"You are Peter, and upon this rock..."

[Rick Otto]

No sir, the intellectual honesty part was about acknowledging what a metaphor is, so that it can be recognised through a thick emotional fog. Nothing to do about God, just very human denial.
As far as your disparagement of evangelicals, baptists, etc... I have no diarrhea what you're talking about.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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!

Good luck with your proof.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

You may be 'saying the same thing' in words, but your meaning is different. I don't waste my time on such drivel.

....wut?
What on Earth are you talking about? If you don't want to "waste your time" with facts, that's your business, but kindly explain what's going through your head now that you DID decide to "waste your time".

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

"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?

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.

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Note that even the early church had disputes. Peter the "rock" had to be taught by God through a vision for him to abandon the prevalent doctrine of the very early church that Gentiles had to adopt Old Testament Jewish laws like circumcision. According to your logic, a difference/transition of doctrine teaching invalidates the ministry. Peter obviously went through a change in doctrine. This hardly invalidates his ministry or takes away his "rock" status.

 

[Albion]

"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.

Aren't Protestants part of Christ's church? Are you seriously asking "how" Protestants explain that they're not Christians?

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.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

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.

 

[Albion]

Christianity is a mystery religion.

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.

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.

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.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Christianity is a mystery religion.

Wrong. It is so simple.
Believe in Jesus as your savior and you will be saved.
In response follow these two commands. Love God, love others.

Now to know God certainly there are mysteries there. The Bible has mysteries that even angels search through; and God's plan is a mystery to us. Just because there are mysteries in Christianity, does not mean the religion should be called a mystery.

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.

You persist in dividing the church of those saved into denominations, people who follow certain leaders. This is not a new concept. It was present in the early church as some claimed to be followers of certain apostles. This elevates the importance of people/teachers over Christ.

What people fail to understand is the importance and necessity of differences in the church. Religion is a powerful device. It has been used to persuade people to do much good but also much bad. There is a reason the Bible says Christ is the head of the Church. Man is fallible. If one man/denomination was in control of all the whole Church, there would many, many problems. I have seen on all levels how pastors and denominational leaders get conceited in their "knowledge and authority" in the church. People that blindly follow their religious leaders are too strictly following the idea of faith like a child. They end up becoming all the more blind. It enables churches to usurp more authority and to not follow the best road. It is human nature that power corrupts. It is therefor better for the religious power to be dispersed among denominations.

One last observation I have made. The best way to learn the truth in the Bible is not to read your church's opinion/commentary on every argument, but to search scripture to defend your position. I have learned much more in these arguments from BibleGateway than any one's arguments. Note that these arguments/differences actually prompt me to learn and seek out the truth. Scripture is the source of truth not any one religious denomination. Therefore the multitude of denominations actually helps me to find the truth.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

 

[Meowzltov]

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.

It's nice to know we agree on something

 

[BobRyan]

"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?

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

So you say, without any attribution.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

...As if it wasn't a metaphor. Think "manna".

 

[patricius79]

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.

.

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.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

 

[patricius79]

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.

Who, would you say, best represents the true faith between 200 and 1200 A.D.?

 

[Rick Otto]

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.

Or, what various things were blinding the church that long?

 

[Rick Otto]

Who, would you say, best represents the true faith between 200 and 1200 A.D.?

Jesus.
Who are you looking toward?