The "Reformation"

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#1
In regards to the reformation and the subsequent theology and the movement called Protestantism that followed, the so called orthodoxy surrounding these movements must be questions. It is known that most on this forum will be scratching their heads at this post and claiming that I am trying to spread my own Catholic beliefs or that I am ignoring supposedly clear aspects to the scriptures that is not so, I am not even trying to spread Catholicism within this forum I am merely trying to get the majority of the people in here that have never thought about this or deliberately chose not to, to do so.

The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16) and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17). It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15). It should also be questioned as to why all major heretics throughout the history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.

Again it must also be questioned as to why it is considered inappropriate for the protestant to look to the church fathers for insight on what the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles of the apostles of the apostles(apostolic succession) but rather one should supposedly look to the Spirit in personal prayer when it should be very obvious that even the most holy man can be fooled we are also not to make our own interpretations of scripture.(see 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 11:14) It must also be asked that if we cannot currently trust the Catholic Church because they believe so called heretical viewpoints(based on my own opinion from the protestant viewpoint) why is it ok to trust the institutional church who compiled the Bible in the 4th and 5th centuries in essence without the church there is no scripture.

There are many more very obvious pointers I would wish to make however such an argument would fill up hundreds of pages and I am going to post the basics of this and will feel free to let anyone to criticize my post however be aware that to claim the scripture says otherwise based on a "true understanding" of scripture because "I am a true Christian and Catholics are not" is a circular argument and not a valid response.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,463
392
83
#2
In regards to the reformation and the subsequent theology and the movement called Protestantism that followed, the so called orthodoxy surrounding these movements must be questions.
While I do not consider myself a Protestant, I will address the many incorrect thoughts you have expressed here.

The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options
1. The RCC immediately mounted a “Counter-Reformation” instead of making the necessary reforms to their corrupt system and returning to Bible truth. In fact the Council of Trent labeled the Protestants as heretics and under anathema (accursed).

2. Change that from 40,000 to just 40. And there are probably 40 orders of various kinds within the RCC. That is no argument for the validity of the Reformation.

this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16)
Christ certainly did not mean that Peter was the Rock, since He Himself is the Rock. And the gates of Hades did not prevail against the true Church since (a) all the OT saints in Hades were taken to Heaven after Christ’s resurrection, and (b) ever since every child of God goes directly into the presence of Christ upon his or her demise.
and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17).
Correct. And had the Catholic church remained true to Scripture and refused to allow all that pagan nonsense into its beliefs, the Church would have been quite different.

It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura"
On biblical grounds just read and study Psalm 119, and you will discover sola scriptura within the Bible.

Again it must also be questioned as to why it is considered inappropriate for the protestant to look to the church fathers for insight on what the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles
You will note that the Apostolic Fathers (1[SUP]st[/SUP] century) did not deviate from Bible truth, but by the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century the Church Fathers began to introduce man-made ideas and teach them as Bible truth. So the ECF have much that is sound and biblical, but also much that is erroneous teaching.
It must also be asked that if we cannot currently trust the Catholic Church because they believe so called heretical viewpoints (based on my own opinion from the protestant viewpoint) why is it ok to trust the institutional church who compiled the Bible in the 4th and 5th centuries in essence without the church there is no scripture.
The canon of Scripture was completed long before the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries. Indeed the OT canon was complete by 400 B.C. and the NT canon by about AD 100. So the Catholic Church cannot take credit for the Bible. Indeed they compelled Jerome to include the uninspired Apocrypha in their Latin Vulgate when he knew it did not belong there.
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,341
153
63
52
#3
In regards to the reformation and the subsequent theology and the movement called Protestantism that followed, the so called orthodoxy surrounding these movements must be questions. It is known that most on this forum will be scratching their heads at this post and claiming that I am trying to spread my own Catholic beliefs or that I am ignoring supposedly clear aspects to the scriptures that is not so, I am not even trying to spread Catholicism within this forum I am merely trying to get the majority of the people in here that have never thought about this or deliberately chose not to, to do so.

The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16) and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17). It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15). It should also be questioned as to why all major heretics throughout the history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.

Again it must also be questioned as to why it is considered inappropriate for the protestant to look to the church fathers for insight on what the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles of the apostles of the apostles(apostolic succession) but rather one should supposedly look to the Spirit in personal prayer when it should be very obvious that even the most holy man can be fooled we are also not to make our own interpretations of scripture.(see 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 11:14) It must also be asked that if we cannot currently trust the Catholic Church because they believe so called heretical viewpoints(based on my own opinion from the protestant viewpoint) why is it ok to trust the institutional church who compiled the Bible in the 4th and 5th centuries in essence without the church there is no scripture.

