Protestants Q&A

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
As almost every protestant religion I’m aware of teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus and is only available to Christians, how do you reconcile this with people of the world who are never exposed to Christianity?

In other words, Jesus is pure love. Pure love does not include unjustly sending someone to hell. Jesus exists outside of time. There are some individuals who will never be exposed to Christianity because of remote locals, political barriers, etc. Because Jesus is outside of time, he knows upon a person’s birth whether they will come into contact with Christianity. If you can only be saved through Christianity, Jesus, by allowing the person to be born, would be condemning them to hell. This would violate the first premise that Jesus is pure love. Thus, either Jesus is not pure love or you can go to Heaven without being a Christian. [/quote]

I’m not God. He judges mankind not me. I nor any other Christian determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Some people have never or will never hear of Christ. God knows each person’s situation and can deal with that with his justice.[/quote]

I agree. But most protestant religions don’t teach this. They teach that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior [b]during your life[/b].[/quote]

You do have to accept Jesus and be faithful in your life to eligible for any atonement to be available after death.

42

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I prefer Hugenots…[/quote]

French swine[/quote]

Papist heretic!

[/quote]

Hahahaha!

43

[quote]BBriere wrote:
<<< Trust me, I’ve read about EVERYTHNING Luther wrote or commented on including Theologica Germanica. Luther didn’t believe much in free will. John Calvin gets the credit for predestination, but Luther probably spread the idea to a much wider area. >>>[/quote]Where they differ I much prefer Calvin to Luther.

[quote]BBriere wrote:I guess to a degree, Luther had a point in predestination. He described mankind being like mules being led one way or the other with no say in the matter. >>>[/quote]Well he believed that the will was in bondage to the flesh and carnal nature until freed in regeneration. The new life. The will in essence does what it wants, but always wants evil.[quote]BBriere wrote:<<< Luther used a lot of foul language too. [/quote]“Foul language” was different then and had a different significance than simply cussing does today. At least sometimes it did.

44

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
As almost every protestant religion I’m aware of teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus and is only available to Christians, how do you reconcile this with people of the world who are never exposed to Christianity?

In other words, Jesus is pure love. Pure love does not include unjustly sending someone to hell. Jesus exists outside of time. There are some individuals who will never be exposed to Christianity because of remote locals, political barriers, etc. Because Jesus is outside of time, he knows upon a person’s birth whether they will come into contact with Christianity. If you can only be saved through Christianity, Jesus, by allowing the person to be born, would be condemning them to hell. This would violate the first premise that Jesus is pure love. Thus, either Jesus is not pure love or you can go to Heaven without being a Christian. [/quote]

I’m not God. He judges mankind not me. I nor any other Christian determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Some people have never or will never hear of Christ. God knows each person’s situation and can deal with that with his justice.[/quote]

I agree. But most protestant religions don’t teach this. They teach that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior [b]during your life[/b].[/quote]

You do have to accept Jesus and be faithful in your life to eligible for any atonement to be available after death. [/quote]

I disagree.

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Hey B.C:

Glad you started this thread :slight_smile:

I first wanted to point out that the Catholic Q & A thread was in debate format only because me (as the OP) learn best from debates. Its true!

Anyways…

Carmen San Diego…I mean…the invisible church, is actually visible and invisible. The church is simply all the believers who worship in Christ’s name. Of course, when I go to church, I can actually see the people Im conversing with and worshiping with.

The invisible part comes from the indwelling of the Spirit of God in every true believer. Not everybody has Christ in them, only the true believers do. We can’t see Christ’s spirit in us (actually Im referring to the Holy Spirit, not Christ per se), so the invisible church is the Spirit of God that dwells in his physical church.[/quote]

How am I supposed to find the invisible Church?[/quote]

You can’t. Only God knows who they are. And Tirib (once again) explained it better than I.

46

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
As almost every protestant religion I’m aware of teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus and is only available to Christians, how do you reconcile this with people of the world who are never exposed to Christianity?

In other words, Jesus is pure love. Pure love does not include unjustly sending someone to hell. Jesus exists outside of time. There are some individuals who will never be exposed to Christianity because of remote locals, political barriers, etc. Because Jesus is outside of time, he knows upon a person’s birth whether they will come into contact with Christianity. If you can only be saved through Christianity, Jesus, by allowing the person to be born, would be condemning them to hell. This would violate the first premise that Jesus is pure love. Thus, either Jesus is not pure love or you can go to Heaven without being a Christian. [/quote]

I’m not God. He judges mankind not me. I nor any other Christian determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Some people have never or will never hear of Christ. God knows each person’s situation and can deal with that with his justice.[/quote]

I agree. But most protestant religions don’t teach this. They teach that you can only be saved by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior [b]during your life[/b].[/quote]

You do have to accept Jesus and be faithful in your life to eligible for any atonement to be available after death. [/quote]

I disagree.[/quote]

That’s fine, but can you elaborate?

