RE: No, Protestants are Protestant by definition.
Actually, Protestants are not necessarily Christians either. It depends on what you confess and what you believe. But I can say the same of people who call themselves Roman Catholic.
RE: To say they aren’t “ROMAN Catholic by definition” might make them Melkite Catholics or Maronites or Eastern Orthodox. Notice how you said they were not Christian by definition? You apparently have a lower opinion of Protestants than someone might first think – and you’re one of them.
A Christian (by scriptural definition ) is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ, not some label you attach to them as in the above labels you use.
So, what makes someone a follower? Simple -— Jesus Himself gives the criteria : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say?” (Luke 6:46 ).
So, Someone who OBEYS the Lord’s teachings IS a Christian, regardless of how you label them.
RE: Protestants believe in heresies so they do not believe all that is necessary to be in the Church. They have sects, tens of thousands of them, but no Church.
Errr... you keep using the word “heresy” without bothering to define the word.
As for sects, tens of thousands of them, you need to show me what each individual sect or denomination confesses and believe in. I don’t call every one of them heretical simply because you use the word “sect” to describe them.
WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE? <-— that is the criteria, not what vladimir says.
RE: Great. You’re going to be waiting until the thread dies out. Get comfy.
This tells me one thing— You either : 1) Don’t know what the gospel is; or 2) Are simply using the word without knowing what it means; or 3) You are avoiding answering it for fear you might mis-define it.
But we have all the time in the world... this thread need not die out and I am a patient man. I’d like to wait for your definition of the gospel....
RE: Being “NOT OF US” does not stop a Protestant from being a Christian. It means he is not a Christian in the fullest sense and is not in communion with the Church.
Well, it looks like we need to define our terms again — What is “the Church”?
I don’t agree that Protestants (those who believe seriously in scripture ) are not in communion with the CHURCH of Christ.
I don’t know how you define it, but here is the Biblical definition :
The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Ephesians 1:22-23 says, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) until Christ’s return.
The body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:
1) The universal (i.e. catholic) church consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle … and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—what we call local churches. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.
THAT is the Biblical definition of the church. What is yours?
RE: No, the question should be: why belong to a heretical group or why embrace any heresy like Protestantism?
No, the question is how do you define “Heresy”?
You have used several words which you don’t bother to define.
Here they are : The Church, Heresy, Gospel.
RE: Nope. One is catholic only when he is Catholic. No Protestant can be Catholic because he is a Protestant.
You are equivocating again.
By “catholic” you are equating the term with ROMAN Catholic.
I don’t believe you can claim the word “catholic” (Universal ) as your own.
You can call yourself a Protestant and NOT be in the catholic (universal ) church by virtue of your unbelief. Likewise, you can be baptized into the ROMAN catholic Church and not be a member of the “catholic” church by virtue of your unbelief. How many Roman Catholics are now atheists or converted to Islam? These people are not members of the catholic church any longer by virtue of their unbelief.
RE: Nope, only yours. No acclamation means no canonization by acclamation. That is irrefutable.
Calling it irrefutable does not make it so.
Let’s make it even better -— No canonization, or no acclamation DOES NOT MEAN one is not a Saint.
And by that, I again go back to scripture, not vladimir’s definition.
The word “saint” comes from the Greek word hagios, which means “consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious.” It is almost always used in the plural, “saints.” “…Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem” (Acts 9:13). “Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to the saints who lived at Lydda” (Acts 9:32). “And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons …“ (Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use, and that is “Greet every saint in Christ Jesus…” (Philippians 4:21). In Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural “saints” compared to only one use of the singular word “saint.” Even in that one instance, a plurality of saints is in view: “…every saint…” (Philippians 4:21).
The idea of the word “saints” is a group of people set apart for the Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly character of saints: “that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints …” (Romans 16:2). “For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12). “But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (Ephesians 5:3).
So, a virtuous Christian does not don’t need to be canonized, or acclamated to be a Saint. All one needs is for GOD to see you as one.
The fact that St. Patrick is recognized as a Saint by ALL Christians ( not only by those of the Roman Catholic persuasion ) is a GOOD THING. It simply means he meets the BIBLICAL criteria of being a Saint, which EVERY Christian ( be he in the Roman Catholic church or not ) can aspire to become.
RE: The only Catholics are Catholics. No Protestant is a Catholic. St. Patrick was Catholic.
Correction : True Christians are ALL Catholics (members of the UNIVERSAL church ). St. Patrick was Catholic, true, but so are many virtous Christians who are not baptized in the ROMAN catholic church.
RE: He didn’t. I already said why.
Actually the emphasis is on the word “I”, which is your own peculiar definition of what the gospel is ( which you still refuse to say ).
I go by what St. Paul said. And since Kennedy believes in what St. Paul defines as the gospel, I have to conclude that
your statement is WRONG.
“Actually, Protestants are not necessarily Christians either. It depends on what you confess and what you believe. But I can say the same of people who call themselves Roman Catholic.”
So now you’re talking about Protestants who aren’t Christians while earlier you falsely accused me of saying Protestants aren’t Christians?
“A Christian (by scriptural definition ) is someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ, not some label you attach to them as in the above labels you use.”
I was the one who pointed out that a believer in Christ who was also baptized is a Christian. You insisted that was not the case if that person is a heretic.
“So, what makes someone a follower? Simple -— Jesus Himself gives the criteria : “Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say?” (Luke 6:46 ).”
You have done this at least two or three times now: you post a verse that actually shows that – by your own definition and proof texts – you are not a Christian or follower of Jesus. You contradict yourself again and again.
“So, Someone who OBEYS the Lord’s teachings IS a Christian, regardless of how you label them.”
And there you go again writing yourself out of Christianity.
“Errr... you keep using the word “heresy” without bothering to define the word.”
I already know the definition. I don’t need to define it. If you need it defined, it means you’re not ready for this conversation – which has been self-evident for several hours now.
“As for sects, tens of thousands of them, you need to show me what each individual sect or denomination confesses and believe in.”
No, actually I don’t. They’re all Protestant sects. That’s all that is needed.
“I don’t call every one of them heretical simply because you use the word “sect” to describe them.”
All Protestant sects are heretical. It is inevitable.
“WHAT DO THEY BELIEVE? <-— that is the criteria, not what vladimir says.”
They believe in Protestantism – which is heresy.
“This tells me one thing— You either : 1) Don’t know what
the gospel is; or 2) Are simply using the word without knowing what it means; or 3) You are avoiding answering it for fear you might mis-define it.”
None of the above. I don’t mind if it bothers you.
“But we have all the time in the world... this thread need not die out and I am a patient man. I’d like to wait for your definition of the gospel....”
Get comfy.
“Well, it looks like we need to define our terms again — What is “the Church”?”
What you’re not in.
“I don’t agree that Protestants (those who believe seriously in scripture ) are not in communion with the CHURCH of Christ.”
1) It doesn’t matter what you believe. Since you are not in the Church, and don’t believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no reason to think that you have a clue.
2) Protestants do not “believe seriously in scripture”. They seriously believe in their heresies.
“I don’t know how you define it,”
I define it correctly.
“but here is the Biblical definition :”
And not surprisingly you made the same mistake that all Protestants make.
“ A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers.”
Completely false. Baptists do not believe in infant baptism. Lutherans do. Both claim to believe in sola scriptura and sola fide yet they differ widely on something as essential as baptism – what it means, who receives it, why it matters. Christ and the Holy Spirit simply don’t operate that way.
“The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.”
No. Although all baptized Christians have some connection to the Church, not all are members of the Church. Some directly reject it in fact.
“THAT is the Biblical definition of the church. What is yours?”
The correct one. Yours is not the Biblical definition. Yours is merely the Protestant definition.
“No, the question is how do you define “Heresy”?”