There are many more very obvious pointers I would wish to make however such an argument would fill up hundreds of pages and I am going to post the basics of this and will feel free to let anyone to criticize my post however be aware that to claim the scripture says otherwise based on a "true understanding" of scripture because "I am a true Christian and Catholics are not" is a circular argument and not a valid response.
I don’t think your not looking for discussion . It really looks like your looking for arguments.
Its simple also you don’t even understand what the Protestant reformation is from what you have posted . Things concerning why we think it is inappropriate to discuss or hold in esteem the writings of the early church fathers . Sir you have it wrong about that . We do t make statues of them and bow down,but many do read them . That’s one example go back and read from a different source or step out and check out a congregation you might have your eyes opened .
also you may be surprised how many former Catholics are here or how many folks here did investigate the Catholic Church .
Blessings
Bill
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#4
While I do not consider myself a Protestant, I will address the many incorrect thoughts you have expressed here.


1. The RCC immediately mounted a “Counter-Reformation” instead of making the necessary reforms to their corrupt system and returning to Bible truth. In fact the Council of Trent labeled the Protestants as heretics and under anathema (accursed).

2. Change that from 40,000 to just 40. And there are probably 40 orders of various kinds within the RCC. That is no argument for the validity of the Reformation.


Christ certainly did not mean that Peter was the Rock, since He Himself is the Rock. And the gates of Hades did not prevail against the true Church since (a) all the OT saints in Hades were taken to Heaven after Christ’s resurrection, and (b) ever since every child of God goes directly into the presence of Christ upon his or her demise.

Correct. And had the Catholic church remained true to Scripture and refused to allow all that pagan nonsense into its beliefs, the Church would have been quite different.


On biblical grounds just read and study Psalm 119, and you will discover sola scriptura within the Bible.


You will note that the Apostolic Fathers (1[SUP]st[/SUP] century) did not deviate from Bible truth, but by the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century the Church Fathers began to introduce man-made ideas and teach them as Bible truth. So the ECF have much that is sound and biblical, but also much that is erroneous teaching.

The canon of Scripture was completed long before the 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and 5[SUP]th[/SUP] centuries. Indeed the OT canon was complete by 400 B.C. and the NT canon by about AD 100. So the Catholic Church cannot take credit for the Bible. Indeed they compelled Jerome to include the uninspired Apocrypha in their Latin Vulgate when he knew it did not belong there.

First and foremost not considering yourself something does not mean you are not something but that is another conversation. And I am not sure what you mean by 40 also your understanding of a religious order in the context of Catholicism is way off base and has nothing to do with my comment on there being 40,000+ protestant denominations or sects. The problem with this is first and foremost your understanding of a "religious order" is that it is not a smaller religious sect within the context of a larger religious movement as Lutherans are to protestants for example rather it is a way of life that is fully Catholic, all Catholic religious orders have the same religious beliefs that merely have different ways of life and different "rules of life" expressing how it is to be lived out that differ for example the life of a Carthusian monk is far more austere than that of a Jesuit priest and even then the Jesuit's life is far more austere than that of the average layman so this right here is a straw man's argument. And the fact of the matter does remain that Protestantism is not a religion rather it is a movement with thousands of religions within it, it should be very obvious that the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, and Pentecostal have very different ideas on some core aspects of Christianity some such as the Methodist or Anglican would even reject the Lutheran interpretations of the 5 solas the only unity in the movement that followed the reformation is the belief that the Catholic Church is false merely on historical grounds restorationists such as Mormons or JWs could be considered protestants.

I never even mentioned anything about St. Peter being the rock(however I would believe that, that is beyond what I stated and has nothing to do with my point) so this again is a straw man fallacy the point I was making was that regardless what you interpret the church to be Christ told Peter the gates of Hell would not prevail meaning that Christians should be in unity on belief in doctrine and understanding other verses back(John 17, 1 Timothy 3, Luke 22) your statement on the old testament has nothing to do with anything I stated and just shows that your mind was all over the place when typing this your statement on "pagan nonsense" in regards to Catholicism in the following bullet merely shows bias and a lack of understanding of Catholic belief both due to a lack of examples and a lack of reasoning as to why you chose to commit the fallacy of "ad hominem" or attacking the person.

