Ethical teaching of protestantism

[Dracula]

As an orthodox I have always wondered does protestantism have an ethical teaching and what it is. Do they just deal with fighting the catholic church or have some teaching about this different than the catholic ? If so who are the authorities and if possible some quotations please ! :hmmm:

[Lord de Lyonesse]

The main belief is the abscence of a christian leader such as the pope who commands near absolute power, The main branches of protestantism typically favour those of their countries monarchy such as the Archbishop of canterbury (Britain)

Evidence/quotes:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

[Dracula]

Yes but this is the dogmatic part. I am asking about the ethical one. The part connected with how the people should behave,not about god and the Church.

[Roman Knight]

Yes but this is the dogmatic part. I am asking about the ethical one. The part connected with how the people should behave,not about god and the Church.

Is there a massive difference? Anyway, wouldn't their ethical idea be the equality of people? I can't say they follow it completely but they make more of a point of it than catholicism.

[Dracula]

In a more classical church,there is a teaching about the beatitudes,the sins,the good and how to behave to be sinless,righteous and good. Also what is evil,what is forbidden and how to avoid it. Don't tell me protestantism doesn't know a teaching about these.

[boofhead]

In a more classical church,there is a teaching about the beatitudes,the sins,the good and how to behave to be sinless,righteous and good. Also what is evil,what is forbidden and how to avoid it. Don't tell me protestantism doesn't know a teaching about these.

Of course Protestant churches do these things. But they make the Bible their source exclusively (in theory), rather than some guy who interprets it for them. The ethical teaching is the Bible's message. And for most, it's very straight forward, no?

[Ummon]

As an orthodox I have always wondered does protestantism have an ethical teaching and what it is. Do they just deal with fighting the catholic church or have some teaching about this different than the catholic ? If so who are the authorities and if possible some quotations please ! :hmmm:

From my point of view, I woud say that protenstantism has one big plus (only one): it stresses the personal relationship of humans with God.

On the other hand, it tends to overestimate the importance of such relationship on reality.

[Dracula]

What is the purpose of the christian life ?

[Ummon]

What is the purpose of the christian life ?

"I am not here to bring peace, but a sword".

[Dracula]

"I am not here to bring peace, but a sword".

[the_mango55]

Protestants base their ethics and morals on guidelines written down in the New Testament, mostly in Paul's letters.

Not on loopholes and decrees written down by some powerhungry, warmongering pope a thousand years later.

[Ciabhán]

Protestants base their ethics and morals on guidelines written down in the New Testament, mostly in Paul's letters.

Not on loopholes and decrees written down by some powerhungry, warmongering pope a thousand years later.

Anglican's base theirs on the decree of a whoremongering secular king.

[Dracula]

I do not understand why the word "decree" is used so much. The orthodox cite the decrees of holy councils of bishops quite often,like this in Nicea,but always on first place we put words from the NT followed by such of the apostles. Then they maybe supported by some sentences from famous holy men (to take them as holy is not obligatory for you). But in no way do we base them on some church authority, more likely on the authority of those who have explained them well like st.Paul and others after him. To think that after Paul and the 11th apostles there were no other people able to teach the Church is a great mistake. This would mean the original Church has ended with them. We profess this is not the case.

[basics]

Dracula,

To protest where the word of God is over-ridden by the imaginative minds of men is a cause worthy of God, because we are told to contend for the truth. The originals protested against the ungodliness of Rome's teaching and it's enactments. That is where the word comes from.

Now the originals contended that Scripture teaches that by faith we are justified, that is the faith of Jesus Christ and not on the say so of any organisation calling itself the church, regardless of denomination. In other words we are saved by grace, not by the indulgence of any to work for their salvation.

There are five words in the Bible, such as justified, perfect, righteous and two others that escape me at the moment, that reveal the condition of them that are regenerate or born again and they all have the same Hebrew meaning, and are imputed upon all and unto all them that believe from the moment of conversion.

That is what Justification means and none other than God can justify anyone. It is just not possible for any church to do that, even to claim to do that. So for Protestants, for want of a better word, Scripture alone is the keys as described by Scripture as being the power of God to save and the only power. There isn't any other.

So we stand on Scripture as being the word of God as well as the keys to salvation, as the only source of regeneration given to men and women. Scripture being the power of God to save is sufficient in itself to bring men and women to God where He does the rest. If there was anything else how could the Spirit of truth not include it in Scripture since it is He that brought the lot together?

[Dracula]

So after Christ and the 12 disciples noone is a disciple of god any more and noone ever was endowed with god's power to teach,is that where we arrive ? Then the christian church is a pitifull organisation,having just to repeat what the dead disciples have said with absolutely no experience and participation in it. Really pitifull. Moreover to limit the ever alive words to a book or something materially enclosed is also pitifull.

Besides you and all protestants always neglect these words from the Scriptures : "there were other words which Jesus said and were not written,cause if everything had to be written even the whole world wouldn't have place for all the books"(NT, the very end of one one of the four gospels)

What is not written is always tought by god to the truthfull representatives of his Church and is the always alive spirit of christianity,many times richer than the scripture and endless,like god himself who doesn't have an end or limit.

[boofhead]

So after Christ and the 12 disciples noone is a disciple of god any more and noone ever was endowed with god's power to teach,is that where we arrive ? Then the christian church is a pitifull organisation,having just to repeat what the dead disciples have said with absolutely no experience and participation in it. Really pitifull. Moreover to limit the ever alive words to a book or something materially enclosed is also pitifull.

