Protestantism might just be Christianity

[Nationalist State of Knox]

The Niceness Creed is what defines Christianity.

If only.

[Murkwood]

I'm personally not fond of Protestantism despite respecting most other sects of Christianity. Why? They come across as very fanatical and more anti-science than other sects. They also seem to depict Jesus as some right wing capitalist who doesn't give a shit about the poor. That is definitely the opposite of the impression I get from the man's teachings; he was a compassionate caring man and arguably one of the first socialists(at least that seems to be a popular stance within some sections of the Catholic church). Feel free to take my views with a grain of salt though since I'm an atheist, not a Christian.

I disagree with the part about Socialism. I quote the Catholic Catechism:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism." She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for "there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market."208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c2a7.htm

[Neo Rome Republic]

The Niceness Creed is what defines Christianity. Apostolic Succession can be interpreted in different ways. Sola Scriptura could be said to be idolatry, but it is argued by some Protestants that veneration of the authority of Patriarchs or Popes is as well.

The Niceness Creed is the best way to have peace about ths, though sadly over the centuries it has rarely worked.

I've heard of the Nicene Creed. But what is this "Niceness Creed"?

[Norstal]

The Niceness Creed is what defines Christianity. Apostolic Succession can be interpreted in different ways. Sola Scriptura could be said to be idolatry, but it is argued by some Protestants that veneration of the authority of Patriarchs or Popes is as well.

The Niceness Creed is the best way to have peace about ths, though sadly over the centuries it has rarely worked.

Not sure if pun or being serious.

[Mesrane]

First, I am a protestant Christian, and I have similar concerns about Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as you have about me.

Here's why: The Catholic Church (for instance) has changed its traditions. Some things, such as indulgences and the execution of heretics, it has fortunately left behind. However, this means that the authority of the Popes contradicts. We also know that some popes (such as the Borgias) were pretty nasty and unchristian. So tradition fails us as tradition changes. The authority of men on earth to speak God's word turns out to be corruptible, and unlike the prophets of old, there's no handy rule about stoning those who get prophecies wrong (nor should there be).

What doesn't change though? The bible. It stays constant. But aha! What translation to choose? Well, the bible as it was originally written stays constant. Sadly, there are some problems with translating and even transcribing 2-4 thousand year old documents written in ancient languages. Sometimes numbers don't add up (which is not surprising, considering how rough Hebrew is when it comes to numbers). So the bibles we should use are the bibles that provide the most accurate translations. At best, we'd read it in the original languages.

The thing is that some church traditions are correct (such as the Trinity), and I know this to be so because the bible makes many statements that back up this position. Other practices, like praying to saints or Mary, aren't so easily backed up by Scripture. In fact, the bible is pretty clear about who we should be praying to, and that's God.

As for putting ourselves above God or His authority for believing in the bible, I disagree. To put a man above the bible seems even more dangerous. To add to the bible seems even more dangerous. If anything, it takes humility to submit to the Word of God however little we understand it and whether or not we agree with it. I don't claim to know it all for sure. I just claim to know the important bits because the bible (which I believe is true for a variety of reasons) says so.

So what about Christians who we think have it wrong (in our infinite wisdom)? Well, you don't have to have perfect theology to be a Christian. If you do, we're all in big trouble. There are some (non-exhaustive) important things though:

- One God.
- Jesus is God in the Flesh (oh, here we get into Trinity stuff...)
- People are sinful, God is not
- Jesus was born of a virgin
- Jesus died on the cross
- Jesus rose from the dead three days later
- His sacrifice provides us the only way we can be saved from our sins
- All of this in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, thus completing a thread begun at Adam

Paul was once asked by a jailer in Acts 16, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

Putting our trust in Jesus Christ the Son of God is all it really takes. The rest is just coming to a fuller, more wonderful relationship with God.

This. Exactly this.

[Kelinfort]

Schismatics arguing about which branch is more legitimate.

The beauty of religion.

[Lalaki]

If you regard all heretics as non-Christians, then surely Catholics aren't Christian either?

Dis, we both know that the differences between Catholic and Orthodox dogma extend far beyond the issue of Papal Primacy. Where do you draw the line on who's a heretic and who isn't, and why?

The Catholics are schismatic - not heretical. Certain of their newer dogmas broach the threshold between schism and heresy, certainly. But I don't yet consider the Catholic Church too far over that threshold considering the very real attempts at ecumenism between the Papacy and our own Patriarchs.

Catholics would say the same thing about Orthodox Christians. It depends on someone's interpretation of history.

[Czervenika]

I'm personally not fond of Protestantism despite respecting most other sects of Christianity. Why? They come across as very fanatical and more anti-science than other sects. They also seem to depict Jesus as some right wing capitalist who doesn't give a shit about the poor. That is definitely the opposite of the impression I get from the man's teachings; he was a compassionate caring man and arguably one of the first socialists(at least that seems to be a popular stance within some sections of the Catholic church). Feel free to take my views with a grain of salt though since I'm an atheist, not a Christian.

There are many Protestant churches that have a strong tradition of helping the poor. Look at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was a minister.

He was Protestant? I stand corrected then.

[Dyakovo]

Once you all have figured out a consistent definition of Christian come tell me please, it is kinda hard keeping track.

Noun
Someone who believes in God the same way as the person attempting the exclusion.

*nods*

[Czervenika]

I disagree with the part about Socialism. I quote the Catholic Catechism:

Liberation theology: It's a thing.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

If you regard all heretics as non-Christians, then surely Catholics aren't Christian either?

Dis, we both know that the differences between Catholic and Orthodox dogma extend far beyond the issue of Papal Primacy. Where do you draw the line on who's a heretic and who isn't, and why?

The Catholics are schismatic - not heretical. Certain of their newer dogmas broach the threshold between schism and heresy, certainly. But I don't yet consider the Catholic Church too far over that threshold considering the very real attempts at ecumenism between the Papacy and our own Patriarchs.

Surely that comes down to your own opinion? You're arbitrarily defining what's a heretic and what isn't, and it's far too subjective to be applied on such a scale as to claim "Protestants are not Christians".

Can you back any of this up with church authority?

[Lalaki]

There are many Protestant churches that have a strong tradition of helping the poor. Look at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He was a minister.

He was Protestant? I stand corrected then.

Yup. A devout Baptist.

[Todlichebujoku]

Churches. What, do Catholics not have places of worship? Besides, you do know that there are Protestant congregations that assemble in school buildings as well, right?

Indeed. But Protestant buildings are not administered by the collegiate of Bishops. Therefore, Protestant buildings are places of bibliolatry.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has its own set of Bishops. If you are saying that Protestant churches must be administered by Catholic/Orthodox bishops... they would not continue to be Protestant and your argument has devolved to "Protestants Should Not be Protestant Because They Are Protestant".

[Distruzio]

All Protestant denominations have their own take on Christianity. I understand arguments about apostolic succession and the history of Christianity. However, Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians have different interpretations of these very things. Under your framework, it would make sense to only endorse one church over all, as only one approach can be 100 percent correct. And that is something I wouldn't want to do.

You're mistaken. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox maintain opposing interpretations of apastolic succession or the history of Christianity. We both agree. Where we differ is the authority of the Pope over other bishops, the filioque, and certain innovative and recent dogmatic statements (that are held in minor contempt as these dogmatic statements have yet to be exercised to any great degree). In this capacity, I cannot nor would I make a claim that this or that expression of Christianity is the true expression. From my perspective, the legalistic mind is attracted to Catholicism (both Anglo- and Roman) and the mystical mind is attracted to Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental).

The anarchist mind is attracted to Protestantism.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Schismatics arguing about which branch is more legitimate.

The beauty of religion.

Splitters!

[Norstal]

The Catholics are schismatic - not heretical. Certain of their newer dogmas broach the threshold between schism and heresy, certainly. But I don't yet consider the Catholic Church too far over that threshold considering the very real attempts at ecumenism between the Papacy and our own Patriarchs.

Catholics would say the same thing about Orthodox Christians. It depends on someone's interpretation of history.

I really don't think Catholics can call Orthodox Christians heretical considering they have rituals that are in common.

[Distruzio]

Did I suggest it was? Of course I didn't. I, quite clearly, stated that the Orthodox Church, along with those mentioned before, is part of the actual physical entity that has existed for 2000 years.

I think Catholics have a better claim to that title...

Their claim is as valid as ours.

[The 93rd Coalition]

All Christian churches that recognize Jesus as the Savior are Christian.

Dis guy right here.

Also, I do believe that I can say tradition is bull, the Pope wields no Religious religious (wake up, Brain,) authority, icons are bad, and Mary is not a god and still be a Christian.

Don't mean any disrespect. Just how I feel.

[New Edom]

The Niceness Creed is what defines Christianity. Apostolic Succession can be interpreted in different ways. Sola Scriptura could be said to be idolatry, but it is argued by some Protestants that veneration of the authority of Patriarchs or Popes is as well.