Your statement on Psalm 119 and "sola scriptura" makes very little sense as nothing of the "word" or the "scriptures" is ever even mentioned nothing that could even be indirectly interpreted to refer to sola scriptura is said in this verse it should also be pointed out the book of Psalms was written before Jesus by King David, David was Jewish in faith Judaism has always had a teaching of oral tradition backing up the scripture so this comment makes almost no sense. I also find humor in your comment on the apostolic fathers I would enjoy to hear what fathers you are "familiar" with as absolutely 0 of even the apostolic fathers taught concepts such as "sola scriptura" or "sola fide". In fact St. Ignatius of Antioch a second generation Christian and personal disciple of St. John said in the year 107 AD that it is the "bishop" who speaks in the place of the apostle very clearly indicating that both apostolic succession is accurate and that there is a visible institutional church that is lead by Christ to lead believers into truth. Both him and a later "apostolic father" St. Irenaeus of Lyons(130 AD-202 AD) very clearly taught the real presence view of the Eucharist meaning that the consecrated bread and wine are literally the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and is the central point of the Christian faith. Your statement on the second century being a turning point makes little sense as well as if we review what the fathers taught it was very clear that the orthodox fathers who eventually aligned themselves with the councils and later the Catholic Church show a very clear historical succession of ideas. However what does pop up in the second century is non-trinitarianism, subordinatianism, and new forms of Gnosticism all of which are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church into the modern age and if the fathers such as Ignatius deviated from the truth so early on with there being no sign of what the protestant believes to be true in this era or for another 1400 years we can logically take from that, that Christianity is false(if we are taking the presumption that Catholicism is false). At the same time the most widely criticized Catholic practice "veneration of saints" was already evident in the first century not only do we see scriptural support in Revelation 5(the prayers of the saints will go up as a cloud of incense) and in Hebrews 12 where it says "But you have approached Mt. Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and the myriad of angels, and the assembly of the church firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a New Covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than that of Abel" evidently early fathers also spoke as these verses as having baked up the veneration of saints and the saint being those in Heaven who are closer to Christ so essentially it is believed they can pray for us just as anyone within the church can pray for another however the saints prayers are viewed as much more effective because of the closeness to God. So in essence this comment shows a lack of understanding of history.
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,341
153
63
52
#5
First and foremost not considering yourself something does not mean you are not something but that is another conversation. And I am not sure what you mean by 40 also your understanding of a religious order in the context of Catholicism is way off base and has nothing to do with my comment on there being 40,000+ protestant denominations or sects. The problem with this is first and foremost your understanding of a "religious order" is that it is not a smaller religious sect within the context of a larger religious movement as Lutherans are to protestants for example rather it is a way of life that is fully Catholic, all Catholic religious orders have the same religious beliefs that merely have different ways of life and different "rules of life" expressing how it is to be lived out that differ for example the life of a Carthusian monk is far more austere than that of a Jesuit priest and even then the Jesuit's life is far more austere than that of the average layman so this right here is a straw man's argument. And the fact of the matter does remain that Protestantism is not a religion rather it is a movement with thousands of religions within it, it should be very obvious that the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican, and Pentecostal have very different ideas on some core aspects of Christianity some such as the Methodist or Anglican would even reject the Lutheran interpretations of the 5 solas the only unity in the movement that followed the reformation is the belief that the Catholic Church is false merely on historical grounds restorationists such as Mormons or JWs could be considered protestants.

I never even mentioned anything about St. Peter being the rock(however I would believe that, that is beyond what I stated and has nothing to do with my point) so this again is a straw man fallacy the point I was making was that regardless what you interpret the church to be Christ told Peter the gates of Hell would not prevail meaning that Christians should be in unity on belief in doctrine and understanding other verses back(John 17, 1 Timothy 3, Luke 22) your statement on the old testament has nothing to do with anything I stated and just shows that your mind was all over the place when typing this your statement on "pagan nonsense" in regards to Catholicism in the following bullet merely shows bias and a lack of understanding of Catholic belief both due to a lack of examples and a lack of reasoning as to why you chose to commit the fallacy of "ad hominem" or attacking the person.

