Protestantism might just be Christianity

[Nation of God1]

How did you know he was Calvinist?

[Benuty]

And of the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Islamists?

Do you mean Muslims?

[Nation of God1]

And of the Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Islamists?

Do you mean Muslims?

Yes, I do.

[Kiruri]

Why, then, would God send people to different churches? Especially considering some teach significantly different things than others?

Obviously, God does not send people to different churches. People choose for themselves. Obviously, listening to the voice of God, although important, is not sufficient to find the right church. If it were, there wouldn't be so many people going to widely different denominations.

So here is what I would add to what Reverend Norv said: study history. Learn the history of the major churches and denominations, and based on that history try to determine which of them has the best claim to have preserved the original message of Christ.

Can I not just adhere to what the bible says? That seems simpler. Could I not just learn history about Jesus and adhere to his teachings, just like his apostles did?

[Blakk Metal]

Some will answer East Orthodox, some Catholic, some Anglican, some Presbyterian, but never the one true Church.

What is the one true church?

[Benuty]

Some will answer East Orthodox, some Catholic, some Anglican, some Presbyterian, but never the one true Church.

What is the one true church?

A metaphor.

[Reverend Norv]

Where in Scripture does it say that God calls all of us through Christ to only a single path? On the contrary; in his Epistles to the Corinthians, Paul stresses the need for Christians of differing views to treat each other with compassion and respect, since one is not baptized to Paul or to Cephas, but only to Christ.

I am baptized to Christ. You are baptized to Christ. We belong to different denominations, and we probably have wildly differing views. But is it really so unbelievable that God drew us both - predestined, called, justified, and glorified - each to our own distinct path? You feel the presence of God in my church, I feel the presence of God in mine. Surely, surely, God wills it so.

My Calvinist friend, the problem with claiming that everything is predestined and that God is responsible for guiding people's lives... is that if you go down that path you end up calling God responsible for all the evil in the world, too.

We are not merely pawns in God's hands. God calls to us, but we move ourselves.

I disagree. And I would suggest, in the simplest terms, that we are not qualified to distinguish what is good from what is evil in the eyes of God - merely what is good and evil for us. As Augustine wrote, the sun may shine upon a piece of meat and cause it to stink, but we do not on that account say that the sun stinks as well.

Nonetheless, the problem of evil is surely a discussion for another thread. But suffice to say that I recognize your concern, and that I have struggled with it - and continue to struggle with it - myself. I just happen not to believe that it invalidates my theology, that's all.

[Nation of God1]

What is the one true church?

A metaphor.

A question, I asked.

[Constantinopolis]

I couldn't adhere to anything that's not in the bible.

Why not? For a couple of decades after the Resurrection, at least, the Gospels were not yet written. So the earliest Christians did in fact adhere to a lot of stuff that wasn't (yet) in the Bible, because all they had was the Old Testament.

Saint Paul mentions in his first epistle to the Corinthians that some Christians had already died. Those words were written before the Gospels. So, some early Christians died before ever reading the Gospels.

[Kiruri]

Well, I don't think there's any scriptural evidence for Apostolic succession. In fact, there isn't. I couldn't adhere to anything that's not in the bible.

I hate to be seen as rude, but this answer can literally be searched for on the internet. In fact I would encourage you to, as there are far more eloquent people out there than this neophyte.

For instance;
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession
http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Both claim scripture.

I could also look at sources which contradict those and make it clear there's no scriptural basis for apostolic succession. In which case, I guess it's up to me to research and then decide what to believe.

[Nation of God1]

What does this bible verse mean?

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

[Benuty]

A metaphor.

A question, I asked.

It matters not.

[Bari]

Hi there!

I am Distruzio, NSG's resident American Royalist (former anarcho-capitalist/anarcho-monarchist) and libertarian monarchist (although paleomonarchist would be more accurate). I am also an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

For those of you unfamiliar, the Orthodox Church along with the Latin/Roman (Catholic), Oriental Orthodox, and Anglo- Catholic Churches (although this is hotly contested, I admit that this particularity is my own perspective and should not be considered the universal position of all the Eastern, Oriental, Latin/Roman, or even the Anglo-Catholics*), can show, through Apostolic Succession, inheritance of the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon the Disciples by the Apostles - who, in turn, received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ. In other words, it was the Orthodox, and those previously mentioned, who wrote the New Testament (all authors of the individual books within the NT were Orthodox/Catholic priests and bishops) and compiled/cannonized the Bible into the book we all know today. It was us who handed down the Creed and established what a Christian is to believe and how a Christian is to believe in order to avoid heresy against the Faith and Word.

*'Anglo-Catholic' is the term I will here be using to describe those Christians within both the Anglican Communion and within the Continuing Anglican Tradition

We - those mentioned above - are not, however, sola scripturists.

