Christian Forums

Doesn't it bother Protestants that there are 38,000 denominations and only 150 years ago there where only 100 or so and for 1400 years there was only one?

Check out this video on YouTube:

You Gotta be Kidding!

Check out this video on YouTube:

You Gotta be Kidding!

I don't regard them as different denominations, but different churches with different rules. As concerning those that do not teach the gospel, man made churches, they should not be regarded as a church or a protestant, evangelical, Pentecostal, but yet they probably are included in this database with the likes of Methodist or Baptist.

FireSword, but Jesus only formed "One " church see Matt. 16:15-19 and that "One Church" was Apostolic [ Luke 10:16, Acts2:, Eph.2:19 ] Apostolic Succession as we see in these verses [ Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26, and Titus 1:5 ] the ordination of other future successors as being Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias.

Quote from: neophyte on Thu Feb 14, 2013 - 14:57:58
FireSword, but Jesus only formed "One " church see Matt. 16:15-19 and that "One Church" was Apostolic [ Luke 10:16, Acts2:, Eph.2:19 ] Apostolic Succession as we see in these verses [ Acts 13:3, 14:22, 1:24-26, and Titus 1:5 ] the ordination of other future successors as being Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Titus and Matthias.

Perhaps Luther was an apostle sent by God, or even a prophet, who warned a church to repent, but they refused. But eventually they did and followed some of Luthers teachings. 

Nope.

They stopped indulgences.

FireSword, you wrote: " Perhaps Luther was an apostle sent by God, or even a prophet, who warned a church to repent, but they refused. But eventually they did and followed some of Luthers teachings."
Perhaps Luther was this - " Romans 16:17-18 , 1 Cor. 1:10 being that the "Doctrine" was already in place by Jesus into His Apostolic Church way before Luther was ever thought of, Jesus doesn't make any mistakes, Man [ Luther ] does. 

Do there is still indulgence available but you probably don't understand the meaning of them of either did the heritic within the catholic church that was passing them out in northern germany 500 years

Eph 4:5
One faith, one lord, one baptism

1 Tim 3:15
The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth


So let me understand this episcopalians promote homosexual so called marriage and southern baptist are ok with that and pentocostals talk in jiberish and handle snakes in church and Lutherans are ok with that.  That sounds pretty divided why don't we just say that lds are a denomination and also Christians

Yes selling indulgences was wrong, but it was only a geographical wrong [ Luther's region ] not throughout the universal Church . Travel and mail back and forth from Pope and Luther was very slow. THINK ! Communication was a problem. Study the situation back then before you haphazardly come to your conclusions.

My Bible Baptist Seminary professor clearly demonstrated from scripture that the scriptures
are the final authority. While most Catholics say the church is the final authority,
my Roman Catholic Seminary professor said " both ".
I see two problems with both.

Roman Catholics promote English translations of Alexandrian reconstructed Greek N.T. texts
which give precedence to the Alexandrian Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts,
while Bible Baptists promote the English KJV translation of the reconstructed Syrian Greek N.T. texts which give precedence to the Syrian Textus Receptus manuscripts.

While all Protestant denominations originally promoted KJV Bibles prior to 1881 (RV),
today they promote Alexandrian Bibles.


#1.  Every scripture reference to the church is speaking about the body of Christ,
not one particular denomination.

KJV Romans 12:5  So we, being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one members one of another.


#2.  All Bibles teach salvation by grace through faith.

KJV Ephesians 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

KJV Romans 10:17  So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
KJV John 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said,
out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

KJV 2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.







.

Quote from: Adamski on Thu Feb 14, 2013 - 11:58:30
Doesn't it bother Protestants that there are 38,000 denominations and only 150 years ago there where only 100 or so and for 1400 years there was only one?

Yes, it should bother Protestants greatly that there are so many different denominations and any Protestant who says that it doesnt bother him a single bit is a liar.
The truth of the matter is of course that we are not really talking about Protestant denominations, but Christian denominations...the Reformation being the first.
And when all is said and done, in the true spirit of Christianity, even the Reformation should not have happened.

Quote from: AVZ on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 22:15:54
Yes, it should bother Protestants greatly that there are so many different denominations and any Protestant who says that it doesnt bother him a single bit is a liar.

