Why don't protestants convert more easily?

[Honour]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 6 2006, 05:34 AM']The Catholic Church's belief about divorce? If there is anything we can help you out with on this topic, please let us know. I'd be happy to send you a free tape or CD by Dr. Hahn on the indissolvability of marriage.
[right][snapback]904006[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry to sidetrack here (I forget to stay out of debate table), but I don't have a problem with the Catholic belief on the indissolvability of marriage. I have a problem with our cultures disobedience, and Protestant's go-with-the-flow mentality. I don't know what the current stats are on divorce rate in America, but it seems like a lot of potential converts would be facing some really tough decisions about marriage.
Now back to the topic.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 6 2006, 06:48 AM']It is why Protestants have 32,000 denominations. There are at least 32,000 different interpretations on scripture. [right][snapback]904008[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
While much of what you have said is very agreeable, I do disagree on this one part about 32,000 and 32,000. The number of different Protestant denominations is not merely matter of interpretation, but also a lack of institutional binding. There is not Protestant Rome to keep churches administratively united. Disagreemends as simple as what they chose to emphasize in there worship and service could cause a split among groups. Also, two churches teaching essentially the same theology could have developed separately.

I think the lack of important administrative unity that Rome brings is one reason why the part about the Pope is so hard for some Protestants to agree with.

Edited March 6, 2006 by Light and Truth

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Mar 6 2006, 08:39 AM'] Disagreemends as simple as what they chose to emphasize in there worship and service could cause a split among groups.  Also, two churches teaching essentially the same theology could have developed separately.[/quote]There is much truth to this for I saw our Church of Christ in town have a "schism" over a simple statement the pastor made. The splitters began to meet in the school cafeteria, so I know full well that the fellowship that many Protestants love only binds skin deep a lot of times.

That being said, the ones that schismed from the established Church of Christ did not form their own denomination. They simply started another CoC and got a different pator. I believe this would be true for most of those that split from other churches. They do not want to form their own denomination, but rather keep the same beliefs and get a different choir or pastor.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Mar 6 2006, 09:39 AM']While much of what you have said is very agreeable, I do disagree on this one part about 32,000 and 32,000.  The number of different Protestant denominations is not merely matter of interpretation, but also a lack of institutional binding.  There is not Protestant Rome to keep churches administratively united.  Disagreemends as simple as what they chose to emphasize in there worship and service could cause a split among groups.  Also, two churches teaching essentially the same theology could have developed separately.

I think the lack of important administrative unity that Rome brings is one reason why the part about the Pope is so hard for some Protestants to agree with.
[right][snapback]904034[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What you emphasis in worship very well hinges on an approach in theology. While I agree there are several denominations that are all similar on one wide spectrum, likely if you study each denominations constitution, there will be differences, even if they are minor ones.

And I agree it is a lack of institutional binding.

John 17:20-23 (NIV)
20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

John 16:13 (NIV)
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

God wants us to be one in truth and spirit as Jesus and the Father are one. United as the Trinity is united. I just don' t see how the Protestant faith can claim that kind of unity.

But I digress since this isn't the main point to the thread.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='Mar 6 2006, 08:39 AM']While much of what you have said is very agreeable, I do disagree on this one part about 32,000 and 32,000.  The number of different Protestant denominations is not merely matter of interpretation, but also a lack of institutional binding.  There is not Protestant Rome to keep churches administratively united.  Disagreemends as simple as what they chose to emphasize in there worship and service could cause a split among groups.  Also, two churches teaching essentially the same theology could have developed separately.

I think the lack of important administrative unity that Rome brings is one reason why the part about the Pope is so hard for some Protestants to agree with.
[right][snapback]904034[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Well actually while it is possible that two denominations with the same beliefs develope separately, historically I don't think it happened much. None of the major protestant denominations are doctrinally the same. In fact I suspect if you really started digging in to them you would find that they are much more different than you think. Further I go over to www.christianforums.net and the diversity of belief on that website makes me think the 32,000 "denominations" is conservative. Everyone on that site has their own beliefs that they think are true. A couple of them even think they are infallible. There are so many combinations of Christian thought available. They tend toward extremes. For example, with the Lord's Supper alone, some think it is symbolic, some think it is spiritual, then there are literalist groups like the Lutherans and Anglicans. Interestingly enough Catholicism is actually a combination of all of these. People tend to think in dichotomy and that causes divisions. There was a book written shortly after the reformation called "200 interpretations of "This is my body"". I'm not making it up. I hear so many different ideas on what a particular passage means and how it should be viewed. I believe I've counted 6 different slants as to why 2 Thes 2:15 doesn't mean what it says and how the Ctholic Church understands it.

