Protestantism denies the divinity of Christ

[curtins]

Ok maybe you guys can help me with this or if I'm right or wrong or what but:

If Christ established his Church (Catholic Church) and gaurenteed it would not be overcome by the gates of hell but the church evolved into all these things that the protestants consider Christ never intended (magisterium, papal infalibility, true presesnce in the Eucharist) then that would mean Christ screwed up. It would mean he didn't know what he was doing. It would also mean that God in the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Church as Christ said he would. That would mean that God screwed up assuming Christ was who he said (God). If Christ screwed up like that then he can't be God cause God can't screw up or he's less than perfect. It would also mean Christ lied because it would mean the gates of hell did indeed over come the Church (thus the need to create new protestant churches) and that would mean Christ lied when he said he was the Truth. All of this means he can't be God. And so the protestants are wasting their time unless they join the Catholic Church.

[Diamond]

I'm a Protestant.

Jesus' didn't set up a hierarchy as His church. I believe that his Church is made up of those who follow Him and love God, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. It is THAT Church, the body of Christ in which we all serve a purpose, that can never be overcome.

[chris]

[quote]Jesus' didn't set up a hierarchy as His church. I believe that his Church is made up of those who follow Him and love God, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. It is THAT Church, the body of Christ in which we all serve a purpose, that can never be overcome.[/quote]

We are all part of one Holy Catholic and Apostolic chuch. No matter what we are. However, Peter established his see at Rome before he was crucified upsidedown on a cross by nero. The hirearchy of the Church doesnt influence my worhsip. I know and love my Holy Father, I know he is Christ's vicar on earth. Im not going to make it much more complicated than that.

[quote]then that would mean Christ screwed up[/quote]

And Christ didnt Screw up...

All of history was and is in the hands of God. Whether it seems weird or not, everthing has a purpose.

Edited August 11, 2006 by Convert4888

[curtins]

[quote] And Christ didnt Screw up... biglol.gif

All of history was and is in the hands of God. Whether it seems weird or not, everthing has a purpose. [/quote]

I'm not saying he screwed up lol.

I'm saying that if you don't think that the Catholic Church is Christ's true church then by logic you are implicitly saying he screwed up

[quote name='Diamond' post='1041200' date='Aug 10 2006, 07:56 PM']
I'm a Protestant.

Jesus' didn't set up a hierarchy as His church. I believe that his Church is made up of those who follow Him and love God, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. It is THAT Church, the body of Christ in which we all serve a purpose, that can never be overcome.
[/quote]


Actually Jesus did set up a hierarchy in the Church. He specifically singled out Peter as the ROCK on which his Church would be built. He specifically chose his 12 Apostles and gave them AUTHORITY. And the Holy Spirit guided the formation of the hierarchy in the Church as we now see it today.

[chris]

Ahh okay...I see

[desertwoman]

Well, I've met some Protestants that belive that the Catholic Church stamped out the real christians and brought forth Catholicism. How would you deal with that.

[Gal. 5:22,23]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1041404' date='Aug 11 2006, 08:18 AM']
Well, I've met some Protestants that belive that the Catholic Church stamped out the real christians and brought forth Catholicism. How would you deal with that.
[/quote]


I think you would need to find out when they believe the Catholics did such a thing. Then, you can prove to them through the writings of the Early Church Fathers that this simply is not true. I used to be one of [i]those[/i] Protestants of which you speak. Then I read the ECF.

[Budge]

Curtin you got the WRONG church.

Look up what Ekklesia means please.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Diamond' post='1041200' date='Aug 10 2006, 05:56 PM']
I'm a Protestant.

Jesus' didn't set up a hierarchy as His church. I believe that his Church is made up of those who follow Him and love God, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. It is THAT Church, the body of Christ in which we all serve a purpose, that can never be overcome.
[/quote]

There are two problems with this argument. First and foremost, it makes an unnecessary distinction between a "visible" and an "invisible" Church. Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, and he gave all the Apostles the power to bind and loose. Moreover, those apostles laid hands on the first deacons and the visible church grew organically out of Christ's actions. To argue that the "Church" is only an invisible collection of all people who follow and love God [i]over and above[/i] the visible, historical Church grounded in Christ and the Apostles is extremely problematic. The invisible communion of all believers is not something over and above the visible Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Secondly, once this mistake has been made, and Christ's visible Church has been seperated from the amalgamous "communion of those who love Christ" you fall into the problem of interpretation. If there is no visible, concrete Church through which the Holy Spirit acts and teaches, then it follows that the assertion that the Church is the communion of all who love Christ can only be an assertion of a personal interpretation of Scripture. But personal interpretation of Scripture is not infallible in itself, and that means that there is [i]in principle[/i] no way to actually be certain what the "Church" is.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

sorry, double post

Edited August 11, 2006 by JeffCR07

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Diamond' post='1041200' date='Aug 10 2006, 06:56 PM']
I'm a Protestant.