I take exception to this statement.  Calling people a liar because they do not say what you peronally believe they should say is can be construed as a personal attack and/or flaming.

The entire Bible does screams "unity."  Perhaps, Luther should have stayed and corrected the problems that was happening in his area.  The selling of indulgences (which is illegal) was only occurring in his part of the country in Germany. 

Actually, Selene, that was not Luther's intention.  He had no desire to leave the catholic church or start a new movement.  He wanted to reform the church from within.  Indulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small area of Germany).

Further more, it was the church who excommunicated Luther.  After three years of denigrating the man and launching false accusations against him, the bishops and cardinals convinced the pope to excommunicate him.

BondServant,care to show documentation of where the selling of indulgences was in areas outside of that area of Luthers Germany?

makahiya, you wrote,: "  Every scripture reference to the church is speaking about the body of Christ,
not one particular denomination.''

Jesus only preach "unity"not division as found in Protestantism.

Yes, the members make up the Church of Jesus but only that 'one" Church that is "apostolic'', today only the Catholic and EOC are Apostolic.
Not only is the Church "One" as found in [ Matt.16:15-19 ] but it is ''The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth"[ 1st. Timothy 3:14 ]

Notice in the previous verse that it tells us God lives in His Church on earth, Jesus lives in the Tabernacle, but not just any church , only His" Catholic and Apostolic Church'', in the very same way as God lived in the Tabernacle of the earlier Jewish Tabernacle.

If you believe that all members [ Christians ] make up Christ's One Church, which is correct, then which Church was Jesus speaking about in this verse of [ Matt. 18;15-18 ] certainly was not any Protestant church, because none existed until the early 16Th century.

In Romans 16:17-18 notice the doctrine of Christ's Universal [ Catholic ] and Apostolic Church was already in place, meaning that Jesus never wished for any future church [ s ] that also contained 'doctrine' different form the"doctrine already in place" within His One True Church' also [ 1 Cor.1:10 ] explains ''unity" and protestant  [ protesting ] dissention.

Quote from: BondServant on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 23:39:33
Actually, Selene, that was not Luther's intention.  He had no desire to leave the catholic church or start a new movement.  He wanted to reform the church from within.  Indulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small area of Germany).

Further more, it was the church who excommunicated Luther.  After three years of denigrating the man and launching false accusations against him, the bishops and cardinals convinced the pope to excommunicate him.

You can, and should, stay within the Church to reform corrupt practices, but to change doctrines (as Luther wanted to do) you have leave and set up your own church (as Luther did)

Quote from: neophyte on Thu Feb 14, 2013 - 15:28:59
Yes selling indulgences was wrong, but it was only a geographical wrong [ Luther's region ] not throughout the universal Church . Travel and mail back and forth from Pope and Luther was very slow. THINK ! Communication was a problem. Study the situation back then before you haphazardly come to your conclusions.

So he was excommunicated because he exposed corruption? This is a historical problem with the RCC is that the leaders are easily swayed by corrupt men and punish the good ones, like they did with their Templar knights.

Quote from: BondServant on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 23:39:33
Actually, Selene, that was not Luther's intention.  He had no desire to leave the catholic church or start a new movement.  He wanted to reform the church from within.  Indulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small area of Germany).

Further more, it was the church who excommunicated Luther.  After three years of denigrating the man and launching false accusations against him, the bishops and cardinals convinced the pope to excommunicate him.

Thanks for saying that Bond Servant. There was one other issue of great importance, and that was the issue of Justifcation by faith. which was then recognized by the Protestant churches. catholics now will agree with this but i do not think so at that time.   

mclees8, whatever are you trying to write about anyways? For one thing you do realize that Catholic doctrine has never changed, the Catholic Church because it's Teachings come from Christ does not
believe in any of the" new Protestant doctrines"invented by mere men and women.

FireSword, no way can a corrupt pope, bishop , priest or nun ever change a Catholic doctrine , the Doctrine is unchangeable. Don't stop there with the Templer knights .go on, let's hear about "your" know ledgable version about the Knights Templer.

Quote from: neophyte on Sat Feb 16, 2013 - 16:04:47
mclees8, whatever are you trying to write about anyways? For one thing you do realize that Catholic doctrine has never changed, the Catholic Church because it's Teachings come from Christ does not
believe in any of the" new Protestant doctrines"invented by mere men and women.

FireSword, no way can a corrupt pope, bishop , priest or nun ever change a Catholic doctrine , the Doctrine is unchangeable. Don't stop there with the Templer knights .go on, let's hear about "your" know ledgable version about the Knights Templer.

Neophyte what is justifcation by faith to you, and why then did Luthor being a very devout Catholic joind many in crawling up the steps of the church saying hail Maryies and or other forms of apointed punishments when he suddenly realized we are justified by faith and rightl away left the church steps?

Quote from: neophyte on Sat Feb 16, 2013 - 16:04:47
mclees8, whatever are you trying to write about anyways? For one thing you do realize that Catholic doctrine has never changed, the Catholic Church because it's Teachings come from Christ does not
believe in any of the" new Protestant doctrines"invented by mere men and women.

FireSword, no way can a corrupt pope, bishop , priest or nun ever change a Catholic doctrine , the Doctrine is unchangeable. Don't stop there with the Templer knights .go on, let's hear about "your" know ledgable version about the Knights Templer.

I heard the knights Templar were soldiers who desired to protect Christians on their journey to and fro from Jerusalem from raiding bandits. They made an oath of poverty and service to God. Eventually over time their wealth and power grew and they had monastries, King Philip IV made allegations that they committed blaphemous crimes of homosexuality and renouncing Christ. They were put under trial and after tortures confessed their crimes, but afterwards they would recant. But the pope made the decision to arrest all Templar knights burned them at stake and to dissolve the order.

Many think the knights were innocent of the charges, as the only evidence was accrued from torture.

Read it here for yourself


The Sad History of the Knights Templar

Sorry, I can't make the proper connection to the article about the Knights Templar.

How does one 'cut and paste 'not the whole article but just the title?

Quote from: BondServant on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 23:39:33
Actually, Selene, that was not Luther's intention.  He had no desire to leave the catholic church or start a new movement.  He wanted to reform the church from within.  Indulgences were only one illegal act of the church (and it was far more widespread than one small area of Germany).

Further more, it was the church who excommunicated Luther.  After three years of denigrating the man and launching false accusations against him, the bishops and cardinals convinced the pope to excommunicate him.

Could you point out any documentations that the selling of indulgences was actually more widespread than Germany?? 

Quote from: FireSword on Sat Feb 16, 2013 - 15:30:55

Quote from: neophyte on Thu Feb 14, 2013 - 15:28:59
Yes selling indulgences was wrong, but it was only a geographical wrong [ Luther's region ] not throughout the universal Church . Travel and mail back and forth from Pope and Luther was very slow. THINK ! Communication was a problem. Study the situation back then before you haphazardly come to your conclusions.

So he was excommunicated because he exposed corruption? This is a historical problem with the RCC is that the leaders are easily swayed by corrupt men and punish the good ones, like they did with their Templar knights.

He was excommunicated for teaching a doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church.   

Yes, firesword....Luther was excommunicated for exposing corruption in the catholic church.  Those whom he exposed were powerful and easily able to drum up false charges against him.

neophyte, I honestly cannot believe you asked such a silly question.  Is the catholic church seriously teaching that indulgences were only sold in the Wittenburg area of Germany?

Selene, Luther taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ.  Is that contrary to what the catholic church teaches?

Quote from: BondServant on Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 21:41:52
Yes, firesword....Luther was excommunicated for exposing corruption in the catholic church.  Those whom he exposed were powerful and easily able to drum up false charges against him.

neophyte, I honestly cannot believe you asked such a silly question.  Is the catholic church seriously teaching that indulgences were only sold in the Wittenburg area of Germany?

Selene, Luther taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ.  Is that contrary to what the catholic church teaches?

Luther taught "sola scriptura" which is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches, and doctrine was what he was excommunicated for.  You claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany.  So, where is the historical documentation for this accusation? 

Quote from: Selene on Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 23:56:50

Quote from: BondServant on Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 21:41:52
Yes, firesword....Luther was excommunicated for exposing corruption in the catholic church.  Those whom he exposed were powerful and easily able to drum up false charges against him.

neophyte, I honestly cannot believe you asked such a silly question.  Is the catholic church seriously teaching that indulgences were only sold in the Wittenburg area of Germany?

Selene, Luther taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ.  Is that contrary to what the catholic church teaches?

