Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
24 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Pressie, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,370 Year: 20,406/19,786 Month: 803/2,023 Week: 311/392 Day: 1/41 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ray Comfort on The Atheist Experience
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 121 of 146 (865225)
10-22-2019 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
10-22-2019 1:29 AM


Re: Protestant Mass is not Catholic Mass, get it straight
quote:
What am I "wrong" about? You think you can rewrite history or what?

I explained it, and I certainly am not trying to rewrite history. Ideas about mass and what it means are not the mass itself. You don’t really believe that Transubstantiation actually happens at Catholic masses, do you ?

quote:
Maybe I'm not doing the best job of that but you certainly cannot rewrite what the Reformation actually said and churches that follow the Reformers believe and do.

Perhaps you would like to list these things I am supposed to be rewriting. And quote me making the attempt.

quote:
What's your point? It's silly.

My point is that beliefs about a sacrament are not the sacrament itself. And that some of these beliefs are quite silly and unimportant. Like both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 1:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 2:21 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 130 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:41 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 122 of 146 (865226)
10-22-2019 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
10-22-2019 2:05 AM


Re: Protestant Mass is not Catholic Mass, get it straight
I don't think I get your point at all. The reality is never the words about the reality but the words lead you into it. Transubstantiation into real flesh and blood is ludicrous. However, when I was reading the Catholic mystics I was very impressed with their sense of experiencing the real presence of Christ when they had the bread and wine. I think that same experience is available through consubstantion too though, without the literal flesh and blood thing, because all we can possibly experience of Christ is spiritual and that is available through the bread and wine. He is there, but as Spirit, not as literal flesh and blood. And having said this I'll also say that I think the interpretation that came from Zwingli I believe, that it is purely symbolic, does miss the point that we can actually experience the Spirit of Christ in communion. It's more than symbolic.

Alnd all these doctrinal differences matter a great deal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2019 2:05 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2019 2:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15552
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 123 of 146 (865228)
10-22-2019 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
10-22-2019 2:21 AM


Re: Protestant Mass is not Catholic Mass, get it straight
quote:
I don't think I get your point at all. The reality is never the words about the reality but the words lead you into it

The point is simple. Since Transubstantiation is simply an erroneous idea about mass it is not a genuine difference between Protestant communion and Catholic mass.

quote:
Transubstantiation into real flesh and blood is ludicrous.

Indeed. And Consubstantiation - the idea that Jesus flesh and Blood are literally present alongside the bread and wine - is hardly less so.

quote:
However, when I was reading the Catholic mystics I was very impressed with their sense of experiencing the real presence of Christ when they had the bread and wine

I don’t think that spiritual experiences are meant to be dependent on a physical presence.

quote:
And having said this I'll also say that I think the interpretation that came from Zwingli I believe, that it is purely symbolic, does miss the point that we can actually experience the Spirit of Christ in communion. It's more than symbolic.

I don’t see how taking the bread and wine as being symbolically human flesh and blood rather than literally so (in some completely indetectable sense) does anything to lessen any spiritual experience that may accompany the rite. Indeed I’d say the opposite. The insistence on supernatural manifestations cheapens the experience.

quote:
Alnd all these doctrinal differences matter a great deal.

Really? Why? Where in Jesus’ teachings is there anything that says that you have to be right about these arcane teachings?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 2:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17519
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 124 of 146 (865236)
10-22-2019 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
10-21-2019 4:12 PM


Re: Source vs Content
Faith writes:

Yeah, all Catholic offshoots, not Protestant.


All Protestants are Catholic offshoots.

Faith writes:

And not all of those denominations have anything they call "Mass."


As Wikipedia says, they don't all use the name "mass" but it's still the same liturgy.

Faith writes:

Every church I've ever been in calls Mass a heresy or blasphemy.


No church I've ever been in calls mass a heresy or blasphemy - because they all have the same practice, just with a different name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 10-21-2019 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:02 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17519
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 125 of 146 (865237)
10-22-2019 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
10-22-2019 12:40 AM


Re: Differences between Protestant vs Catholic Mass
Faith writes:

... since I don't know about other likely differences in how the service is conducted.


If you don't know anything about it, why do you keep pontificating as if you did?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 12:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 11:52 AM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33651
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 126 of 146 (865238)
10-22-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by ringo
10-22-2019 11:48 AM


Re: Differences between Protestant vs Catholic Mass
***tearing hair out at total misreading*****

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by ringo, posted 10-22-2019 11:48 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 10-22-2019 11:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17519
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 127 of 146 (865241)
10-22-2019 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
10-22-2019 11:52 AM


Re: Differences between Protestant vs Catholic Mass
Faith writes:

***tearing hair out at total misreading*****


Well, that's just as constructive as what you've been posting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 11:52 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13154
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 128 of 146 (865263)
10-22-2019 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
10-22-2019 11:44 AM


The Church History In Context
ringo writes:

All Protestants are Catholic offshoots.

Not specifically. Let's keep several facts of History in mind, here.

  • The Christian Church originated in Roman Judea in the first century AD, founded on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, who first gathered disciples. It was not a Roman Church nor was it even known at that time as a denominational church. There was no one guy in charge. (Apart from the Spirit of the Living God.) One can read all about it in the Book of Acts.
    Shortly after the crucifixion:

    Acts 1:12-14 writes:

    (NKJV) Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
    And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty), and said, 16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; 17 for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry."
    18(Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. 19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
    20 "For it is written in the Book of Psalms:
    'Let his dwelling place be desolate, And let no one live in it';
    and,
    'Let another take his office.'
    21 "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection."
    23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

    Acts 2 :1-4

    When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.


    Note that this early gathering very much was cohesive and united through belief as well as actions. They were not simply some humanist social club, as so many churches are now. They were not diverse in spirit but were of One Spirit and One accord.

    Let's move forward a few hundred years or so.

    Wiki writes:

    Patriarchate (Greek: πατριαρχεῖον, patriarcheîon) is an ecclesiological term in Christianity, designating the office and jurisdiction of an ecclesiastical patriarch.

    Three patriarchates were established by the apostles as apostolic sees in the 1st century: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Added to these were Constantinople in the 4th century, and Jerusalem in the 5th century. Eventually, together, these five were recognized as the pentarchy by the Council of Ephesus in 431.(...)Five ancient patriarchates of the Pentarchy, headed by patriarchs as the highest-ranking bishops in the Christian Church prior to the Great Schism, were the patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.[1] The East-West Schism of 1054 split the Latin-rite see of Rome from the four Byzantine-rite patriarchates of the East, thus forming distinct Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

    The four Eastern Orthodox patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), along with their Latin Catholic counterpart in the West, Rome, are distinguished as "senior" (Greek: πρεσβυγενή, presbygenē, "senior-born") or "ancient" (παλαίφατα, palèphata, "of ancient fame") and are among the apostolic sees, having had one of the Apostles or Evangelists as their first bishop: Andrew, Mark, Peter, James, and Peter again, respectively.

    It helps to know the owners and originators of the franchise! It also would be expected that these people were serious about their calling. I have insisted, though been unable to objectively prove to you that there is a distinction between some Joe Schmo off of the street and a believer who has had an inner awakening and awareness of the Holy Spirit...which was the actual first Pope. Indeed, through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was the church actually formed. And such an institution...initially a gathering of believers and later an institution whereby future leaders were blessed through laying on of hands of the early Apostles and the imparted Holy Spirit hopefully traveling with them and on them constituted the church itself.

    This of course began to break down as the years went on. Not every leader in these early churches was anointed by the Holy Spirit, just as few leaders in churches today are actually anointed and/or equipped to share the message in the actual Spirit of the Living God. It all started with the initial split, and note the reasons for the split.

    Wiki writes:

    The East-West Schism, also called the Great Schism and the Schism of 1054, was the break of communion between what is now the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Catholic Churches, which had lasted until the 11th century.[1] The Schism was the culmination of theological and political differences between the Christian East and West which had developed over the preceding centuries.

    A succession of ecclesiastical differences and theological disputes between the Greek East and Latin West pre-dated the formal rupture that occurred in 1054.[2][3][4] Prominent among these were the issues of the procession of the Holy Spirit, whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,[a] the Bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy.[8]

    In 1053, the first step was taken in the process which led to formal schism: the Greek churches in southern Italy were forced either to close or to conform to Latin practices.[9][10][11] In retaliation, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Michael I Cerularius ordered the closure of all Latin churches in Constantinople. In 1054, the papal legate sent by Leo IX traveled to Constantinople for purposes that included refusing to Cerularius the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch" and insisting that he recognize the Pope's claim to be the head of all the churches.