Your statement on Psalm 119 and "sola scriptura" makes very little sense as nothing of the "word" or the "scriptures" is ever even mentioned nothing that could even be indirectly interpreted to refer to sola scriptura is said in this verse it should also be pointed out the book of Psalms was written before Jesus by King David, David was Jewish in faith Judaism has always had a teaching of oral tradition backing up the scripture so this comment makes almost no sense. I also find humor in your comment on the apostolic fathers I would enjoy to hear what fathers you are "familiar" with as absolutely 0 of even the apostolic fathers taught concepts such as "sola scriptura" or "sola fide". In fact St. Ignatius of Antioch a second generation Christian and personal disciple of St. John said in the year 107 AD that it is the "bishop" who speaks in the place of the apostle very clearly indicating that both apostolic succession is accurate and that there is a visible institutional church that is lead by Christ to lead believers into truth. Both him and a later "apostolic father" St. Irenaeus of Lyons(130 AD-202 AD) very clearly taught the real presence view of the Eucharist meaning that the consecrated bread and wine are literally the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and is the central point of the Christian faith. Your statement on the second century being a turning point makes little sense as well as if we review what the fathers taught it was very clear that the orthodox fathers who eventually aligned themselves with the councils and later the Catholic Church show a very clear historical succession of ideas. However what does pop up in the second century is non-trinitarianism, subordinatianism, and new forms of Gnosticism all of which are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church into the modern age and if the fathers such as Ignatius deviated from the truth so early on with there being no sign of what the protestant believes to be true in this era or for another 1400 years we can logically take from that, that Christianity is false(if we are taking the presumption that Catholicism is false). At the same time the most widely criticized Catholic practice "veneration of saints" was already evident in the first century not only do we see scriptural support in Revelation 5(the prayers of the saints will go up as a cloud of incense) and in Hebrews 12 where it says "But you have approached Mt. Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem and the myriad of angels, and the assembly of the church firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a New Covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than that of Abel" evidently early fathers also spoke as these verses as having baked up the veneration of saints and the saint being those in Heaven who are closer to Christ so essentially it is believed they can pray for us just as anyone within the church can pray for another however the saints prayers are viewed as much more effective because of the closeness to God. So in essence this comment shows a lack of understanding of history.
Well from just a quick reading here ( what is in bold letters) I don’t believe you even know the Catholic Church’s stand on those two . When checking out the Catholic Churches I discovered that the Catholic Church considers them to be non Christian . They don’t accept their baptism at all . Those converts would have to be baptized again. Due to their non Trinitarian beliefs. Making them non believers in The same God when originally baptized. While most other converts would not need a baptism. Do some more research. I looked at the Catholic Church I read up on them I went I asked questions . I and many don’t just follow the flow we investigate. I even invented in a Catholic encyclopedia. Too much to check out there that’s beyond scripture to get a accurate view.
Blessings
Bill
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#6
Well from just a quick reading here ( what is in bold letters) I don’t believe you even know the Catholic Church’s stand on those two . When checking out the Catholic Churches I discovered that the Catholic Church considers them to be non Christian . They don’t accept their baptism at all . Those converts would have to be baptized again. Due to their non Trinitarian beliefs. Making them non believers in The same God when originally baptized. While most other converts would not need a baptism. Do some more research. I looked at the Catholic Church I read up on them I went I asked questions . I and many don’t just follow the flow we investigate. I even invented in a Catholic encyclopedia. Too much to check out there that’s beyond scripture to get a accurate view.
Blessings
Bill
I'm very much aware of this and I never once referred to them as "Christian" however for historical purposes they would be considered part of "Christendom" but rather I said they could be considered part of the protestant movement due to the fact that they were part of the protestant restoration movement in the mid 1800's that groups such as Church of Christ also came out of. So this response is totally missing the point nor is it claiming that protestants are not Christian that comment was meant to be understood on a historical basis not a theological one. However I would agree that the Mormon and JW could not be considered Christian and most protestant fall under another category in terms of interfaith communication.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,463
392
83
#7
Your statement on Psalm 119 and "sola scriptura" makes very little sense as nothing of the "word" or the "scriptures" is ever even mentioned
I don't believe there would be any point discussing these matters with you. So let's just focus on your total cluelessness about Psalm 119. Ever line is a reference to either the Word of God or Scripture.

Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word.

My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word.

Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.

Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope.

This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,901
263
83
#8
In regards to the reformation and the subsequent theology and the movement called Protestantism that followed, the so called orthodoxy surrounding these movements must be questions. It is known that most on this forum will be scratching their heads at this post and claiming that I am trying to spread my own Catholic beliefs or that I am ignoring supposedly clear aspects to the scriptures that is not so, I am not even trying to spread Catholicism within this forum I am merely trying to get the majority of the people in here that have never thought about this or deliberately chose not to, to do so.

The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16) and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17). It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15). It should also be questioned as to why all major heretics throughout the history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.

