Posted on 05/10/2007 12:28:17 PM PDT by Gamecock
considering as I’m not Catholic, and all protestants have one is pervert prevailing non-official doctrines of the Catholic church from the 14th century?
no so much.
Nice try, but the well was already poisoned.
We can grant that the other person is still worshippping the one true God, but with misconceptions about the nature of that one true God, or misconceptions about how the one true God should be worshipped, etc.
There is a point at which one must conclude that the other person is not worshipping the same God. As a general rule Catholics and Protestants all agree with the Nicene and Apostles' Creed, hence it can be stated with assurance that both Catholics and Protestants worship the same God, even where there are some disagreements in regard to doctrinal issues related to what God has revealed.
Islam does not subscribe to even one point of those creeds, hence they do not have a misconception about the one true God, they worship a false God. Kawaii seems to think that Protestants worship a false God, but as far as I can tell, he has yet to make the same claim about Muslims.
He can hold to that opinion all he wants. If that is what he believes, then I'm glad it's out in the open. I prefer clarity to agreement and kawaii has made his position clear.
if the ‘concept’ is different indeed protestants worship a false non existant diety.
kawaii,
I'm trying to be as charitable as I can, but you are pushing me on this one. How are you not a Marcionite? Given what you say in the quotation above, how can you avoid the conclusion that Jews worship a "false non existant deity"?
-A8
I did.
Tell us how you really feel.
I'm starting to realize that.
There is a point at which one must conclude that the other person is not worshipping the same God.
I completely agree.
As a general rule Catholics and Protestants all agree with the Nicene and Apostles' Creed, hence it can be stated with assurance that both Catholics and Protestants worship the same God, even where there are some disagreements in regard to doctrinal issues related to what God has revealed.
I agree.
Islam does not subscribe to even one point of those creeds, hence they do not have a misconception about the one true God, they worship a false God.
I disagree, because your conclusion is a non sequitur. The Jews do not subscribe to the Apostles or Nicene creeds either, so do you say that they worship a false God? If so, then you come very close to the Marcion heresy, as I pointed out to Vladimir earlier in this thread.
Kawaii seems to think that Protestants worship a false God, but as far as I can tell, he has yet to make the same claim about Muslims.
From my perspective, if Protestants worship some other being than the one true God, then a fortiori so do Muslims. So it seems to me that kawaii would deny that Muslims worship the one true God.
-A8
i don’t think that noting that the prevailing Jewish idea of God is completely incompatible with the Christian one could be described as Marcionism.
Protestants teach contrary to Holy Scripture and against the church Christ established. How can one note this, and assume they are innocently mistaken after all the warnings in the new testament to be on the watch for wolves deliberatly leading the sheep astray?
Agreed, but that is not what is at issue. Marcion's error was to claim that the God whom the Jews worshipped (i.e. the God of the Old Testament) was not the God whom Christians worshipped. The issue had nothing to do with whether the Jewish denial of Jesus's divinity was incompatible with the Church's proclamation of Jesus's divinity. Everyone agreed about that. If you want to say that differences in *conception* of God necessarily entail differences in *reference*, then I cannot see how you avoid Marcionism, because the Jews of the OT era had a different conception of God than did the Christians of the NT era. And that would entail that Jews of the OT era worshipped a different being than than the being worshipped by Christians of the NT era. And that is Marcionism.
-A8
Having been a Protestant most of my life, I can answer this. Protestants see Catholic and Orthodox leaders as among the wolves who preached a "different gospel", and led the early Christians away from the simplicity of the gospel recovered by the Reformers.
-A8
Easy; God had not been revealed in full until the New Testament. After God had been revealed in full, sure the Jews by ignoring this and maintaining an image of God which is 1/3rd at best of the truth do not worship the same God.
A ‘simplicity’ that historically only manifested in the 14th century. (Amoung other things, since you’re concerned about the old testament judaism, protestants arbitrarily do away with God’s prescriptions on the priesthood.)
Could be but they/others "bought it"..
Luther protested(thesis) but Luther was a Roman Catholic priest..
Actually for a long while ALL that followed him were Roman Catholics..
Luther did not start a New cult.. he didn't even know he was already a part of a cult..
Poor old Martin Luther only partially knew he had identified the largest christian sect and actual cult ever known on this planet.. A cult of heretics exposed by the NEW TESTAMENT.. The Eastern orthodox(so-called) were only marginally better..
The Roman Catholic Church actually PROTESTS normal orthodox Christian operation as layed out IN THE BIBLE, both old and New.. This is documented not only in many many Church History's but in many Seminary's.. Before 313A.D. the RCC was locai and a curiosity..
Its all in Millers Church History.. one of the better church historys..
Notice that that changes the original principle in question. The original principle in question is that if there is a difference in *conception* of God, then there is a difference in *reference*. Now, to avoid Marcionism, you have added the "ignoring" factor. So the revised principle would be something like this: "If there is a difference in *conception* of God, and if the person holding a false conception of God has been presented with the true conception of God and yet has ignored it, then there is a difference in *reference*.
So imagine an old Jewish man who has never heard the Christian gospel, but has worshipped God his whole life according to the OT. He then hears the Christians gospel and rejects it. According to your revised principle, his rejection of the gospel would entail that as soon as he goes back to the synagogue and begins to worship what he thinks is the same Being he has been worshipping his entire life, he has instead suddenly begun to worship an idol (i.e. some being other than God).
Is that really plausible?
-A8
If one must trust the authority of one's own church leadership & that the Holy Spirit only protected them (everything that they teach as dogma), the possibility that the wolves had corrupted your church would be blasphemous.
Anyone seeing the church as having lost it's way & riddled with corrupt wolves must deny one's own lying eyes. Going back to the beginning, to see what the basic foundation looked like is fruitless to anyone who thinks there have been no changes since then that haven't come from the Holy Spirit.
I don't know if you were ever a Protestant, but it seems to me that you were not, because you don't know how a Protestant thinks. And unfortunately that makes you more judgmental than you should be. In general Protestants (except for the liberals, about whom I will not attempt to speak) are truth-seekers. They simply see things through a very different paradigm than do Catholics and Orthodox. The "simplicity" of the gospel, for a Protestant, is revealed in *Scripture*. For Protestants, the 16th century recovery was of that presented by the Apostles in the first century, in the NT Scriptures.
-A8
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.