Protestantism might just be Christianity

[Distruzio]

Care to explain?

Sure. Either Jesus is a liar or He couldn't deliver what He promised. That's the ONLY way the Protestants have a leg to stand on.

[Menassa]

Now if Jesus didn't support the Oral Law here's what he should have said.
"Have ye not read what Moses said when he descended from the mountain with the Tablets of the Law? 'Remember the Sabbath day...'"

Could you elaborate?

If Jesus rejected the tradition of the Pharisees, if he rejected the Oral Law, he would not have accepted that picking grain on the Sabbath was unlawful.

[Menassa]

lol me and dis both answered a similar worded question.

[Distruzio]

lol me and dis both answered a similar worded question.

We think so alike, is it a wonder?

[Menassa]

lol me and dis both answered a similar worded question.

We think so alike, is it a wonder?

Or we're terrible at making points that don't require explanation.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Could you elaborate?

If Jesus rejected the tradition of the Pharisees, if he rejected the Oral Law, he would not have accepted that picking grain on the Sabbath was unlawful.

But, according to the text, it appears that he does in fact reject that picking ears of corn is unlawful, and cite examples in David, etc. to prove its permissibility, before following that with a statement that he is the Lord of the Sabbath, and therefore above the law, so to speak.

[Distruzio]

We think so alike, is it a wonder?

Or we're terrible at making points that don't require explanation.

Haha! Verbosity is our forte it seems. Can't tell you how many times Cindy would be rolling her eyes at me blabbering away with you for hours about nonsense.

[Menassa]

If Jesus rejected the tradition of the Pharisees, if he rejected the Oral Law, he would not have accepted that picking grain on the Sabbath was unlawful.

But, according to the text, it appears that he does in fact reject that picking ears of corn is unlawful, and cite examples in David, etc. to prove its permissibility, before following that with a statement that he is the Lord of the Sabbath, and therefore above the law, so to speak.

No, you see he states that it is lawful for him to do this, because he is Lord and because his followers are hungry.
He does not state that this law has no basis because it is based off the Oral Law which many believed at that time and now was invented.

He even goes so far as to support the Pharisees beliefs, on their practice he is not lax.

Or we're terrible at making points that don't require explanation.

Haha! Verbosity is our forte it seems. Can't tell you how many times Cindy would be rolling her eyes at me blabbering away with you for hours about nonsense.

That makes me smile.

[Todlichebujoku]

And suppose the Church has wandered astray and the Protestants are actually closer to what Christ envisioned? What then?

Then Christ is either a liar or couldn't deliver what He promised.

As both parties are equally moved by God's word by their respective accounts, how can you tell which one has gone astray and which one is true to Christ's vision? Follow the word of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches blindly simply based on their heritage?

You follow what Christ said.

Where did He establish the current structure of the Church? Where did He discuss icons? Suppose He meant something different from what you interpreted Him to mean- perhaps He envisioned a Church favoring simplicity, not on robes and ornamented cathedrals as the Church evolved to include?

[Mostrov]

Now, see here is a unique pickle. I defer on the side of grace conserning Porvoo concerning Anglicans of both low and high Church persuasions. But I can't make that logical leap to include Protestantism. I do so because Rome and the Orthodox consider the Anglo-Catholics Christians and the Anglo-Catholics (both Anglican Communion and Continuing Anglican) encompass a large and myriad approach to Christian expression.

I just can't make that leap for Protestants even though many Anglo-Catholics might consider themselves protestant.

The reason I make an objection is because Anglicanism is diverse, mindboglingly diverse, and that there is no central doctrine at all (It is literally voluntary) - much of it is essentially just English people as identity practising some sort of Christianity that originated from the Western Rite (Although there are some who follow the Eastern Rite and others still). Which means you are effectively lumping in people who believe in predestination, reject apostolic succession et al.

As far as I understand the general approach towards reconciliation has always been towards the higher side of things, with a rather subtle subtext that certain elements of the tree will need to be 'pruned'. This is one of the reasons why Rome is so frustrating with the whole matter of Anglicanism, because it is too vague to effectively encompass in regards to anything.

So if you include this, specifically by also noting the Continuing Anglicans, where do the Lutherans fail?

[Distruzio]

Then Christ is either a liar or couldn't deliver what He promised.



You follow what Christ said.

Where did He establish the current structure of the Church?

The Gospels. He set the precedent and left the remaining organization to the Apostles who conveyed that authority upon the disciples who conveyed that authority to their disciples, so on and so forth.

Where did He discuss icons? Suppose He meant something different from what you interpreted Him to mean- perhaps He envisioned a Church favoring simplicity, not on robes and ornamented cathedrals as the Church evolved to include?

For us, the question is this - would a first century Christian be able to walk into a Protestant Church and know what the hell is going on? No.

How about an Orthodox/Catholic Church? Yes. Why? We both worship the same way we always have.

And Jesus was clear about how worship was to be conducted - He's Jewish, remember? If Menassa were to walk into an Orthodox Liturgy, right now, he wouldn't feel too far removed from his own worship. There would be some differences, of course, because Menassa isn't a Christian. Neither is Christ. But the first century adherents to "the Way" (which, eventually, evolved into Christianity) would know exactly what was going on.

[Distruzio]

Now, see here is a unique pickle. I defer on the side of grace conserning Porvoo concerning Anglicans of both low and high Church persuasions. But I can't make that logical leap to include Protestantism. I do so because Rome and the Orthodox consider the Anglo-Catholics Christians and the Anglo-Catholics (both Anglican Communion and Continuing Anglican) encompass a large and myriad approach to Christian expression.

I just can't make that leap for Protestants even though many Anglo-Catholics might consider themselves protestant.

The reason I make an objection is because Anglicanism is diverse, mindboglingly diverse, and that there is no central doctrine at all (It is literally voluntary) - much of it is essentially just English people as identity practising some sort of Christianity that originated from the Western Rite (Although there are some who follow the Eastern Rite and others still). Which means you are effectively lumping in people who believe in predestination, reject apostolic succession et al.

Indeed. They who do differ with me concerning doctrine rather than dogma. That's the real crux for them. The Anglican Communion and Continuing Anglican, to a greater and lesser extent, accept those individuals and congregations as Anglo-Catholic. Thus I defer to their judgement. Since the Orthodox Church has not made an official statement about Protestantism beyond the unofficial shrugging of the shoulders, and the acceptance of the Protestants as "heretical brethren" by the Catholics is really really really new, then what am I to do?

Try to figure this out.

As far as I understand the general approach towards reconciliation has always been towards the higher side of things, with a rather subtle subtext that certain elements of the tree will need to be 'pruned'. This is one of the reasons why Rome is so frustrating with the whole matter of Anglicanism, because it is too vague to effectively encompass in regards to anything.

indeed.

So if you include this, specifically by also noting the Continuing Anglicans, where do the Lutherans fail?

They don't. I consider them as close to Christian as Protestants can get but they, likely because of some subconscious bias, cross that threshold for me. Hence this thread.

[Todlichebujoku]

Where did He establish the current structure of the Church?

The Gospels. He set the precedent and left the remaining organization to the Apostles who conveyed that authority upon the disciples who conveyed that authority to their disciples, so on and so forth.

Fair enough. I can see how that could work into your interpretation of the Church yet still be grounded in the text.

Where did He discuss icons? Suppose He meant something different from what you interpreted Him to mean- perhaps He envisioned a Church favoring simplicity, not on robes and ornamented cathedrals as the Church evolved to include?

For us, the question is this - would a first century Christian be able to walk into a Protestant Church and know what the hell is going on? No.

How about an Orthodox/Catholic Church? Yes. Why? We both worship the same way we always have.