The Niceness Creed is the best way to have peace about ths, though sadly over the centuries it has rarely worked.

I've heard of the Nicene Creed. But what is this "Niceness Creed"?

Sorry, my stupid iPad spellcheck ambushes me when I think words in the dictionary should pass.

[Parhe]

Churches. What, do Catholics not have places of worship? Besides, you do know that there are Protestant congregations that assemble in school buildings as well, right?

Indeed. But Protestant buildings are not administered by the collegiate of Bishops. Therefore, Protestant buildings are places of bibliolatry.

Why should they be administered by an idea they don't believe in? Maybe that is a good argument when one is looking "out" from inside, but to the outside it holds no ground.

[Distruzio]

Once you all have figured out a consistent definition of Christian come tell me please, it is kinda hard keeping track.

Someone who can acknowledge the nicene creed as authoritative. The apostles creed is also an alternative definition.

[Ahvulon]

First, I am a protestant Christian, and I have similar concerns about Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as you have about me.

Here's why: The Catholic Church (for instance) has changed its traditions. Some things, such as indulgences and the execution of heretics, it has fortunately left behind. However, this means that the authority of the Popes contradicts. We also know that some popes (such as the Borgias) were pretty nasty and unchristian. So tradition fails us as tradition changes. The authority of men on earth to speak God's word turns out to be corruptible, and unlike the prophets of old, there's no handy rule about stoning those who get prophecies wrong (nor should there be).

What doesn't change though? The bible. It stays constant. But aha! What translation to choose? Well, the bible as it was originally written stays constant. Sadly, there are some problems with translating and even transcribing 2-4 thousand year old documents written in ancient languages. Sometimes numbers don't add up (which is not surprising, considering how rough Hebrew is when it comes to numbers). So the bibles we should use are the bibles that provide the most accurate translations. At best, we'd read it in the original languages.

The thing is that some church traditions are correct (such as the Trinity), and I know this to be so because the bible makes many statements that back up this position. Other practices, like praying to saints or Mary, aren't so easily backed up by Scripture. In fact, the bible is pretty clear about who we should be praying to, and that's God.

As for putting ourselves above God or His authority for believing in the bible, I disagree. To put a man above the bible seems even more dangerous. To add to the bible seems even more dangerous. If anything, it takes humility to submit to the Word of God however little we understand it and whether or not we agree with it. I don't claim to know it all for sure. I just claim to know the important bits because the bible (which I believe is true for a variety of reasons) says so.

So what about Christians who we think have it wrong (in our infinite wisdom)? Well, you don't have to have perfect theology to be a Christian. If you do, we're all in big trouble. There are some (non-exhaustive) important things though:

- One God.
- Jesus is God in the Flesh (oh, here we get into Trinity stuff...)
- People are sinful, God is not
- Jesus was born of a virgin
- Jesus died on the cross
- Jesus rose from the dead three days later
- His sacrifice provides us the only way we can be saved from our sins
- All of this in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, thus completing a thread begun at Adam

Paul was once asked by a jailer in Acts 16, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Paul answered, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

Putting our trust in Jesus Christ the Son of God is all it really takes. The rest is just coming to a fuller, more wonderful relationship with God.

This. Exactly this.

^

[Mesrane]

All Protestant denominations have their own take on Christianity. I understand arguments about apostolic succession and the history of Christianity. However, Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians have different interpretations of these very things. Under your framework, it would make sense to only endorse one church over all, as only one approach can be 100 percent correct. And that is something I wouldn't want to do.

You're mistaken. Neither the Catholic nor Orthodox maintain opposing interpretations of apastolic succession or the history of Christianity. We both agree. Where we differ is the authority of the Pope over other bishops, the filioque, and certain innovative and recent dogmatic statements (that are held in minor contempt as these dogmatic statements have yet to be exercised to any great degree). In this capacity, I cannot nor would I make a claim that this or that expression of Christianity is the true expression. From my perspective, the legalistic mind is attracted to Catholicism (both Anglo- and Roman) and the mystical mind is attracted to Orthodoxy (both Eastern and Oriental).

The anarchist mind is attracted to Protestantism.

Yes, how very anarchist of us to pray to God rather than men (Oh my bad, saints). How dare we.

[Norstal]

Once you all have figured out a consistent definition of Christian come tell me please, it is kinda hard keeping track.

Someone who can acknowledge the nicene creed as authoritative. The apostles creed is also an alternative definition.

Protestants do acknowledge it though.

[Kelinfort]

What exactly counts as heresy in religion? Many of the current basis for faith in the Christian Churches have been considered heresies throughout history.