As for the papacy, the alledged disadvantage is an advantage. There is nothing more unifying than the man in rome and this unity is a clear sign that the Catholic Church is Christ's Chruch, even if the man is a sinner who holds the office. I can still take a trip to Austrailia and easily find a Church that teaches the same doctrines as my Church in Minnesota and the papacy is the reason. It ensures that the doctrine is spread and taught worldwide. I even can go to Mass in Austrailia and hear the same readings I hear in Minnesota. The papacy ensures that the whole
Bible is covered methodically in a three year period. Seven years if you go only on Sunday.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

[quote]There are only six different doctrines in most of Protestantism that are of salvic significance. Those are like the nature of God and the trinity, salvation by faith, and I forget what else at the moment. (5:30 am and I can't sleep)[/quote]

Well let's just look at a couple that you mention. The trinity for instance. There are the oneness types who deny it. Then there are those who uphold it in various forms. Some holding to the Athanasian view and some saying that the word trinity is Catholic baggage. Then there are those who have various views of the nature of the trinity which are nestorian and those who hold a monophysite view. Then there are Trinitiarians who think all trinitarians are going to hell and trinitarians who think non-trinitarians can go to heaven. So there is hardly any agreement in this matter.

Faith - Now is it faith alone or faith or faith alone? Arminianism, calvinism, predestination, double predestination? Some protestants even deny faith being the salvific element for the same reason that they think we Catholics include works in salvation. They view the coming to faith as the man coming to faith apart from grace. Therefore the man has a part in his salvation. Once agina I do not find anything near agreement and even less agreement as to whether one can deny faith alone for instance and still go to heaven. Many protestants who believe in faith alone tell me I am a Christian even though I deny it. Is the old law still in effect or not? New Testament Churchs, Jews for Jesus, Pre-trib, post trib, no trib, amil, no-mil...

Now I doudt you will put the Lord's Supper on your list as something that is critical to salvation. But I don't see how you can say "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life within you" is not having to do with the neccessity of salvation. Well actually I can. You deny what the words say and then say it has nothing to do with partaking in the Lord's Supper as a part of God's plan of salvation. Of course the Lutherans and Anglicans will disagree with you on this point. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, make Protestantism in to any kind of a coherent body regarding a list of doctrines that "everyone" or even nearly everyone agrees is critical to salvation. But I do understand why you would try. By the way I've seen lists of six and lists of twenty. So I am not sure what list of critical doctrines is the right one.

Blessings

Edited March 6, 2006 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Light of Truth,

One other question I have. Many Protestants hold a veiw called open theism. Basically that God is not rellly omniscient or at least not completely so. There are various levels of this. But what I find odd is that the local protestant radio station has one preacher on who believes in Open Theism. To my knowledge the rest of their preachers don't. Now this to me would seem to be a critical view to the true nature of God. But it seems it doesn't make any of the lists of critical theology, at least on this radio station. I also find it interesting that they have a Lutheran guy on with his own program who touts the neccessity of baptism for salvation. Once again those who don't put it on the list remove it based on their own interpretation of scripture that denies the very plain words about the matter. Then say it is not important to salvation. So once again. Who's list is the official one. Well it turns out it is whatever list, whether it's a list of six or twenty or a lutheran or baptist or pentecostal list that is the official list that most protestants hold to. In other words there is no real list with any authority behind it. Sad.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='MagiDragon' date='Mar 4 2006, 09:02 AM']Fascinating . . . that actually clears up a little bit how Protestants can justify the thousands of denominations. . . the Bible is just a massive form of relativism.  "That may be right for you, but it's not right for me."

*ponders*

Well . . . if that's the way the enemy's gonna shield his victims from the truth, then that's something we're gonna need to deal with . . . the question becomes "How?"
[right][snapback]902788[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


While on the one hand it does seem that what he/she said was realtivistic, we have to be careful. It is true that the Holy Spirit can give one "guidance" to someone and a difference "guidance" using the same scripture passage. This is okay as long at the two are not in conflict and not in conflict with other passages. Also in Catholic theology we see scripture on many levels so once again in another way this is possible. Yet this is not what Protestantism is about. We have conflicting guidances. One says baptism isn't neccessary for salvation while another says it is. They both cannot be true. One says that Christ is truly present in the Lord's supper, another that he is only spiritually present, another that it is merely a symbol. They can't all be true. We have pre-trib, post trib, no trib, amil, premil, postmil, no mil, calvinism armenianism, predestination, double predestination, and on and on. These theologies are incompatible with one another and so one must either become a relativist to put protestantism in to any kind of a monolithic package, he must beleive he has the truth but deny that any of it really matters ( I call this traditions of man that nullify the word of God) or he must come to the conclusion that he, individually is correct and any protestant who doesn't think as he does is going to hell and was not really saved in the first place (i.e. he is infallible himself). I have found all three types on the net. I will add to this there are the types such as Light of Truth above who try to resolve this dilema by coming up with a "list of critical salvation doctrines". She has a list of six. I've seen lists of 20 or so as well. Perhaps more. Then of course there is the list of one. "It doesn't matter as long as you believe in Jesus". Considering that it is an axiom of Protestantism "everything neccessary for salvation is contained in the Bible", I find this list theories to be very odd. It becomes "everything neccessary for salvation is contained in the Bible but most of it isn't neccessary". The bottom line is that it is ludicrous for anyone to state that Protestantism is the fullness of the truth. I am sorry if this offends one writer above.

