Protestant Christian

[RGS]

What is a protestant christian?:confused:

[Bob Carabbio]

Any Christian who ISN'T Either Romanist, or "Eastern Orthodox". Some folks make other hair-splitting distinctions, but "Protestant" essentially ONLY means "NOT Catholic".

[Columcille]

Any Christian who ISN'T Either Romanist, or "Eastern Orthodox". Some folks make other hair-splitting distinctions, but "Protestant" essentially ONLY means "NOT Catholic".

Any Christian who is not a Catholic, nor belonging to the Orthodox Churches.
Hence, if you join the military and have a chance to visit a chapel service... you are more than likely to attend the Protestant service of which the chaplin could belong to one of numerous denominations. When I was in the Marine Corps, you could either go to the Protestant service or the Catholic M***, or stay with the DI and be miserable. In Camp Bucca, we were lucky enough to have chapel services that were Baptist, Lutheran, Protestant, or Catholic. At any rate, I think you can drop the "Romanist" Bob, it is offensive. The OED shows this under the definition of "Roman Catholic." I do not mind so much if you use Roman Catholic so as to distinguish us from other so-called Catholics as Anglo-Catholic or Old Catholic.

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish, which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the 17th century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618–24), and appears in formal documents relating to this, printed by Rushworth (1659), I. 85–89. After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term, and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed.]

Oxford English Dictionary
2. a. A member or adherent of any of the Christian churches or bodies which repudiated the papal authority, and separated or were severed from the Roman communion in the Reformation of the sixteenth century, and generally of any of the bodies of Christians descended from them; hence in general language applied to any Western Christian or member of a Christian church outside the Roman communion.

[RGS]

Any Christian who ISN'T Either Romanist, or "Eastern Orthodox". Some folks make other hair-splitting distinctions, but "Protestant" essentially ONLY means "NOT Catholic".

This sounds as if a Protestant Christian only has his iden***y in Catholicism? Is this what you mean?

[Columcille]

This sounds as if a Protestant Christian only has his iden***y in Catholicism? Is this what you mean?

That is about right. Historically speaking, one cannot seperate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches' long track record. When people left the Catholic Church, many were trying to connect to historic Christianity by appealing to Augustine's writings. Luther was an Augustinian monk at one time, Calvin quotes Augustine in his Ins***utes. As such we see splinter after splinter, Methodists came out of the Church of England, the Church of England came out of the Catholics. Is it no wonder that there does not seem to be any Christian Church alongside the Catholic and Orthodox that produced writings to support an apostolic succession of teaching? Are we to ***ume, through no trace of Baptist ministers or Church of Christ ministers previous to the Reformation, that such Christians were in hiding and in essence withheld the saving message of the Gospel in the face of persecution and the refuge and promise of Christ that his Message would endure?

[RGS]

That is about right. Historically speaking, one cannot seperate the Catholic and Orthodox Churches' long track record. When people left the Catholic Church, many were trying to connect to historic Christianity by appealing to Augustine's writings. Luther was an Augustinian monk at one time, Calvin quotes Augustine in his Ins***utes. As such we see splinter after splinter, Methodists came out of the Church of England, the Church of England came out of the Catholics. Is it no wonder that there does not seem to be any Christian Church alongside the Catholic and Orthodox that produced writings to support an apostolic succession of teaching? Are we to ***ume, through no trace of Baptist ministers or Church of Christ ministers previous to the Reformation, that such Christians were in hiding and in essence withheld the saving message of the Gospel in the face of persecution and the refuge and promise of Christ that his Message would endure?

You speak of apostolic succession as if it is a measuring rod of Christianity - but of course this is not a supportable theory. The Scriptures do not support this notion. And, actually there is no Scriptural evidence to support the notion that Catholicism is the heart of Christianity or that one must have come from Catholicism, or belong to a church club that can trace its roots back to Catholicism in order to be considered Christian. If you like, go back and reread what I've just written and delete Catholicism and insert Protestantism, and the notions and conclusions are just as faulty.

Suppose a lost WWII survivor in the jungles of some pacific island, who never even heard of Christianity, found a Bible, read it, became indwelt by the Holy Ghost, and died without ever seeing another living soul for 50 years. He was never baptized, he never received communion, etc., but he did know, love, and believe on Christ the Son of the living God and His finished work on the tree of Calvary. And now this survivor has eternal life with the Father. This man could receive it all, without ever knowing what a Catholic is, or a Protestant. But he would know that he was a Christian. Think outside the box.

Actually, this would mean there is no such thing as a Catholic Christian or a Protestant Christian. These are misleading terms added to a valid concept - that valid concept is that of a Christian. Matthew 5:37 NIV, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." And so it is for adding a word to Christian (such as Catholic or Protestant) thereby changing the meaning of Christian as defined in the Bible.:eek:

[Columcille]

Suppose a lost WWII survivor in the jungles of some pacific island, who never even heard of Christianity, found a Bible, read it, became indwelt by the Holy Ghost, and died without ever seeing another living soul for 50 years. He was never baptized, he never received communion, etc., but he did know, love, and believe on Christ the Son of the living God and His finished work on the tree of Calvary. And now this survivor has eternal life with the Father. This man could receive it all, without ever knowing what a Catholic is, or a Protestant. But he would know that he was a Christian. Think outside the box.

Actually, this would mean there is no such thing as a Catholic Christian or a Protestant Christian. These are misleading terms added to a valid concept - that valid concept is that of a Christian. Matthew 5:37 NIV, "Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." And so it is for adding a word to Christian (such as Catholic or Protestant) thereby changing the meaning of Christian as defined in the Bible.:eek:


Before the Reformation, the Scriptures were hand written. If one finds a bible just laying on the ground in an isolated island in WWII, it must have been translated and copied by a competent authority. It is a major factor that the educational ins***utions were mostly founded by Christians for every practical reasons. So you have churches that were entrusted with the Scriptures and as such these were safely entrusted and copied. Not everyone before the Reformation was literate. So yes, I think it is very well understood by the Reformers to distance themselves from the Catholic Church, but not so much as to offend the very central core of Christology and Theology. They had no way of establishing a sola scriptura basis, unless they undermined the universal Church's authority. Hence, they can completely ignore Augustine when it came to the canon list of Scripture at Carthage and was ratified by the seventh ecumenical council of Nice II. Yet, they love quoting him. This is a selective process and not wholely consistent. Individuals do not have the right to mandate Church teaching, but the Church as a whole community does. You are still Christians, because you retain the central core of faith in God the Father, through Jesus Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit. I am only pointing out that if you were to chart a diagram of sects in history, you are going to see the branching coming out of the Catholic/Orthodox Churches.

http://catholic-resources.org/Courses/Christianity-Branches.htm

You can for the most part place a historical start for most denominations. Even denominations as the Church of Christ can trace their roots to the Presbyterian church, but cannot trace farther back. Ask for Christian pastors in history prior to the Reformation and they could not care less, because at the root of it... they make an ***umption that their church was hidden or other such notions when in fact there is no record that they have any historical continuity.

[Columcille]

I am only saying that there is no continuity that any one Protestant sect that we know today existed alongside the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. When you see diagrams and historically trace any one denomination... they have influences and roots into those groups that left the Catholic Church. Church of Christ has roots in the Presbyterians. Methodists have roots in the Anglican Church. Lutheran and Anglicans have roots in the Catholic Church. Even the Reformed Churches started from former members of the Catholic Church. If you can show evidence that any one Protestant denomination existed alongside the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches... then present such evidence.

But to give you something to chew on, I like your WWII survivor ****ogy. Because the Bible to be picked up would indicate a few things. For one, it must have been translated and copied by competent scholars. As such, there must be a continuity of a transmission from the churches that first received the epistles and gospels. Now the literacy rate was not exactly as high as by today and making of papryus was not a cheap thing to do. Education was rather expensive. So the preservation of the texts of Scripture to be copied and commented on belonged to a Church that was universal in scope by the authority of the bishops. As such, we do not see any church alongside the Catholic and Orthodox that maintained or recieved the Scriptures, much less debate about what cons***uted Scripture. If you attempt to try, you are quoting Catholic and Orthodox saints and theologians. You in short take for granted that a transmission exists, even your ****ogy shows that a transmission is possible on a limited basis. We are both Christian, in the relationship we have with our mutual Lord. One just is more complete than the other in its fullness of that message... this is where we have to agree to disagree.

[RGS]

I am only saying that there is no continuity that any one Protestant sect that we know today existed alongside the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. When you see diagrams and historically trace any one denomination... they have influences and roots into those groups that left the Catholic Church. Church of Christ has roots in the Presbyterians. Methodists have roots in the Anglican Church. Lutheran and Anglicans have roots in the Catholic Church. Even the Reformed Churches started from former members of the Catholic Church. If you can show evidence that any one Protestant denomination existed alongside the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches... then present such evidence.

But to give you something to chew on, I like your WWII survivor ****ogy. Because the Bible to be picked up would indicate a few things. For one, it must have been translated and copied by competent scholars. As such, there must be a continuity of a transmission from the churches that first received the epistles and gospels. Now the literacy rate was not exactly as high as by today and making of papryus was not a cheap thing to do. Education was rather expensive. So the preservation of the texts of Scripture to be copied and commented on belonged to a Church that was universal in scope by the authority of the bishops. As such, we do not see any church alongside the Catholic and Orthodox that maintained or recieved the Scriptures, much less debate about what cons***uted Scripture. If you attempt to try, you are quoting Catholic and Orthodox saints and theologians. You in short take for granted that a transmission exists, even your ****ogy shows that a transmission is possible on a limited basis. We are both Christian, in the relationship we have with our mutual Lord. One just is more complete than the other in its fullness of that message... this is where we have to agree to disagree.

You have by-p***ed the most important part of this scenario with the saved survivor. He has received reconciliation with God and he has done this without Catholicism or Protestantism. Do you deny this? It appears that you have, since you have failed to address this all important point. Please do not remind me again of your false theory that the RC's are responsible for the canon of Scriptures. Address the main and all pervasive point here - has this survivor been reconciled to God in your theology? If you fail to address this, then I will not play any further games with you. Be serious, or be silent.:(

[Columcille]

You have by-p***ed the most important part of this scenario with the saved survivor. He has received reconciliation with God and he has done this without Catholicism or Protestantism. Do you deny this? It appears that you have, since you have failed to address this all important point. Please do not remind me again of your false theory that the RC's are responsible for the canon of Scriptures. Address the main and all pervasive point here - has this survivor been reconciled to God in your theology? If you fail to address this, then I will not play any further games with you. Be serious, or be silent.:(

God's salvation works within certain boundaries. Obviously, God cannot save the reprobate. As such, what should I say to you. Not playing further games, etc.?

