Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Protestant Christian

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    RGS
    Guest

    Default Protestant Christian

    What is a protestant christian?

  2. #2
    Bob Carabbio
    Guest

    Default

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

  3. #3
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default OED Protestant

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carabbio View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    RGS
    Guest

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carabbio View Post
    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?

  5. #5
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Sounds about right.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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?

  6. #6
    RGS
    Guest

    Default Christian

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post

    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.

    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/Course...y-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.

  8. #8
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default premise 1 and 2; yes #1; NO #2.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Leslie
    Guest

    Default

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

  12. #12
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
    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?

  14. #14
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default Let's discuss Councils in depth under a new thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    RGS
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RGS View Post
    "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.
    Last edited by Columcille; 12-12-2008 at 06:39 PM. Reason: additional paragraph to make clear conformity to truth question.

  17. #17
    RGS
    Guest

    Default Confusion

    Quote Originally Posted by Columcille View Post
    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?

  18. #18
    Bob Carabbio
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Leslie
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  20. #20
    tealblue
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
    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.

  21. #21
    Leslie
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tealblue View Post
    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.

  22. #22
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Trinity
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
    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
    Last edited by Trinity; 12-09-2008 at 06:06 PM.

  24. #24
    Leslie
    Guest

    Default

    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.

  25. #25
    Columcille
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leslie View Post
    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/npnf...i.iii.xxv.html

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •