MorphRC Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 If prots are so against the Church, why do they use the language of the Church?.. Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 (edited) [quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:15 AM'] If prots are so against the Church, why do they use the language of the Church?.. Just a thought [/quote] I would prefer if you called us "Protestants" Second, the Reformers used Latin because it was the language of the Church at the time (i.e. Luther wrote "De Servo Arbitro", his famous treatise against Erasmus of Rotterdam, in Latin, not German). Nowadays, however, we are more than content to use English, German, or whatever the native tongue is. And we are not against the Church, this is the reason why we protest the errors of the Roman Catholics - on the contrary, it is out of love for Christ's Bride that we have rescued her from the errors of those who kept her hostage in idolatry for so long. Edited August 29, 2004 by ICTHUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:07 AM'] Alone is so un-unified [/quote] Explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 Ok. But Christ said hell will never take over the Church, but your saying it did, for a long time to I might add, and then it was 'saved'...so what your indirectly saying is, Christ was a liar. He promised, He failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:26 AM'] Ok. But Christ said hell will never take over the Church, but your saying it did, for a long time to I might add, and then it was 'saved'...so what your indirectly saying is, Christ was a liar. He promised, He failed. [/quote] Actually, the Catholic Church did not get into really hot water doctrinally until a couple of centuries before the Reformation. And no, I am not calling Christ a liar. It is precisely in the Reformation that He has safeguarded His Bride from error, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against her in the sure doctrines of the Reformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 03:00 AM'] [b]Actually, the Catholic Church did not get into really hot water doctrinally until a couple of centuries before the Reformation.[/b] And no, I am not calling Christ a liar. It is precisely in the Reformation that He has safeguarded His Bride from error, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against her in the sure doctrines of the Reformation. [/quote] Ahh but it did faulter, and fall, therefore Christ did lie. Christ didnt say, Ill let this happen, and this and this, but it will be ok, He never said that. Ok. So Christ wanted over 35000 differing and arguementative churches? Is that what Christ wanted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JESOd Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 hmmm... i think the definition of Church differs between Protestants and a Roman Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 (edited) Yes it does. Im using the original meaning of Church, not the made up one during and after the reformation. Edited August 29, 2004 by MorphRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 29 2004, 11:37 AM'] Ahh but it did faulter, and fall, therefore Christ did lie. Christ didnt say, Ill let this happen, and this and this, but it will be ok, He never said that. Ok. So Christ wanted over 35000 differing and arguementative churches? Is that what Christ wanted? [/quote] No, He said that the gates of Hell would never [b]prevail[/b]. A hockey team can be down 2 points in the first period of the game, and then by a further two in the second period, but then can pull ahead and score six points in the third period, thus emerging victorious (prevailing). A setback does not equal non-prevailing. [quote]Ok. So Christ wanted over 35000 differing and arguementative churches? Is that what Christ wanted?[/quote] Where are you getting your numbers from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorphRC Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='ICTHUS' date='Aug 30 2004, 03:21 AM'] No, He said that the gates of Hell would never [b]prevail[/b]. A hockey team can be down 2 points in the first period of the game, and then by a further two in the second period, but then can pull ahead and score six points in the third period, thus emerging victorious (prevailing). A setback does not equal non-prevailing. Where are you getting your numbers from? [/quote] Ok. But in the end, you are still admitting hell did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 The word alone seems very much un-unified. Scripture alone? Well, we can see how that can become a mistake by looking at the muslim religion. Faith alone? This would suggest that scripture lies to us. Thats what I meant, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Putnam Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 27 2004, 03:06 PM']yea, i about died when i got my first tongue-lashing by a protestant for assuming that all protestants defined "Sola Scriptura" the same way.[/quote] Boy, you got that right! James R. White thinks he has the perfect definition of what is an "undefinable doctrine" that others will disagree with him! When I am chastized over offering a definition someone does not like, I often reply, "what do you expect me to do when you Protestants have no firm definition of it yourselves?" God bless, PAX Bill+†+ [i]Rome has spoken, case is closed.[/i] Derived from Augustine's famous [i]Sermon[/i]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='MorphRC' date='Aug 29 2004, 12:16 PM'] Ok. But in the end, you are still admitting hell did. [/quote] No, I'm not saying that at all! I'm rather [i]denying[/i] that Hell prevailed against the Church. The Church was reformed from the errors of her past, and the torn wedding gown was mended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 (edited) [quote name='William Putnam' date='Aug 29 2004, 01:43 PM'] When I am chastized over offering a definition someone does not like, I often reply, "what do you expect me to do when you Protestants have no firm definition of it yourselves?" God bless, PAX Bill+†+ [i]Rome has spoken, case is closed.[/i] Derived from Augustine's famous [i]Sermon[/i]. [/quote] You should disregard everyone outside the classical Reformation traditions (who, by the way, all present very consistent views of what [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] is.) They (non-Reformed Christians who call themselves "Protestants") are not Protestants, for they reject the Reformed faith. They are, rather, people who have compromised and now have some sad mix of the true Reformed Faith, Arminianism, and Romanism. Edited August 29, 2004 by ICTHUS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTHUS Posted August 29, 2004 Share Posted August 29, 2004 [quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Aug 29 2004, 01:04 PM'] The word alone seems very much un-unified. Scripture alone? Well, we can see how that can become a mistake by looking at the muslim religion. Faith alone? This would suggest that scripture lies to us. Thats what I meant, basically. [/quote] What? This seems to be very incoherent. Why are you talking about Islam to try and prove a point about Christianity? What does [i]Sola Scriptura[/i] have to do with Islam? The Qu'ran isn't even Scripture. You still haven't explained why Sola Scriptura is ununified. Faith alone is true, and does not assume that Scripture lies to us. It has to do with how you exegete James 2, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now