So let us look at your premises. Premise one is that the "saved survivor" receives reconciliation with God. True. This applies to all Christians, Catholic or Protestant. Your premise #2 is that such a person has done this without Catholicism or Protestantism. At this conjuncture, I disagree with you completely. All Christians are to be discipled. Even if there is no discipleship person to person, it is clear that the transmission of the Scriptures is not something we can seperate from the Church. I do not see any epistles addressed to heretics or even the emperor that is included in the Scriptures. It is clearly all addressed to the people of God in community. As such, this message the core of orthodoxy in both Protestantism and Catholicism is carried out through the tenets of both. The bible you speak about found on the island by the saved survivor in WWII, who published it? If it is by the American Bible Society, it is clearly through the prism of Protestantism since it has 66 books instead of 72 books. The translations themselves bear a mark on the various denominations. Was it KJV, approved by the Church of England. Was it the Pilgrim's Bible (The Geneva Bible) or the Holman, clearly a Baptist translation. In many of these, the works of the scholars had word choices... they also include footnotes about early or later texts. There might even be study notes and introductions to each book. There may be a slant in those notes that appear to be Calvinistic or Arminean, perhaps even Charismatic tongue speakers verse the more traditional. Every version bears a mark of either handled by Protestants or Catholics. So absolutely no on premise #2.


Unlike some Protestants who say Catholics are on the fast track to hell, I recognize within mainline Protestantism... its Christology and theology of Trinitarianism, that these Protestants have every right to claim with the Catholics an authentic relationship with our Lord. So as to your later question "has this survivor been reconciled to God in your theology?" Yes. the WWII saved surviver has reconciled to God... in the core of our shared theology in the person of Christ and in the Trinity. But in matters not related to eternal salvation, he still may be carrying around some excess baggage. Since he is alone on the island, sharing his conviction and putting hist faith to the test on a social setting will limit his capacity. Salvation is important, but it is just as important to live the human experience in its potential, the way God created us not to just be people of God, but to be men and women, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, producers and servers of God to the world. It is in this capacity of fullness that I believe the Catholic Church is more capable than the Protestants who only discuss the essentials or fundamentals of salvation.

[Leslie]

The Councile of Trent anathematized anyone who said that a person is justified by faith alone. Is that what you believe?

[Columcille]

The Councile of Trent anathematized anyone who said that a person is justified by faith alone. Is that what you believe?

RGS's question was what is a Protestant Christian. I think this has been satisfied. If you want to discuss the Council of Trent or what cons***utes an anathema, then we should discuss it in another area.

[Bob Carabbio]

ABSOLUTELY!!!, since the only thing "Protestants" were "Protesting" (when it all got started) was the Roman Catholic Church. The "Orthodox" were included in this, of couse, but many in the "Orthodox" discipline include the Roman Church in with the "protestants" conceptually (the "first" protestants in fact).

But saying that "a Protestant Christian only has his iden***y in Catholicism" isn't really accurate. Some would see that as terribly insulting. I just see it as normal "religious sour grapes".

The Catholic/Orthodox genre is just another set of denominational groups that share some traditions in common, and war about others - pretty much "church as usual" in 2008.

But there's no question that The Catholics/Orthodox have "effected" the Protestant churches with their traditions, and historic views.

As the church gets more mature, that "effect" will lessen in the increased revelation of the Spirit within the CHurch, which is NEITHER "Catholic/Orthodox", nor "Protestant" - or "denominational" at all in fact.

[Leslie]

The Protestants were protesting the practices of the medieval Church which the modern RCC has admitted were wrong. You had as Erasmas put it "so many splinters of the True Cross you could build noah's ark!" and not to mention the horrid practice of Indulgences so the Popes could build gigantic cathedrals and monuments. Need I also mention the Pornocracy which in its day basically saw *****s and courtesons ruling Rome via the Papacy!

Were the Protestants perfect? Surely not, but at least they pointed out these things that were wrong. The thing with Protestantism is, you cannot just judge them all together as one, because we aren't one organization the same way the RCC is by comparason. We agree mostly on all the core issues, we just have differences of opinion with regardes to some aspects.

You judge us as individuals, if you have the right to judge us at all.

[tealblue]

The Protestants were protesting the practices of the medieval Church which the modern RCC has admitted were wrong. You had as Erasmas put it "so many splinters of the True Cross you could build noah's ark!" and not to mention the horrid practice of Indulgences so the Popes could build gigantic cathedrals and monuments. Need I also mention the Pornocracy which in its day basically saw *****s and courtesons ruling Rome via the Papacy!

Were the Protestants perfect? Surely not, but at least they pointed out these things that were wrong. The thing with Protestantism is, you cannot just judge them all together as one, because we aren't one organization the same way the RCC is by comparason. We agree mostly on all the core issues, we just have differences of opinion with regardes to some aspects.

You judge us as individuals, if you have the right to judge us at all.

Its funny as Catholic we are asking you to judge us as the church as a whole not on catholics as individuals. Totally opposite in mentality. The key here is what did Jesus mean in matt when he refered to a church and the gates of hell not prevailing against it. Saying that the original church went apostate goes against christ's own words.

[Leslie]

Its funny as Catholic we are asking you to judge us as the church as a whole not on catholics as individuals. Totally opposite in mentality. The key here is what did Jesus mean in matt when he refered to a church and the gates of hell not prevailing against it. Saying that the original church went apostate goes against christ's own words.

Last time I read my Bible, it said that the Church was founded at Jerusalem, not Rome.

I'm still surprised you guys aren't based at Jerusalem instead of Rome.

[Columcille]

Last time I read my Bible, it said that the Church was founded at Jerusalem, not Rome.

I'm still surprised you guys aren't based at Jerusalem instead of Rome.

The Church is based on the foundation of Apostles. Apostles moved around and were not stationary. So yes, it was founded in place at Jerusalem, but that does not necessarily mean the Apostles were stagnant and remained there. Rome is an epicenter of activity in those days, and Paul met his death there as well as tradition holds that Peter also was hanged upsidedown in Rome. I think Clement, who is mentioned in the Bible by Paul, was a leader of the Church and his patristic writings had some influence.

Chapter XL.—Let us preserve in the Church the order appointed by God.
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times.175175 Some join κατά καιροὺς τεταγμένους, “at stated times.” to the next sentence. [1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2.] He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him.176176 Literally, “to His will.” [Comp. Rom. xv. 15, 16, Greek.] Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are ***igned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xl.html

What I do not get so far is, why are we discussing this aspect of Catholicism in a thread devoted to finding a definition on what is a Protestant Christian. Leslie, Bob, or somebody... post a new thread on this subject in the Catholic section of this board.

[Trinity]

Last time I read my Bible, it said that the Church was founded at Jerusalem, not Rome. I'm still surprised you guys aren't based at Jerusalem instead of Rome.

In addition and with the above Columcille answer, keep in mind, that Jerusalem was completely destroyed and deserted in the year 70 (first century).

Trinity

[Leslie]

I think that in order to understand what a Protestant Christian is, you must first understand what it is that he or she is Protesting against in the first place. Which is the traditions and practices not found within Holy Scripture, which the papists would have you believe are absolutely needed to go to Heaven. That is what we protest. You're essentially saying all those Christians (including Catholics) who didn't believe in Papal infallibility go to hell, or the Marian Dogmas which were not around in the earlier years.

If i'm going to hell because I don't believe in these things, we can just blame the Apostles or even God himself for not having them write these things down in Scripture where it would be God-Breathed.

[Columcille]

I think that in order to understand what a Protestant Christian is, you must first understand what it is that he or she is Protesting against in the first place. Which is the traditions and practices not found within Holy Scripture, which the papists would have you believe are absolutely needed to go to Heaven. That is what we protest. You're essentially saying all those Christians (including Catholics) who didn't believe in Papal infallibility go to hell, or the Marian Dogmas which were not around in the earlier years.

If i'm going to hell because I don't believe in these things, we can just blame the Apostles or even God himself for not having them write these things down in Scripture where it would be God-Breathed.

There are so many things to be addressed in this quote of yours Leslie, but the livelyhood of the discussion will get no where if we run every tangent. A Protestant did protest the Catholic Church, that goes without saying. But is it well founded or consistent in its applications? When you start talking about Canonicity, you might rationally talk about a rubric or standard from which you apply to each book of the Scriptures. However, each rubric that is highlighted contradicts other books in the bible, leading to an inconsistency that really rests on the work of the Catholic Church in the fourth century. One such rubric is that it is prophetic with a "thus says the Lord" type of authority. You will judge Wisdom lacking such qualities, but in regards to Song of Songs or Esther you are completely silent. When it comes to a timeline, you are running yourself in circles because you have taken for granted what the Church Fathers actually believed. You believe in the Trinity, yet the Apostles didn't write "Trinity" down in a dogmatic formation. Scripture is God breathed; and it is the Church as a universal community that recognized it by the Holy Spirit when the Council of Rome persuaded the Council of Carthage, which in turn was submitted to the Trullo and ratified by the seventh Ecumenical council of Nice II. Yet, you talk about if the ratification never took place until the Council of Trent in response to the Reformation. Before the ratification of the canons of Carthage at Nice II, you have a long list of individual's giving their own lists that do not correspond to the Scriptures that even Protestants use. Perhaps the closest is St.Athenasius, but only one list? http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html

Of course, if you accept his as the closest, you have already rejected Baruch.

[Bob Carabbio]

"Saying that the original church went apostate goes against Christ's own words."

And yet even CATHOLIC histories record the sorry state of the "original church" in Luther's time with the Pope in Luther's being dismissed as an "Unfortunate choice" - by his own church which was corrupt to the core, and dying in it's own supers***ion.

But in fact, no thanks to the Romanist system, the Gates of hell DID NOT prevail, and as expected the church/Body of Christ (which never was the Romanist system) is in fine health, right on Schedule, and in budget till the end of the age.

[Trinity]

And yet even CATHOLIC histories record the sorry state of the "original church" in Luther's time with the Pope in Luther's being dismissed as an "Unfortunate choice" - by his own church which was corrupt to the core, and dying in it's own supers***ion.

Sorry but the Church you were referring above is still alive. :)

The Catholic Church had done his "mea culpa" for their bad religious leaders. We apologized to the Orthodox church, the Muslims and the Jews. And we still have regrets to proclaim. However, this is something the protestants have not done yet about their crimes.

The bashing against my church will not help anyone and this could be much more worst if I begin to do the same tactic about the crimes committed by protestants. By exposing what the protestant churches did throughout the history of the reform until our modern days. This is very ugly too.

Trinity

[Leslie]

Sorry but the Church you were referring above is still alive. :)

The Catholic Church had done his "mea culpa" for their bad religious leaders. We apologized to the Orthodox church, the Muslims and the Jews. And we still have regrets to proclaim. However, this is something the protestants have not done yet about their crimes.

The bashing against my church will not help anyone and this could be much more worst if I begin to do the same tactic about the crimes committed by protestants. By exposing what the protestant churches did throughout the history of the reform until our modern days. This is very ugly too.

Trinity


The Roman Catholic Church has apologized to the Orthodox, Muslims and the Jews, but have they aplogized to all the Protestants they tortured during the Inquisition or the ones they burned at the stake? I find it very ironic that they try to make amends to all these groups but not to the evil Protestants. You apologize to the Muslims who are pagans but not to those who profess faith in Christ alongside of you.

[Trinity]

The Roman Catholic Church has apologized to the Orthodox, Muslims and the Jews, but have they aplogized to all the Protestants they tortured during the Inquisition or the ones they burned at the stake?

Yes.

"The Pope also apologized for the Inquisition, thus hitting not only Spain but Dante,..."
http://wais.stanford.edu/Religion/religion_pope.html
World ***ociation of International Studies, Stanford University, CA — PAX et LUX

Protestants in Europe, in England and also in United States have done the same crimes.

Please, before posting, do some research. Thank you.

Trinity

[Leslie]

Yes.

"The Pope also apologized for the Inquisition, thus hitting not only Spain but Dante,..."
http://wais.stanford.edu/Religion/religion_pope.html
World ***ociation of International Studies, Stanford University, CA — PAX et LUX

Protestants in Europe, in England and also in United States have done the same crimes.

Please, before posting, do some research. Thank you.

Trinity

Has the Church apologized to Protestants the same way they have done Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims?

[Trinity]

Has the Church apologized to Protestants the same way they have done Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims?

Yes.

I think this is important to admit that human beings are capable of good things and of the worst things.

Trinity

[Leslie]

Yes.

I think this is important to admit that human beings are capable of good things and of the worst things.

Trinity

Ok then, that is a good thing. I've applauded the Catholic Church in admitting that it has done wrong in the past.

[Trinity]

Ok then, that is a good thing. I've applauded the Catholic Church in admitting that it has done wrong in the past.

It is important to remember that people in other epochs were living in a different society, with different rules and manners. We should not look at the past with our eyes of modern man, living in a democratic society and protected by a political cons***ution or with a human rights proclamation.

Trinity

[RGS]

God's salvation works within certain boundaries. Obviously, God cannot save the reprobate. As such, what should I say to you. Not playing further games, etc.?

So let us look at your premises. Premise one is that the "saved survivor" receives reconciliation with God. True. This applies to all Christians, Catholic or Protestant. Your premise #2 is that such a person has done this without Catholicism or Protestantism. At this conjuncture, I disagree with you completely. All Christians are to be discipled. Even if there is no discipleship person to person, it is clear that the transmission of the Scriptures is not something we can seperate from the Church. I do not see any epistles addressed to heretics or even the emperor that is included in the Scriptures. It is clearly all addressed to the people of God in community. As such, this message the core of orthodoxy in both Protestantism and Catholicism is carried out through the tenets of both. The bible you speak about found on the island by the saved survivor in WWII, who published it? If it is by the American Bible Society, it is clearly through the prism of Protestantism since it has 66 books instead of 72 books. The translations themselves bear a mark on the various denominations. Was it KJV, approved by the Church of England. Was it the Pilgrim's Bible (The Geneva Bible) or the Holman, clearly a Baptist translation. In many of these, the works of the scholars had word choices... they also include footnotes about early or later texts. There might even be study notes and introductions to each book. There may be a slant in those notes that appear to be Calvinistic or Arminean, perhaps even Charismatic tongue speakers verse the more traditional. Every version bears a mark of either handled by Protestants or Catholics. So absolutely no on premise #2.


Unlike some Protestants who say Catholics are on the fast track to hell, I recognize within mainline Protestantism... its Christology and theology of Trinitarianism, that these Protestants have every right to claim with the Catholics an authentic relationship with our Lord. So as to your later question "has this survivor been reconciled to God in your theology?" Yes. the WWII saved surviver has reconciled to God... in the core of our shared theology in the person of Christ and in the Trinity. But in matters not related to eternal salvation, he still may be carrying around some excess baggage. Since he is alone on the island, sharing his conviction and putting hist faith to the test on a social setting will limit his capacity. Salvation is important, but it is just as important to live the human experience in its potential, the way God created us not to just be people of God, but to be men and women, fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, producers and servers of God to the world. It is in this capacity of fullness that I believe the Catholic Church is more capable than the Protestants who only discuss the essentials or fundamentals of salvation.

"Premise one is that the "saved survivor" receives reconciliation with God. True." Then you say, "This applies to all Christians, Catholic or Protestant. Your premise #2 is that such a person has done this without Catholicism or Protestantism. At this conjuncture, I disagree with you completely." In other words, you say you agree with this man's reconciliation to God, but then you immediately deny that his reconciliation is valid outside of your formula. You logic is not from God, it is a fleshly logic. It is of no value to you or those who read it.:(

[RGS]

The Councile of Trent anathematized anyone who said that a person is justified by faith alone. Is that what you believe?

Of course I believe in justification by faith alone. Why would I care about the Council of Trent? But a better observation would be, why should you sell your soul to the Council of Anything?

[Columcille]

Of course I believe in justification by faith alone. Why would I care about the Council of Trent? But a better observation would be, why should you sell your soul to the Council of Anything?

Why should we follow the decision of the council of Jerusalem? Because it is found in Acts? Acts was written much later than the council, so apparently in the Christian community... a council, especially an ecumenical council, establishing doctrine and morals is to apply to the whole Church. Of course, you (being a Protestant) will naturally reject the Council of Trent. I say we should discuss that particular council in depth in the Catholic side of the WMBoard.