Edited March 6, 2006 by thessalonian

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Mar 6 2006, 01:41 PM']Light of Truth,

One other question I have.  Many Protestants hold a veiw called open theism.  Basically that God is not rellly omniscient or at least not completely so.  [right][snapback]904194[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


couple things...
Thats not true on many levels. Open theology is still a minority view. Also, open theism does not say is God isnt omniscient. I take that in the same light as someone saying a catholic ignores christ and worships mary. its simply an ignorant statement. Also, I know many of you disagree here and i will gladly carry my phishy with pride, but after much review and dialogue I have received an "ok" with holding to open theism principles as a catholic. Various phd theologians and priests and even a bishop have all been in face to face talks with me on this issue. So it isnt a protestant vs catholic thing here. If anything majority protestant groups that have any form of kantian or calvinistic background would be grossly offended with your statement here.

thes, I respect you and do not want to turn this into an openess debate. But feel free to pm me

[N/A Gone]

I still want to read thru this thread, as a trained protestant, I will try to get to this tonight. The blatent openess talk stired me

[thessalonian]

[quote]couple things...
Thats not true on many levels. Open theology is still a minority view. Also, open theism does not say is God isnt omniscient.  Also, open theism does not say is God isnt omniscient. I take that in the same light as someone saying a catholic ignores christ and worships mary. its simply an ignorant statement. [/quote]


Hey I am just stating what Protestants themselves state about Protestant doctrine. It is a statement that at some level God does not know every outcome. This from wikepedia:

Open theism asserts that the future exists partly in terms of possibilities rather than certainties. This means that God’s knowledge of the future, being perfect, would also consist largely of possibilities and not certainties. God has knowledge of some future certainties such as those things that He ordains, and He knows all future possibilities such as the free will choices of His created beings.


I have in fact seen variations of this that include God not being omniscient. Shall I show you a thread on another board in which Protestants in fact state this. It is hardly a one size fits all doctrine (are any protestant doctrines) so that you believed a certain way is really imaterial to the disscussion or to my statements. I stand by my assertion. Any further attempts to silence me will be ignored.

Edited March 6, 2006 by thessalonian

[Robbi]

I had quick skim over most threads and dont know if this has been posted yet, but another reason I believe is that todays youth that are protestant and Catholic that have been to a Catholic mass say its [b]BORING[/b].

The lures of Protestant masses with modern music in my opinion a huge reason while alot of youth wont go to catholic masses. Some Catholic kids get sucked in by there protestant friends to attend their services and their hooked!

[Sailahína]

I have a few protestant friends who always ask me why I "worship" Mary and the saints.
They don't understand the difference between Worship and Honor.
So at least for my friends it's hard for them to understand the Catholic faith because they don't try hard enough and look into the facts.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:23 AM']Faith -  Now is it faith alone or faith or faith alone?  Arminianism, calvinism, predestination, double predestination?  Some protestants even deny faith being the salvific element for the same reason that they think we Catholics include works in salvation.  They view the coming to faith as the man coming to faith apart from grace.  Therefore the man has a part in his salvation.  Once agina I do not find anything near agreement and even less agreement as to whether one can deny faith alone for instance and still go to heaven.  Many protestants who believe in faith alone tell me I am a Christian even though I deny it.  Is the old law still in effect or not?  New Testament Churchs, Jews for Jesus, Pre-trib, post trib, no trib, amil, no-mil... [right][snapback]904185[/snapback][/right][/quote]
Wow does that mix doctrines in one paragraph. I meant faith alone like on sola scriptura. I couldn't think of the words at the moment. Most Protestants will agree with this doctrine with works as the fruit of saving faith. Whether this is predestined or just pre-known, or in the view of some both unknown and free-will faith is a different matter as to how the person acquires saving faith more than the salvic significance of faith.

You're not a Christian? Please, what do you consider a Christian to be then? It may be relavent to the question posed in this thread.

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:23 AM']You cannot, no matter how hard you try, make Protestantism in to any kind of a coherent body regarding a list of doctrines that "everyone" or even nearly everyone agrees is critical to salvation.  But I do understand why you would try.[right][snapback]904185[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm not trying to put all of Protestant theology into one coherant body. I am however saying that some churches have differences not much bigger than whether it is the church of the couple who administers the sacriment of marriage or whether the ten commandments or the beattitudes are used in confession.

Because Protestants have no pope and have a more individualistic theological perspective, they are more likely to split administratively over smaller matters as well as larger matters. That is a major factor in the number of "Protestant denominations" today.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Light and Truth

[thessalonian]

[quote]You're not a Christian? Please, what do you consider a Christian to be then? [/quote]

The sentence was very poorly worded. Sorry. The it as I recall was with regard to denying faith alone.