CV75 Posted July 7, 2020 Posted July 7, 2020 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Ah, thanks, I never thought about that one before! I am not a student of Protestant theology. I haven't thought about it before, in fact I think I just made it up! 2
pogi Posted July 7, 2020 Posted July 7, 2020 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Oh, don't be silly. See here: Thanks, -Smac Yes, but we should be angry that they have saved up money to help in times such as this. 1
pogi Posted July 7, 2020 Posted July 7, 2020 4 hours ago, Ahab said: Where are the MASK Police when they are needed??? Funny, I was just about to say something.
pogi Posted July 7, 2020 Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Navidad said: There are of course certain essentials on which Protestants are united (and they are not found in creeds by the way) Just curious, what are the essentials that unite all Protestants and how did they become essential? The 5 solas? 95 theses? 2
mfbukowski Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Navidad said: Sometimes I skim your posts to get down to the last two or three lines. They are the most entertaining. They are when you are at your best! There is always a punchline! I will just then keep my replies to three lines if that is all yo get out of them. No wonder you never answer me with substance. Edited July 8, 2020 by mfbukowski
Navidad Posted July 8, 2020 Author Posted July 8, 2020 3 hours ago, pogi said: Just curious, what are the essentials that unite all Protestants and how did they become essential? The 5 solas? 95 theses? No solas and no theses. None of these mean anything to most Protestants. I will reply in more detail in the morning. Best wishes!
Navidad Posted July 8, 2020 Author Posted July 8, 2020 Just now, mfbukowski said: I will just then keep my replies to three lines if that is all yo get out of them. No wonder you never answer with substance. I like substance. I prefer substance. I will do better!
pogi Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Navidad said: No solas and no theses. None of these mean anything to most Protestants. I will reply in more detail in the morning. Best wishes! There is a poster here who actually goes by that name - Five Solas - and all his arguments are based entirely upon them. In fact, I can't think of a protestant that I have met that doesn't subscribe to them. Where do you stand with the five solas? Are there any that you do not subscribe to? Based on my personal experience with Protestants, it is hard to accept that "none of these mean anything to most protestants". I acknowledge that you have met more Protestants and would know better than me, but it is hard to shake my perspective. Quote These five statements sum up what lies at the heart of Protestant belief: http://protestantism.co.uk/solas Maybe it is time that you all drop the name "protest-ants" if it the 95 theses etc., means nothing to most of you anymore. Edited July 8, 2020 by pogi 1
Navidad Posted July 8, 2020 Author Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, pogi said: There is a poster here who actually goes by that name - Five Solas - and all his arguments are based entirely upon them. In fact, I can't think of a protestant that I have met that doesn't subscribe to them. Where do you stand with the five solas? Are there any that you do not subscribe to? Based on my personal experience with Protestants, it is hard to accept that "none of these mean anything to most protestants". I acknowledge that you have met more Protestants and would know better than me, but it is hard to shake my perspective. Maybe it is time that you all drop the name "protest-ants" if it the 95 theses etc., means nothing to most of you anymore. Hi Pogi - It appears the 95 theses never happened. Apparently the whole episode was mythological. No door . . . no posting. That is what I was always taught and recent scholarship seems to verify it. At the best, they represent Luther's position even if he formulated them, but never posted them. I need to get a book review done tonight that I promised for a journal so I will respond more to you tomorrow. Remember, I said "most Protestants." Who are the majority of Protestants today? That is an important point. Try and find the "five solas" listed on a website of Baptists, Pentecostals, Anabaptists, non-denominationalists, or a host of other of the big Protestant groups. I also would simply caution that things like the five solas, as a group only have meaning (as a group) to the mainstream Protestants who are now a minority within the Protestant community. Of course the individual items are important to a Protestant like me, but collectively as a group, they have no collective meaning as a statement of faith. That is my point. If you look carefully they are often connected with Luther and Zwingli, two men who despised Anabaptists, and along with Calvin had their forces martyr us. I don't have time enough tonight to be careful in my response. It is the collective I am indicating is not of interest - neither the 95 nor the 5. The Protestant community, especially today is deep and wide and very diverse! The mainstream denominations are now in a significant minority. More tomorrow. best, Phil Edited July 8, 2020 by Navidad
MiserereNobis Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 On 7/7/2020 at 4:59 PM, pogi said: Just curious, what are the essentials that unite all Protestants and how did they become essential? That the Pope isn't the Vicar of Christ 😁 4