    Splits are basic human nature. Even the original Disciples, who knew Jesus personally, used to quibble about petty human ego-centric matters. One notable time is mentioned shortly after one of the times that Jesus performed many mighty feats in front of them all.

    Luke 9:43-48 writes:

    And they were all amazed at the majesty of God.
    But while everyone marveled at all the things which Jesus did, He said to His disciples, 44 "Let these words sink down into your ears, for the Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men." 45 But they did not understand this saying, and it was hidden from them so that they did not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this saying.

    46 Then a dispute arose among them as to which of them would be greatest. 47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a little child and set him by Him, 48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this little child in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great."

    Thus, human nature is revealed to predominate in any human follower, whether close to Jesus or several hundred years far removed. The History of all churches is fraught with such human foibles. As we have mentioned before, the Roman Church was particularly vulnerable to the lust for power, control, and prestige because of the backing of the political state of Rome itself.

    ringo writes:

    No church I've ever been in calls mass a heresy or blasphemy - because they all have the same practice, just with a different name.

    This whole argument is an unnecessary rabbit trail. Let's focus more on what it is if anything that makes Christians any more anointed than Joe Schmo off the street. I maintain that the early believers most certainly had a tangible anointing, which faded with time within the growing church itself. Today, by the Grace of God, there are still some who show evidence of an anointing based on what they do as well as what they say. But I wholeheartedly disagree with you that a bunch of secular humanists could simply feed people and give them spare change and in any way represent the early believers in a continuum. Unless God was particularly pleased with their actions and their collective heart. Jesus said it:
    "Whoever receives this little child in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great."

    This leads support to your argument that it is the message that is important. Perhaps if the secular humanists acknowledged Jesus through feeding and/or giving the small child spare change with an open heart, they may yet be the greatest. But they won't become great through leftist political ideology, urging people to throw God away, or preaching atheism while feeding and clothing the masses.

    Note that Jesus emphasizes receiving them in His name. What specifically does that mean for us today?

    Edited by Thugpreacha, : fixed a few things


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 124 by ringo, posted 10-22-2019 11:44 AM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2019 11:22 PM Thugpreacha has responded
     Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 11:49 PM Thugpreacha has responded
     Message 143 by ringo, posted 10-23-2019 3:14 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
    Theodoric
    Member
    Posts: 6799
    From: Northwest, WI, USA
    Joined: 08-15-2005
    Member Rating: 3.3


    Message 129 of 146 (865268)
    10-22-2019 11:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 128 by Thugpreacha
    10-22-2019 11:02 PM


    Re: The Church History In Context
    Not specifically.

    Yes specifically. Where do you think Protestantism gets its name from?

    quote:
    Six princes of the Holy Roman Empire and rulers of fourteen Imperial Free Cities, who issued a protest (or dissent) against the edict of the Diet of Speyer (1529), were the first individuals to be called Protestants

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Protestant

    Those are the facts. No revisionism allowed.

    Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


    Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

    "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

    If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 128 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 132 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:50 PM Theodoric has responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 13154
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 130 of 146 (865270)
    10-22-2019 11:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
    10-22-2019 2:05 AM


    Re: Protestant Mass is not Catholic Mass, get it straight
    PaulK writes:

    My point is that beliefs about a sacrament are not the sacrament itself. And that some of these beliefs are quite silly and unimportant. Like both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

    My experience has been exclusively with Protestant churches and Protestant ideologies, traditions, and "silly rituals". We had our share. There was the whole anointing oil thing. Taking some scripture to justify it, they would simply go buy a bottle of Pompeo Olive Oil or some other brand, say a few prayers over it (if even that) and repackage it into smaller bottles...in many churches...for sale! (Watch Jesus turn that table over!)
    The same nonsense was done with prayer hankies. Organized religion can be quite silly. Human nature knows no bounds. Some Messianic Jewish churches have the ritual of blowing the shofar.

