.
I was asking how Protestants understand continuity in the church and how we are to understand the continuity of the presence of the People of God. I believe this thread has lead to sufficient discussion to answer this question. Protestants, for the most part, appear to not have a "Mormon" type ecclesiology that sees the true church as dying off, however, they do see the Gospel as being somewhat obscured (but not lost) by medieval teachings and practices.
My sense of continuity is like the remnant of seven thousand, God revealed to Ezekiel, after he slew all those false prophets and thought he was the last believer in Israel.Christianity is a mystery religion.
I was asking how Protestants understand continuity in the church and how we are to understand the continuity of the presence of the People of God. I believe this thread has lead to sufficient discussion to answer this question. Protestants, for the most part, appear to not have a "Mormon" type ecclesiology that sees the true church as dying off, however, they do see the Gospel as being somewhat obscured (but not lost) by medieval teachings and practices.
It's nice to know we agree on somethingNo. Far from it. In fact, historians are emphatic that one of the strengths of the young Christian religion was that, in a Roman world filled with many "Mystery Religions," Christianity was unlike them.
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" Mat 16:18
How do Protestants explain the continuity of the Church as promised to Peter (and the disciples, presumably), that "the gates of Hell will not overcome it", when the Church seems to have faced a serious rupture, assuming the various Protestant sects are true. What kind of continuity does Luther or Calvin have with Thomas Aquinas or Anselm, for instance? Were people in the middle ages saved through the sacraments of the Church and their faith, such as they had it? If so, why the need for schism?
So you say, without any attribution.Christ was the Rock of the NT - "NO OTHER foundation can anyone lay than has been laid - CHRIST" 1Cor 3
"They all drank from the same Spiritual ROCK and that ROCK was Christ" 1 Cor 10:1-4
The Catholic Church appears to have teaching that looks like the result of a mistaken direction that some Christians started taking as early as the mid-second century and more and more took it over time.
The Christian Church (Not catholicism) was started by Christ. That church is "surviving" a lot of bad ideas that come up here and there over the centuries. Lutherans, Calvinists etc were protesting-Catholics initially trying to reform the Catholic church so it would more closely match the Bible pattern dictated for the church by God.
Some complain that Luther and Calvin "did not go far enough" in undoing the dark ages load of error that had piled into the church over that many centuries of time. Certainly it would not be reasonable to expect them to have discovered every flaw that had come in. And many groups had opposed the Catholic method of piling in tradition long before Luther.
I don't really get what you're trying to say with the Isaiah-reference. Would you mind spelling it out?
Also: No, we're not. Neither is the Communion Bread and Wine UNTIL the Pastor/Priest has sanctified it like Jesus did. After that, it is.
...As if it wasn't a metaphor. Think "manna".Christ fulfilled prophecy.
Jer. 11:19 (septuagent) But I as an innocent lamb led to the slaughter, knew not: against me they devised an evil device, saying, Come and let us put wood into his bread, and let us utterly destroy him from off the land of the living, and let his name not be remembered any more.
"wood into his bread" is a reference to Christ giving the bread and saying this is my body and then crucified on a wooden cross. Had Christ not identified his body as bread, Jeremiah's prophecy would not make sense.
Why do you hate Catholics?
IOW, they didn't crucify a loaf of bread. It is not to say that his body would become literal bread at a priest's invocation.
The problem with this OP is that it elevates the importance of MAN's doctrine. The "church" are those saved, not a particular denomination of Christianity. The criteria for salvation is quite simple.
.
It'd be those of the same as Peter's confession of faith. There is, after all, more to Christianity than what comes out of Rome.I think part of the question of the OP is: where was this "church" of "those saved" for the first 1500 years of Christian history.
It'd be those of the same as Peter's confession of faith. There is, after all, more to Christianity than what comes out of Rome.
Or, what various things were blinding the church that long?I think part of the question of the OP is: where was this "church" of "those saved" for the first 1500 years of Christian history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?