What distinguishes a "Protestant?"

[farouk]

UPC is an acronym that I mistook for a straight answer since the topic centered on it.

I find it hard to keep up with all the acronyms these days...

 

[farouk]

I loathe my sinful self and ask God to forgive me for what I am at the start of every day. But I censor sinful thoughts while they are still temptation. So it's rare that I sin outwardly while walking in the Spirit.

The first verses of Ephesians 2 are for example very searching, I find. So is John's First Epistle...

 

[BreadOfLife]

I loathe my sinful self and ask God to forgive me for what I am at the start of every day. But I censor sinful thoughts while they are still temptation. So it's rare that I sin outwardly while walking in the Spirit.

Rare is good.
"Never" is a lie - which is a sin . . .

 

[Taken]

Mark 10:18
"No one is good--except God alone."

Jesus said this - and YOU want me to believe YOU??
What that thing you always say - "LOL"??

Your Catholic learned deceptive trickery, is old and worn out.

I never said to believe me....
I quoted Scripture, you said it was not true.

Then you tried to explain WHY Joesph was good, while continuing to deny he was good.

The Dilemma is....you do not really understand WHY Joseph was good...or WHY any man can be good.....THUS you blurt out in complete opposition to what Scripture says, and are called out, then try to pull out every diversion you can think of.

You spend so much time stroking your own ego and screaming at everyone else they are WRONG you are too Prideful to correct your own error.

 

[Taken]

UPC is an acronym that

YOU brought up.
Asked if I was.
And did I say I was?

No, I did not.

I mistook for a straight answer since the topic centered on it.

And did you also mistake and not understand you repeatedly spoke for me, things I did not myself say?

 

[Taken]

Dave L said: ↑
I loathe my sinful self

Why?

and ask God to forgive me for what I am

And HONESTLY, what ARE YOU?


Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your Catholic learned deceptive trickery, is old and worn out.

I never said to believe me....
I quoted Scripture, you said it was not true.

Then you tried to explain WHY Joesph was good, while continuing to deny he was good.

The Dilemma is....you do not really understand WHY Joseph was good...or WHY any man can be good.....THUS you blurt out in complete opposition to what Scripture says, and are called out, then try to pull out every diversion you can think of.

You spend so much time stroking your own ego and screaming at everyone else they are WRONG you are too Prideful to correct your own error.

Just showing you that you don't understand Scripture because you cherry-pick.
If you don't read it in CONTEXT with other verses like the one I took you to the woodshed with (Mark 10:18) - you'll come up "WRONG" every time.

Consider yourself Scripturally-SPANKED . . .

 

[Taken]

Just showing you that you don't understand Scripture because you cherry-pick.

Luke 23
[50] And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just:

"BreadofLife" "No, Joseph was not good."

If you don't read it in CONTEXT with other verses

"BreadofLife" "No, Joseph was not good".

Scripture says Joseph was a good man.
I believe Scripture is TRUE.
And you said;

"BreadofLife" "No, Joseph was not good".

You expressed with your own words, you deny what Scripture says.

Then you refer to a Scripture where JESUS SAID...."no man is good".

like the one I took you to the woodshed with (Mark 10:18) - you'll come up "WRONG" every time.

Consider yourself Scripturally-SPANKED . . .[/QUOTE]

It is VERY Obvious in your posts, you never learned HOW TO DIVIDE the WORD of TRUTH.

Perhaps your church didn't teach you, or perhaps you spent more time perfecting your arrogance....but the fact is, neither does well to be a servant that glorifies God.

A true Believer would believe ALL Scripture is TRUE... You have flat out said otherwise....
then try to use another Scripture out of Context in an attempt to Justifiy you rejecting what a Scripture said.

You arrogantly pat yourself on the back...for thinking you have proved Scripture defies Scripture.

Congratulations....but as usual you are the one who is WRONG.

All Scripture is true. You would do well to put your ego away and be a student instead of trying to be a teacher teaching Scripture defies Scripture. It doesn't!

 

[mjrhealth]

You are not Jesus and Paul said the charismatic gifts would expire by the time John published the book of Revelation.

Never said I was, are you listening to voices in your head, that are telling you what to write. You must be as crazy as the rest of us.

So little understanding..

 

[Taken]

What distinguishes a "Protestant?"

There are a few people in the world who;

Freely choose to Believe In God, In Christ Jesus;
AND
Freely choose to Confess their Belief;
AND
Gladly Accept the Lords Forgiveness for having not believed.
AND
Gladly Receive the Seed of God.
AND
Gladly Receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.
AND
Gladly look forward to wholly, soul, spirit, body forever being with their Lord God Almighty.

And many of THOSE particular people call themselves Protestants, by those things that sets them apart from OTHERS, who CALL themselves by something other than Protestant.

Praise and Glory to God,
Taken

 

[brakelite]

Being Protestant is far more than just a name one attaches to himself.

 

[Dave L]

Never said I was, are you listening to voices in your head, that are telling you what to write. You must be as crazy as the rest of us.

So little understanding..

You are the one trying to make the case for voices in the head. Not me. I want those who hear voices to get help.

 

[Willie T]

Does anyone here realize that the name, "Protestant" (Latin: 'protestantes') was not really originally given to Luther, but rather to a group led by a half dozen German princes who thought his movement in opposition to the powerful corrupted control of The Church was a politically advantageous idea?

 

[brakelite]

Does anyone here realize that the name, "Protestant" (Latin: 'protestantes') was not really originally given to Luther, but rather to a group led by a half dozen German princes who thought his movement in opposition to the powerful corrupted control of The Church was a politically advantageous idea?

Sounds like something the counter-reformation would like us to think...

 

[Josiah]

So - you think Jesus is "absurd"??

Well, you didn't actually read the post, did you?

I called YOUR insistence absurd (YOU, not Jesus).... your point that sin requires a "wrong motive." I revealed the absurdity of your position but of course, again, you are outstanding at evasion and accusation.

See post 225




.

 

[Willie T]

Sounds like something the counter-reformation would like us to think...

"No", that actually came from a pro reformation source... but, an objective one. It seems Luther, a fairly unknown small-time monk, was a relatively minor irritant to the Church at first, before the political powers began to get behind him..... thinking, the movement to be to their advantage.

 

[Josiah]

Does anyone here realize that the name, "Protestant" (Latin: 'protestantes') was not really originally given to Luther, but rather to a group led by a half dozen German princes who thought his movement in opposition to the powerful corrupted control of The Church was a politically advantageous idea?

Correct. That was the original meaning....

The term as we now know it was a term of derision invented by some Catholics. It meant any who rejected their denomination's own "pope" as the infallible/unaccountable Authority and Voice of Jesus.

But as often happens, terms of derision often loose their negativity and simply become embraced. Witness terms like Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Quaker, and more recently, Mormon. All originally terms of derision invented by detractors but EVENTUALLY accepted quite universally, even by the group so named. "Protestants" of course called themselves "Evangelicals" (the term ORIGINALLY referred to Lutherans and Calvinists.... only in the late 19th Century was the term "stolen" by a movement of that time).



MY view....

I think the most important/distinctive marks of Protestantism are...


1. Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. In justification (narrow or initial) Jesus is the Savior. Jesus - not self, not now or ever, not 100% or 0.001% It is the repudiation of Pelagianism and synergism in this matter. The repudiation of Jesus only as a possibility-maker, door-opener, teacher, inspiration, example but as THE SAVIOR. It's not Jesus and me, it's just Jesus for there is no other name under heaven by which any may be saved (and that includes our own name). The RCC and Luther and Calvin all agreed THIS was the major issue of the Reformation.


2. Ecclesiology. The church is the whole corpus of all believers, the "one holy catholic church - the community of believers." All believers, past and present. The church is not one specific denomination (whether the RCC or LDS or any other). Protestants have nothing against congregations or denominations (nearly all Protestants are in such) BUT no geopolitical, economic, legal denominational entity is The Church in any sense. The RCC insists that IT (as a denomination) IS THE Church (at least in fullness). And on this is based all its egotistical, individual claims of self for self. Protestants say, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE." The church is not some denomination we must identify, it's US.... all of us.... together... as one family, one oikos.... one body... with Jesus as the head (He never resigned).


3. Epistemology. Protestants look to the objective, written, inspired WORDS on the page of the Bible as the norma normans for the evaluation of dogmas ("Sola Scriptura") - rejecting that if self says self alone is infallible/unaccountable, thus self alone is... if self speaks, ergo God is speaking. Protestants reject the idea that the Norm/Rule is simply the views of self, so if self agrees with self then self is right. Some hold that this was actually the "deal breaker" in the Reformation. the one thing the RCC could not permit. Note: Protestantism does NOT reject the role of Tradition - only that such is under Scripture not equal to it or above it (as the RCC insists). And Protestantism does NOT say that the individual PERSON is the interpreter rather than and individual DENOMINATION. Protestantism embraces accountability..... whereas the RCC itself exempted one, itself. When a Protestant does the same thing, they are repudiating Protestantism.




- Josiah



.







.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Luke 23
[50] And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just:

Scripture says Joseph was a good man.
I believe Scripture is TRUE.
And you said;
You expressed with your own words, you deny what Scripture says.
Then you refer to a Scripture where JESUS SAID...."no man is good".

It is VERY Obvious in your posts, you never learned HOW TO DIVIDE the WORD of TRUTH.

Perhaps your church didn't teach you, or perhaps you spent more time perfecting your arrogance....but the fact is, neither does well to be a servant that glorifies God.

A true Believer would believe ALL Scripture is TRUE... You have flat out said otherwise....
then try to use another Scripture out of Context in an attempt to Justifiy you rejecting what a Scripture said.

You arrogantly pat yourself on the back...for thinking you have proved Scripture defies Scripture.

Congratulations....but as usual you are the one who is WRONG.

All Scripture is true. You would do well to put your ego away and be a student instead of trying to be a teacher teaching Scripture defies Scripture. It doesn't!

When Jesus says emphatically that there is NOBODY that is good except God – it is what we Christians refer to as “Gospel Truth”. I don’t know what YOU would call it.

Now – if there is another verse that appears to contradict this emphatic statement – then you must reconcile that verse in the CONTEXT with other verses that indicate that ALL goodness comes from GOD.
Ergo – Joseph wasn’t “good”. His relationship with GOD was “good”. This is how you “properly divide” Scripture.

You're right about ONE thing: ALL Scripture IS true. Just not YOUR ignorant spin on it.

Hope that helps, sparky . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well, you didn't actually read the post, did you?

I called YOUR insistence absurd (YOU, not Jesus).... your point that sin requires a "wrong motive." I revealed the absurdity of your position but of course, again, you are outstanding at evasion and accusation.

See post 225[/QUOTE]
Jesus said the following:
John 9:41
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

If you disagree with that, then your problem is with HIM - not me . . .

 

[Taken]

When Jesus says emphatically that there is NOBODY that is good except God – it is what we Christians refer to as “Gospel Truth”. I don’t know what YOU would call it.

You don't know what I would call it, because you do not LISTEN.

I clearly said, Scipture...ALL of Scripture is TRUE. I didn't limit it to ONLY the Gospels.

Now – if there is another verse that appears to contradict this emphatic statement – then you must reconcile that verse

ACCORDING TO WHOM,(the individual) of WHICH;
ONE VERSE APPLIES....while the OTHER VERSE DOES NOT APPLY.

in the CONTEXT with other verses that indicate that ALL goodness comes from GOD.

No, it is not a matter of WHY .
It is a matter of APPLICATION to WHOM

Every Person is NOT called by NAME, In Scripture.

But YET Scripture REVEALS TO WHOM a particular Scripture APPLIES.

The POSSIBILITY of ONE Scripture saying a described man IS GOOD....REVEALS the APPLICATION TO THAT described Individual.

"THE" WHY it IS POSSIBLE for ONE man "TO BE" GOOD....and another man to "NOT BE GOOD"....IS absolutely BY and THROUGH....the WILL, WORD, POWER...
Of God.

Jesus STATED, "no man is good"...

That was a FACT.

However Jesus, ALSO TAUGHT, by Words out of His mouth, AND by His Example....

"HOW MEN" could BECOME GOOD.

And MEN WHO FREELY CHOSE TO hear His words, and ACCEPT His words, and Observed His Example, and DID the same as He Exampled.....

ARE: the SAME men "WHO WERE NOT GOOD, and B-E-C-A-M-E.....G-O-O-D....

They Became Good,
By hearing;
By observing;
By Trusting to Believe;
By Confessing their Belief In Christ Jesus;
By Receiving the Gift of Gods Goodness.

The Scripture that says, "no man is good",
IS STILL TRUE, as ALL Scripture IS TRUE.

However THAT Scripture "NO LONGER APPLIES" to an INDIVIDUAL, "WHOM" has become Changed!!!!!

THAT IS HOW THE WORD OF TRUTH IS RIGHTLY DIVIDED!!!!

Ergo – Joseph wasn’t “good”.

THAT ^^ is FALSE.

His relationship with GOD was “good”.

THAT ^^ is OUT OF CONTEXT.
A man PRYOR, to "the MAN BECOMING CHANGED".....
HAD NO RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD!!!

This is how you “properly divide” Scripture.

THAT ^^ IS FALSE.

You are DENYING a man can BECOME CHANGED and "MADE" GOOD.

When the ENTIRE Scriptures Encompasses revealing Gods WILL...
OF Gods OFFERING TO ALL MEN.....

The Knowledge
the Wisdom
the Way
an Example
OF "HOW" ...
MEN "CAN BECOME C-H-A-N-G-E-D !!!!

You're right about ONE thing: ALL Scripture IS true. Just not YOUR ignorant spin on it.

And YOUR SPIN?
IS QUOTING Scriptural WORDS...
Claiming all Scripture is TRUE...
WHILE Denying the TRUTH written in "certain" scriptures...
And then "interjecting" your DENIAL of Scripture...
is BECAUSE
{YOUR SPIN}...God IS Good, and ONLY the Relationship between a man and God is Good, therefore the MAN himself, is NOT GOOD.

NO, that is NOT HOW to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH...

YOUR METHOD, IS YOUR SPIN, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO "KEEP" "YOUR" FALSE CLAIM, that a man is not good....in tact.

POINT IS....you deflect AWAY from the man, introduce your deflection to a "relationship"....

And THAT, is "supposed" to deflect AWAY from:
1) YOU flat out DENYING what scripture said.
2) YOU focusing on Gods goodness.

And the ODDBALL part of YOUR SPIN...

WHY ARE YOU TEACHING GOD HAS "RELATIONSHIPS" "WITH" ANY MAN....
WHO IS NOT GOOD? LOL

Hope that helps, sparky . . .

False teaching is never helpful, darky.