Monday, February 8, 2010

Why do Protestants accept as the authentic Word of God a book that was canonised by a false Church?

Why give the impression that you are capable or even have the authority to intepret God's Word as if the Bible was written for you personally? What lesson does God want us to learn by allowing a false Church to spread His message for the first 1500yrs after He established a Church?..Inspired answers only plsWhy do Protestants accept as the authentic Word of God a book that was canonised by a false Church?
I have said it more than once that you cannot convince stubborn Protestants on this matter as Protestantism contains a critical spirit, a fault finding spirit that drives it, Chris has answered in this same spirit of criticism and remains blind and obstinate to the fact.Why do Protestants accept as the authentic Word of God a book that was canonised by a false Church?
Ben H: I actually agree with much of what you say. Peace and God bless

Report Abuse



What exactly is a 'true church'?





The one that's done more killing in the name of god or what?
You got your dates %26amp; times %26amp; facts mixed up
According to Chris, by denying that we existed. Which is false, of course.





People like him are the ones that were prophesied about:





';For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths';





';Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep?s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves';





';I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock';
Catholicism didn't exist when the Bible was written and compiled.





Try again, troll.
You Jewish, Greek, Hebrew? Catholicism was not the ';original'; religion.
Oh, SNAP!
I've been raised protestant, but I consider myself non-denominational. I look for a church that is filled with God's presence, doesn't matter if it's Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic or Baptist. I don't consider one church better than another, they're all institutions of man made to worship God, none of them are perfect, but none of them are completely false. The Catholic Church has done Christianity much good - It's monasteries and convents are excercises in how Christ wants us to live - for God by serving others. Though I feel it is hyperly-Traditional, I believe that the traditions preserve deeper meanings, that when understood, can greatly alter your faith in Christ and God for the better.





The problem I have with most Protestant churches is that while the passion and love for Christ is there, it's not delivered well - more like a show or a social gathering than a worship service. Many Protestants have done away with traditions, so each time a new Christian comes along, they have to discover everything about God on their own, which takes longer than discovering everything about God through tradition. (personal experience). I feel God, but I feel rude by worshiping Him in the same way I get entertained. Church becomes an extension of my entertainment rather than a place of reverence, a place where I can focus on God.





Catholicism on the other hand has the traditions and delivery of a worshipful service, but it's empty because most people just don't know what it all means, or don't believe in it. From speaking with my Catholic friends, they view it as a duty, ';I'm doing this because I'm Catholic, not because I believe in Christ'; is basically what they've told me. It's reverent, it definetly allows us to focus on God, but it's hollow. That has been my personal experience in a Catholic church.








NOW, to the heart of your question - Unless a church is altering the words of Christ, it is not false. A Church may be hypocritical in the sense that it says one thing, but does another, or that it claims to believe in the words of Christ but preaches something contrary - but as long as they're not going in and making another Bible like Watch Tower did (Jehovah's Witness), or the Mormons did (Book of Morma), then I consider it as a genuine Christian church - whether they're Truly Christian is a matter of what they do (Faith without works is dead; those who acknowledge Jesus with their lips but Christ does not know them - examples of what kind of church is a genuine church, but not a true church)





Catholicism has done a great job of spreading the Gospel - despite the fact that the Masses and Bible were in Latin, Catholics have made Christians out of billions of people, and saved them. Protestants have yet to contribute to the Kingdom of Heaven in such a way. While the Catholic church has done some ungodly things claiming them Godly (Crusades, Inquisitions), investigation into those events only show that the church was a means for a secular cause, something that can, and has, happened to all denominations (just look at Anglicans and Episcopalians).





I respect Catholicism for it's influence and impact on Christianity, but I believe that the ';true church'; died in the great schism, and can only be found now in a few Christian communities focusing their lives on God. I've been to many different Christian Communities that are truly God centered, and I can tell you that it doesn't matter what denomination or sect they are, the only difference between a Methodist God centered church and a Catholic God centered church is the type of worship - the message of Christ and the feeling of God- all remain the same, and that's all that matters in a place of worship.





Oh, and my response (to your previous question) that basically said how Orthodox had preserved the traditions word for word of the true church, while Catholicism altered it for the time it was in - I wasn't saying that what Catholicism did was wrong. It's just two different takes on the original Church. The Orthodox have preserved it's traditions the same way they were 1000 years ago, making them the original church word for word, but also making them a fossil in the eyes of this generation, while Catholics have attempted to change with the times, making them less of a fossil in the eyes of recent generations, but are no longer the original church word for word.





I believe that had the undivided church remained, it would have taken the Catholic approach and changed with the times, although, being undivided, would have been more diverse and probably wouldn't have evolved the traditions that are unique to Catholics now.
You could only know that the Church was false for 1500 years if you knew what was true, and how do you know that except by private interpretation of the Bible. Who canonised your book. Luther ?





Remember the old joke:


What's the difference between Catholics and Protestants ?


Answer : Catholics only have one Pope !
The Christians (Protestants) figured out that the European Pope had tossed away God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible.





The Christians (Protestants) felt that it was better to stick with the Bible than move 100% to the poetic oral teachings of a Pope who covers up child abuse to save Rome lawsuit money.





The Bible is the word of God vs the known false teachings and poetry readings invented by the European Pope.
Catholics didn't write those letters to the church that were put together(Bible) they were written by the Apostles/disciples of Christ. All they did was put the book together.
  • car loan
  • No comments:

    Post a Comment