Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Protestantism is true then . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If Protestantism is true then . . .

    Some points are given below to show the consequences if Protestantism is true -

    If Protestantism is true then -

    1) Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. Yet there is no evidence in that text that God wants men to privately interpret a text, nor is there any evidence that private interpretation of a text is the normative means to determine Christian doctrine.

    2) Subjectivism is true, for Protestantism is based upon the subjective judgements of the Reformers and subsequent subjective judgements of later Protestants. Yet subjectivism is false, for truth is always objective.

    3) The gospel of the sacraments is false and the gospel of justification by faith alone is true. Yet there is 1) strong evidence for old testament sacraments, and new testament sacraments, and 2) no evidence in the bible for justification by faith alone, and 3) very little to no evidence for justification by faith alone in church history.

    4) Church history is irrelevant to revealed truth. For the history of the church is Catholic, containing much evidence for Catholic doctrine and practice. Yet the reformers rejected church history, or only selectively embraced church history and invented many novel doctrines, such as 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520. Yet Christ is God and therefore must control church history, contrary to the illogical rejection of the Protestant reformers.

    1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
    2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
    3. Fiduciary faith.
    4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
    5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
    6. Denial of venial sin.
    7. Denial of merit.
    8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
    9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
    10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
    . . .
    5) Worship of God is not detailed in the OT nor the NT. For example, there is much detail missing concerning the practices of the Day of Atonement sacrifice and the prayers said at the Passover. Similarly there is little in the NT regarding NT worship of God. Yet the Protestant reformers based their understanding of the Christian faith upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Therefore according to the reformers, God has permitted to exclude any detailed instructions for the worship of God in the NT. But at the same time the bible is emphatic that true worship of God is required in the manner detailed only by God, through his covenant community. The inconsistent nature of the OT and NT worship as detailed in the text and the nature of God means the reformers would always be uncertain as how to worship the true God. This lack of certainty means there is always the probability that some reformers were not worshiping God the way He wants to be worshiped, and therefore were committing grave sins of idolatry.

    6) Believers can invent their own doctrines and begin their own denominations apart from the work of Christ. Yet such action only leads to scepticism and indifference to doctrine. Hence the ability to begin one’s own denomination is actually an act against faith, which leads to a secular state. Hence Protestantism leads to unbelief.

    7) The reformers were correct, yet they disagreed with each other on many points of doctrine and practice. Likewise subsequent generations of Protestants also disagree with each other on many points of doctrine and practice. Hence doctrinal difference and practice, which brings chaos, violence and indifference, is the product of the true faith. Such is absurd.

    8) The reformers had no authority apart from apostolic succession. Hence any believer can make up any doctrine without any authority. such only leads to chaos, which is absurd.

    9) The reformers taught justification by faith, yet differed on the content of the faith. Hence the reformers chief doctrine involves a grave uncertainty concerning who has faith, for nobody has the authority to define the content of the faith.

    10) Protestantism has no authority beyond the individual believer, or perhaps the vote of a group of believers. Hence any denomination will tend to have very limited authority, or alternatively tie itself to the national government as we see with Anglicanism. Neither option is from God as there is no evidence for denominationalism, nor a state church in the NT or church history prior to the reformation. Such a problem leads to an inevitable separation between church and state which is seen in the USA, or a false union of state and church in Anglicanism whereby a non ordained lay person in the reigning Monarch has the power to appoint bishops.

    11) Calvinism teaches the church is not to be united to the state. Yet the state notoriously changes its position on morality through a process of inter-generational decay. Hence the church is always subject to a state in moral decay under the influence of a state that is subject to the effects of original sin. Hence a form of Protestantism will always tend towards a discontinuity against the whims of the government, be that a democracy, aristocracy, or a Monarchy. Hence the defect of not joining a denomination to the state infers Calvinist Protestantism is leads to a de facto separation of church and state, which infers the state will inevitably legislate laws that are against the Protestant gospel.

    12) There is no infallible means to determine the extent of the canon of scripture. Hence the canon of scripture is merely a manmade set of books.

    13) There are multiple methods to interpret a text and none of the methods are found within scripture. The conclusions arrived at using the methods are often contrary and sometimes contradict Protestant doctrine. Hence the doctrine of sola scriptura leads to an elitist understanding of Christianity according to the conclusions of bible professors, both for and against Protestant doctrinal history. The elitist Christianity then produces scepticism about the meaning of the biblical text, causing indifferentism within the denomination.

    14) The reformed understanding of faith as an instrumental cause of justification is without merit in the bible, and reason. Hence such reformed doctrines must separate faith and reason, which in turn gives occasion to the rise of an age of sceptical rationalism which rejects faith. Faith is rejected by the rationalists because faith is incorrectly understood by the rationalists from the Protestant tradition to be made apart from, and sometimes against reason.

    JM
    Last edited by JohnMartin; 03-13-2017, 03:32 AM.

  • #2
    For me the most troubling aspect of this post is the complete and utter lack of faith.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

    Comment


    • #3
      This should be on the Theology Board.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        1) Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. . . .
        The genuine church of the Lord Jesus Christ is the one He is building (Matthew 16:18).

        The Apostle Peter regarding the "more sure word of prophecy" wrote, ". . . Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. . . ." v.20 -- 2 Peter 1:19-21.

        The apostolic authority resides in the Holy Scripture not in the interpretation nor succession of men.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • #5
          I want to take one point to illustrate the absurdity of this post.
          I find similar problems with all 14 points.

          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          Individual interpretation of a text called scripture is true. Yet there is no evidence in that text that God wants men to privately interpret a text, nor is there any evidence that private interpretation of a text is the normative means to determine Christian doctrine.
          1: I'm not aware of any Protestant who believes in this definition of individual interpretation. The fact is every Protestant minister under which I've sat has made extensive use of the opinions/writings of those that have gone before - often citing Catholics and the early church fathers and their views when addressing a particular passage of Scripture. They might deny it but they're staunch traditionalists.

          2: I'm not aware of any Protestant who wouldn't at least invoke the Holy Spirit as a guide when interpreting Scripture. I'm sure they exist but they'd be the exception to the rule.

          Your straw man is ridiculous.
          Some of your points are so off the reservation as to be unintelligible.
          At least understand something before you critic it.
          Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

          Comment


          • #6
            JM, did you recently discover logical arguments? Because you really suck at it.

            You just make a bunch of straw man arguments and stick numbers in front of them and call it logic.

            Comment


            • #7
              Also you are doing exactly what we told you over and over not to do: Post a thread with way too many points in one post to debate.

              Comment


              • #8
                The Roman Catholic Church is a joke now. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outright disbanded within the next 50 years. They hardly even pretend to be Christian anymore.

                https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatic...inalizing-them

                Comment


                • #9
                  15) swinging that smoky thing is dangerous.
                  The last Christian left at tweb

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                    The Roman Catholic Church is a joke now. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outright disbanded within the next 50 years. They hardly even pretend to be Christian anymore.

                    https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatic...inalizing-them
                    But this is irrelevant to the post here.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      The genuine church of the Lord Jesus Christ is the one He is building (Matthew 16:18).

                      The Apostle Peter regarding the "more sure word of prophecy" wrote, ". . . Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. . . ." v.20 -- 2 Peter 1:19-21.

                      The apostolic authority resides in the Holy Scripture not in the interpretation nor succession of men.
                      There is strong biblical basis for the binding nature of oral tradition -

                      Biblical Evidence for Apostolic Oral Tradition

                      Matthew 13:19 When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path.

                      Matthew 13:20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; (other instances of “the word”: Matt 13:21-23; Mk 2:2; 4:14-20,33; Lk 1:2; 8:12-13,15; Jn 1:1,14 [of Jesus]; Jn 14:24; Acts 6:4; 8:4; 11:19; 14:25; 16:6; Gal 6:6; Eph 5:26; Col 4:3; 1 Pet 3:1)

                      Luke 5:1 While the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennes’aret. (other instances of “word of God”: Lk 3:2; 8:11,21; Acts 6:2; 13:5,7,44,48; 17:13; 18:11; Rom 9:6; 1 Cor 14:36; Eph 6:17; Phil 1:14; Col 1:25; 1 Tim 4:5; 2 Tim 2:9; Titus 2:5; Heb 6:5; 13:7; 1 Jn 2:14; Rev 1:9; 20:4)
                      There is also evidence for the binding authority of the church in Acts 15, and Matt 16, and 18.

                      JM

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                        I want to take one point to illustrate the absurdity of this post.
                        I find similar problems with all 14 points.



                        1: I'm not aware of any Protestant who believes in this definition of individual interpretation. The fact is every Protestant minister under which I've sat has made extensive use of the opinions/writings of those that have gone before - often citing Catholics and the early church fathers and their views when addressing a particular passage of Scripture. They might deny it but they're staunch traditionalists.

                        2: I'm not aware of any Protestant who wouldn't at least invoke the Holy Spirit as a guide when interpreting Scripture. I'm sure they exist but they'd be the exception to the rule.

                        Your straw man is ridiculous.
                        Some of your points are so off the reservation as to be unintelligible.
                        At least understand something before you critic it.
                        Bottom line is the minister only arrives at his own private interpretation of texts, and nowhere in the texts, does the text teach private interpretation of the text as the means to derive doctrine. The text does contain content concerning a teaching church in Acts 15 and the binding nature of oral tradition in several other passages. The many Protestant notions of private interpretation are all unbiblical and unhistorical.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          JM, did you recently discover logical arguments? Because you really suck at it.

                          You just make a bunch of straw man arguments and stick numbers in front of them and call it logic.
                          Demonstrate your claim with two examples, showing the errors in each.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            Also you are doing exactly what we told you over and over not to do: Post a thread with way too many points in one post to debate.
                            Lets debate any single point you want. I prefer point 4 -

                            4) Church history is irrelevant to revealed truth. For the history of the church is Catholic, containing much evidence for Catholic doctrine and practice. Yet the reformers rejected church history, or only selectively embraced church history and invented many novel doctrines, such as 50 Heterodox Beliefs of Luther in 1520. Yet Christ is God and therefore must control church history, contrary to the illogical rejection of the Protestant reformers.
                            JM

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                              The Roman Catholic Church is a joke now. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outright disbanded within the next 50 years. They hardly even pretend to be Christian anymore.
                              The Orthodox church is here when you are ready. Here doors are always open.
                              I am become death...

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X