47

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
<<< I don’t know how much the term Invisible Church is used by Protestant denominations anymore. >>>[/quote]I don’t know how much ANY of the magnificent foundational truths of the reformation are embraced anymore. We are in an age where the philosophy of the world informs even the church. People wringing their hands in a pathetic whining refrain “ooooooohhhh, but God’s a Good and loving God!!!”. Of course God is a good and loving God. He’s good because HE IS GOD, not because He conforms to some tie dyed hippified notion of kissy faced feel good-ism.

HE IS IT folks. There is none higher. No standard by which He is adjudged holy or righteous or loving or merciful or good, NONE, above Himself exists. He swears by Himself (Hebrews 6) because by His own declaration there is none higher by which He must swear. He is the standard by which EV REE THING is measured. He moves upon the king of Assyria to attack Israel even though the king had no such plans and then judges him for doing it. (Isaiah 10). God says that if a prophet is deceived and utters falsehood in response to an inquiry from a seeker “it is I the Lord who has deceived that prophet and both the prophet and the seeker will be judged alike and destroyed from the midst of my people” (a very accurate paraphrase of Ezekiel 14).

When God sends Joshua to exterminate every man, woman, infant and animal in Canaan IT IS GOOD because it is God who is in command. When Paul says in Romans 9 that God has mercy on whom He pleases, damns who He pleases and that it does not depend on man who wills or works, he anticipates the objection right up front. “You will say to me then, why does He still find fault for who resists His will?” Paul ignores the question and responds by indignantly proclaiming “WHO ARE YOU O MAN WHO ANSWERS BACK TO GOD”?.

He rules and reigns in heaven and Earth. His dominion is from everlasting to everlasting and none can stay His hand or question what He does? (ask Nebuchadnezzar, even he got it in Daniel 4). THAT, my friend is the take home lesson from the reformation. Proverbs 16:33 “The lot is cast in the lap, but it’s every decision is from the Lord”. Casting lots was like rolling dice. A deliberately designed attempt to introduce ungoverned chance into the universe and even then God simply declares every decision to be His. It’s that God who saves the souls of men. It’s that God who swept His Spirit over this land in the great awakening that led to the founding of this once great nation and it is that God alone who can save it.
[/quote]

THIS philosophy is precisely what I find most repugnant and most threatening about religion, and it’s not exclusive to fundamentalist Christianity. You see it in extremist Islam as well.

Essentially, it allows people to commit ANY atrocity, and justify it in the name of God.

After all, if God wills it, the act is definitionally Good. All you need to do is claim that what you’re doing is the will of God, and you are scot-free.

Bash the heads of infants against the wall? No problem! God wills it, so it’s all Good. Believing this crap puts people on the same level as a Muslim terrorist.

48

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Doesn’t the Bible say something about not fighting over “small” stuff?

Why do you consider some of these things small, especially when they correlated to things Jesus said?

So a Church is not a church building? I thought it was a body of believers?[/quote]

Yes which is why I think most Christians should ignore minor differences over things like the age of baptism which is never clearly defined anyway. Jesus never mentioned anything about the gifts of the Holy Spirit dying out in the Apostolic Age like some say. He never said speaking in tongues was necessary or unnecessary. He also never gave dates as to when the events of the Revelation were to occur so you can debate whether many happened or will still happen. Ultimately, those things seem small.

I think practicing something like Jesus name only baptism or Oneness modalism is more significant. I wouldn’t advocate a church that did these.

I’m no theologian when it comes to the Invisible Church, but you have the visible Church which could be the actual church building, the physical body of believers (you can see them). Then you have the Invisible church which is the body of believers intangibles as in their faith in God. Comes from Matthew 7:21-24. [/quote]

Well we have all over the Bible commandments that would require you to identify someone of the Church, the Body of Christ. So, if it is invisible, these are not only useless commands, but likely harmful.

49

[quote]Fezzik wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
You have a few rare groups that I would consider totally out of line such as the United Pentecostal Church which believes in Oneness: God is not three separate persons but manifested himself in three separate ways so while he was Jesus he was not the Holy Spirit or the Father. There is the Church of Christ which teaches you can’t be saved unless you have been baptized into the Church of Christ. Other than that, I don’t think any Protestant groups are heretical to the point of spending eternity in hell.
[/quote]

Describing a protestant group as heretical seems like a misnomer based on the fact that there is no set beliefs among protestants. These people are heretics to whom?
[/quote]

Catholics.