And Jesus was clear about how worship was to be conducted - He's Jewish, remember? If Menassa were to walk into an Orthodox Liturgy, right now, he wouldn't feel too far removed from his own worship. There would be some differences, of course, because Menassa isn't a Christian. Neither is Christ. But the first century adherents to "the Way" (which, eventually, evolved into Christianity) would know exactly what was going on.

How can you definitively say so? Translate correctly and provide some background information and a 1rst century Christian would understand how Protestantism worked and how it split off from the moneygrabbing Catholic Church that used fear to finance itself. What you're saying is that the rituals are what matter most, as opposed to the message.

The Church today might be considered the true Church, as it has mostly cleaned up its act as far as I can tell, but it would be much closer if it did not sanction the devotions to saints. Why ask a saint for help when one can simply pray to God?

Anyway, I should leave, it's getting late. Feel free to respond though.

[Mostrov]

Indeed. They who do differ with me concerning doctrine rather than dogma. That's the real crux for them. The Anglican Communion and Continuing Anglican, to a greater and lesser extent, accept those individuals and congregations as Anglo-Catholic. Thus I defer to their judgement. Since the Orthodox Church has not made an official statement about Protestantism beyond the unofficial shrugging of the shoulders, and the acceptance of the Protestants as "heretical brethren" by the Catholics is really really really new, then what am I to do?

Try to figure this out.

The closest you will find to this I think is the Orthodox acceptance of Anglicanism in the early 20th Century, aside from this I think this is a really thorny issue from many fronts that's probably best left to another thread. I was merely trying to save you from the wrath of overzealous Anglicans.

They don't. I consider them as close to Christian as Protestants can get but they, likely because of some subconscious bias, cross that threshold for me. Hence this thread.

I still stand by what I said earlier in that you are merely reinventing the wheel, there is a word for this and has been in use for aeons and that is heretic. Certainly Protestants are errant, but they intend to be Christians - they just have a poor understanding of theology.

To take an example, a fool who is a catholic and merely attends church but has no understanding of it is doing is nominally Christian, yet at the same time the same example can apply to a protestant? What difference to their salvation is that? They are merely being lead by the blind in either case (from their perspective).

Certainly Protestants need to brought back into the fold, it's that they have cultivated particular answers to things based upon what I perceive is primarily the pull of history and culture rather than especially good theology. Its certainly a scorn I share with you, although I imagine you don't nearly approach the snobbery that I think I can be ascribed to rather stereotypically.

To me this makes me wonder why you don't get as upset over the filoque, considering that this whole matter is primarily around the validity of the nicene creed (or at least derivative from it). Yet the Western Rite remains Christian?

[Distruzio]

For us, the question is this - would a first century Christian be able to walk into a Protestant Church and know what the hell is going on? No.

How about an Orthodox/Catholic Church? Yes. Why? We both worship the same way we always have.

And Jesus was clear about how worship was to be conducted - He's Jewish, remember? If Menassa were to walk into an Orthodox Liturgy, right now, he wouldn't feel too far removed from his own worship. There would be some differences, of course, because Menassa isn't a Christian. Neither is Christ. But the first century adherents to "the Way" (which, eventually, evolved into Christianity) would know exactly what was going on.

How can you definitively say so?

Because we use the same liturgies provided during the formulative years/centuries of the Church. The only changes have been to accommodate Protestant conversions. Those changes being a shortening of the Liturgy (from 3+ hours to 2 or so) among other, very minor, structural accommodations.

Translate correctly and provide some background information and a 1rst century Christian would understand how Protestantism worked and how it split off from the moneygrabbing Catholic Church that used fear to finance itself.

We Orthodox has a history peppered with misuses of Church authority as well yet there are no "protestant" derivatives from our particular lung of the Church. Why not? Because those who protested understood that in order to change the Church one must remain within the Church - Protestant theology throws the baby out with the bathwater. There can be no translation appropriate enough to account for this deviation. Hell, even those within the Catholic Church who sought reform did not leave. Guess what happened? The Church redressed grievances presented.

What you're saying is that the rituals are what matter most, as opposed to the message.