Again it must also be questioned as to why it is considered inappropriate for the protestant to look to the church fathers for insight on what the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles of the apostles of the apostles(apostolic succession) but rather one should supposedly look to the Spirit in personal prayer when it should be very obvious that even the most holy man can be fooled we are also not to make our own interpretations of scripture.(see 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 11:14) It must also be asked that if we cannot currently trust the Catholic Church because they believe so called heretical viewpoints(based on my own opinion from the protestant viewpoint) why is it ok to trust the institutional church who compiled the Bible in the 4th and 5th centuries in essence without the church there is no scripture.

There are many more very obvious pointers I would wish to make however such an argument would fill up hundreds of pages and I am going to post the basics of this and will feel free to let anyone to criticize my post however be aware that to claim the scripture says otherwise based on a "true understanding" of scripture because "I am a true Christian and Catholics are not" is a circular argument and not a valid response.
1. 40,000 options - actually, not so much. It will be about 20, I guess.

Do not be confused by free naming. When you will visit such churches, you will find them very similar. Much more similar to each other than to the RCC. There are some main streams (historical reformed, pentecostals, baptists etc, but it will be few dozens, max).

2. "Sola scriptura" can be somehow implied just from the existence of the Biblical canon. If you believe that the biblical canon is inspired, you cannot stay in a church that teaches the opposite of it. That means that Scriptures are above church tradition or hierarchy. And thats what Luther said.

3. Church fathers. They were mostly late ones (the earlier ones are called apostolic fathers) so their teaching was influenced by Roman church and is not as innocent as for example of apostolic fathers.
But for example Augustin is quite an authority also between protestants.
 

garee

Senior Member
Mar 28, 2016
5,593
118
63
#9
The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16) and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17).
It would seem you are defending a false zeal for knowing God as a personal relationship. Who bewitched you?

First things of God ,first.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any "private interpretation".For the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2Pe 1:20

Not of their own selves..

We do not know Christ after historicism which is outwardly following a succession of sinful men from one generation to the next after the private interpretations as personal commentaries of sinful men called fathers . The warning is in respect to the antichrists that they would insist we do need a man as that seen to teach us. Rather than abiding in Him as it is written not seen (Christ)

The apostate Jews set the pattern during the first century reformation making their private interpretations as oral traditions of the fathers the infallible source of faith.that rises above that which is written As if God was a man as us and there was a daysman or Pope set between God and man approved by both as an infallible umpire between the two.
Strike three the daysman/Pope is out.

For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgment. Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both. Job 9:32

Eastons Bible dictionary...Daysman an umpire or arbiter or judge (Job 9:33). This word is formed from the Latin diem dicere, i.e., to fix a day for hearing a cause. Such an one is empowered by mutual consent to decide the cause, and to "lay his hand", i.e., to impose his (Pope) authority, on both, and enforce his
(Pope)sentence.

Even the Son of man as that seen denied being a daysman but replied when someone called him "good teacher" as Master or Lord . Only God not seen is good .

It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15).

There is only one source of biblical faith(the Bible) and it does not include the oral traditons of the fathers that Christ called a brood of vipers.

Again no such thing as historical grounds as oral tradition of the fathers.There is one manner of faith as the same spirit of faith according as it is written. The word it describes the faith of God not seen . Adding the oral traditions of the father shows those who go above that which is written as another gospel .

"Church is be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15)

The Church is be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15).Not the one source of one faith, the faith of Christ.

Scripture as in all that is written in the law and the prophets is the final authority as that which we call sola scripture .It is after no man .

It should also be questioned as to why all major heretics throughout the history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.
The Catholics like the apostate Jews simply redefined the word heresy (a opinion given)so that they could Lord it over the non-venerable pew Catholics as a law of the fathers that some call apostolic succession .

Again the apostate Jews (no faith) were copied by the Catholic denomination. What worked to restore in the first century reformation is the key that restored order in the fifteenth century reformation (sola scriptura)

Both the apostate Jew and the Catholic sect are still trying to prove all things written in the law and the prophets(sola scriptura) is heresy and not what is actually is, the law of faith,

For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: Act 24:5

The Catholic sect or denomination is not even listed in the scriptures...

Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, "believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets": Act 24:13

Can you see what happens when men worship or venerate the fathers as if they were God or Holy Father in heaven . rather than as Paul informs us he worships the God of the fathers . again not venerated the fathers as if they were in the place of our father in heaven we are to call no man father on earth in that way.