Damien the Leper Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) nevermind Edited July 13, 2020 by Damien the Leper
3DOP Posted July 11, 2020 Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Damien the Leper said: And those Christian sects who don't recognize that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ are, simply put, wrong. Damien, hi. If you missed it, and I hope you did, I have deleted my earlier post. It was one of those posts one regrets in the morning. The site has been down and no one has since posted. We are family now, but it was imprudent to go public. A Blessed Lord's Day to you. Rory Edited July 12, 2020 by 3DOP
RevTestament Posted July 13, 2020 Posted July 13, 2020 On 7/7/2020 at 3:26 PM, Navidad said: I won't debate any of this. I would simply suggest I have never seen another version of the Bible used by anyone in our ward. I know there are occasional quotes from the JS version, but always and always and always the King James is the version used in our ward. I have no knowledge of any other ward. As I recall, Joseph Smith prayed about what Bible to use and was told that the KJV was correct enough. He used it in promulgating the JST. Since then, the KJV has been the unofficial, official version used by the Church - the Church publishes its own copyrighted version of the KJV as I am sure you know. However, there is always the specter hanging in the Church that it is not translated correctly.... which I have decided is true. It has errors like all other translations I know of... I believe it has an omitted verse in the Psalms, etc. Quote I would also suggest that the LDS source for its authority is no different in its origin than that of any other church. God is the source. He spoke and speaks to men and men wrote down under the direction and influence of the Spirit, and approved what was written as revelation. Some did that approving in councils; the saints did and do it in conferences. Not much difference there. Ever since those scriptures were written men have then sought to interpret them accurately. Pratt and Young had quite a ruckus about several things, didn't they? The concept of the gathering changed over time, didn't it? Another ruckus was about plural marriage from 1890 to 1904. Interpretations were constantly in flux. There were even debated about how to interpret the interpretations wasn't there? Was President Woodruff's 1890 statement a proclamation, a statement, or a revelation? That made a big difference to some. How about the 1904 declaration? Same thing. How about John Taylor's revelation of 1886? It took years for the church authorities to rule on that one - probably thirty or so. A large group of plural marriage advocates developed over those years. The proof is in the disparate directions given to the folks in the Mexican colonies, depending on who was providing the directions. Another was about blacks and the priesthood - interpretating and even changing specific words in LDS scriptures. There will be more coming I would guess, especially about the role of women in the Church. Those are new revelations you argue: sure they are and new revelations are what change how verses are interpreted in all churches. Sometimes the interpreters mix doctrine and culture. It happens in all churches. And that process still continues with all scripture. Interpretation of scripture no matter which of the scriptures we are talking about is not a settled matter in any church. That isn't a negative it is an exciting journey. I see the excitement on the faces of our ward members of what "new" thing will come out of conference. New wineskins are nothing new. See, we really aren't so very different are we? One thing I do not believe the Bible is very clear on is the priesthood. Do Protestants believe they can have the authority of the Aaronic priesthood just by deciding that they are going to copy it? If the original Hebrews did not all have that authority by listening to the law, I don't see how Protestants are supposed to get it by reading and listening to the law? - Didn't one have to be a descendant of Aaron - at least at the time? I don't see any specific place in the text that grants everyone the right to confer the priesthood on themselves - do you? Peter speaks to the followers as all being priests, but that doesn't describe how they got the priesthood. Is it just assumed that all men got it by virtue of belief? Then why not women? Here we are stuck on interpretation issues I guess, but I just see huge faults in the Protestant interpretation of things - it seems to assume a large deal, and seems to belie the early history of the Church which shows different offices held by male members - deacons, bishops, apostles, etc. Were these just made up by the Church? From interpretation of the text? If not, did the Church no longer need those offices? Did members just decide, "hey, I want to be a bishop. That sounds cool." No. Church history reveals that the apostles ordained the bishops to lead their local congregations. To me, Protestantism with its many interpretations of the Bible, has made a mess of things. I am not saying they intended to, but it is pretty clear, they were just trying to interpret the scriptures and live the best they could by it without any specific directions from God. They just felt the Catholic way was wrong, so did the best they could. They also maintain that God has given the authority to their preachers to teach the word, yet, most have a huge problem with God speaking to Joseph Smith. It seems to me that the refusal to recognize any further prophets is more a reaction to Catholicism than truly following the scriptures in which Yeshua Himself tells us how to know who is a true prophet. After studying Christian history, I had to concede to myself that the Church once had a specific priesthood structure, which is not followed in most Protestant churches, and really imho not even by Catholics - who invented offices such as cardinals and pope. This shows that men were chosen for these tasks. The question then becomes by whom? Other men or God? Quote I am just having an attack of stream of consciousness here. I don't you won't agree with anything I just wrote. That is ok. I had fun writing it off the cuff so to speak. Speaking about cuffs - Mennonites fought over how to interpret scripture so to allow or ban cuffs on men's shirts and pants! Look at all the photos of old Mennonite preachers - no collars, ties, or cuffs on shirts or pants and if I remember right, they always wore white shirts. Yes, interpretation as well as interpretation in the translation process is usually the sticky-wick. I appreciate the Protestant efforts to try to live by the scriptures, but now in my view, it was just that - an effort. The same as me. I decided long ago, they didn't get things quite right. Their efforts did bring much good into Christianity, but error as well - just as they believe Joseph Smith did. And now they are falling apart. Protestantism is dwindling in numbers faster than any other form of Christianity - that of course doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but it is somewhat sad to see, since most have not found the truths of the Church of Jesus Christ....
Navidad Posted July 13, 2020 Author Posted July 13, 2020 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: And now they are falling apart. Protestantism is dwindling in numbers faster than any other form of Christianity - that of course doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but it is somewhat sad to see, since most have not found the truths of the Church of Jesus Christ.... Good afternoon - I think that the term "Protestant" has less significance to folks today than in previous years. As you know, I have always defined by position in Christ as first, a Christian; second an evangelical; and third a Mennonite. I don't include being a Protestant in there at all. I am wondering however about your assertion that "Protestantism is dwindling in numbers faster than any other form of Christianity." Are you sure about that globally? Pentecostalism is certainly outpacing all other Christian groups in its growth - most Pentecostals identify with being Protestants (not all do). Anglican Christians (Protestants) in Africa are booming. I know you well enough to know you don't say things off the "top of your head!" What makes you say that Protestantism is dwindling in numbers faster than any other form of Christianity?" I am fascinated by that comment. Thanks Phil
RevTestament Posted July 14, 2020 Posted July 14, 2020 8 hours ago, Navidad said: Good afternoon - I think that the term "Protestant" has less significance to folks today than in previous years. As you know, I have always defined by position in Christ as first, a Christian; second an evangelical; and third a Mennonite. I don't include being a Protestant in there at all. I am wondering however about your assertion that "Protestantism is dwindling in numbers faster than any other form of Christianity." Are you sure about that globally? Pentecostalism is certainly outpacing all other Christian groups in its growth - most Pentecostals identify with being Protestants (not all do). Anglican Christians (Protestants) in Africa are booming. I know you well enough to know you don't say things off the "top of your head!" What makes you say that Protestantism is dwindling in numbers faster than any other form of Christianity?" I am fascinated by that comment. Thanks Phil I personally don't include Pentecostals in the term Protestants. Maybe Catholics do, but they came later. Anabaptists too don't quite seem like Protestants to me. So, I am referring to the mainline Protestant Churches which date back to the reformation. I will refer you to Pew Research whose research show these mainline churches falling apart in Europe and the U.S. "For example, in Germany, the epicenter of the Reformation, just 7% of Protestants say they attend church weekly." In most of Europe it is much like this. People identify themselves loosely as Christians, but when it comes down to it the vast majority do not believe in God as described in the Bible. https://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/ and do not practice Christianity. However, in Latin America it is a different story with Catholics losing numbers to Protestant churches, which are growing. Here is the link: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/27/500-years-after-the-reformation-5-facts-about-protestants-around-the-world/ The United States has been the stronghold of Protestantism until after WWII far surpassing the numbers of Protestants in other countries. With the decline in active Protestants in the United States and Europe, the high percentage growth, but small total numbers of Protestants in growth areas, are not enough to offset the total loss to Protestant numbers. However, to get accurate numbers one would probably have to go church by church, which I am not prepared to do.
Recommended Posts