No. I'm saying that the message gets lost when the rituals, which convey that message and have conveyed that message for 2000 years (and the organ used to convey that message - the Church) is abandoned.

For instance, according to Christian theology, there is no plausible separation between body, mind an soul. None can survive without the other two. The body is no mere capsule for the soul - yet Protestantism, one and all, hold this to be fundamentally untrue. Protestant denominations each proclaim no mere distinction but a total separation of one from the other two. This, by its very nature, conflicts with the trinitarian nature of God, the fundamental nature of Christ, and the fundamental nature of salvation. For the Protestant, our souls go to Heaven. For the Christian, we are elevated to Heaven complete.

This dogmatic assertion is made clear throughout our liturgies/mass but in abandoning the tradition of reaffirming the Trinity through worship the Protestant has distorted and confused the message.

The Church today might be considered the true Church, as it has mostly cleaned up its act as far as I can tell, but it would be much closer if it did not sanction the devotions to saints. Why ask a saint for help when one can simply pray to God?

Because we have things to do. Heaven is, according to Christianity, a state of being wherein one is overcome with the desire and will to pray unceasingly. All Christians are called to do this - pray unceasingly. But, by simple fact of the fallen existence, man cannot pray unceasingly. So the saints intercede on our behalf. It's no big deal. Mother Mary interceded on behalf of those at the party where she admonished Jesus to turn water into wine. So why all the fuss about asking others to pray for me and with me?

Protestants ask one another to pray for one another all the time. It's the same thing. When confronted with a tragedy, what does a Protestant offer those afflicted? A heartfelt assurance that they "will pray for" those afflicted. Is that not the same thing? Especially considering the Christian assertion that all live in Christ?

[Distruzio]

Indeed. They who do differ with me concerning doctrine rather than dogma. That's the real crux for them. The Anglican Communion and Continuing Anglican, to a greater and lesser extent, accept those individuals and congregations as Anglo-Catholic. Thus I defer to their judgement. Since the Orthodox Church has not made an official statement about Protestantism beyond the unofficial shrugging of the shoulders, and the acceptance of the Protestants as "heretical brethren" by the Catholics is really really really new, then what am I to do?

Try to figure this out.

The closest you will find to this I think is the Orthodox acceptance of Anglicanism in the early 20th Century, aside from this I think this is a really thorny issue from many fronts that's probably best left to another thread. I was merely trying to save you from the wrath of overzealous Anglicans.

I appreciate it.

They don't. I consider them as close to Christian as Protestants can get but they, likely because of some subconscious bias, cross that threshold for me. Hence this thread.

I still stand by what I said earlier in that you are merely reinventing the wheel, there is a word for this and has been in use for aeons and that is heretic. Certainly Protestants are errant, but they intend to be Christians - they just have a poor understanding of theology.

After conversations in this thread, and a revealing conversation with my fiance, I have decided that "heretical" Christian is the correct term for Protestants. Not separated but.... umm... inappropriately distinct. I finally formed that leap in logic.

To take an example, a fool who is a catholic and merely attends church but has no understanding of it is doing is nominally Christian, yet at the same time the same example can apply to a protestant? What difference to their salvation is that? They are merely being lead by the blind in either case (from their perspective).

True. Very true. Which is why I've never suggested that Protestants don't merit a place in Heaven. There are certainly Protestants out there more deserving of salvation than me. Hell, there are atheists more deserving.

Certainly Protestants need to brought back into the fold, it's that they have cultivated particular answers to things based upon what I perceive is primarily the pull of history and culture rather than especially good theology. Its certainly a scorn I share with you, although I imagine you don't nearly approach the snobbery that I think I can be ascribed to rather stereotypically.

Depends on teh context of the situation, really. My son is 7 (birthday boy today!). We've never discussed this issue. He loves going to church. Last week he went with a Pentacostal friend to church. I don't restrict his exposure. I merely trust in his ability to reason. And he did. He didn't like it. But I have to admit that I was concerned to the point of prohibiting him from going merely because Pentacostals are... well they're Protestant. I have, following his experiences there, prohibited him from going back, mind you. But not because they are Protestant. The sermon they offered was about hellfire and the perversity afflicting our society that will see so many cast into hell. The boy came back home crying because he was terrified of going to hell. So my snobbery was justified - but snobbery nonetheless.

Another example is my fiance and her faith. Were she to reject Orthodoxy in favor of Protestantism, I'd break the engagement. I really would. But she is and has been dissatisfied with Protestantism for a long time. She isn't interested in converting to Orthodoxy just yet, mind you. But she contemplates it. I don't require her conversion but I do require her alienation from Protestant theology. She and I do speak on this issue and she did more than anyone in this thread to convince me that I was wrong about my conclusions regarding Protestantism (I edited the OP to reflect this).

To me this makes me wonder why you don't get as upset over the filoque, considering that this whole matter is primarily around the validity of the nicene creed (or at least derivative from it). Yet the Western Rite remains Christian?

While the filioque does create a dogmatic distinction, adding to dogma is less offensive to me than taking away from. The Protestants take away dogma while the Catholics did not.

[SolasDagr]

Just seeing if I'm understanding Distruzio's position in a nutshell: The Church (Catholic and/or Orthodox) is made up of and contains the literal body of Jesus of Nazareth/Galilee , Christ. Therefore Protestants by rejecting the authority of the Church (Catholic and/or Orthodox) reject the physical body , authority and continuation of the mission on earth of Jesus Christ and thus cannot be labeled Christian but only Protestant (for lack of another title). Protestantism is a just another Abrahamic religion by way of Protestants utilizing the Old Testament because their utilization of the New Testament is void since the Christ which Protestants acknowledge as the Christ isn't the Christ because it isn't the Church. The authority of the Pope isn't the issue - it all about the Church - the body of Christ. So the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are the same Church. All three are the Church. All three are the Christ. Another trinity mystery.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Just seeing if I'm understanding Distruzio's position in a nutshell: The Church (Catholic and/or Orthodox) is made up of and contains the literal body of Jesus of Nazareth/Galilee , Christ. Therefore Protestants by rejecting the authority of the Church (Catholic and/or Orthodox) reject the physical body , authority and continuation of the mission on earth of Jesus Christ and thus cannot be labeled Christian but only Protestant (for lack of another title). Protestantism is a just another Abrahamic religion by way of Protestants utilizing the Old Testament because their utilization of the New Testament is void since the Christ which Protestants acknowledge as the Christ isn't the Christ because it isn't the Church. The authority of the Pope isn't the issue - it all about the Church - the body of Christ. So the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are the same Church. All three are the Church. All three are the Christ. Another trinity mystery.

We Protestants do not reject the Church.

We only reject the doctrine that the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches are exclusively the true Churches established by God.

What we believe is the Universal Church- namely, no religious institution on Earth can claim to be the only Church established by God since the Church is the communion and fellowship of all believers in the Earth.

[The Thinker]

I apologize if any of this has already been addressed, as I have no interest in reading all the way through the last 35 pages, but the OP seems to have a very poor grasp of Protestantism. (Admittedly, it is difficult, since there is so much difference in denominations.) I don't know anybody who has any objection to the authority of Peter (except perhaps when he argued with Paul, and that was resolved), though I certainly don't see him as the first Pope - for that matter, neither did he. All church structures, including the Orthodox, come much later and far removed from the original way of worship. Last time I went to an Orthodox service, it was hours long (which is consistent with the early church) and conducted almost entirely in a language that was native to few if any people in the room (which is a much more modern development). One of the big things that Protestantism gave us was a return to the vernacular, and I think that is a very good thing.

Yes, Protestant denominations tend to have a focus on the Bible and other writings, but only as a way of knowing God. By and large, they do not put much stock in contemporary prophets. Is believing that God's word can come to any person, and not just the elite, heretical now? Because that appears to be the crux.