Many Christians consider the Protestants mere schismatics - not necessarily heretics. I however, struggle to maintain even this modicum of neutrality on the status of Protestantism and Christianity and I, quite often, give in to the temptation to label Protestants, by and large, idolators. More specifically, bibliolators - worshippers of the Bible. They, in my opinion, deny the authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit - they deny God and supplant him with themselves.

This thread will be my attempt to explain this position in order to both avoid future threadjacks and better organize my thoughts on the matter. But before I delve into the meat of the topic, I should make some very important disclaimers: I do not dismiss Protestants (or members of any other faith or lack thereof) as though they are unworthy of redemption, salvation, or propriety; I do not think ill of the Protestant tradition or faiths; and, finally, I am aware that, in this regard, I am a bigot towards Protestants. I do not shy from this label; but I am aware of the issues it raises both for my faithful expression of Christianity and for my relationships with individual Protestants. I confess but repentance is something that comes hard for me. It's a weakness.

This weakness is the purpose of this thread: I hope that someone will finally be able to argue me out of this stubborn refusal to acknowledge Protestant traditions as part of Christianity. In order to do this, however, I must lay out precisely why it is that I believe that Protestantism is not Christianity.

So let me be very clear: this is not a topic attacking the character or individual traits of any particular Protestant or Protestant denomination. Such things do not, necessarily, a Christian make or unmake. You are not Christian because you're a "good" person. You are not Christian because you "believe" that Christ exists/existed. Therefore, merely being a "good" Lutheran or a "good" Presbyterian is not a justifiable reason to proclaim oneself a Christian. No one would say that a "good" atheist counts as a Christian, would they? Why not? Because the atheist, in being labelled atheist, is merely expressing their faith/lack of faith. To say that the atheists of the world "are not Christian" is no more an insult than saying they "are not firetrucks." They simply aren't. And saying this, in no way, is a reflection of their individual character or the value of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. So, too, is the statement that Protestants are not Christian.

I'm not saying that Protestants are going to hell. I'm saying that Protestants aren't firetrucks. I'm saying that firetrucks aren't Christian.

A Protestant is, in large part, an individual who rejects the authority of Apostolic Succession, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Holy Tradition that so defines the history of Christianity. My argument is not, necessarily, that the Protestant is not Christian because of theological and doctrinal conflicts but, rather, that the Protestant is not Christian because the Protestant, by definition rejects basic historical fact concerning the Church, issues of theology and science, and social milieus and outlooks.

How many critics of fundamentalist nutbags stand in awe of just how disconnected from reality they seem? From my perspective, I see the same thing with all Protestants - however wonderful and beautiful they may be, to say they are Christian is to deny reality. Not that all Protestants are fundamentalist nutbags, mind you. It's just that they're doing themselves and Christians the world over a great disservice to say, "I'm a Christian but that Pope guy? Fuck him. Also? Fuck Mary. And Icons. And Peter. And anything looking like 'tradition'. Fuck it all."

The reality is that that "Pope guy" is a very real authority. As are all Bishops. As is the Church - that physical entity that safeguarded the scriptures for centuries until consensus could be found on just which scriptures were to be relevant to the message of Christ. Jesus didn't burst from His mothers womb with a complete Bible in hand and thump it from the corner at every passing stranger. The Bible didn't exist. For nearly a thousand years the Bible did not exist as we know it. In fact, the Bible that Protestants use is not the Christian Bible at all. It's different. As different as the Satanic Bible is from the Koran. Sure there are books and characters within that can be found in other holy books and traditions but, the fact remains, changing the message of the scripture by removing entire books and inconvenient verses changes the thing utterly.

Would we argue that the cliffs notes version of Romeo and Juliet is the same thing as the actual script for the play?

What I'm saying is that only those who profess the one universal Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) are members of the Church of Christ. Only those individuals can legitimately bear the title of Christian.

With the exception of Anglo-Catholicism (which started as a political dispute between England and Rome), Protestantism was a rebellion against Christian theology and biblical history 1500 years old at the time. The Protestant rejects Peter and the other Apostles but accepts Christ. How can one be a Christian by doing this? A Protestant, therefore, is no mere schismatic - they are a heretic. They are as much a heretic against Christianity as the Christian is a heretic against Judaism.

But, of course, I'm failing to justify this argument in the only rhetoric a Protestant will understand. No matter how logical and verbose I make myself, the Protestant is a sola scripturist. The Protestant believes that "if the Bible says it, it's true." So what do I do? Which Bible do I use? Of course my Bible will justify my argument. So how about the Protestant Bible?

He who hears you [Peter] hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).

If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal 1: 9).

These three verses seem to be very clear. If even the Protestant Bible argues in favor of the collegiate of Bishops that typifies Christianity, then what is the Christian to do? How should we react to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity? How do we respond to someone who denies the authority of the Chair of Peter (although the Orthodox remain in schism with Rome, we do not deny the authority of the Pope - we merely point out that his authority does not extend over other bishops and patriarchs)?