Its simply the father of lies turning things upside down
 

Joseppi

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2018
886
6
18
#10
What about Roman Catholicism is scriptural?
Pope? No.
Priests in black robes? No.
Statues? No.
Confession to a priest? No.
Altars? No.
Hosts with images and ritual treatment? No.
Crucifixes? No.
Ring kissing? No.
Purgatory? No.
Special vestments? No.
Candle burning? No.
Black Friday? No.
Nuns? No.
Vows? No.

It seems that the reason the Roman Catholic Church is against scripture is because it professes goals that are different, a different gospel, a different faith, than scripture allows.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,824
375
83
#11
...I am not even trying to spread Catholicism within this forum I am merely trying to get the majority of the people in here that have never thought about this or deliberately chose not to, to do so.
Firstly, "you talk too much" (that's a simple observation, not intended as an insult). Please go and find out what a run-on sentence is, and stop using them. Also, break your posts into paragraphs of 3-7 lines, with blank spaces in between... it makes them much more readable.

The question surrounding the so called "reformation" is if this was a clear reform or restoration of the true "Christian church" why is it that the historical protestant movement is the most splintered world religion with some 40,000+ options this begs the question as to what Jesus himself meant when he told St. Peter "the gates of Hell shall not prevail"(see Matthew 16) and why he prayed that his church may be one(see John 17).
Where did you get this information? I don't accept it as valid until I see that it is from a reputable source (and for the record, I don't consider Catholic propaganda as "reputable").

It should also be questioned not only on historical grounds but also on biblical grounds what the basis for "sola scriptura" actually is rather than Martin Luther's own fantasies as the Bible itself not only never indicates that all scriptural truth will be found within the pages of a Bible that did not yet exist at the time of authorship but in fact contradicts this by saying the "Church will be the pillar and support of truth"(see 1 Timothy 3:15).
Nor does the Bible specifically use the term, "Trinity" but it is scriptural truth nonetheless. You indicate some awareness of logical fallacies, yet you employ a blatant one here, called an argument from silence.

It should also be questioned as to why all major heretics throughout the history of early Christianity seemed to make the same exact claims as Luther himself "that such truth can be found within the scriptures" even the Muslims make the claim that the Bible prophecies Islam, this clearly does not support anything rather it shows that a break with the one true church and sacred tradition gives us a deluded interpretation of the gospels.
That summarizes Catholicism quite well, thanks.

Again it must also be questioned as to why it is considered inappropriate for the protestant to look to the church fathers for insight on what the accurate understanding of Christian belief should be when in fact one would think that those that were closer to direct familiarity with Christ himself the person or at least associates of his apostles of the apostles of the apostles(apostolic succession) but rather one should supposedly look to the Spirit in personal prayer when it should be very obvious that even the most holy man can be fooled we are also not to make our own interpretations of scripture.(see 2 Peter 1:20 and 2 Corinthians 11:14)
You have misinterpreted this passage. It says, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The verse is addressing the origin of prophecy not the interpretation of Scripture generally.

It must also be asked that if we cannot currently trust the Catholic Church because they believe so called heretical viewpoints(based on my own opinion from the protestant viewpoint) why is it ok to trust the institutional church who compiled the Bible in the 4th and 5th centuries in essence without the church there is no scripture.
Your reasoning employs a tu quoque fallacy. The alleged errors of protestants do not correct or justify the errors of the Catholics. You also employ a faulty equivalence in suggesting that (alleged) erroneous reasoning is somehow comparable to heresy.

The heretical doctrines of Roman Catholicism are by themselves reason enough not to trust the Catholic Church.

In this case, your allegation of error on the part of protestants is flawed. Most of Scripture existed before the Church did. The OT is the Scripture referred to by Jesus and Paul. The NT canon was not selected by an "institutional church", though many institutional churches have affirmed the canon. I recommend that you do some research on the compilation of the canon... from non-Catholic sources.
 

Depleted

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2015
22,166
480
83
Philly, PA, USA
#12
Rex, learn about the reformation before spieling a bunch of garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
9,893
698
113
#13
Are Catholics still banned for proselytizing for their false religion on CC?

Asking for a friend!
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#14
Firstly, "you talk too much" (that's a simple observation, not intended as an insult). Please go and find out what a run-on sentence is, and stop using them. Also, break your posts into paragraphs of 3-7 lines, with blank spaces in between... it makes them much more readable.


Where did you get this information? I don't accept it as valid until I see that it is from a reputable source (and for the record, I don't consider Catholic propaganda as "reputable").



Nor does the Bible specifically use the term, "Trinity" but it is scriptural truth nonetheless. You indicate some awareness of logical fallacies, yet you employ a blatant one here, called an argument from silence.