    As for the Roman Catholics, however...the main way they got off track is by not disciplining their people in the power of the Holy Spirit and Living presence of Christ. Of those people ho I would say actually know God (within the churches) you won't find them sitting at Denny's after service getting fat, watching right-wing politics and claiming that America used to be so Christian until the evil Leftists took over, or focusing on current events and human matters over the condition of the soul and the altruistic selfless nature of belief.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 121 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2019 2:05 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 137 by jar, posted 10-23-2019 10:27 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 33651
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 131 of 146 (865271)
    10-22-2019 11:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 128 by Thugpreacha
    10-22-2019 11:02 PM


    Re: The Church History In Context
    Protestants ARE Catholic Offshoots, Thuggy, as Theodoric says. The Reformers were all Catholics, Luther was a Catholic Augustinian monk and a priest who performed Mass. Not sure about Zwingli but I think Calvin was a lawyer, I'd have to look it up. Anyway, they were all Catholics who by studying the Bible came to realize that there was a lot more wrong with Catholicism than the sale of indulgences which was Luther's first objection. Soon he began to see that the power of the Pope and his decress and in fact his very existence as the supposed Head of the Church were antichristian. ( \Look up "head of the church" in the Bible and you'll find two verses that specifically call Christ by that name. The Pope is a usurper of God's position and that's what the Reformers discovered. identifying the Pope as the Antichrist on that basis among others).

    The term Protestant was used later to describe those who were protesting against the Church of Rome, their doctrinal distortions, thneir essential paganism, and the ursurper Pope. All from reading the Bible carefully and discovering the discrepancies between "popery" and original Christianity. Luther is famous for having recovered the doctrine of salvation by grace alone from the works-righteousness of the Roman Church. And that Protestant doctrine is the main thing The Roman Church has put under a curse (anathema) in their Council of Trent decrees. among many others. That's still on their books, and the Office of the Inquisition is still in operation, so all their "friendly" gestures toward Protestants are lies.__

    So the Protestant movement aimed to recover the original Christian doctrines the Roman Church had obscured and twisted. They established new churches with a purer biblical foundation, though there were degrees of how far different denominations pulled away from their Roman origins. The term "Mass" is one holdover in some churches, so is the priestly garb which persists in modified form in some churches. The Anglican Church is maybe the most Roman in spirit despite its adherence to Protestant doctrine for the most part.

    The Protestant Reformers considered the Roman apostasy to have begun in 606 AD when the Bishop of Rome was declared Universal Bishop by the Emperor Phocas of the Byzantine Empire, establishing the Bishop of Rome as the Pope. Before that date doctrine had already deteriorated to some extent in some places but you could still find the pure doctrine in it. After the Pope was established, however, more and more of the pagan rituals and doctrines of the Roman pagan religions was incorporated into the Roman part of the Church, the priestly garb for instance, that weird pointy headdress of the bishops that has been traced back to the religion of Dagon the fish god that figures in the Old Testament, the rosary which is used still in pagan religions with its repetitive "prayer," the worship of "saints" and prayer to them, which was really the transfer of the pagan gods to these Christian figures. And eventually the cult of Mary developed, and images of Mary with the baby Jesus are identical to images found in other pagan religions that go all the way back to the religion of Semiramus and her son Tammuz. And so on and so forth.

    The Protestant Reformation cleaned up most of that but some remnants of it linger in some of the denominations. Yes Protes tantism came out of Catholicism.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 128 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:02 PM Thugpreacha has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 133 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:58 PM Faith has responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 13154
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 132 of 146 (865272)
    10-22-2019 11:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 129 by Theodoric
    10-22-2019 11:22 PM


    Re: The Church History In Context
    Good article.
    My initial point is that Protestantism didn't come specifically from the RCC since the RCC itself was not the original church. Protestantism came from reading the Book Of Acts and the Bible specifically.