By rejecting that assertion.

So, if I am saying that the Protestant is not Christian, then how do I treat Protestants?

With respect. The same way I treat the democratist and the homophobe - respectfully. I'm not a dick. I am a bigot. A Protestant is not a Christian.

Can you dissuade me? I hope so. Because this perspective puts me at odds with a large swath of both Orthodox and Catholic believers. The Orthodox Church teaches that Protestants are heretical Christians. To my mind, a heretical Christian is not a Christian. They are a heretic. This is a failing of mine, I'm sure of it. It's a good thing Jesus forgives me - because I don't. Maybe that's my ego refusing to step aside? I don't know. I can only hope that someone can figure out a way to break through my stubbornness and convince me that Protestantism is a part of Christianity. Until you can though, I'm convinced that a firetruck better fits the definition.

Anglicans are schismatics and are, therefore, not in good standing when it comes to Apostolic succession. In addition, the consecration of their first Archbishop, on whom their whole claim of Apostolic succession depends, is not known to have been done validly by a consecrator or even done by a consecrated consecrator. So, their claim to Apostolic succession is, at best, dubious, and, in light of their reasons for breaking off initially (that is, the political and selfish reasons of King Henry VII), I wouldn't believe anything they claim when it comes to that.

You are absolutely right. A Protestant is no mere schismatic - he is a heretic.

However, I do not agree with the idea that Christians are Jewish heretics. We can't be if what we say is true (i.e., that Jesus is the true Messiah.) After all, our claim that Jesus is the Messiah comes from Judaism; we didn't simply make it up. So, yes, we came from Judaism, but we are not, by that alone, heretics. Our belief is consistent with Judaism, it's just some Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. They think someone else is. We are orthodox in that sense. We haven't done anything contrary to it. And if you look at "heretic" as what is held in general, then Christians, again, are not heretics because we are the world's largest religion, so, numerically, we're also not heretics. (Although, that definition of heretic is improper.)

In regard to your questions, Protestants should convert, and others should recognize Protestants as heretics. As to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity, deny it as the fundamental mistake it is. For those who deny the authority of the Pope, you declare them schismatic, persuade them to convert back and pray for them.

A heretic is not a Christian (at least, I don't think so). They are like apostates. The only difference is one believes, and the other doesn't, but neither are Christians.

[Kiruri]

I couldn't adhere to anything that's not in the bible.

Why not? For a couple of decades after the Resurrection, at least, the Gospels were not yet written. So the earliest Christians did in fact adhere to a lot of stuff that wasn't (yet) in the Bible, because all they had was the Old Testament.

Saint Paul mentions in his first epistle to the Corinthians that some Christians had already died. Those words were written before the Gospels. So, some early Christians died before ever reading the Gospels.

Sure, they didn't have the bible we have today. Heck, before Moses, what did they have? What about before the Prophets? The same could be said for every book of the bible. What they did have was the Prophets right then and there (for those who lived in that period) or the Apostles or Christ or whoever else. It's not like they really needed a complete Bible.

However... what do we have today? Do we have prophets, our own live jesus or our own moses? We have the bible, though.

[Nation of God1]

I hate to be seen as rude, but this answer can literally be searched for on the internet. In fact I would encourage you to, as there are far more eloquent people out there than this neophyte.

For instance;
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession
http://scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Both claim scripture.

I could also look at sources which contradict those and make it clear there's no scriptural basis for apostolic succession. In which case, I guess it's up to me to research and then decide what to believe.

Research, and Rationalism. Those things will lead to God, but when?

The atheist are caught in circles looking for answers, those they have not, and will not, until the lord comes.

The Christians must stand united, get rid of theological decisions and unite. But when, and how?

God must make us join together to expel heresy, and do what the Lord wills. We will not find the true church in this generation, it is hidden from us.

Research will do nothing but dissolve your faith, and make one hunting in circles.

Man is fallible, and so are his ideas.

Research does no good. The internet does even worse.

[Sebastianbourg]

Where in Scripture does it say that God calls all of us through Christ to only a single path? On the contrary; in his Epistles to the Corinthians, Paul stresses the need for Christians of differing views to treat each other with compassion and respect, since one is not baptized to Paul or to Cephas, but only to Christ.

I am baptized to Christ. You are baptized to Christ. We belong to different denominations, and we probably have wildly differing views. But is it really so unbelievable that God drew us both - predestined, called, justified, and glorified - each to our own distinct path? You feel the presence of God in my church, I feel the presence of God in mine. Surely, surely, God wills it so.

My Calvinist friend, the problem with claiming that everything is predestined and that God is responsible for guiding people's lives... is that if you go down that path you end up calling God responsible for all the evil in the world, too.

We are not merely pawns in God's hands. God calls to us, but we move ourselves.

