Protestantism denies the divinity of Christ

[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

[thessalonian]

[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. [/quote]

Dear fallible Moses,

So what do you have to say about God screwing up and having Dathan and Korah swallowed up by the earth in and earthquake when they decided not to follow you through the desert. After all they said they wanted to follow God their way. It should have been just fine, since we're not supposed to follow men and Jesus being God and all is the head of the Church.

False dichotomy number 246.

[Eutychus]

[quote]
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. [/quote]

IF....

He didn't.

Problem solved.

Theologians got many things wrong. You just listed a few important ones....

[curtins]

So you're saying Christ didn't establish a church?

[Eutychus]

[quote] So you're saying Christ didn't establish a church?[/quote]

Have you read Acts and Revelation?

I count MANY "churches"...each so distinctively unique, that in Jesus's letter to the CHURCH[b][u]-ES [/u][/b]of Asia { note he did NOT address his letter to the CHURCH in Asia } each was seperate, having different issues, strengths and weaknesses.

So, NO.

Christ did NOT establish a denomination.

Church = Ekklesia = [u]Called out ONES [/u]{ note it refers to PEOPLE, not ORGANIZATION.}

[HS_Dad]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1044259' date='Aug 15 2006, 05:51 PM']

Christ did NOT establish a denomination.

[/quote]

I agree Christ did NOT establish a denomination.

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1044259' date='Aug 15 2006, 05:51 PM']

Church = Ekklesia = [u]Called out ONES [/u]{ note it refers to PEOPLE, not ORGANIZATION.}

[/quote]

I agree the Church are the called out ones who are people..... The question from a strong
analysis and reverence of the Word of God is are the called out ONES to be one body
in Christ?? I think yes from Christ's prayer to the Father that they may all be one and Paul's
analysis of one body in Christ in Corinthians.... So, each called out ONE in their ecclesial
community is called to make the body more whole.... So, let's heal divisions of race, denomination, sect,
school, etc.... The Catholic Church also has many people fighting over what the Church should be instead of
how they can better be salt and light and Christ to a broken world.....
Many evangelicals don't ponder how to bring greater visibility to their own unity of belief....Should there be so many varieties of Baptists??? It's something we can all work at.... Through Christ's love, Christ who calls us to forgive and to love
our enemies, even Christians who have hurt us, we can grow in wholeness and bring honor and glory
to God by becoming more Christlike!

Love you brother!

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1044259' date='Aug 15 2006, 05:51 PM']
Have you read Acts and Revelation?

I count MANY "churches"...each so distinctively unique, that in Jesus's letter to the CHURCH[b][u]-ES [/u][/b]of Asia { note he did NOT address his letter to the CHURCH in Asia } each was seperate, having different issues, strengths and weaknesses.

So, NO.

Christ did NOT establish a denomination.

Church = Ekklesia = [u]Called out ONES [/u]{note it refers to PEOPLE, not ORGANIZATION.}
[/quote]

So, which one of these many churches is the one that Christ made the Peter the rock that it would be built on and would be protected against the gates of hell?

[Anomaly]

Probably the contextual definition of 'church' in this statement is broader than most Catholics are willing to consider.

[chris]

Yeah, A denomintation is various and/or detailed branches of Protestantism. These branches can also consist of a reformed branch of the original counterpart (I.E. Baptist or Reformed Baptist, OPC, Reformed Methodist, Reformed Lutheren.) All my life my father has taken me to a reformed church and pumped my head with the fact that we always need to be reformed and reforming. Such as the Anglican church being reformed Catholicism. But, is Protestant Christianity misleading itself so much in every denomniation that it requires being reformed? Recreated to suit the need of the church-goers? I asked those questions when I was still protestant, and I never got the answers that really seemed to suit the reason why every protestant institution needed to have some reformed branch. I think maybe thats the reason why Christ didnt establish a uniform denomination. But, he did establish a Church.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Convert4888

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1044419' date='Aug 16 2006, 05:37 AM']
Probably the contextual definition of 'church' in this statement is broader than most Catholics are willing to consider.
[/quote]


Well actually the Catholic Church does not just limit the Church to just baptized Catholics so no we are not unwilling to consider those who out of ignorance do not know that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the truth and therefore may be joined to her in that they have not willfully rejected her. We don't limit the Church to the visible Church like you limit it to the invisible, i.e. spiritual. The Church is body and spirit (it's the body of Christ ) just as Christ was body and spirit. But there has to be a visible body.

Tell me, what are the list of truths that set men free that are correct. What group are the absolute essentials out of the truths of the Bible and the ones that are optional? Are you qualified to make the declaration? Many protestants do. If you are not then who is?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1044259' date='Aug 15 2006, 04:51 PM']
Have you read Acts and Revelation?

I count MANY "churches"...each so distinctively unique, that in Jesus's letter to the CHURCH[b][u]-ES [/u][/b]of Asia { note he did NOT address his letter to the CHURCH in Asia } each was seperate, having different issues, strengths and weaknesses.

So, NO.

Christ did NOT establish a denomination.

Church = Ekklesia = [u]Called out ONES [/u]{ note it refers to PEOPLE, not ORGANIZATION.}
[/quote]

Eutychus, this is a clear case of both equivocation and false dichotomy. First, the way the term "church" is being used is clearly different, otherwise the Scripture would contradict itself. In the Gospels, Christ refers to his "church" (singular) against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, while in Revelation, as you point out, he speaks of "churches" (plural).

Was Christ confused about how many churches he was making? No, he was using the term "church" in different ways. In the first instance, he is speaking of the Church properly, while in the second, he is talking about individual churches as located in particular places and constituting specific local communities.

Ironically, it is only in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, and not in Protestantism, that we see this ability to simultaneously refer to the Church proper and to particular local churches.