That summarizes Catholicism quite well, thanks.



You have misinterpreted this passage. It says, "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The verse is addressing the origin of prophecy not the interpretation of Scripture generally.



Your reasoning employs a tu quoque fallacy. The alleged errors of protestants do not correct or justify the errors of the Catholics. You also employ a faulty equivalence in suggesting that (alleged) erroneous reasoning is somehow comparable to heresy.

The heretical doctrines of Roman Catholicism are by themselves reason enough not to trust the Catholic Church.

In this case, your allegation of error on the part of protestants is flawed. Most of Scripture existed before the Church did. The OT is the Scripture referred to by Jesus and Paul. The NT canon was not selected by an "institutional church", though many institutional churches have affirmed the canon. I recommend that you do some research on the compilation of the canon... from non-Catholic sources.
It should be questioned as to if you are actually aware of what you are talking about the comment on 40,000+ protestant denominations is not "Catholic propaganda" in fact to say it is would seem a bit naïve of the obvious. It should seem overwhelmingly clear how many different protestant religions there are that have different worldviews in regards to what the scriptures mean example: Lutherans, Reformed Calvinists, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Amish, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Pietists, Brethren, Quakers, Shakers, "nondenominationalism", Evangelicals, Adventists, non-Trinitarian groups such as Mormons, Unitarians, JWs etc, and thousands upon thousands of others. To make matters even worse with the sole exceptions of the Anglicans there is even bigger divisions within said denominations the Lutherans(whom I used to be a part of the irony in the people saying I am spreading lies about the reformations) have the Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, Evangelical Church in America, and thousands upon thousands of others such as the Church of Sweden and the Church of Denmark to make matters worse these groups don't differ only on regional or traditional grounds but rather on doctrinal ground. The ECLA for example uses the episcopal polity and has bishops and priests however they permit female ordination and gay marriages and emphasizes biblical allegory while the LCMS uses a congregational polity emphasizes biblical literalism and has ministers rather than priests they do not permit female ordination or gay marriage. The thousands upon thousands of schisms that the churches that popped up as a result of the reformation and following movements should be a huge red flag to the logical Christian.

To claim I used an "argument from silence" fallacy would seem strange as mention of the trinity would seem unneeded in the point I was making the fact of the matter is that while the word "trinity" is never in the scriptures there are clear indicators within the context of the Bible that show that it is indirectly there. On the same note it can be seen how groups such as JWs claim the Bible does not ever teach the Trinity this in itself indirectly refutes Sole Scriptura in essence the Bible can be interpreted to mean anything within the context of the reader. Which brings me to my next point the scriptures neither directly nor indirectly mention Sola Scriptura and the mass confusion within Christendom as to how the scriptures should be interpreted should evidently prove this. It should seem strange for a God who wanted his truth to preserve through the ages to have it be done so through the mind of the individual it would be clear to an all knowing being that man is corrupt and can change anything to fit his needs. While I do see where protestant may bring in "indirect proof" for there claims of "sola scriptura in the scriptures" at various points the fact of the matter is the protestant has no visible church to back this claim up as 1 Timothy 3 teaches us should be so in fact to claim something is true just because we understand it to be so without any sort of support would seem to be both a circular argument and blind faith.

On the same note to claim that St. Paul is merely referring to an "invisible" church of believers would seem to be madness as it should seem clear that while the New Testament spoke of "many churches" these churches where not divided on matters of doctrine as Protestantism is nor were they separate entities in matters of denominational barriers rather they were all one. By that I mean they were many in the sense they were separate and separate throughout different regional and geographical areas and had their own traditions and customs they however were united in belief if this was not so then it should be clear that Christianity was a failure from the beginning as Jesus himself taught us that his church would be one "for the gates of hell shall not prevail". So to say that the letter to St. Timothy is only claiming support of the gospel by believers is incorrect on the basis that the body of "Christians"(in this scenario meaning people in general" could support whatever they wish to be so it should also be noted that St. Paul himself teaches us of clerical ranks in his letter to St. Timothy he refers to the elders of the church as "epsicopi" "presbyter" and "diaconate" translated to bishop, priest, and deacon which directly contradicts most protestant groups that claim there is no clerical priesthood in the New Testament rather only there should be a "ministerial role" from the body of Christians.