Exactly, claiming we are predestined to a certain path rejects the concept of free will that prevents believers from accusing the deity(s) they believe in of being responsible for all their faux pas and erroneous decisions.

[Benuty]

Hi there!

I am Distruzio, NSG's resident American Royalist (former anarcho-capitalist/anarcho-monarchist) and libertarian monarchist (although paleomonarchist would be more accurate). I am also an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

For those of you unfamiliar, the Orthodox Church along with the Latin/Roman (Catholic), Oriental Orthodox, and Anglo- Catholic Churches (although this is hotly contested, I admit that this particularity is my own perspective and should not be considered the universal position of all the Eastern, Oriental, Latin/Roman, or even the Anglo-Catholics*), can show, through Apostolic Succession, inheritance of the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon the Disciples by the Apostles - who, in turn, received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ. In other words, it was the Orthodox, and those previously mentioned, who wrote the New Testament (all authors of the individual books within the NT were Orthodox/Catholic priests and bishops) and compiled/cannonized the Bible into the book we all know today. It was us who handed down the Creed and established what a Christian is to believe and how a Christian is to believe in order to avoid heresy against the Faith and Word.

*'Anglo-Catholic' is the term I will here be using to describe those Christians within both the Anglican Communion and within the Continuing Anglican Tradition

We - those mentioned above - are not, however, sola scripturists.

Many Christians consider the Protestants mere schismatics - not necessarily heretics. I however, struggle to maintain even this modicum of neutrality on the status of Protestantism and Christianity and I, quite often, give in to the temptation to label Protestants, by and large, idolators. More specifically, bibliolators - worshippers of the Bible. They, in my opinion, deny the authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit - they deny God and supplant him with themselves.

This thread will be my attempt to explain this position in order to both avoid future threadjacks and better organize my thoughts on the matter. But before I delve into the meat of the topic, I should make some very important disclaimers: I do not dismiss Protestants (or members of any other faith or lack thereof) as though they are unworthy of redemption, salvation, or propriety; I do not think ill of the Protestant tradition or faiths; and, finally, I am aware that, in this regard, I am a bigot towards Protestants. I do not shy from this label; but I am aware of the issues it raises both for my faithful expression of Christianity and for my relationships with individual Protestants. I confess but repentance is something that comes hard for me. It's a weakness.

This weakness is the purpose of this thread: I hope that someone will finally be able to argue me out of this stubborn refusal to acknowledge Protestant traditions as part of Christianity. In order to do this, however, I must lay out precisely why it is that I believe that Protestantism is not Christianity.

So let me be very clear: this is not a topic attacking the character or individual traits of any particular Protestant or Protestant denomination. Such things do not, necessarily, a Christian make or unmake. You are not Christian because you're a "good" person. You are not Christian because you "believe" that Christ exists/existed. Therefore, merely being a "good" Lutheran or a "good" Presbyterian is not a justifiable reason to proclaim oneself a Christian. No one would say that a "good" atheist counts as a Christian, would they? Why not? Because the atheist, in being labelled atheist, is merely expressing their faith/lack of faith. To say that the atheists of the world "are not Christian" is no more an insult than saying they "are not firetrucks." They simply aren't. And saying this, in no way, is a reflection of their individual character or the value of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. So, too, is the statement that Protestants are not Christian.

I'm not saying that Protestants are going to hell. I'm saying that Protestants aren't firetrucks. I'm saying that firetrucks aren't Christian.

A Protestant is, in large part, an individual who rejects the authority of Apostolic Succession, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Holy Tradition that so defines the history of Christianity. My argument is not, necessarily, that the Protestant is not Christian because of theological and doctrinal conflicts but, rather, that the Protestant is not Christian because the Protestant, by definition rejects basic historical fact concerning the Church, issues of theology and science, and social milieus and outlooks.

How many critics of fundamentalist nutbags stand in awe of just how disconnected from reality they seem? From my perspective, I see the same thing with all Protestants - however wonderful and beautiful they may be, to say they are Christian is to deny reality. Not that all Protestants are fundamentalist nutbags, mind you. It's just that they're doing themselves and Christians the world over a great disservice to say, "I'm a Christian but that Pope guy? Fuck him. Also? Fuck Mary. And Icons. And Peter. And anything looking like 'tradition'. Fuck it all."

The reality is that that "Pope guy" is a very real authority. As are all Bishops. As is the Church - that physical entity that safeguarded the scriptures for centuries until consensus could be found on just which scriptures were to be relevant to the message of Christ. Jesus didn't burst from His mothers womb with a complete Bible in hand and thump it from the corner at every passing stranger. The Bible didn't exist. For nearly a thousand years the Bible did not exist as we know it. In fact, the Bible that Protestants use is not the Christian Bible at all. It's different. As different as the Satanic Bible is from the Koran. Sure there are books and characters within that can be found in other holy books and traditions but, the fact remains, changing the message of the scripture by removing entire books and inconvenient verses changes the thing utterly.