[quote]
And considering baptism essential has been a debate among many protestant groups. The view is certainly not unique to the Churches of Christ. There are many autonomous Churches of Christ (congregations) that compose the Church of Christ (or simply the Church) which you join through baptism. It isn’t, however, a stipulation that you must be baptized or even worship at A Church of Christ to be a member. You just have to be a member of the Church in general to be saved.[/quote]

So to Protestants you just have to be a member of the Church?

50

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]McG78 wrote:
As almost every protestant religion I’m aware of teaches that salvation only comes through Jesus and is only available to Christians, how do you reconcile this with people of the world who are never exposed to Christianity?

In other words, Jesus is pure love. Pure love does not include unjustly sending someone to hell. Jesus exists outside of time. There are some individuals who will never be exposed to Christianity because of remote locals, political barriers, etc. Because Jesus is outside of time, he knows upon a person’s birth whether they will come into contact with Christianity. If you can only be saved through Christianity, Jesus, by allowing the person to be born, would be condemning them to hell. This would violate the first premise that Jesus is pure love. Thus, either Jesus is not pure love or you can go to Heaven without being a Christian. [/quote]

I’m not God. He judges mankind not me. I nor any other Christian determines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Some people have never or will never hear of Christ. God knows each person’s situation and can deal with that with his justice.[/quote]

Better watch out, Tirib is going to come after you, because you put into simple words Invincible ignorance.

51

[quote]forlife wrote:
There’s a 3rd option, which is that those who didn’t have the opportunity to accept Christ in this life will have the opportunity in the next life, before being judged.[/quote]

Next life…as on earth? We’re not Mormons. :wink:

52

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Essentially, it allows people to commit ANY atrocity, and justify it in the name of God. >>>[/quote]Have no fear bub. We are no longer under a theocratic earthly divine economy. God will never again send His people to expunge sin by conquest. That is a surefire sign of anti Christian deception. There are real lessons in those ancient accounts, but nobody in “my camp” believes in violence for the gospel. If it is violent it ain’t the gospel. The scriptures make that more than clear. I wouldn’t even own those westboro pharisees as brethren to say nothing of anybody promoting a gospel by force. I am on record as saying that forcing “Christian” laws on the heathen wouldn’t even do any real good. Point that thing somewhere else.

53

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The visible church is everybody claiming salvation in the Christ of the bible. The invisible church (mystical body of Christ) is comprised of the actually regenerate. Every last member of the invisible church goes to heaven. A rather disturbingly large percentage of the visible church will not. Individual church fellowships pretty much ALL consist of both. There is no church, denomination, local body etc. inhabited exclusively by the actually elect in Christ. Only God is ultimately certain which individuals make up the invisible church.[/quote]

So…they all teach something different, but claim the one faith…and they all have some members in the Invisible Church? And, when I need to call a Presbyter of this Church, how do I identify this Presbyter of the invisible Church?

54

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Essentially, it allows people to commit ANY atrocity, and justify it in the name of God. >>>[/quote]Have no fear bub. We are no longer under a theocratic earthly divine economy. God will never again send His people to expunge sin by conquest. That is a surefire sign of anti Christian deception. There are real lessons in those ancient accounts, but nobody in “my camp” believes in violence for the gospel. If it is violent it ain’t the gospel. The scriptures make that more than clear. I wouldn’t even own those westboro pharisees as brethren to say nothing of anybody promoting a gospel by force. I am on record as saying that forcing “Christian” laws on the heathen wouldn’t even do any real good. Point that thing somewhere else.

[/quote]

If God doesn’t change, why couldn’t He command infanticide today like He did in the good old days?

If the Holy Spirit were to guide you to kill an infant, would you do so?

That said, my concern extends beyond physical violence. That is an extreme example, but what about supporting anti-gay legislation? People do this guilt free because they believe God has condemned gays, so denying gays equal rights is all good. Or course, they typically don’t phrase it that way, but the end result is the same.

People can, and do, justify any harm to others in the name of religion. That is my main beef. If believers didn’t try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, I would have no issue with them.