    Im not sure where you see revisionism in what is being said. From your article:

    Protestantism is diverse, being more divided theologically and ecclesiastically than either the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or Oriental Orthodoxy.[14] Without structural unity or central human authority,[14] Protestants developed the concept of an invisible church, in contrast to the Roman Catholic view of the Catholic Church as the visible one true Church founded by Jesus Christ.[13] Some denominations do have a worldwide scope and distribution of membership, while others are confined to a single country.[14] A majority of Protestants[g] are members of a handful of Protestant denominational families: Adventists, Anabaptists, Anglicans, Baptists, Reformed,[h] Lutherans, Methodists, and Pentecostals.[1] Nondenominational, evangelical, charismatic, independent and other churches are on the rise, and constitute a significant part of Protestantism.
    So yes, we know that the Protestants had major issues with the Roman Church, which I myself have issues with as it divided from the other 4 cities of the original church in the Great Schizm and began subjugation of the global masses in the name of representing political ideology as a mandate from God. The Eastern churches had less of a problem in this area. Of course, the Protestants are guilty of it today even in contemporary America...a fact which has you angry and accusing them of being (I would guess) White Privileged Tyrants seeking to lord it over the rest of the diverse cultures of the world we live in. There is no need for any revisionism. The facts are there.

    What you and I will likely disagree about is whether the message of the Christians is mandated by any Spirit from God or whether that is simply an excuse for the ongoing power grab over the minority cultures globally. The evidence does not look good.

    Wiki(your article) writes:

    They emphasize the priesthood of all believers, justification by faith alone (sola fide) rather than also by good works, and the highest authority of the Bible alone (rather than also with sacred tradition) in faith and morals (sola scriptura)

    One argument from ringo and jar that is supportable involves the necessity of good works as well as morality derived from human reason. I must admit that my opponents have a good point on these two matters.

    Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 129 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2019 11:22 PM Theodoric has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 10-23-2019 7:39 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
     Message 144 by ringo, posted 10-23-2019 3:21 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

      
    Thugpreacha
    Member
    Posts: 13154
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 133 of 146 (865273)
    10-22-2019 11:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
    10-22-2019 11:49 PM


    Re: The Church History In Context
    And what gets me is that the main reason that the RCC picked up many of the rituals was to entice pagan populations with similar rituals in their own religions to join the Big Club. The Roman church was corrupt in that many of its leaders worshiped and served their own flesh and lusts rather than seeking the Holy Spirit. The Protestants are guilty of this as well, particularly in today's era of Kenneth Copeland and the megachurch evangelists, but I also see it in smaller churches. There is, however, a remnant of truth upholding believers who walk in the Spirit and not in the Flesh...and they are what keeps Christianity relevant.

    despite my ideological differences with jar and ringo (and the Richard Carrier loving Theodoric) I recognize that they at least believe in the message of helping others over seeking to convert them. And this is what the church at large needs to focus on. Less Jets and more focus on helping others. Comments?

    Also, do you think that todays Christians are too political and read the news media more than they do their bible?


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    “As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”
    ? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by Faith, posted 10-22-2019 11:49 PM Faith has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 134 by Faith, posted 10-23-2019 12:15 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
     Message 136 by Theodoric, posted 10-23-2019 7:43 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 33651
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.2


    (1)
    Message 134 of 146 (865274)
    10-23-2019 12:15 AM
    Reply to: Message 133 by Thugpreacha
    10-22-2019 11:58 PM


    Re: The Church History In Context
    You are raising too many questions for me to get into very deeply right now. But one thing is always true of Christianity: we can have many revivals of true Holy Spirit life in the churches, and the Protestant Reformation was one such revival, but spiritual life always deteriorates over time and has to be revived again and again. We are still susceptible to the flesh. We need another revival and I pray for it. Some churches are pretty far gone into false doctrine these days, but some remain true at least on that level but they need the power of God to come down and revive them/us spiritually. I personally certainly need it.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 133 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:58 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

      
    Theodoric
    Member
    Posts: 6799
    From: Northwest, WI, USA
    Joined: 08-15-2005
    Member Rating: 3.3


    Message 135 of 146 (865313)
    10-23-2019 7:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 132 by Thugpreacha
    10-22-2019 11:50 PM


    Re: The Church History In Context
    Protestantism all came from Catholicism. That is a fact
    Not debatable because it is undeniable. I dont care if you think there is some "pure" church pre RCC. Protestantism is a reaction to perceived issues with Catholicism.
    All Protestant churches are offshoots of Catholicism. Full stop
    Any other claim is a denial of historical fact.
    The rest of your post is irrelevant.

    Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


    Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

    "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

    If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 132 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-22-2019 11:50 PM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    Replies to this message:
     Message 138 by jar, posted 10-23-2019 10:33 AM Theodoric has responded
     Message 142 by Faith, posted 10-23-2019 1:17 PM Theodoric has responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019