Would we argue that the cliffs notes version of Romeo and Juliet is the same thing as the actual script for the play?

What I'm saying is that only those who profess the one universal Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) are members of the Church of Christ. Only those individuals can legitimately bear the title of Christian.

With the exception of Anglo-Catholicism (which started as a political dispute between England and Rome), Protestantism was a rebellion against Christian theology and biblical history 1500 years old at the time. The Protestant rejects Peter and the other Apostles but accepts Christ. How can one be a Christian by doing this? A Protestant, therefore, is no mere schismatic - they are a heretic. They are as much a heretic against Christianity as the Christian is a heretic against Judaism.

But, of course, I'm failing to justify this argument in the only rhetoric a Protestant will understand. No matter how logical and verbose I make myself, the Protestant is a sola scripturist. The Protestant believes that "if the Bible says it, it's true." So what do I do? Which Bible do I use? Of course my Bible will justify my argument. So how about the Protestant Bible?

He who hears you [Peter] hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).

If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal 1: 9).

These three verses seem to be very clear. If even the Protestant Bible argues in favor of the collegiate of Bishops that typifies Christianity, then what is the Christian to do? How should we react to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity? How do we respond to someone who denies the authority of the Chair of Peter (although the Orthodox remain in schism with Rome, we do not deny the authority of the Pope - we merely point out that his authority does not extend over other bishops and patriarchs)?

By rejecting that assertion.

So, if I am saying that the Protestant is not Christian, then how do I treat Protestants?

With respect. The same way I treat the democratist and the homophobe - respectfully. I'm not a dick. I am a bigot. A Protestant is not a Christian.

Can you dissuade me? I hope so. Because this perspective puts me at odds with a large swath of both Orthodox and Catholic believers. The Orthodox Church teaches that Protestants are heretical Christians. To my mind, a heretical Christian is not a Christian. They are a heretic. This is a failing of mine, I'm sure of it. It's a good thing Jesus forgives me - because I don't. Maybe that's my ego refusing to step aside? I don't know. I can only hope that someone can figure out a way to break through my stubbornness and convince me that Protestantism is a part of Christianity. Until you can though, I'm convinced that a firetruck better fits the definition.

Anglicans are schismatics and are, therefore, not in good standing when it comes to Apostolic succession. In addition, the consecration of their first Archbishop, on whom their whole claim of Apostolic succession depends, is not known to have been done validly by a consecrator or even done by a consecrated consecrator. So, their claim to Apostolic succession is, at best, dubious, and, in light of their reasons for breaking off initially (that is, the political and selfish reasons of King Henry VII), I wouldn't believe anything they claim when it comes to that.

You are absolutely right. A Protestant is no mere schismatic - he is a heretic.

However, I do not agree with the idea that Christians are Jewish heretics. We can't be if what we say is true (i.e., that Jesus is the true Messiah.) After all, our claim that Jesus is the Messiah comes from Judaism; we didn't simply make it up. So, yes, we came from Judaism, but we are not, by that alone, heretics. Our belief is consistent with Judaism, it's just some Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. They think someone else is. We are orthodox in that sense. We haven't done anything contrary to it. And if you look at "heretic" as what is held in general, then Christians, again, are not heretics because we are the world's largest religion, so, numerically, we're also not heretics. (Although, that definition of heretic is improper.)

In regard to your questions, Protestants should convert, and others should recognize Protestants as heretics. As to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity, deny it as the fundamental mistake it is. For those who deny the authority of the Pope, you declare them schismatic, persuade them to convert back and pray for them.

A heretic is not a Christian (at least, I don't think so). They are like apostates. The only difference is one believes, and the other doesn't, but neither are Christians.

I would hardly call it consistent especially with the idea of God, and the prophecies of the Moshiach (messiah) being the biggest issue. On top of it the idea of separation of scriptures is a clearly Marcionist tendency. Some Jews? try the majority of religious ones.

[Reverend Norv]

I don't know. But there are a lot of things that I don't know. There are a lot of things that all of us don't know. As I quoted before, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah, 55:8-9)

Or as the Book of Job puts it: "Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?...Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding....Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all....Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart? Who can number the clouds in wisdom?"

God does God's work for God's own reasons. I cannot say how the foundations of the Earth were laid, or what exactly lies beyond the gates of death; nor can I number the clouds in wisdom. Nor can I say why God calls different people to such different churches. No one can; those answers belong to God alone. But faith, in my view, is not about the answers. It is about love: love of God for us, and the love that God's love inspires in us in return. It is about our relationship with God, a connection that links us to the body of the faithful and the whole world that God has made. That relationship may not give us the answers, but at least it can teach us to ask the right questions.

But there are some things we do know. It's not like God's a complete mystery. For one, he's a God of order. Having lots of churches that often differ on various subject and sometimes contradict one another doesn't seem very orderly.

