Comments on: The True Church http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/ Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:55:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: M. Z. Ahern http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-177 M. Z. Ahern Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:05:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-177 With regard to John's assumption that "most Protestants would claim those three points": no way. <br/><br/>I am certain that "most" Protestants do not think that their very particular denomination is the only True Church, the only way to salvation. There are those who do think that way, but they really are a small minority. <br/><br/>Of course probably all Protestants do not think that the Roman Catholic Church is the only True Church. Why on earth would they be Protestants if they did believe that?<br/><br/>The point about "The Church at the time of the Apostles can be considered the True Church -- essentially, what the Church is supposed to be", well, I think that is a misconception more common among the more arminian Bible churches, not among those Protestants who trace their heritage to Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer. Of course to hold such a view denies the work of the Holy Spirit in all of history. <br/><br/>One last point. While I quite agree with someone who once said that evangelicalism in the US is 3000 miles wide and 2 inches deep, Protestants do have a good share of deep thinkers, scholars, church historians, and theologians -- people who love God with their minds. <br/><br/>By the way, what do you all make of the fact that the Orthodox Church (the church that dominates eastern Christianity) teaches that it is the one True and original Church, the only way to salvation, and that the Roman Catholic Church was the first denomination to separate from the True Orthodox Church? With regard to John’s assumption that “most Protestants would claim those three points”: no way.

I am certain that “most” Protestants do not think that their very particular denomination is the only True Church, the only way to salvation. There are those who do think that way, but they really are a small minority.

Of course probably all Protestants do not think that the Roman Catholic Church is the only True Church. Why on earth would they be Protestants if they did believe that?

The point about “The Church at the time of the Apostles can be considered the True Church — essentially, what the Church is supposed to be”, well, I think that is a misconception more common among the more arminian Bible churches, not among those Protestants who trace their heritage to Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer. Of course to hold such a view denies the work of the Holy Spirit in all of history.

One last point. While I quite agree with someone who once said that evangelicalism in the US is 3000 miles wide and 2 inches deep, Protestants do have a good share of deep thinkers, scholars, church historians, and theologians — people who love God with their minds.

By the way, what do you all make of the fact that the Orthodox Church (the church that dominates eastern Christianity) teaches that it is the one True and original Church, the only way to salvation, and that the Roman Catholic Church was the first denomination to separate from the True Orthodox Church?

]]> By: John Ahern http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-176 John Ahern Sat, 14 Jul 2007 03:19:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-176 Oh, yes. Good point. I'm not sure I'm an intellectual anything simply because of failure not because of apathy...<br/><br/>But most other Protestants would claim those three points. I happen to be weird enough a Protestant to deny them. Oh, yes. Good point. I’m not sure I’m an intellectual anything simply because of failure not because of apathy…

But most other Protestants would claim those three points. I happen to be weird enough a Protestant to deny them.

]]> By: Nick http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-175 Nick Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:15:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-175 One thing to note, though, Hunter, is that John's a very intelligent sort of Protestant belonging to a very intelligent (in my thinking) sort of Protestantism. While, of course, you'd be wrong in thinking that all (or even most) Protestants believe the points on your list, I've known people who *do* believe all of those points. One thing to note, though, Hunter, is that John’s a very intelligent sort of Protestant belonging to a very intelligent (in my thinking) sort of Protestantism. While, of course, you’d be wrong in thinking that all (or even most) Protestants believe the points on your list, I’ve known people who *do* believe all of those points.

]]> By: John R. Ahern http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-174 John R. Ahern Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:20:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-174 P. S. <br/><br/>By "flabbergasted" I mean that I am befuddled by your response. Not that you didn't make yourself perfectly clear, but your objection is so idiosyncratic that it's actually quite profound (not to mention original...who would think of that? :P)<br/><br/>Which is sort of a round-about compliment, but anyway... P. S.

By “flabbergasted” I mean that I am befuddled by your response. Not that you didn’t make yourself perfectly clear, but your objection is so idiosyncratic that it’s actually quite profound (not to mention original…who would think of that? :P)

Which is sort of a round-about compliment, but anyway…

]]> By: John R. Ahern http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-173 John R. Ahern Fri, 13 Jul 2007 02:50:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-173 Nick, I really am flabbergasted by your response. I'll have to think about it. Of course, I heard of Carl Barth, though not in particular detail. I remember R. C. Sproul saying that he thought it was "Neo Orthodoxy" without the "e". <br/><br/>Hunter, I think that if you wrote out a counter response and you were interested in getting it published here, we could set you up as a guest contributer for this one time and have you write out a response. If you're interested... It'd have to be in line with the guidelines (the very first post ever done here). Nick, I really am flabbergasted by your response. I’ll have to think about it. Of course, I heard of Carl Barth, though not in particular detail. I remember R. C. Sproul saying that he thought it was “Neo Orthodoxy” without the “e”.

Hunter, I think that if you wrote out a counter response and you were interested in getting it published here, we could set you up as a guest contributer for this one time and have you write out a response. If you’re interested… It’d have to be in line with the guidelines (the very first post ever done here).

]]> By: Hunter http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-172 Hunter Thu, 12 Jul 2007 06:03:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-172 Thanks for the detailed response. I can't write up a detailed counterresopnse right now, but it's very interesting to hear from another viewpoint (and how far off my assumptions of that viewpoint were ;) ). Thanks for the detailed response. I can’t write up a detailed counterresopnse right now, but it’s very interesting to hear from another viewpoint (and how far off my assumptions of that viewpoint were ;) ).

]]> By: Nick http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-171 Nick Tue, 10 Jul 2007 22:26:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-171 You make a really excellent case for yourself.<br/><br/>However, I do see one thing you don't explain. I've never really figured out why Protestants, who are so very uncomfortable about infallibility in the Church, should accept the Bible as entirely infallible and inerrant.<br/><br/>Why do you think the Bible is infallible and inerrant? Why couldn't the Bible be like the Church -- possessing goodness, truth, and beauty, but still imperfect?<br/><br/>P.S.<br/><br/>Karl Barth, who was rather an interesting fellow, and a founder of the neo-orthodox movement in Protestant thought, apparently denied the infallibility of Scripture. Take a look at this link, and lemme know what you think: http://asisaid.com/journal/article/1221.html You make a really excellent case for yourself.

However, I do see one thing you don’t explain. I’ve never really figured out why Protestants, who are so very uncomfortable about infallibility in the Church, should accept the Bible as entirely infallible and inerrant.

Why do you think the Bible is infallible and inerrant? Why couldn’t the Bible be like the Church — possessing goodness, truth, and beauty, but still imperfect?

P.S.

Karl Barth, who was rather an interesting fellow, and a founder of the neo-orthodox movement in Protestant thought, apparently denied the infallibility of Scripture. Take a look at this link, and lemme know what you think: http://asisaid.com/journal/article/1221.html

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.pontificationadnauseam.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/comment-page-1/#comment-170 Anonymous Tue, 10 Jul 2007 03:24:00 +0000 http://somethingorothercare.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/the-true-church/#comment-170 John, you're a blockhead. John, you’re a blockhead.

]]>