No. Heresy has already been defined. It is not how I define it. It is not how you define it. It is why do you continue to embrace it?
“You have used several words which you don’t bother to define.”
I don’t need to. I already know the definitions. If you don’t know those definitions, that is your problem and reflective of the fact that you are just a Protestant and Protestantism is synonymous with heresy.
“Here they are : The Church, Heresy, Gospel.”
I am in the Church, follow the Gospel, and leave all the Heresy to you since you embrace it.
“You are equivocating again.”
No. Things are what they are. You apparently want things to be what they aren’t. A Protestant can never be “catholic” because if his beliefs became “catholic” he would instantly cease to be a Protestant in belief.
“By “catholic” you are equating the term with ROMAN Catholic.”
Completely false. I directly equate catholic with Catholic as is proper.
“I don’t believe you can claim the word “catholic” (Universal ) as your own.”
What you believe doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church is catholic. Protestant sects are just heretical sects and not catholic in any sense of the world.
“You can call yourself a Protestant and NOT be in the catholic (universal ) church by virtue of your unbelief. Likewise, you can be baptized into the ROMAN catholic Church and not be a member of the “catholic” church by virtue of your unbelief. How many Roman Catholics are now atheists or converted to Islam? These people are not members of the catholic church any longer by virtue of their unbelief.”
Once again you attack a belief no one holds.
“Calling it irrefutable does not make it so.”
Nope. But it is irrefutable – and that’s why I called it so.
“Let’s make it even better -— No canonization, or no acclamation DOES NOT MEAN one is not a Saint.”
No kidding.
“And by that, I again go back to scripture, not vladimir’s definition.”
You mean that once again you will attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds. And this time you plagiarize a website to do it while claiming you’re going “back to scripture”: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS418US418&q=%E2%80%9Csaint%E2%80%9D+comes+from+the+Greek+word+hagios%2C+which+means+%E2%80%9Cconsecrated+to+God%2C+holy%2C+sacred%2C+pious.%E2%80%9D+It+is+almost+always+used+in+the+plural%2C+%E2%80%9Csaints.%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%9C%E2%80%A6Lord%2C+I+have+heard+from+many+about+this+man%2C+how+much+harm+he+did+to+Your+saints+at+Jerusalem%E2%80%9D+(Acts+9%3A13).+%E2%80%9CNow+as+Peter+was+traveling+through+all+those+regions%2C+he+came+down+also+to+the+saints+who+lived+at+Lydda%E2%80%9D+(Acts+9%3A32).+
Why are Protestants so dishonest?
“So, a virtuous Christian does not don’t need to be canonized, or acclamated to be a Saint. All one needs is for GOD to see you as one.”
Again, why do you attack (by inference or implication) a belief no one holds.
“The fact that St. Patrick is recognized as a Saint by ALL Christians ( not only by those of the Roman Catholic persuasion ) is a GOOD THING.”
Not all Christians recognize St. Patrick as a saint.
“It simply means he meets the BIBLICAL criteria of being a Saint, which EVERY Christian ( be he in the Roman Catholic church or not ) can aspire to become.”
It’s amazing how much time you spend making points that do not need to be made.
“Correction : True Christians are ALL Catholics (members of the UNIVERSAL church ). St. Patrick was Catholic, true, but so are many virtous Christians who are not baptized in the ROMAN catholic church.”
Correction: no Protestant can be Catholic.
“Actually the emphasis is on the word “I”, which is your own peculiar definition of what the gospel is ( which you still refuse to say ).”
No the emphasis is on “already”. And I have no “peculiar” definition of what the gospel is. I only hold to the true definition. Only Protestants or other heretics can have a peculiar definition of the gospel by definition.
“I go by what St. Paul said.”
No, you don’t. You go by what most Protestants say St. Paul said.
“And since Kennedy believes in what St. Paul defines as the gospel, I have to conclude that
your statement is WRONG.”
What you conclude is immaterial since you’re a sectarian and holder of heresy.