God is also a God of love. But he tortured Job for years, taking away everything that mattered to Job. And when Job turned to God and said: "If you are loving, and just, then how could you treat me like this?", then God said: "Who are you to pass judgment upon my actions?"

The moral of the story is that there are lots of things in the world that seem inconsistent with what we know - or think we know - about God. For most of them, just like Job, we will never get an explanation. And so, as I see it, you can do one of three things.

First, you can decide that God's seeming inconsistency represents evidence of God's nonexistence, and become an atheist.

Second, you can decide that God's seeming inconsistency represents evidence that God does not call each of us to our own path - in which case you disagree with me, which is fine, but you also have some hard thinking to do when it comes to big sections of the Epistle to the Romans.

Finally, you can say - like Job - "I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not." In other words, God's rationale is beyond human ken, and what seems to be inconsistency is really just something too wonderful for us, which we know not.

This is what I believe. This is why I believe that God can call us to many paths. It follows that what you believe, naturally, is up to God - and the path to which He is calling you.

[Nation of God1]

Hi there!

I am Distruzio, NSG's resident American Royalist (former anarcho-capitalist/anarcho-monarchist) and libertarian monarchist (although paleomonarchist would be more accurate). I am also an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

For those of you unfamiliar, the Orthodox Church along with the Latin/Roman (Catholic), Oriental Orthodox, and Anglo- Catholic Churches (although this is hotly contested, I admit that this particularity is my own perspective and should not be considered the universal position of all the Eastern, Oriental, Latin/Roman, or even the Anglo-Catholics*), can show, through Apostolic Succession, inheritance of the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon the Disciples by the Apostles - who, in turn, received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ. In other words, it was the Orthodox, and those previously mentioned, who wrote the New Testament (all authors of the individual books within the NT were Orthodox/Catholic priests and bishops) and compiled/cannonized the Bible into the book we all know today. It was us who handed down the Creed and established what a Christian is to believe and how a Christian is to believe in order to avoid heresy against the Faith and Word.

*'Anglo-Catholic' is the term I will here be using to describe those Christians within both the Anglican Communion and within the Continuing Anglican Tradition

We - those mentioned above - are not, however, sola scripturists.

Many Christians consider the Protestants mere schismatics - not necessarily heretics. I however, struggle to maintain even this modicum of neutrality on the status of Protestantism and Christianity and I, quite often, give in to the temptation to label Protestants, by and large, idolators. More specifically, bibliolators - worshippers of the Bible. They, in my opinion, deny the authority of Christ and the Holy Spirit - they deny God and supplant him with themselves.

This thread will be my attempt to explain this position in order to both avoid future threadjacks and better organize my thoughts on the matter. But before I delve into the meat of the topic, I should make some very important disclaimers: I do not dismiss Protestants (or members of any other faith or lack thereof) as though they are unworthy of redemption, salvation, or propriety; I do not think ill of the Protestant tradition or faiths; and, finally, I am aware that, in this regard, I am a bigot towards Protestants. I do not shy from this label; but I am aware of the issues it raises both for my faithful expression of Christianity and for my relationships with individual Protestants. I confess but repentance is something that comes hard for me. It's a weakness.

This weakness is the purpose of this thread: I hope that someone will finally be able to argue me out of this stubborn refusal to acknowledge Protestant traditions as part of Christianity. In order to do this, however, I must lay out precisely why it is that I believe that Protestantism is not Christianity.

So let me be very clear: this is not a topic attacking the character or individual traits of any particular Protestant or Protestant denomination. Such things do not, necessarily, a Christian make or unmake. You are not Christian because you're a "good" person. You are not Christian because you "believe" that Christ exists/existed. Therefore, merely being a "good" Lutheran or a "good" Presbyterian is not a justifiable reason to proclaim oneself a Christian. No one would say that a "good" atheist counts as a Christian, would they? Why not? Because the atheist, in being labelled atheist, is merely expressing their faith/lack of faith. To say that the atheists of the world "are not Christian" is no more an insult than saying they "are not firetrucks." They simply aren't. And saying this, in no way, is a reflection of their individual character or the value of their beliefs or lack of beliefs. So, too, is the statement that Protestants are not Christian.

I'm not saying that Protestants are going to hell. I'm saying that Protestants aren't firetrucks. I'm saying that firetrucks aren't Christian.

A Protestant is, in large part, an individual who rejects the authority of Apostolic Succession, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Holy Tradition that so defines the history of Christianity. My argument is not, necessarily, that the Protestant is not Christian because of theological and doctrinal conflicts but, rather, that the Protestant is not Christian because the Protestant, by definition rejects basic historical fact concerning the Church, issues of theology and science, and social milieus and outlooks.

How many critics of fundamentalist nutbags stand in awe of just how disconnected from reality they seem? From my perspective, I see the same thing with all Protestants - however wonderful and beautiful they may be, to say they are Christian is to deny reality. Not that all Protestants are fundamentalist nutbags, mind you. It's just that they're doing themselves and Christians the world over a great disservice to say, "I'm a Christian but that Pope guy? Fuck him. Also? Fuck Mary. And Icons. And Peter. And anything looking like 'tradition'. Fuck it all."

The reality is that that "Pope guy" is a very real authority. As are all Bishops. As is the Church - that physical entity that safeguarded the scriptures for centuries until consensus could be found on just which scriptures were to be relevant to the message of Christ. Jesus didn't burst from His mothers womb with a complete Bible in hand and thump it from the corner at every passing stranger. The Bible didn't exist. For nearly a thousand years the Bible did not exist as we know it. In fact, the Bible that Protestants use is not the Christian Bible at all. It's different. As different as the Satanic Bible is from the Koran. Sure there are books and characters within that can be found in other holy books and traditions but, the fact remains, changing the message of the scripture by removing entire books and inconvenient verses changes the thing utterly.

Would we argue that the cliffs notes version of Romeo and Juliet is the same thing as the actual script for the play?

What I'm saying is that only those who profess the one universal Faith and are united with the Mystical Body of Christ (the Church) are members of the Church of Christ. Only those individuals can legitimately bear the title of Christian.

With the exception of Anglo-Catholicism (which started as a political dispute between England and Rome), Protestantism was a rebellion against Christian theology and biblical history 1500 years old at the time. The Protestant rejects Peter and the other Apostles but accepts Christ. How can one be a Christian by doing this? A Protestant, therefore, is no mere schismatic - they are a heretic. They are as much a heretic against Christianity as the Christian is a heretic against Judaism.

But, of course, I'm failing to justify this argument in the only rhetoric a Protestant will understand. No matter how logical and verbose I make myself, the Protestant is a sola scripturist. The Protestant believes that "if the Bible says it, it's true." So what do I do? Which Bible do I use? Of course my Bible will justify my argument. So how about the Protestant Bible?

He who hears you [Peter] hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me (Lk 10:16).

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19).

If any man preaches any other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed (Gal 1: 9).

These three verses seem to be very clear. If even the Protestant Bible argues in favor of the collegiate of Bishops that typifies Christianity, then what is the Christian to do? How should we react to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity? How do we respond to someone who denies the authority of the Chair of Peter (although the Orthodox remain in schism with Rome, we do not deny the authority of the Pope - we merely point out that his authority does not extend over other bishops and patriarchs)?

By rejecting that assertion.

So, if I am saying that the Protestant is not Christian, then how do I treat Protestants?

With respect. The same way I treat the democratist and the homophobe - respectfully. I'm not a dick. I am a bigot. A Protestant is not a Christian.

Can you dissuade me? I hope so. Because this perspective puts me at odds with a large swath of both Orthodox and Catholic believers. The Orthodox Church teaches that Protestants are heretical Christians. To my mind, a heretical Christian is not a Christian. They are a heretic. This is a failing of mine, I'm sure of it. It's a good thing Jesus forgives me - because I don't. Maybe that's my ego refusing to step aside? I don't know. I can only hope that someone can figure out a way to break through my stubbornness and convince me that Protestantism is a part of Christianity. Until you can though, I'm convinced that a firetruck better fits the definition.

Anglicans are schismatics and are, therefore, not in good standing when it comes to Apostolic succession. In addition, the consecration of their first Archbishop, on whom their whole claim of Apostolic succession depends, is not known to have been done validly by a consecrator or even done by a consecrated consecrator. So, their claim to Apostolic succession is, at best, dubious, and, in light of their reasons for breaking off initially (that is, the political and selfish reasons of King Henry VII), I wouldn't believe anything they claim when it comes to that.

You are absolutely right. A Protestant is no mere schismatic - he is a heretic.

However, I do not agree with the idea that Christians are Jewish heretics. We can't be if what we say is true (i.e., that Jesus is the true Messiah.) After all, our claim that Jesus is the Messiah comes from Judaism; we didn't simply make it up. So, yes, we came from Judaism, but we are not, by that alone, heretics. Our belief is consistent with Judaism, it's just some Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. They think someone else is. We are orthodox in that sense. We haven't done anything contrary to it. And if you look at "heretic" as what is held in general, then Christians, again, are not heretics because we are the world's largest religion, so, numerically, we're also not heretics. (Although, that definition of heretic is improper.)

In regard to your questions, Protestants should convert, and others should recognize Protestants as heretics. As to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity, deny it as the fundamental mistake it is. For those who deny the authority of the Pope, you declare them schismatic, persuade them to convert back and pray for them.

A heretic is not a Christian (at least, I don't think so). They are like apostates. The only difference is one believes, and the other doesn't, but neither are Christians.

This is what makes me believe that Catholicism, must be the truth.