Jesus' didn't set up a hierarchy as His church. I believe that his Church is made up of those who follow Him and love God, whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox. It is THAT Church, the body of Christ in which we all serve a purpose, that can never be overcome.
[/quote]

If that's the case, then the Pope has authority over Protestants as well and they should listen to him, otherwise they are guilty of not subjecting themselves to authority (Romans 13:1-2).

Edited August 11, 2006 by Norseman82

[Justified Saint]

curtins,

Your points are good since they illustrate the ahistorical conception of Christianity that is held by many a Protestant (especially of the evangelical/fundamentalist type) and which really strikes at the heart of the Catholic-Protestant divide. I can't say this amounts to the Protestant, in ignorance, denying the divinity of Christ since they don't believe that Christ "screwed up" but only that Christ didn't will the historic church. Thus of course they firmly believe in the divinity of Christ, but they really don't understand that divinity very well.

Protestants of this type are so reactionary that they have a lot of difficultly coming up with a robost defense of Christ's divinity and doctrines of the faith.

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1041445' date='Aug 11 2006, 08:58 AM']
If that's the case, then the Pope has authority over Protestants as well.
[/quote]

This is actually a position that some Protestants are willing to concede -- odd as that sounds.

Edited August 11, 2006 by Justified Saint

[Budge]

[quote]If that's the case, then the Pope has authority over Protestants as well and they should listen to him, otherwise they are guilty of not subjecting themselves to authority (Romans 13:1-2).[/quote]

One thing that ecumenical Prots are duped about is all those teachings about the Popes holding temporal power over the world and over souls are still in place.

Jesus is the head of my church, not a fallible man claiming the title Vicar of Christ.

[Era Might]

No, error in theology does not amount to "denying the divinty of Christ". Protestants and Catholics worship the same God, although we do not agree about everything pertaining to the Christian tradition. Our dispute is not in the revealer, but in what the revealer has revealed.

The Second Vatican Council expounded on the Church's relationship to non-Catholic Christians:

[quote]The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

--"Lumen Gentium"[/quote]

[Eutychus]

[quote]
If Christ established his Church (Catholic Church) and gaurenteed i[b]t would not be overcome[u] by the gates of hell [/u] [/quote][/b]

Bumper sticker theology.

First of all, GATES are not offensive, now are they? You might want to research what that phrase actually teaches.

If you get such simple concepts as what a GATE does, why should I listen to the rest of your trite, sloganeering?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Budge' post='1041679' date='Aug 11 2006, 04:47 PM']
One thing that ecumenical Prots are duped about is all those teachings about the Popes holding temporal power over the world and over souls are still in place.

Jesus is the head of my church, not a fallible man claiming the title Vicar of Christ.
[/quote]

Hmm....I recall hearing something about "I give to you the keys to the Kingdom....what you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven".....is this another part of the Bible that Luther threw out?

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1041404' date='Aug 11 2006, 09:18 AM']
Well, I've met some Protestants that belive that the Catholic Church stamped out the real christians and brought forth Catholicism. How would you deal with that.
[/quote]

Was that before or after the Catholic Church left the Church of England??

[Diamond]

I guess one of my problems with Catholicism lies within the realm of implied ideas. It seems to me that Peter being able to pass on this role as the "binder" is implied. Many Catholics ideas seem to make possibilites into "fact," giving a single man or council of men the right to say what is true even when other Christians may not agree. It also seems clear to me, especially from Paul's writings to the churches, that the apostles themselves were extremely concerned with making the Gospel open to everyone and not very concerned with everyone believing the same thing on smaller concepts. The essential truth of the Gospel was all that mattered to them. They never demanded that converts accept the authority of Peter or the rest of the apostles. When it seemed that Gentile leadership was needed to diversify the church, they appointed the Seven (non-Hebrews) to administrate. These were men who were not worried at all about converts recognizing them; they wanted only to point to Jesus.

My opinion is that the Church made huge leaps towards what it is today soon after heretical sects began to rise. That was when the Church decided to identify the essential truths that could not be contradicted. The problem lies in the fact that they weren't content with that. They went further and further, obsessed with keeping heretical sects from arising. They issued official doctrine on matters that were inessential to the Gospel. Who does this remind me of, honestly? The Pharisees.

And as for being Reactionary... of course we are. We are what we are (for those of us who understand what we are, at least) because we don't believe in compiling huge documents stating everything we believe. We recognize differences between individual Christians. No one person will interpret each verse of the Bible the same as another. I don't want dispute. I find the idea of compiling a collection of all the doctrines I endorse to be extremely distasteful.

Never lose sight of your first love.

Brother,

Adam

[Socrates]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1041693' date='Aug 11 2006, 04:17 PM']
[/b]

Bumper sticker theology.

First of all, GATES are not offensive, now are they? You might want to research what that phrase actually teaches.

If you get such simple concepts as what a GATE does, why should I listen to the rest of your trite, sloganeering?
[/quote]
Matthew 16:17-19
[quote]And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and [b]the gates of hell shall not prevail against it[/b]. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.[/quote]
These words were spoken by Jesus Christ, as recorded in Matthew's Gospel. I suppose Christ was likewise ignorant of the proper function of a gate. Was Jesus Christ here likewise engaging in "bumpersticker theology" and "trite sloganeering"?

Pretty strange insinuations, coming from a "Bible Christian"!

Perhaps you might want to discuss this Gospel passage, and engage the argument, rather than indulging in your usual cheap insults and name-calling.

Are your constant insults and name-calling the mark of a "true Christian"? C'mon. Really.

Edited August 12, 2006 by Socrates

[jswranch]

[quote name='Diamond' post='1041729' date='Aug 11 2006, 05:54 PM']
Many Catholics ideas seem to make possibilites into "fact," giving a single man or council of men the right to say what is true even when other Christians may not agree.
[/quote]
I like your approach. Let me chime in here. Please understand, we see the single man and council of men saying what is true especially after other Christians do not agree at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. The Catholic church is the unbroken continuation of such men. The next time the descendants of these men met as a whole was at Nicea in 325. There they settled another disagreement between Christians. You agree with both of the items settled on at these two councils.

[quote]It seems to me that Peter being able to pass on this role as the "binder" is implied.[/quote]
Let me help. Jesus (ie God) changed the name of Peter to Kepha. When God changes names, he is enacting a covenant that does not get broken, which lasts for all times. Does it make sense to you that Jesus changed Peter's name, gave him the keys, made him the leader and gave him the power to bind and loose only to have such powers go away from the face of the earth after Peter's death? Have you ever compared Peter's keys as Vicar of Christ to Is 22:22 to Eliakin as Vicar of David, the difference being Christs kindom will have no end and is infinatly powerful?

[quote]My opinion is that the Church made huge leaps towards what it is today soon after heretical sects began to rise. That was when the Church decided to identify the essential truths that could not be contradicted. The problem lies in the fact that they weren't content with that. They went further and further, obsessed with keeping heretical sects from arising. They issued official doctrine on matters that were inessential to the Gospel. Who does this remind me of, honestly? The Pharisees.[/quote]

Remember the statement about your understanding ahistoric. If you could read the writtings of the Christians between the years 100 and 200AD, you would find heretics such as the Judaizers, Gnostics, Montanists, Docetists, Montanists, etc. And then you would find Catholics who strongly state the bread and wine are real flesh and blood, dissobediance to the 'bishops' (aka dessendants of the apostles) is eternally hazardous to ones soul, Mary as ever virgin without stain of sin who is the new Eve etc. No where would you find scripture as sole word of God to the exclusion of tradition, faith alone to the rejection of work for justification, or an invisible church.
Such ideas would come over a thousand years later.

[quote]Never lose sight of your first love.[/quote]
You mean Penny from Inspector Gadget? Just kidding.

[curtins]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1041734' date='Aug 11 2006, 08:02 PM']
Matthew 16:17-19

These words were spoken by Jesus Christ, as recorded in Matthew's Gospel. I suppose Christ was likewise ignorant of the proper function of a gate. Was Jesus Christ here likewise engaging in "bumpersticker theology" and "trite sloganeering"?

Pretty strange insinuations, coming from a "Bible Christian"!

Perhaps you might want to discuss this Gospel passage, and engage the argument, rather than indulging in your usual cheap insults and name-calling.

Are your constant insults and name-calling the mark of a "true Christian"? C'mon. Really.
[/quote]

amen