[Columcille]

"Premise one is that the "saved survivor" receives reconciliation with God. True." Then you say, "This applies to all Christians, Catholic or Protestant. Your premise #2 is that such a person has done this without Catholicism or Protestantism. At this conjuncture, I disagree with you completely." In other words, you say you agree with this man's reconciliation to God, but then you immediately deny that his reconciliation is valid outside of your formula. You logic is not from God, it is a fleshly logic. It is of no value to you or those who read it.:(

Apparently you did not read the rest of my examples regarding your premise that it can be done without Catholicism or Protestantism. If there is a bible on that island, it has in its translation and compilation of books a clear prism through which Catholicism and Protestantism have left their marks. If you take away the bible being found and replace it with a say an angelic vision, then only in such instances could we say it is without a mark of Catholicism or Protestantism. But are visions reliable without some evidence of conformity to truth?

(addition follows) I mean after all, that the bible's greatest mark is how God over the milliniums of history with mankind reveals a longstanding relationship of truth. A person with only one vision like Muhammed or Joseph Smith has no means to demonstrate with prior revelation the consistency necessary to call their visions accurate, especially when they contradict prior revelation. The man on the island with such a vision would also face the similiar consequences. It would be better for him to not have a vision at all and see God through his creation as Romans 1 would indicate rather than having to find no way in which to test the vision as coming from the Holy Spirit or not.

[Trinity]

Hello Leslie,


Ok then, that is a good thing. I've applauded the Catholic Church in admitting that it has done wrong in the past.

I forgot to mention that we apologized for what we have done to Galileo also.


Pope marks Galileo anniversary, praises astronomy
Sun Dec 21, 2008

In 1992, Pope John Paul II apologized, saying that the denuncuation was a tragic error.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_astronomy;_ylt=Aka18JBiTBCC896UxfLK_Yqs 0NUE

Trinity

[RGS]

Apparently you did not read the rest of my examples regarding your premise that it can be done without Catholicism or Protestantism. If there is a bible on that island, it has in its translation and compilation of books a clear prism through which Catholicism and Protestantism have left their marks. If you take away the bible being found and replace it with a say an angelic vision, then only in such instances could we say it is without a mark of Catholicism or Protestantism. But are visions reliable without some evidence of conformity to truth?

(addition follows) I mean after all, that the bible's greatest mark is how God over the milliniums of history with mankind reveals a longstanding relationship of truth. A person with only one vision like Muhammed or Joseph Smith has no means to demonstrate with prior revelation the consistency necessary to call their visions accurate, especially when they contradict prior revelation. The man on the island with such a vision would also face the similiar consequences. It would be better for him to not have a vision at all and see God through his creation as Romans 1 would indicate rather than having to find no way in which to test the vision as coming from the Holy Spirit or not.

Obviously this conversation is over because you refuse to enter into it. You have no ability to speak anything other than confusion. Who is the author of lies?

[johnd]

Any Christian who ISN'T Either Romanist, or "Eastern Orthodox". Some folks make other hair-splitting distinctions, but "Protestant" essentially ONLY means "NOT Catholic".

Interesting post. Very good point. But as Michael Medved said about Judaism is "we must define ourselves by what we are rather than what we are not." Essentially, to be Protestant is to say I am what I am not.

And that's sad.

But the many divisions comes from mere human beings trying to reinvent what God never changed.

It has always been a matter of faith (which goes further back than Abraham. Paul cited him as the father of faith because in the Jewish mind he was the beginning of Judaism). Ironically in the letter to the Hebrews (more than likely written by Paul whose name was mud in Jewish circles at the time), the proof goes far earlier than Abraham:

Hebrews 11
1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in mul***ude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.
21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.
22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.
24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter;
25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
28 Through faith he kept the p***over, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
29 By faith they p***ed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians ***aying to do were drowned.
30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were comp***ed about seven days.
31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.
32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.
35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being des***ute, afflicted, tormented;
38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

The people of God have not changed in that sense. And the Church (ekklesia or ***embly goes back that far). See Exodus 12:6

The calling of the Jewish people was to set aside a people who would bring into the world the written word and the word of God personified. At it was at great cost. And the physical covenants with the Jewish people have not changed (even in unbelief). But their eternal soul is not saved for being born Jewish.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Two Israels. One physical, one Spirit.

Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

...continued...

[johnd]

...continued:

Romans 11:
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

All {Spirit} Israel will be saved.

John 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Philippians 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise {{"Jew" or Judah means "praise" see Genesis 29:35}} is not of men, but of God.

Does this un-Judaize the Jews? No. A person born Jewish will be a physical Jew till death. What they are not is a Spirit Jew. They have the naural proclivity to become Spirit Jews (as Romans 11:21 indicates). But unbelief is a universal determination of fate / dispostion for Jew and Gentile alike:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Only the covenants changed as the time to show mankind he could not religiously reach out to God (which is what the Law of Moses was about) to grace and mercy the Law of Christ saving us on the one condition that we simply believe him.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.
20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.

It's high time we stopped trying to reinvent the wheel as the Roman Catholics from Emperor Constantine onward have been trying... or as the Replacement movement (Reformation Movement), or the like. It's time we cease this spiritual iden***y crisis which has armed the devil with an ****nal of division and strife and confusion giving rise to cults and world religions that all claim to be Christian...

It's time we stopped identifying ourselves by who we aren't and realize and accept who we are: Spirit Jews, Spirit Israel.

Jeremiah 31:31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law {{1 Corinthians 9:21}} in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me {{ Jesus}}, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 6:15 Neither {{ physical}} circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

When we realize this there will be unity, and the Protestant / Catholic rivalry won't even exist anymore. We need to set aside our humanist writings and pick up our Bibles.

[AllyManderson]

Yes.

"The Pope also apologized for the Inquisition, thus hitting not only Spain but Dante,..."
http://wais.stanford.edu/Religion/religion_pope.html
World ***ociation of International Studies, Stanford University, CA — PAX et LUX

Protestants in Europe, in England and also in United States have done the same crimes.

Please, before posting, do some research. Thank you.

Trinity

Why do you list England and Europe? England is part of Europe. England is the largest cons***uent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is a member of the European Union. The UK is European.

This would be like saying "Protestants in North America, in Canada...". As a proud British citizen I do not like this manner in which people feel a need to give England seperate regional treatment.

Roman Catholics and Protestants have done a great deal of harm to one another. The inquisition you must accept is one of the most noticeable. But, the inquisition was NOT Christian.

I do not judge Catholics based on Previous Popes - just as I do not judge Jews on the death of Jesus Christ or blame all muslims for the terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom.

Similarly, the Popes apology means nothing to me. As many Catholic might support such actions! (I know that they don't)

The main thing about me as a Christian is that I like to hear from people not designated spokesman and leaders. The Popes apology means no more than an apology from you Trinity.

But it if the fact that Catholics would place special importance on the word of the Pope that makes Protestants expect the Pope to apologise for every little thing.

If you were to sit down and try to apologise for every misdeed of every Roman Catholic you would have as long a life as Noah. A similar amount to if you attempted to do the same for every failure of a Protestant.

_________

Another thing, You state that people should "do research". I hope that you do not continue to take this tone as you have proven yourself an intellectual I do not think it right for you to talk down to people in such a manner. By all means say "I suggest you look at..." "You may want to..." but do not state "do some research".

The fact that you are smart is a great gift you have been given. Do not demand that other show the same. If someone is doing their best with the brain they are given you should not aim a petty **** towards them.

You are far better than that.

[Trinity]

Why do you list England and Europe? England is part of Europe. England is the largest cons***uent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The United Kingdom is a member of the European Union. The UK is European.

I was referring to a different time of the history. Not about the modern Europe or the modern America. But about the period where there was conflicts and wars between England with Spain, France or Germany. To begin with Henry Vlll.

Please be indulgent with my English because this is not my native language. Sometimes I can lack in clarifications.


The fact that you are smart is a great gift you have been given. Do not demand that other show the same. If someone is doing their best with the brain they are given you should not aim a petty **** towards them.

I agree. It is very easy to patronize. I am trying to correct this bad habit.

Oliver Cromwell was also a very effective protestant inquisitor (ex: Ireland m***acre).

Trinity

[AllyManderson]

I was referring to a different time of the history. Not about the modern Europe or the modern America. But about the period where there was conflicts and wars between England with Spain, France or Germany. To begin with Henry Vlll.

Please be indulgent with my English because this is not my native language. Sometimes I can lack in clarifications.



I agree. It is very easy to patronize. I am trying to correct this bad habit.

Oliver Cromwell was also a very effective protestant inquisitor (ex: Ireland m***acre).

Trinity

Now this is the problem that we have. Cromwell, who took over from the Monarchy, was ***isted by Scottish and Irish soldiers. The "English Civil War" was a very BRITISH war.

To claim that Oliver Cromwell's misdeeds represent England and not Britain is, from my position as Scottish and British, unfair. Remember that the "English" monarchy overthrown also had its roots in Scotland and it was supported by many Scots as well.

Henry VIII was supported by a great deal of Scottish money and Scottish soldiers.

You can't talk about England without talking about Scotland - particularly after the Union of the Crowns.

[Trinity]

Now this is the problem that we have. Cromwell, who took over from the Monarchy, was ***isted by Scottish and Irish soldiers. The "English Civil War" was a very BRITISH war.

To claim that Oliver Cromwell's misdeeds represent England and not Britain is, from my position as Scottish and British, unfair. Remember that the "English" monarchy overthrown also had its roots in Scotland and it was supported by many Scots as well.

Henry VIII was supported by a great deal of Scottish money and Scottish soldiers.

You can't talk about England without talking about Scotland - particularly after the Union of the Crowns.

The simple truth is that Cromwell had targeted the Catholics. Many died and suffered great pains because of his anti-catholicism. Even after his death the consequences of his wars and politics were terrible, and especially for the Catholics of Ireland.

"One of the worst famines in modern times in the Western world was the Irish famine of 1846 through 1849. It started as the result of a prolonged potato blight that over several years caused the nation’s potatoes to rot. While this occurred not only in Ireland but also in other parts of Europe, it had a devastating impact in Ireland. Four factors caused the disease to become a tragedy of enormous proportions: As a result of the British occupation and Cromwell’s wars, most of the Irish were peasants engaged in subsistence agriculture. The potato was their staple food. They had little income beyond whatever minuscule incomes they could make from the sale of the potato and other farm products. Second, they did not own their farmsteads, but were tied to Protestant or British landlords who insisted that they should continue to pay their rent even when no income could be obtained. As they could not pay, hundreds of thousands were evicted. Third, Ireland was not an independent country with its own government, which might have recognized its responsibility to take remedial action; Ireland was under British rule..." [p. 344-345]

Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity
Edited by Dinah Shelton
Thomson & Gale Encyclopedia
Volume -2-, 2005, 1458 pages.
http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Genocide-Crimes-Against-Humanity/dp/0028658477/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239599692&sr=1-1

Dinah Shelton is the Patricia Roberts Harris Research Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. Before joining George
Washington in 2004, she taught international law and was director of the doctoral program in international human rights law at the University of Notre Dame Law School (1996-2004). Shelton is the author of three prize-winning books and has also served as a legal consultant to the United Nations Environment Programme, UNITAR, World Health Organization, European Union, Council of Europe, and Organization of American States.

Trinity

[TimLScheffer]

The First Protestor... Martin Luther... did not mean to begin a new branch of the Christian or Universal/Catholic Church...

Martin Luther was simply protesting the Change in the Catholic or Universal Church by which,

Church Tradition was elevated to a higher authority than the Holy Bible... ie God's Word.

Luther was protesting the change... and thus dubbed a Protestant...

The Catholic Powers that be refused to back off the position that Church Tradition and the Pope trumped The Bible where there was a conflict.

In the last couple of Decades... Unfortunately.... Many of the Protestant Faiths have elevated themselves above Scripture... the Holy Bible... There are very few left that hold to the Protestant affirmation that the Bible is the True, Infallible, Inerrant Word of God.

A few of the fallen... The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America), not to be confused with
WELCA or LCMS brands of Lutheranism

The Methodists

The Presbytarians

The American Baptists... not to be confused with Southeran Baptists

The Episcpalions or whoever you spell that...

This is not an exhaustive list... I wish it was.

[GraftedIn73]

What is a protestant christian?:confused:

A Protestant Christian is the recipient of two appellations that were originally intended to be slurs...

"And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Acts 11:26

"And the Christians were first called Protestants in Germany." Diet of Speyer 15:29 ;)

( http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Diet_of_Speyer )

Neither term was meant to be flattering, but both stuck. Evangelical is the term commonly meant to include all the non-RC churches arising from the Reformation.

There is a lot in this thread about who contributed what to the growth of the Church. I have no problem thanking each group for their contributions, nor rejecting false teachings, regardless from which group it arose. None of the major branches of Christendom are free from error. Nor are any individual Christians, myself most definitely included. Names by which we identify various groups serve to provide a rapid mental framework by which to identify and begin the process of comprehending one another. Unfortunately, that is usually the first step in attacking one another, rather than seeking to find unity.

I for one agree with JohnD, even though he considers my some of my views heretical. All true believers, though all ages are the Seed of Abraham, The Israel of God, Members of the Body of Christ. I do not agree with ALL of the doctrinal distinctives of any man-made groups within the Christian Church, not even Calvinism. ;) I believe that there are true Christians - True Spiritual Israelites - True Children of Abraham, to be found within most of the groups that have named the name of Christ through the centuries.

To be sure, there have been heretics, and heretical groups wihtin the pale of Christianity, but in our zeal to remove the tares, sadly, we have destroyed an incomprehensible amount of wheat.

GI73

[RGS]

Read post 6 on this thread. Then go to post 9, where it says: He has received reconciliation with God and he has done this without Catholicism or Protestantism. Do you deny this?

Where is the answer to this question. Has no one the wisdom to give a yes or a no?

:(

[Decalogue]

What is a protestant christian?:confused:

:rolleyes: What is a computer user that can't figure out what Google or Bing is ?

Or a person without a dictionary or access to a Public Library...?


Aaarggh! Have you read or heard a single book or tape of Dr. Walter Martin ? There are links on the first page of this website. He authored a book ***led: Essential Christianity. Get it! Tolle Lege!

btw --- I would have given a softer/more warm and cuddly answer, but I read the other posts you put on the Thread and it appears you did not wish for an honest answer, but rather just to stir controversy. If I'm wrong then read the following suggestions.

Simply put: A Protestant Christian is one that Protests the Bishop of Rome - il popa - saying that he is "The Vicar of Christ" and head of all Christianity.

Protestants (aka - Reformers) flourished during the 1500's because of an invention known as the Printing Press. When common people could read a Bible in their home language (rather than Latin) they also joined the Reformers in following the tenets of Holy Scripture rather than man-made Romish ritualistic religion.

All of this is available to you in books you can buy or books for check-out from your Public Library. If you are on a budget, then get Halley's Bible Handbook. It has a Church History section. If you have some extra money ( or a bigger library) then read "Christianity thru the Centuries" by Earle Cairns, Zondervan Publications.

[Jean Chauvin]

Wow,

A very simplified answer.

The material issue was/is justification.
The formal issue was authority.

These were the two main issues of the Reformation. Luther saw that Rome was ripping people off so they could build St. Peter's, among other things. But the core of it started doctrinally, the ripping off is simply what you would expect to find in paganism. That's what pagans do.

And of course, Rome did not like people exposing it. So Rome murdered them. Sometimes they would utterly torture them. Or Cut their stomachs and put pig food in their stomach so the pigs could eat them to death (see Fox's book of Martyrs).

But often, they burned them alive by making the ***gots as hot as they could be.

Rome is evil. The Reformers knew this. ALL of their lives were in danger. But through their fruit of boldness, God used them for His glory.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[alanmolstad]

What is a protestant christian?:confused:

"protestant" = a person who protests.

Another way to say it is "I protest"

[Grandma]

Interesting.


John 10:14

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.