55

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
<<< Essentially, it allows people to commit ANY atrocity, and justify it in the name of God. >>>[/quote]Have no fear bub. We are no longer under a theocratic earthly divine economy. God will never again send His people to expunge sin by conquest. That is a surefire sign of anti Christian deception. There are real lessons in those ancient accounts, but nobody in “my camp” believes in violence for the gospel. If it is violent it ain’t the gospel. The scriptures make that more than clear. I wouldn’t even own those westboro pharisees as brethren to say nothing of anybody promoting a gospel by force. I am on record as saying that forcing “Christian” laws on the heathen wouldn’t even do any real good. Point that thing somewhere else.

[/quote]

If God doesn’t change, why couldn’t He command infanticide today like He did in the good old days?

If the Holy Spirit were to guide you to kill an infant, would you do so?

That said, my concern extends beyond physical violence. That is an extreme example, but what about supporting anti-gay legislation? People do this guilt free because they believe God has condemned gays, so denying gays equal rights is all good. Or course, they typically don’t phrase it that way, but the end result is the same.

People can, and do, justify any harm to others in the name of religion. That is my main beef. If believers didn’t try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, I would have no issue with them. [/quote]

God’s nature doesn’t change. Divine revelation was needed for the scriptures to be written, otherwise how would we know the Word of God?

Since we have the complete Word of God, God no longer has a need to reveal any further actions/commands etc. Its all there in the Bible. If you take notice, whenever a divine event (i.e miracle) was no longer needed, it ceased. So divine revelation has ceased.

And let me ask you (respectfully, as I don’t know how my tone is coming across), but what rights do you feel gays are being kept from? Do you not have the right to vote, buy homes, own businesses, adopt children, eat and drink from the same restaurants and water fountains as heterosexuals?

56

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The visible church is everybody claiming salvation in the Christ of the bible. The invisible church (mystical body of Christ) is comprised of the actually regenerate. Every last member of the invisible church goes to heaven. A rather disturbingly large percentage of the visible church will not. Individual church fellowships pretty much ALL consist of both. There is no church, denomination, local body etc. inhabited exclusively by the actually elect in Christ. Only God is ultimately certain which individuals make up the invisible church.[/quote]So…they all teach something different, but claim the one faith…and they all have some members in the Invisible Church? And, when I need to call a Presbyter of this Church, how do I identify this Presbyter of the invisible Church?[/quote]Don’t play games with me Christopher. I could post 5 pages of division in the RCC. Maybe 10… or even 20. You have a visible and invisible ecclesiology as well whether you like it or not unless you’re claiming every RC in good standing will wind up in heaven. You do however have a great point about church government and it is one of the reasons I would really love for something like what the RCC claims to be to exist. I have wearied of typing the endless reasons why I cannot accept that.

Oh, yeah, where it really counts they, WE, are probably more united than your church. I could fill a small auditorium with Catholics I’ve personally met who’ve told me some version of “yeah well, I don’t really go along with all that stuff. All that really matters is you love God and do your best”. The papcy has no real authority to them at all. Go ahead and call your presbyter or bishop or cardinal. They’ll yawn and go back to whatever life they feel like living. Yes, I know what you’re going to say and to an extent you’re right. Individual members cannot be taken to represent doctrine and dogma. There is some truth to that. In fact there would be lots of truth to that if it wasn’t tens and maybe hundreds of millions of Catholics we’re talking about. Parishioners who have been trained by the permissive toothless morass of indecisive RCC theology to believe that in the end they can believe what they want. Oh I know the church doesn’t actually teach that in so many words, but that’s the message they’re getting and they’re getting it because the simplicity and purity of the gospel, that Paul warned us not to be led away from, is long lost under all that voluminous heap of tradition.

57

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< If God doesn’t change, why couldn’t He command infanticide today like He did in the good old days? >>>[/quote]Forbes did a pretty good job with this. God’s nature does not and has not changed. How He interacts with His creation has, but that was the plan from the beginning. All of OT history is a type, an earthly illustration if you will of all of Christ. The book of Hebrews is erupting with this. The weapons of our warfare are no longer carnal. Paul explicitly says this. That’s how I know if somebody said “God is calling me to blow up an abortion clinic” I know he is either deceived, lying or both.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< If the Holy Spirit were to guide you to kill an infant, would you do so? >>>[/quote]I just said I would know that could not be the Holy Spirit because the living Word will never EVER contradict His written Word. [quote]forlife wrote: That said, my concern extends beyond physical violence. That is an extreme example, but what about supporting anti-gay legislation? People do this guilt free because they believe God has condemned gays, so denying gays equal rights is all good. Or course, they typically don’t phrase it that way, but the end result is the same. >>>[/quote]I agree that this is how it is and how it should be. Homosexuality is a crime against the created order of God. I don’t believe He is calling us in the new covenant to stone them, but a society that actively supports what God condemns is not long for this world and we are witnessing that very thing as I type this. The very first institution brought to this world by God was a family consisting of one man and one women for life. That is His will. It went downhill quick after the fall and continues so in the world to this day. It has nothing to do with hatred or shouldn’t. It has everything to do with obedience. If I met you in real life I’d shake your hand and be genuinely pleased to meet you. You are no worse than I am. I would not however shrink from calling you to repentance.[quote]forlife wrote:<<< People can, and do, justify any harm to others in the name of religion. That is my main beef. If believers didn’t try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, I would have no issue with them. [/quote]What if it is you trying to legislate your beliefs on us? Go ahead and be gay. That’s ultimately between you and God, but I will not defy the Lord of the universe by calling that anything different than He does.

58

[quote]BBriere wrote:
John Calvin gets the credit for predestination, but Luther probably spread the idea to a much wider area.
[/quote]

Actually Thomas Aquinas gets the credit for Predestination, but not double-predestination as Calvin and Luther have it.

[quote]
Luther used a lot of foul language too. [/quote]

Because he used to be a Catholic, evil man for using such language…more like for heresy and schism. I don’t get the cuss words being bad and such. That’s not really an argument one way or another. I’ve heard plenty of holy and loving people use cuss words.

59

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Hey B.C:

Glad you started this thread :slight_smile:

I first wanted to point out that the Catholic Q & A thread was in debate format only because me (as the OP) learn best from debates. Its true!

Anyways…

Carmen San Diego…I mean…the invisible church, is actually visible and invisible. The church is simply all the believers who worship in Christ’s name. Of course, when I go to church, I can actually see the people Im conversing with and worshiping with.

The invisible part comes from the indwelling of the Spirit of God in every true believer. Not everybody has Christ in them, only the true believers do. We can’t see Christ’s spirit in us (actually Im referring to the Holy Spirit, not Christ per se), so the invisible church is the Spirit of God that dwells in his physical church.[/quote]

How am I supposed to find the invisible Church?[/quote]

You can’t. Only God knows who they are. And Tirib (once again) explained it better than I.[/quote]

Explain how I am supposed to follow James 5:14…if I can’t.

60

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The visible church is everybody claiming salvation in the Christ of the bible. The invisible church (mystical body of Christ) is comprised of the actually regenerate. Every last member of the invisible church goes to heaven. A rather disturbingly large percentage of the visible church will not. Individual church fellowships pretty much ALL consist of both. There is no church, denomination, local body etc. inhabited exclusively by the actually elect in Christ. Only God is ultimately certain which individuals make up the invisible church.[/quote]So…they all teach something different, but claim the one faith…and they all have some members in the Invisible Church? And, when I need to call a Presbyter of this Church, how do I identify this Presbyter of the invisible Church?[/quote]Don’t play games with me Christopher. I could post 5 pages of division in the RCC. Maybe 10… or even 20. You have a visible and invisible ecclesiology as well whether you like it or not unless you’re claiming every RC in good standing will wind up in heaven. You do however have a great point about church government and it is one of the reasons I would really love for something like what the RCC claims to be to exist. I have wearied of typing the endless reasons why I cannot accept that.

Oh, yeah, where it really counts they, WE, are probably more united than your church. I could fill a small auditorium with Catholics I’ve personally met who’ve told me some version of “yeah well, I don’t really go along with all that stuff. All that really matters is you love God and do your best”. The papcy has no real authority to them at all. Go ahead and call your presbyter or bishop or cardinal. They’ll yawn and go back to whatever life they feel like living. Yes, I know what you’re going to say and to an extent you’re right. Individual members cannot be taken to represent doctrine and dogma. There is some truth to that. In fact there would be lots of truth to that if it wasn’t tens and maybe hundreds of millions of Catholics we’re talking about. Parishioners who have been trained by the permissive toothless morass of indecisive RCC theology to believe that in the end they can believe what they want. Oh I know the church doesn’t actually teach that in so many words, but that’s the message they’re getting and they’re getting it because the simplicity and purity of the gospel, that Paul warned us not to be led away from, is long lost under all that voluminous heap of tradition.
[/quote]

So, what you’re saying is that because Judas was a treacherous man…we should leave Peter and Jesus?

I will admit the individuals members of the Catholic Church are some of the most corrupt people, scandalous, wretched, uninformed, non-catechized people in the world. It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Catholic Church stands strong today.

And TO EVERYONE…stop calling it the RCC, at no time has the Catholic Church used Roman Catholic Church as their title. It is a made up name by the Protestants during the 16th Century, and it is an insult to people’s traditions, heritage, and culture.