[Reverend Norv]

My Calvinist friend, the problem with claiming that everything is predestined and that God is responsible for guiding people's lives... is that if you go down that path you end up calling God responsible for all the evil in the world, too.

We are not merely pawns in God's hands. God calls to us, but we move ourselves.

Exactly, claiming we are predestined to a certain path rejects the concept of free will that prevents believers from accusing the deity(s) they believe in of being responsible for all their faux pas and erroneous decisions.

I disagree. And I would suggest, in the simplest terms, that we are not qualified to distinguish what is good from what is evil in the eyes of God - merely what is good and evil for us. As Augustine wrote, the sun may shine upon a piece of meat and cause it to stink, but we do not on that account say that the sun stinks as well.

Nonetheless, the problem of evil is surely a discussion for another thread. But suffice to say that I recognize your concern, and that I have struggled with it - and continue to struggle with it - myself. I just happen not to believe that it invalidates my theology, that's all.

[Bari]

Anglicans are schismatics and are, therefore, not in good standing when it comes to Apostolic succession. In addition, the consecration of their first Archbishop, on whom their whole claim of Apostolic succession depends, is not known to have been done validly by a consecrator or even done by a consecrated consecrator. So, their claim to Apostolic succession is, at best, dubious, and, in light of their reasons for breaking off initially (that is, the political and selfish reasons of King Henry VII), I wouldn't believe anything they claim when it comes to that.

You are absolutely right. A Protestant is no mere schismatic - he is a heretic.

However, I do not agree with the idea that Christians are Jewish heretics. We can't be if what we say is true (i.e., that Jesus is the true Messiah.) After all, our claim that Jesus is the Messiah comes from Judaism; we didn't simply make it up. So, yes, we came from Judaism, but we are not, by that alone, heretics. Our belief is consistent with Judaism, it's just some Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. They think someone else is. We are orthodox in that sense. We haven't done anything contrary to it. And if you look at "heretic" as what is held in general, then Christians, again, are not heretics because we are the world's largest religion, so, numerically, we're also not heretics. (Although, that definition of heretic is improper.)

In regard to your questions, Protestants should convert, and others should recognize Protestants as heretics. As to the assertion that Protestantism is Christianity, deny it as the fundamental mistake it is. For those who deny the authority of the Pope, you declare them schismatic, persuade them to convert back and pray for them.

A heretic is not a Christian (at least, I don't think so). They are like apostates. The only difference is one believes, and the other doesn't, but neither are Christians.

I would hardly call it consistent especially with the idea of God, and the prophecies of the Moshiach (messiah) being the biggest issue. On top of it the idea of separation of scriptures is a clearly Marcionist tendency. Some Jews? try the majority of religious ones.

This isn't really relevant tot he topic. I only posted that as an obiter dictum.

[Benuty]

I would hardly call it consistent especially with the idea of God, and the prophecies of the Moshiach (messiah) being the biggest issue. On top of it the idea of separation of scriptures is a clearly Marcionist tendency. Some Jews? try the majority of religious ones.

This isn't really relevant tot he topic. I only posted that as an obiter dictum.

It is quite relevant on the topic especially because it is inevitable.

[Nation of God1]

The catholic papers, history is authentic, and kept well for thousands of years. They have even found the books of the bible and compiled it.

But when I think of venerance and catholic tradition of reverence, I am very worried that if a catholic is uneducated in there own beliefs, they may mistakenly worship images.

Matthew 15 speaks of something similar.

If tradition overrules law, then we may disobey God's laws for our tradition.

[The Orson Empire]

My Calvinist friend, the problem with claiming that everything is predestined and that God is responsible for guiding people's lives... is that if you go down that path you end up calling God responsible for all the evil in the world, too.

We are not merely pawns in God's hands. God calls to us, but we move ourselves.

Exactly, claiming we are predestined to a certain path rejects the concept of free will that prevents believers from accusing the deity(s) they believe in of being responsible for all their faux pas and erroneous decisions.

If God truly knows everything, then He would already know who is going to Heaven and who is going to Hell. Otherwise, God does not know everything.

[Sebastianbourg]

I could also look at sources which contradict those and make it clear there's no scriptural basis for apostolic succession. In which case, I guess it's up to me to research and then decide what to believe.

Research, and Rationalism. Those things will lead to God, but when?

The atheist are caught in circles looking for answers, those they have not, and will not, until the lord comes.

The Christians must stand united, get rid of theological decisions and unite. But when, and how?

God must make us join together to expel heresy, and do what the Lord wills. We will not find the true church in this generation, it is hidden from us.

Research will do nothing but dissolve your faith, and make one hunting in circles.

Man is fallible, and so are his ideas.

Research does no good. The internet does even worse.

I respect your ideas and beliefs but under what grounds do you claims research will do us no good? What do you claim to be research (it could be theological/philosophical research or research in the natural sciences)? Also, some atheists happen to be apatheists; atheists who don't believe in a supreme being nor care.