Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Prima Scriptura]

Most Protestants have a different understanding of Matthew 16:18. We don’t believe he founded a physical Church. I embrace the belief that the Church are the saints, people in heaven and believers on Earth. Not a institutional organization.

This article explains the viewpoint I subscribe to https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html

That'd be inconvenient for Protestants if He did, which He did do, considering that's what exists after He says that in the book of Acts.

You believe that because you’re a Catholic, and that is understandable. However, as a Protestant, I don’t believe he did. We just got done reading through ACTS in Bible study and I must say that I have a new in deep and appreciation for apostle Paul. I hold to the belief that they’re were a community of believers. Also, I think it would be extremely far-fetched to believe that the earliest of Christians had liturgies similar to that TLM

[Washington Resistance Army]

That'd be inconvenient for Protestants if He did, which He did do, considering that's what exists after He says that in the book of Acts.

You believe that because you’re a Catholic, and that is understandable. However, as a Protestant, I don’t believe he did. We just got done reading through ACTS in Bible study and I must say that I have a new in deep and appreciation for apostle Paul. I hold to the belief that they’re were a community of believers. Also, I think it would be extremely far-fetched to believe that the earliest of Christians had liturgies similar to that TLM

Pardon the intrusion from a non-Christian, but is that not just a church by a different name?

[Sundiata]

You believe that because you’re a Catholic, and that is understandable. However, as a Protestant, I don’t believe he did. We just got done reading through ACTS in Bible study and I must say that I have a new in deep and appreciation for apostle Paul. I hold to the belief that they’re were a community of believers. Also, I think it would be extremely far-fetched to believe that the earliest of Christians had liturgies similar to that TLM

Pardon the intrusion from a non-Christian, but is that not just a church by a different name?

Yes, and it didn't stop with the deaths of Jesus Christ or the apostles. The Church is about 2000 years old.

[Tarsonis]

But Jesus Christ himself founded a church, is he not perfect and infallible?

Most Protestants have a different understanding of Matthew 16:18. We don’t believe he founded a physical Church. I embrace the belief that the Church are the saints, people in heaven and believers on Earth. Not a institutional organization.

This article explains the viewpoint I subscribe to https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html

Got questions is a joke. Seriously, we used to sit around and laugh about them at Yale. I know that sounds pretentious but they really are terrible at theology, and last I checked the school they went to is unaccredited.

[Prima Scriptura]

You believe that because you’re a Catholic, and that is understandable. However, as a Protestant, I don’t believe he did. We just got done reading through ACTS in Bible study and I must say that I have a new in deep and appreciation for apostle Paul. I hold to the belief that they’re were a community of believers. Also, I think it would be extremely far-fetched to believe that the earliest of Christians had liturgies similar to that TLM

Pardon the intrusion from a non-Christian, but is that not just a church by a different name?

There is a “Church”, absolutely. However, unlike Roman Catholics, protestants typically believe that the Church doesn’t mean a physical institution. Because physical institutions run by fallible men can become corrupt. Thus why we don’t believe that physical institutional churches are infallible.

[Sundiata]

Most Protestants have a different understanding of Matthew 16:18. We don’t believe he founded a physical Church. I embrace the belief that the Church are the saints, people in heaven and believers on Earth. Not a institutional organization.

This article explains the viewpoint I subscribe to https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html

Got questions is a joke. Seriously, we used to sit around and laugh about them at Yale. I know that sounds pretentious but they really are terrible at theology, and last I checked the school they went to is unaccredited.

How elitist.

[Salus Maior]

That'd be inconvenient for Protestants if He did, which He did do, considering that's what exists after He says that in the book of Acts.

You believe that because you’re a Catholic, and that is understandable. However, as a Protestant, I don’t believe he did. We just got done reading through ACTS in Bible study and I must say that I have a new in deep and appreciation for apostle Paul. I hold to the belief that they’re were a community of believers. Also, I think it would be extremely far-fetched to believe that the earliest of Christians had liturgies similar to that TLM

That's what the Church is.

Also I certainly don't believe they did have a liturgy similar to the TLM. As I just said in a recent post, it was developed over time. I have no idea what the original mass would have been like, aside from the centrality of the eucharist.

[Prima Scriptura]

Most Protestants have a different understanding of Matthew 16:18. We don’t believe he founded a physical Church. I embrace the belief that the Church are the saints, people in heaven and believers on Earth. Not a institutional organization.

This article explains the viewpoint I subscribe to https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html

Got questions is a joke. Seriously, we used to sit around and laugh about them at Yale. I know that sounds pretentious but they really are terrible at theology, and last I checked the school they went to is unaccredited.

As I said before, just because the Catholics on this thread have Masters degrees doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with the theology. I also may as that you didn’t respond to the contents of the article, you just dismiss is with an ad homonym.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Pardon the intrusion from a non-Christian, but is that not just a church by a different name?

There is a “Church”, absolutely. However, unlike Roman Catholics, protestants typically believe that the Church doesn’t mean a physical institution. Because physical institutions run by fallible men can become corrupt. Thus why we don’t believe that physical institutional churches are infallible.

Do Catholics believe the church itself is infallible? This thread at least seems very aware and accepting of the fact that the RCC is a deeply flawed institution at times.

[Tarsonis]

That'd be inconvenient for Protestants if He did, which He did do, considering that's what exists after He says that in the book of Acts.

You believe that because you’re a Catholic, and that is understandable. However, as a Protestant, I don’t believe he did. We just got done reading through ACTS in Bible study and I must say that I have a new in deep and appreciation for apostle Paul. I hold to the belief that they’re were a community of believers. Also, I think it would be extremely far-fetched to believe that the earliest of Christians had liturgies similar to that TLM

Bruh, this is just literally at odds with history. We have the epistles from first century Bishops. We know how the pre-Milanic Churches operated. The St. John Chrysostom liturgy is 1600 years old. It's not far fetched, it's known history.


I don't even say this as a Catholic, I say this as an Academic..

[Tarsonis]

There is a “Church”, absolutely. However, unlike Roman Catholics, protestants typically believe that the Church doesn’t mean a physical institution. Because physical institutions run by fallible men can become corrupt. Thus why we don’t believe that physical institutional churches are infallible.

Do Catholics believe the church itself is infallible? This thread at least seems very aware and accepting of the fact that the RCC is a deeply flawed institution at times.

Infallibility only goes so far as the ability to preach on matters of faith. It can certainly act fallibly.

[Sundiata]

Pardon the intrusion from a non-Christian, but is that not just a church by a different name?

There is a “Church”, absolutely. However, unlike Roman Catholics, protestants typically believe that the Church doesn’t mean a physical institution. Because physical institutions run by fallible men can become corrupt. Thus why we don’t believe that physical institutional churches are infallible.

It doesn't matter if people can become corrupt or make mistakes. If Jesus Christ, God himself, hated us for that he wouldn't have died for us in the first place. The Church isn't just the building, it's the people. Who did Jesus Christ appoint to head the church and organize these people? Saint Peter and eventually his successors.

Jesus Christ is on a mission and it didn't stop with dying on the cross and ascending into heaven. It's a mission that continues in our hearts through his sacraments.

[Tarsonis]

Got questions is a joke. Seriously, we used to sit around and laugh about them at Yale. I know that sounds pretentious but they really are terrible at theology, and last I checked the school they went to is unaccredited.

As I said before, just because the Catholics on this thread have Masters degrees doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with the theology. I also may as that you didn’t respond to the contents of the article, you just dismiss is with an ad homonym.

I'm not engaging with that argument. I'm warning you to stay away as a friend. Find better sources, that one is caustically bad.

[Sundiata]

As I said before, just because the Catholics on this thread have Masters degrees doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with the theology. I also may as that you didn’t respond to the contents of the article, you just dismiss is with an ad homonym.

I'm not engaging with that argument. I'm warning you to stay away as a friend. Find better sources, that one is caustically bad.

Maybe, but not every Protestant can be Martin Luther.

[Luminesa]

I walk away and this thread exploded again. Who left the rice cooker on?

[Sundiata]

I apologize too if it looks like the Catholics are "ganging up" on the Protestant again.

I'm really not trying to be rude in disagreement and please forgive the occasional joke.

[Tarsonis]

I'm not engaging with that argument. I'm warning you to stay away as a friend. Find better sources, that one is caustically bad.

Maybe, but not every Protestant can be Martin Luther.

Martin Luther was pretty shite too. Calvin at least had a mind for theology, despite my fervent disagreement. Luther was the king of appealing to mystery evertytime the inconsistencies in his teachings were made apparent.

[Diarcesia]

Most Protestants have a different understanding of Matthew 16:18. We don’t believe he founded a physical Church. I embrace the belief that the Church are the saints, people in heaven and believers on Earth. Not a institutional organization.

This article explains the viewpoint I subscribe to https://www.gotquestions.org/upon-this-rock.html

Got questions is a joke. Seriously, we used to sit around and laugh about them at Yale. I know that sounds pretentious but they really are terrible at theology, and last I checked the school they went to is unaccredited.

In what sense is their theology terrible?

[Sundiata]

Maybe, but not every Protestant can be Martin Luther.

Martin Luther was pretty shite too. Calvin at least had a mind for theology, despite my fervent disagreement. Luther was the king of appealing to mystery evertytime the inconsistencies in his teachings were made apparent.

My friend, slow down and have a whiskey.

We can't call Protestant theologians excrement and expect Protestants to converse with us in good faith. That being said, that appeal to mystery is why I am not an Orthodox either. I understand your aversion to that.

https://youtu.be/rQ-UItNBoMw

[Reverend Norv]

Maybe, but not every Protestant can be Martin Luther.

Martin Luther was pretty shite too. Calvin at least had a mind for theology, despite my fervent disagreement. Luther was the king of appealing to mystery evertytime the inconsistencies in his teachings were made apparent.

Calvin also appealed to mystery, of course, but he was more reflective about it. The chapter of the Institutes about the Trinity is a solid example of how to recognize when you are reaching the limits of human reason. And, of course, we all owe him some gratitude for the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates - which, whatever you think of the rest of his theology, is part of the reason we have limited and constitutional government today.

Luther's virtue, at least from this Protestant's perspective, was courage. His critiques were not always well-considered, or even coherent. But they were earnestly held, and he stuck to them despite a completely real chance that it would cost him his life, as it had cost Zwingli and Hus their own. Without Luther's courage, there would have been no space for Calvin's reason.

[Sundiata]

Got questions is a joke. Seriously, we used to sit around and laugh about them at Yale. I know that sounds pretentious but they really are terrible at theology, and last I checked the school they went to is unaccredited.

In what sense is their theology terrible?

The temperance movement.

[Tarsonis]

Got questions is a joke. Seriously, we used to sit around and laugh about them at Yale. I know that sounds pretentious but they really are terrible at theology, and last I checked the school they went to is unaccredited.

In what sense is their theology terrible?

It's extremely biased to their low church evangelical back ground, is completely ignorant of history, and well logic half the time. It's just a poor source. I've shredded them so many times in these threads that I don't even bother anymore, I just dismiss and move on.

[Tarsonis]

Martin Luther was pretty shite too. Calvin at least had a mind for theology, despite my fervent disagreement. Luther was the king of appealing to mystery evertytime the inconsistencies in his teachings were made apparent.

Calvin also appealed to mystery, of course, but he was more reflective about it. The chapter of the Institutes about the Trinity is a solid example of how to recognize when you are reaching the limits of human reason. And, of course, we all owe him some gratitude for the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates - which, whatever you think of the rest of his theology, is part of the reason we have limited and constitutional government today.

Luther's virtue, at least from this Protestant's perspective, was courage. His critiques were not always well-considered, or even coherent. But they were earnestly held, and he stuck to them despite a completely real chance that it would cost him his life, as it had cost Zwingli and Hus their own. Without Luther's courage, there would have been no space for Calvin's reason.

I don't disagree

[Reverend Norv]

Martin Luther was pretty shite too. Calvin at least had a mind for theology, despite my fervent disagreement. Luther was the king of appealing to mystery evertytime the inconsistencies in his teachings were made apparent.

My friend, slow down and have a whiskey.

We can't call Protestant theologians excrement and expect Protestants to converse with us in good faith. That being said, that appeal to mystery is why I am not an Orthodox either. I understand your aversion to that.

https://youtu.be/rQ-UItNBoMw

I am a Protestant. Jonathan Edwards is a Protestant theologian. Reinhold Niebuhr is a Protestant theologian. Karl Barth is a Protestant theologian.

GotQuestions is the Protestant theological equivalent of WebMD: diagnose for yourself how to get right with God, in six easy steps! It doesn't bear comparison.

[Sordhau]

I'm sorry but as much as I try to wrap my head around the raging liturgical debate in the RCC I can't help but stand here scratching my head as to what the big fuss is. Ideally I would like to hear from the perspective of someone who is simultaneously familiar with the underlying source of the issue but has no strong opinion on it to avoid a tainted, narrative-driven bias designed to invoke sympathy to a specific side... assuming any such people are present, that is.

From an outsider's perspective it seems a tad bit trivial for this to be such a hot-button issue within the Church when compared to some of the more serious (at least from my perspective) problems the RCC is currently facing (you know the ones).