And also to claim the term prophecy in 2 Peter only means mere prophecy while we can interpret whatever we would like from the rest of the scriptures should be obviously problematic such reasoning is bringing Christianity down to the level of agnosticism. Your reasoning here is showing that you believe that all interpretations of the Bible are valid as long as they do not contradict scripture however I think me and you both know this is not what you actually think nor would many be willing to admit they believe this however in a way this is what Protestantism indirectly teaches by claiming it is in the will of the believer to be given the merits of the Spirit to find the meaning of scripture. This begs the question if this is so how would one know if they are in truth if it is merely up to them to find the true interpretation of the Bible without any sort of religious guidance the fact of the matter one couldn't there would be no rational way to be able to know that the Baptist is more correct than the Mormon or the JW is more correct than the Lutheran. Which brings me to my next point some will say it does not matter how one interprets the scriptures as long as they hold on to the Trinitarian view and the 5 solas which would again beg the question how would one even know that those are correct interpretations without any sort of support from a visible entity the fact of the matter is you couldn't to say one just has to read the Bible harder or look deeper is circular reasoning and very much begs the question as groups that the protestant does not consider Christian may very well look into the scriptures themselves including the Catholic Church.


On a final note to claim my reasoning is a "tu quoque" fallacy merely because I dismiss the claims of Protestantism and that what I view to be errors of Protestantism do not fix "errors of Catholicism" would seem to be a strange criticism of my claim as this claim it self is based on an "Ad hominem" you are attacking the church as false but refuse to give a reason as to why without appealing to your own understanding of scripture which results in a circular argument.

 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,901
263
83
#15
40,000+ protestant denominations is not "Catholic propaganda" ...

It should seem overwhelmingly clear how many different protestant religions there are that have different worldviews in regards to what the scriptures mean example: Lutherans, Reformed Calvinists, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Amish, Mennonites, Anabaptists, Pietists, Brethren, Quakers, Shakers, "nondenominationalism", Evangelicals, Adventists, non-Trinitarian groups such as Mormons, Unitarians, JWs etc, and thousands upon thousands of others.
From your 40,000+ "protestant religions" you were able to name 17 and then 3-4 sects not considered Christian.

So, as I said earlier, its about 20. The rest is just a difference in local names etc.
 
Last edited:
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#16
From your 40,000+ "protestant religions" you were able to name 17 and then 3-4 sects not considered Christian.

So, as I said earlier, its about 20.
You fail to mention as to why these group are not Christian without appealing to one's own interpretations the fact of the matter is that these groups make the same claims that the Trinitarian protestant does in regards to the scriptures "that they're interpretations are valid and self evident". It should also be noted that it is impossible to make reference of every single protestant religion in existence because of the large number the fact of the matter is that most of these denominations that have started up go under the claim of "non denominational" as a means to mask any doctrine they may be teaching this should be overwhelmingly obvious especially in the megachurch movement. And again to appeal to one's understanding of the scriptures as a means to disregard another's understanding of them is not a valid means of explanation as there is no outside source backing up ones claims such a way of reasoning is circular which is evidently fallacious. It should also ring problematic in the ears of the reader that 20 denominations even if that were all there was should be quite a large number and evidently much more than the 1 that Christ spoke of so this should seem problematic as well as none of them agree fully on doctrine as explained in my post.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,901
263
83
#17
You fail to mention as to why these group are not Christian
For example JW do not believe that Christ is God.

BTW, try to make your posts shorter and more structured.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#18
For example JW do not believe that Christ is God.

BTW, try to make your posts shorter and more structured.
I understand you again fail to read my point but take a point out and explain why you believe them to be non-Christian. It begs the question according to what source if we say the Bible then the question is according to what interpretation of the Bible and if we say our own encounter with the Holy Spirit and Protestantism claims how can that be valid as it should be clear that as noted JWs have a different interpretation of scriptures than the Baptists for example. But the JW would make the same claim as the Baptist as already noted "the bible affirms my beliefs". So to say JWs are wrong merely because they are wrong according to our understanding of scripture is begging the question we must understand where the interpretation of truth comes from 1 Timothy 3:15 seems to indicate that, that is the church but what "church" is the historical church whose both visible and theological succession can be traced to the first century to answer is none other than the Catholic Church.
 
May 1, 2016
162
1
0
#19
For example JW do not believe that Christ is God.

BTW, try to make your posts shorter and more structured.
BTW I fail to see how my "structure is poor" I have been using punctuation and indentation I just have a hunch people don't like to read as for shorter? I will make the point as long as it take elaboration should be more important than quick links to bible verses of ones own understanding or quick bullet points of ones own personal issues with said religion without reason we aren't going anywhere.