Luther taught "sola scriptura" which is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches, and doctrine was what he was excommunicated for.  You claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany.  So, where is the historical documentation for this accusation? 

There are 2 thought-streams in the RCC
- Doctrine
- Dogma

Dogma is doctrine, but then assumed to be 100% correct.
Doctrine is assumed to be correct, but not confirmed, hence it is not dogma.

If Luther was excommunicated because of a doctrine that is not dogma, then the excommunication is incorrect as the RCC by not declaring this doctrine dogma, admits that their doctrine may be faulty.

correct?

Selene, I am going to ask you very kindly to please refrain from a) twisting my words and b) claiming I said things I did not.

I would also like for you to please answer the question that I asked instead of avoiding it.

Thank you very much.

BondServant, you wrote:"neophyte, I honestly cannot believe you asked such a silly question.  Is the catholic church seriously teaching that indulgences were only sold in the Wittenburg area of Germany?"

Well  BondServant, as Selene stated; " You claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany.  So, where is the historical documentation for this accusation? 

Quote from: Selene on Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 23:56:50

Quote from: BondServant on Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 21:41:52
Yes, firesword....Luther was excommunicated for exposing corruption in the catholic church.  Those whom he exposed were powerful and easily able to drum up false charges against him.

neophyte, I honestly cannot believe you asked such a silly question.  Is the catholic church seriously teaching that indulgences were only sold in the Wittenburg area of Germany?

Selene, Luther taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ.  Is that contrary to what the catholic church teaches?

Luther taught "sola scriptura" which is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches, and doctrine was what he was excommunicated for.  You claimed that the abuses of indulgences were widespread and not only in Germany.  So, where is the historical documentation for this accusation?

Indulgences

by Matt Slick

An indulgence, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is a means of remission of the temporal punishment for sins which have already been forgiven but are due to the Christian in this life and/or in purgatory.  This punishment is most often in purgatory but can also be suffered in this life.  An indulgence removes time needed to be spent in purgatory.  There are two kinds of indulgences:  partial and plenary.  A partial indulgence removes part of the punishment of sins.  A plenary indulgence removes all of the punishment of sins.   Granting an indulgence of a certain number of days or years means that is how many days or years is removed from the time of punishment a person must undergo in purgatory.

On the inside of the cover of the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism published in 1969 there is a prayer. After the prayer it says the following: "An indulgence of five years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, provided this prayer has been recited daily for a month." This means that by saying the prayer properly five years is removed from a person's time in purgatory!

On the same page of the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism it says, "The faithful who devote 20 minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, may gain: an indulgence of three years.  A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions twice a month, if the above practice is carried out at least twice a month."

So, we can see that according to this catechism if you say the prayer properly you can have five years removed from your time in purgatory.  Likewise, if the faithful devote 20 minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, they can have three years removed from purgatory.  Is this biblical?  Not at all.  It is ridiculous to think that reading doctrine and saying a prayer removes time of punishment in the Catholic-invented place called purgatory.  It is nothing more than a means to control the Catholics and keep them dependent on "The Mother Church."

http://carm.org/indulgences



Confirm or deny with proof---thanks.

Lively Stone, who cares what Matt Slick "THINKS" he knows what the Catholic Church teaches. Instead of going to Mr. Slick for information on Catholicism why not go direct to a search site that was Catholic. It would be like a tourist who plans to travel to Russia so he goes to a New York State Tourist Bureau site for traveling in Russia, when he could have clicked on a Russian travel site.

Part 1

Indulgences. The very word stirs up more misconceptions than perhaps any other teaching in Catholic theology. Those who attack the Church for its use of indulgences rely upon—and take advantage of—the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics.

What is an indulgence? The Church explains, "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church's help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1). To see the biblical foundations for indulgences, see the Catholic Answers tract A Primer on Indulgences.
Step number one in explaining indulgences is to know what they are. Step number two is to clarify what they are not. Here are the seven most common myths about indulgences:


Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.


This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God's eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one's eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).


Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.


The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power."


Myth 3: A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.


The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1, emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.


Myth 4: Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.
Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.


Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.


The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person's case.


Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.


The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church's seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.


Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.


One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."

Being able to explain these seven myths will be a large step in helping others to understand indulgences. But, there are still questions to be asked: