Back When Protestants Men Weren't The Gutless Wonders Of Today

[brakelite]

The tradition of sola scriptura began 500 years ago and is self refuting. If by scripture alone we can know the truth then that means there are dozens of different truths to the same bible passage. Your truth....my truth....the Catholic truth....the Baptist truth etc. etc etc.

But I know YOUR truth trumps Catholic truth or anyone else's truth so there is no reason to discuss that any further now is there......;)

There can be truths that contradict each other??? Seriously????? Very post modern of you.

Contrary to your statement, Jesus did reveal himself to them. How did Jesus reveal himself to the disciples on the road to Emmaus? When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him.

When He interpeted to them from scripture all the things about himself it had NOTHING to do with how He wanted them to understand that their faith ought to be grounded on the word of God. He didn't not have to be a 'stranger' to them to convince them of that.

So how do you know that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies. And was therefore affirmed the Messiah... From the testimony of scripture, or the testimony of the church?. If the testimony of the church, what convinced the church?

 

[Marymog]

Homosexuality has it's origin first in the rejection of God. (Rom. 1:21) Being a homosexual speaks to ones nature. To say one is a homosexual and a Christian is an oxymoron.

Stranger

Thank you for your opinion. As ususal you refuse to answer my questions: Is everyone that commits a sin a non-believer in God??? The reason I ask is because based on your theory, that is what you are suggesting.

Would you agree that one can be a sinner and still be a Christian?

Your theory is that anyone that accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and their Saviour is a believer. Your theory suggests that homosexuals can never be a Christian and if they can never be a Christian that means they can never be a believer and if they can never be a believer that means they can never accept Jesus as their Savior. Your theory is a circular argument and is not based on logic or scripture.

Your theory is that if one is a homosexual that means they can't be Christian. What about the people that Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 7:21-23?? They did great works in his name and Jesus said he never knew them and that they were lawless. Were they not Christians either???

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

If there was no issue with Sabbath keepers before the 19th century, then why was the following necessary in the mid 4 th century?
Canon 29
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
It is claimed by both Catholic and non Catholic alike that all Christians observed Sunday as the"Lord's Day" right from the beginning. Yet here is absolute proof that Christians were still observing the true "Lord's Day" at least until the 4 th century and likely beyond. In fact, the Ethiopian church and the Assyrian church of the East observed the Sabbath centuries later than that. If the Roman church had no problem with that, why issue a Canon anathema against Christian Sabbath keepers? I think it is you who does not understand history. I will not however be so bold as suggest you are lying. That kind of presumption I will leave with the likes of you and BoL.

I am happy to see that you know enough of your Christian history to question why something happened. I will answer WHY it happened:

Cannon 29 was from The Council of Laodicea. It was not a general council of The Church. It was a regional synod of attendees from Asia Minor. It was a gathering of leaders of a small and relatively isolated community of Christians that was predominantly Jewish. As Jews the Laodiceans still observed the Mosaic Sabbath on Saturday.

The rest of Christianity had already shifted to Sunday, the day Christ rose. The synod’s urgings were just a belated effort to bring the local churches into line with what had happened already elsewhere throughout the Christian world.

So for you to say that the ROMAN Church issued the Cannon is either a lie or you didn't completely research what you are talking about.

I believe you did not do the proper research and you are relying on anti-Catholic sources instead of history books.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

There can be truths that contradict each other??? Seriously????? Very post modern of you.

So how do you know that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies. And was therefore affirmed the Messiah... From the testimony of scripture, or the testimony of the church?. If the testimony of the church, what convinced the church?

You have misunderstood what I have said: I am not saying there are truths that contradict each other. I am saying that is what YOU seem to believe. You also believe YOUR TRUTH trumps everyone else's truth. I am saying there is only One Truth and it comes from The Church....not many Churches.

The traditional VERBAL testimony of men lets us know that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies. The traditional verbal testimony of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus was proof that Jesus fulfilled the OT.

Those traditional VERBAL testimonies were written down several years later (that is why they are called "traditional"). Those VERBAL testimonies EVENTUALLY (300+ years later) became Scripture.

From historical Christian documents we KNOW that the Church leaders were in disagreement on what should be considered "Scripture" and that it wasn't decided until the 4th Century what was considered Scripture (your current bible).

The Church was well established BEFORE Scripture therefore the testimony of the men of The Church is the PROOF that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies.

Mary

 

[Stranger]

Thank you for your opinion. As ususal you refuse to answer my questions: Is everyone that commits a sin a non-believer in God??? The reason I ask is because based on your theory, that is what you are suggesting.

Would you agree that one can be a sinner and still be a Christian?

Your theory is that anyone that accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and their Saviour is a believer. Your theory suggests that homosexuals can never be a Christian and if they can never be a Christian that means they can never be a believer and if they can never be a believer that means they can never accept Jesus as their Savior. Your theory is a circular argument and is not based on logic or scripture.

Your theory is that if one is a homosexual that means they can't be Christian. What about the people that Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 7:21-23?? They did great works in his name and Jesus said he never knew them and that they were lawless. Were they not Christians either???

Curious Mary

No Mary. Everyone that commits a sin is not a non-believer.

Yes Mary. One can still be a sinner and be a Christian.

I didn't say a homosexual cannot come to Christ. Your circular argument is of your own making. If a homosexual comes to Jesus Christ, then he is born-again, and is no longer a homosexual. If a homosexual comes to Jesus Christ he has reversed his wrong thinking described in (Rom. 1:21) which led him downward path to homosexuality. Thus he is no longer a non-believer, no longer a homosexual.

But this reversal, where a homosexual turns to Jesus Christ and repents of his sin of unbelief, is very rare. What you usually see is a homosexual claiming to be a Christian and homosexual. As I said, that is an oxymoron. Many even start homosexual churches. What an abomination that is. But it is really not a church, because unless God is in it, it is not a church. Unless they are born-again they are not Christians. And if they are born again, they are not homosexuals.

No Mary, those in (Matt. 7:21-23) were not Christians either. What did Christ say? "I never knew you". What does that mean? It means they never were.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

No Mary. Everyone that commits a sin is not a non-believer.

Yes Mary. One can still be a sinner and be a Christian.

I didn't say a homosexual cannot come to Christ. Your circular argument is of your own making. If a homosexual comes to Jesus Christ, then he is born-again, and is no longer a homosexual. If a homosexual comes to Jesus Christ he has reversed his wrong thinking described in (Rom. 1:21) which led him downward path to homosexuality. Thus he is no longer a non-believer, no longer a homosexual.

But this reversal, where a homosexual turns to Jesus Christ and repents of his sin of unbelief, is very rare. What you usually see is a homosexual claiming to be a Christian and homosexual. As I said, that is an oxymoron. Many even start homosexual churches. What an abomination that is. But it is really not a church, because unless God is in it, it is not a church. Unless they are born-again they are not Christians. And if they are born again, they are not homosexuals.

No Mary, those in (Matt. 7:21-23) were not Christians either. What did Christ say? "I never knew you". What does that mean? It means they never were.

Stranger

I agree.....every Christian that commits a sin (the ACT of homosexuality, stealing, etc) is not necessarily a non-believer.

I agree....one can still be a sinner (homosexual, thief) and still be a Christian.

A homosexual or a thief can be a Christian AND a sinner. They don't cancel each other out. It is not an oxymoron. Do you even know what that word means???

You seem to be putting the sin of homosexuality into a different category (a more grave category) than other sins. Scripture and the entire 2,000 year history of Christian theology does not support your theory.

If those in Matt. 7:21-23 were not Christians then how did they perform great works in His name??? For you see Stranger, they were still Christians, however, when they heard His words they did not put them into practice. They were likened to a foolish man who built his house on sand. It's called putting scripture into context....You should try it instead of cherry picking passages to fit your theory.

Who gave you the authority to decide who is a true Christian or not???

Curious Mary

 

[Willie T]

Oh, Mary, please don't take that away from people. Some people absolutely LIVE to be comforted that they are not as bad as THEM. Many of us need to feel others are beneath us.... not as close to God as we are. It is the only way to justify our own sins.

 

[Stranger]

I agree.....every Christian that commits a sin (the ACT of homosexuality, stealing, etc) is not necessarily a non-believer.

I agree....one can still be a sinner (homosexual, thief) and still be a Christian.

A homosexual or a thief can be a Christian AND a sinner. They don't cancel each other out. It is not an oxymoron. Do you even know what that word means???

You seem to be putting the sin of homosexuality into a different category (a more grave category) than other sins. Scripture and the entire 2,000 year history of Christian theology does not support your theory.

If those in Matt. 7:21-23 were not Christians then how did they perform great works in His name??? For you see Stranger, they were still Christians, however, when they heard His words they did not put them into practice. They were likened to a foolish man who built his house on sand. It's called putting scripture into context....You should try it instead of cherry picking passages to fit your theory.

Who gave you the authority to decide who is a true Christian or not???

Curious Mary

Don't add your words into mine and then act like you agree. Why do so many here feel they must manipulate what people say to prove their end game

I didn't say a homosexual can be a Christian. I said they can't. A homosexual who claims to be a Christian is an oxymoron. Homosexuality is a more grave category. I showed you in (Rom. 1). Which of course you do not reply to as it does not support your perverted belief. (Rom. 1) suports what I have said. (Rom. 1) does not supprt what you say.

Concerning (Matt. 7:21-23), I told you already. Jesus said 'never knew you'. That can mean nothing but that they were never Christians or believers. Who said they performed great works in Jesus name?

Contrary Mary, you are no better a theologian then you are a historian.

Quantrill

 

[Stranger]

Oh, Mary, please don't take that away from people. Some people absolutely LIVE to be comforted that they are not as bad as THEM. Many of us need to feel others are beneath us.... not as close to God as we are. It is the only way to justify our own sins.

Gee, if you feel that way, that others are beneath you, you need to take it to God.

Stranger

 

[Willie T]

Gee, if you feel that way, that others are beneath you, you need to take it to God.

Stranger

I had a feeling you would understand the "WE" I used in that post included you, and would let us know how you handle it. That was brave of you.

 

[Stranger]

I had a feeling you would understand the "WE" I used in that post included you, and would let us know how you handle it. That was brave of you.

You didn't say 'we'. You said 'us'. I know you included yourself. Of any others you will have to be more specific. As I said, you need to talk to God about that problem of yours.

Stranger

 

[brakelite]

I am happy to see that you know enough of your Christian history to question why something happened. I will answer WHY it happened:

Cannon 29 was from The Council of Laodicea. It was not a general council of The Church. It was a regional synod of attendees from Asia Minor. It was a gathering of leaders of a small and relatively isolated community of Christians that was predominantly Jewish. As Jews the Laodiceans still observed the Mosaic Sabbath on Saturday.

The rest of Christianity had already shifted to Sunday, the day Christ rose. The synod’s urgings were just a belated effort to bring the local churches into line with what had happened already elsewhere throughout the Christian world.

So for you to say that the ROMAN Church issued the Cannon is either a lie or you didn't completely research what you are talking about.

I believe you did not do the proper research and you are relying on anti-Catholic sources instead of history books.

Mary

You folk are so paranoid. Why is it that every time we question anything to do with Catholic faith and practice, it is deemed as being anti-Catholic? What is so anti-Catholic about questioning the validity of Sunday sacredness? It is a quest for truth. If Sunday sacredness is in reality a flaw in Catholic teaching, would it not be in your best interests to press me for more information... Delve into the topic with more transparency... dig deeper than you have ever previously gone... Search for that which may inform and enlighten you and your friends with more surety and peace of mind? Would you not want to investigate with more certainty than simply responding with a blanket defensive pattern which consists of attacking others with the accusation of being"anti-Catholic"? It is that kind of response which prompted phone man to start the thread "if protestants hatred Catholics etc"....
I did not bring up the Sabbath issue because I am anti-Catholic. Nor do I need to rely on anti-Catholic sources to gain understanding of church history. I knew full well the circumstances surrounding that council. However, because that may have been concerned to deal with a local issue, did not mean that Asia minor was the only place Sabbath was still being kept. That it was still being observed there, itself is telling, for at least 300 years, Christians had been keeping the Sabbath in churches established by Paul, churches attended by both gentile and Jewish believers. That local bishops whose loyalty to Rome deemed it important enough to frame a Canon dealing with the subject shows the arrogance of the growing Roman influence in church affairs. And not having scripture to support their new day, they had to resort to tradition...a tradition that did not begin with the apostles, because the apostles kept the Sabbath, and do did the churches they established as stated to by the very Canon we both cited, and attested to also by the book Of acts, which makes no mention of the first day of the week as a day of convocation and rest in obedience to the 4 th commandment.
As I said, the churches in Asia minor weren't the only Christian churches keeping Sabbath at that time. 300 to 400 years after Christ there were many churches throughout the then known world that received the gospel from Christian missionaries and as result began to observe and keep God's commandments. Including the Sabbath. Pagans from Asia minor... Germanic Barbarians from Europe... Africans from Ethiopia... The Persians, Assyrians, the growing church throughout the Far East, even as far as India, Afghanistan, Southern Russia, China. All along The Old silk road that wove through all manner of terrain and culture, the gospel travelled and so with it the 4 th commandment which specifically states that the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord God. None of those missionaries came from Rome. They went out from Antioch, Perea, Galatia, and Jerusalem. Rome want even established as an official centre of Christian thought until the 3rd and 4 th centuries with the disestablishment of the Empire. Meanwhile the whole world almost received the gospel with gladness and joy... Whole kingdoms were converted to Christ while in Rome the Christians were being fed to wild beasts. Sunday was unknown to pagan converts outside of Roman influence.

 

[bbyrd009]

You didn't say 'we'. You said 'us'. I know you included yourself. Of any others you will have to be more specific. As I said, you need to talk to God about that problem of yours.

Stranger

ya, you don't have that problem at all huh Stranger
lol
i mean no offense man but are you not hearing yourself here?

 

[BobRyan]

Those who support the modern ecumenical movement need to understand that the Roman catholic church does not consider itself a part of the movement - she is the prime handler of it. Claiming she was not the cause of the great 500 year old split in Christianity, she condemns those who broke away from her as guilty of the "heresy of separateness" - the Protestants - and exuberantly celebrates each arrival home of those who are falling all over themselves to worship at the feet of "St. Peter's successor".

Sadly, the reasons for why such a movement is today considered noble and essential are due to a complete ignorance of the historic reasons for why the separation was God-ordained and necessary in the first place.

If the prevailing attitudes of today existed back in the days of Luther, Tyndale, Calvin, Christians today would be as hopelessly ignorant of the wonderful character and truths of Christ and the saving relationship He freely offers to sinners as were the poor people that lived just before the Protestant Reformation began to open the way for the light of the Gospel to shine "more and more unto that perfect day".

If only Protestant men of today were so bold to stand for truth as this guy:

It is true that the Protestant Reformers, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith -- pretty much all of Protestantism at the time - view the 17th chapter of Revelation as pointing to the Papacy, its historic teaching and actions.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do some of you seem to consider "The Ecumenical Movement" to be a bad thing? Didn't Jesus tell us that as far as possible, we were to get along with all men?
I spent 12 years in a congregation of an organization (the CoC) that wouldn't even associate with other members of the same denomination. It only happened 2 times in that entire time, that two local churches assembled together, and the tension was so thick, you could have cut it with a knife.
Refusing to fellowship with other Christians is a very sad and disappointing thing to see.

Ecumenism is ONLY of value in the actual Bible -- when it is a case of people joining together by accepting more truth and rejecting more error. But today's ecumenism is a form of "embrace error as equivalent to truth, and downsize truth to being non-essential" which is the only path "back to Rome" for Protestantism.

Were we just not supposed to notice?

On the other hand - "tolerance" is a great thing and should be embraced. To tolerate differences of opinion between denominations and to get along as brothers and sisters in Christ is great. To declare false doctrine as error is equally important.

LATERAN IV - an ecumenical council and therefore supposedly "infallible" calls for the "extermination" of heretics. When was the last papal statement you saw declaring LATERAN IV to be one of the actions of the RCC that constitute crimes against humanity?

 

[BobRyan]

A man or group has to rule? I thought God did.
I have associated amiably with both Jews and Catholics for years without having to put on a yamaka or to genuflect. And I still believe they both worship God.

Associating with other faith groups without being unchristian toward them - is always welcome.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Paul said "grievous wolves" would enter and destroy the flock (papal persecutions of God's faithful). James said veneration of stone idols would become Christian practice (common place in catholicism today). Peter said they would deny the Creation account and the Flood (catholicism says the first 11 chapters of Genesis are mythological).

Those verses you posted don't apply in the least to Protestantism.

True. Notice what the text says about making images and bowing down to them. Even hindus will argue that the images they make and bow down before - are merely representing the being they are adoring.

The prayers to the dead that you find in Catholicism combined with bowing down before those images is a case of bowing down before them AND promising to "serve" those that they represent.

Ex 20
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

On the other hand Some protestants do struggle with the text when it comes to "keep My commandments".


"Love Me - KEEP My Commandments" John 14:15
The saints "Keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

 

[bbyrd009]

Those verses you posted don't apply in the least to Protestantism.

you don't think this is a bit naive Pm?

 

[Phoneman777]

you don't think this is a bit naive Pm?

How is it possible that a description of God's enemies can be applied to those who are not?

 

[bbyrd009]

How is it possible that a description of God's enemies can be applied to those who are not?

bc God does not judge like we do, i guess. Do you think "protestant" means "accepted?"