I do freely admit that Protestantism is more of an umbrella than a distinct set of beliefs. (Orthodoxy experiences some of this, but to much lesser extent.) There are myriad groups, with varied, sometimes conflicting, beliefs and there is no central Protestant dogma.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I apologize if any of this has already been addressed, as I have no interest in reading all the way through the last 35 pages, but the OP seems to have a very poor grasp of Protestantism. (Admittedly, it is difficult, since there is so much difference in denominations.) I don't know anybody who has any objection to the authority of Peter (except perhaps when he argued with Paul, and that was resolved), though I certainly don't see him as the first Pope - for that matter, neither did he. All church structures, including the Orthodox, come much later and far removed from the original way of worship. Last time I went to an Orthodox service, it was hours long (which is consistent with the early church) and conducted almost entirely in a language that was native to few if any people in the room (which is a much more modern development). One of the big things that Protestantism gave us was a return to the vernacular, and I think that is a very good thing.

Yes, Protestant denominations tend to have a focus on the Bible and other writings, but only as a way of knowing God. By and large, they do not put much stock in contemporary prophets. Is believing that God's word can come to any person, and not just the elite, heretical now? Because that appears to be the crux.

I do freely admit that Protestantism is more of an umbrella than a distinct set of beliefs. (Orthodoxy experiences some of this, but to much lesser extent.) There are myriad groups, with varied, sometimes conflicting, beliefs and there is no central Protestant dogma.

Though, there are different Protestant denominations, most of them adhere to a similar set of beliefs like the doctrine of sola scriptura, sola fide, the Holy Trinity but it is entirely correct that there are a lot of differences in their beliefs.

[Digital Planets]

The reason there are Christian denominations is because they recognize Jesus as their savior. Some Satanist also believe Black Jesus is their savior too, so does that mean Satanism is Christianity?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

The reason there are Christian denominations is because they recognize Jesus as their savior. Some Satanist also believe Black Jesus is their savior too, so does that mean Satanism is Christianity?

No, because they are Satanists. Recognition of Jesus Christ as Savior is not just the doctrine needed to qualify as a Christian.

[Digital Planets]

The reason there are Christian denominations is because they recognize Jesus as their savior. Some Satanist also believe Black Jesus is their savior too, so does that mean Satanism is Christianity?

No, because they are Satanists. Recognition of Jesus Christ as Savior is not just the doctrine needed to qualify as a Christian.

But it's Black Jesus, so it still counts, right?

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

No, because they are Satanists. Recognition of Jesus Christ as Savior is not just the doctrine needed to qualify as a Christian.

But it's Black Jesus, so it still counts, right?

Even if the Jesus is Black, you still have many doctrines to believe, bro. By now, you must be wasting my time completely.....

[Olivaero]

Just seeing if I'm understanding Distruzio's position in a nutshell: The Church (Catholic and/or Orthodox) is made up of and contains the literal body of Jesus of Nazareth/Galilee , Christ. Therefore Protestants by rejecting the authority of the Church (Catholic and/or Orthodox) reject the physical body , authority and continuation of the mission on earth of Jesus Christ and thus cannot be labeled Christian but only Protestant (for lack of another title). Protestantism is a just another Abrahamic religion by way of Protestants utilizing the Old Testament because their utilization of the New Testament is void since the Christ which Protestants acknowledge as the Christ isn't the Christ because it isn't the Church. The authority of the Pope isn't the issue - it all about the Church - the body of Christ. So the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are the same Church. All three are the Church. All three are the Christ. Another trinity mystery.

We Protestants do not reject the Church.

We only reject the doctrine that the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches are exclusively the true Churches established by God.

What we believe is the Universal Church- namely, no religious institution on Earth can claim to be the only Church established by God since the Church is the communion and fellowship of all believers in the Earth.

This seems to be fucking an awful lot with the definition of the word "Church" and I have no idea why you would expect this to be the meaning of what jesus said. He talks about it not falling Ideas can't fall it's impossible they don't need a rock to be built upon, structures do. Physical entities. Like say... a church.