No. That is a flawed perception. Everyone has the ability to teach if he is filled with the spirit, even if only through their conduct in life. Even a deaf/dumb retarded child in a wheelchair can be the vessel via which lives are changed.

Besides you and all protestants always neglect these words from the Scriptures : "there were other words which Jesus said and were not written,cause if everything had to be written even the whole world wouldn't have place for all the books"(NT, the very end of one one of the four gospels)

Gee, that's really specific. Thanks for demeaning the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Christians without even knowing exactly what verse you are referring to.

What is not written is always tought by god to the truthfull representatives of his Church and is the always alive spirit of christianity,many times richer than the scripture and endless,like god himself who doesn't have an end or limit.

The 'truthful representatives of his Church'.......who would they be :hmmm:

You mean the Popes who murdered and had orgies in the middle ages? Who had people tortured and killed :hmmm: Or the modern pedo priests?

Who are these mysterious 'truthful representatives'?

Methinks I'd rather listen to the wise words of some drunken street hobo for inspiration rather than some snivelling child molester in fancy robes who seeks to dazzle me with his 'wisdom' because of his official position.

Every Christian is a 'truthful representative', not just those men wearing funny almond-shaped hats..

[Dracula]

without even knowing exactly what verse you are referring to.

But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. John 21:25

In my Bible it is "that Jesus said", I guess the protestant scholars have changed it.

Methinks I'd rather listen to the wise words of some drunken street hobo for inspiration rather than some snivelling child molester in fancy robes who seeks to dazzle me with his 'wisdom' because of his official position.

See by adding very many attributes to the two sides you neither enrich the one nor lessen the other. Your descriptions don't point to the state of his spirit.

Every Christian is a 'truthful representative', not just those men wearing funny almond-shaped hats..

When Christ commissioned the proclamation of the Gospel he commissioned it to the 11 apostles ,not to the others who were at the time his followers:

14 Later he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were sitting at the table; and he upbraided them for their lack of faith and stubbornness, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.* 15And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the good news* to the whole creation. Mark 16:14

So the truthfull representatives are only bishops/disciples/apostles -and not all but these who are not sinfull of course.Christ didn't send all his believers to proclaim the Gospel onto all the world,no- he sent just 11 and only these who are commissioned by them are truthfull representatives.

[the_mango55]

When Christ commissioned the proclamation of the Gospel he commissioned it to the 11 apostles ,not to the others who were at the time his followers:


...Christ didn't send all his believers to proclaim the Gospel onto all the world,no- he sent just 11 and only these who are commissioned by them are truthfull representatives.

Funny you should say that, when to respond to my argument that we should follow only the teachings of the bible written by the apostles, you said:

To think that after Paul and the 11th apostles there were no other people able to teach the Church is a great mistake. This would mean the original Church has ended with them. We profess this is not the case.

[boofhead]

When Christ commissioned the proclamation of the Gospel he commissioned it to the 11 apostles ,not to the others who were at the time his followers:



So the truthfull representatives are only bishops/disciples/apostles -and not all but these who are not sinfull of course.Christ didn't send all his believers to proclaim the Gospel onto all the world,no- he sent just 11 and only these who are commissioned by them are truthfull representatives.

So some dying little girl born in some swamp cares?

Nor do I. Frickin holy determined bollock 1 v holy bollock 2.

I've only got one life to live. And I'm going to live it. And my life tells me people are the key. So It's so simple it's quite pathetic.

[basics]

" Besides you and all protestants always neglect these words from the Scriptures : "there were other words which Jesus said and were not written,cause if everything had to be written even the whole world wouldn't have place for all the books"(NT, the very end of one one of the four gospels)"

Dracula,

What you have quoted is very true but they were not deemed by the Spirit to add anything to what already had been pronounced worthy towards the salvation of man.

Or, to put it another way, Paul was taken into the wilderness so that he would be taught by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. That was done in spite of all the other disciples including John whom you quote.

Why, because each one had his purpose as is seen by their writings but when all put together are rounded off by what the Lord gave for Paul to finalise is the behaviour of the infant church as he, Paul, was taught it.

And this is where the controversy starts because men have not satisfied themselves that all requirements for the church end in Paul's teaching. They have added things that both Paul and the Holy Spirit never authorised.

Add to that the fact that some who claimed regeneration were in fact not, then you can see where things start to go wrong. By that I mean the sole responsiblity that is the church's, to preach the word, is lost in manmade traditions outside of Holy Writ.

Does that then mean that the church stopped when the disciples died? Not in the least because what they were commanded to do from the beginning is gifted to certain as they are made regenerate and that lineage is not one of the church's making but the gifting of God.

John's vision as related in the book of the Revelation begins by the Lord Jesus Christ admonishing the church, why? Because in certain cases what Paul had warned of had already come to pass, why? Because Holy Writ was being added to where that should never have happened.

That is the reason that John's life went well beyond the others, so that when the vision was put into writing years later we could see where our inabilities lay. Many had turned to foreign teachings of which there was no justification, and that which brought on Roman Catholics to protest much later still.

The word of God, the Bible, is either sufficient in itself to be the power of God to save or it is not. If it is not then the Orthodox and Rome have justification for what they preach. But they have to measure that against Scripture and to date they don't without the help of tradition built from the outside.

But tradition outwith the teachings of Paul is another gospel. You cannot escape this. Even using Scripture without it's Hebrew background, it's Hebrew spirituality cannot justify anything except perhaps understanding by way of the dead letter. And, Christianity is not about the dead letter.