u/Strider_of_Gondor

Hello and good day everyone! Kind of a silly post, but I was genuinely intrigued on what mainline protestants might think on this topic. As I understand it the end goal for the church is to someday, hopefully soon, reunify. Now, to be quite frank, I really don't see this happening without significant dialogue, and as a result of dialogue significant changes to doctrine on both sides of the denominational spectrum. That being said, and though we can only speculate, I thought it might be a little bit fun to suggest possible concessions from either side. As it stands, here are my terms.

Catholics

• Acknowledge Publicly, and perhaps dogmatically, the the church has fallen into err at points in history and has been saved through the holy spirit's intervention; one example of which being the protestant reformation.
• Adoption of Total Depravity as doctrine; though without strict connection to predestination.
• Integration of Kingdom and Covenant Theology into common use and discussion.
• Apologies for the martyrdom of protestant Christians during the religious wars. Particularly for those against the Huguenots.
• Sainthood for Martin Luther, and possibly Calvin. As well as protestant Martyrs.
• Granting autocephaly to the Mainline Protestant Denominations. So they might retain their ecclesiastical structure, liturgies, and traditions.

Mainline Protestants

• Acknowledge the various attempts at reform that have occurred in the Church since the reformation. Particularly in the council of Trent, and the Synod of Pistoia, and the Vatican Councils. And apologize for refusing to re-enter, or re-engage in ecumenical dialogue with, the church following some of these reforms.
• Adoption of a synergist view of salvation over a predestined view of salvation.
• Rejection of universal Iconoclasm, though individual persons and churches may continue the practice if they deem that it leads them into sin.
• Re-entry into sacramental communion with the church as a whole particularly the eucharist, with some belief of essential presence within the eucharist.
• Acknowledgement of the Pope as the successor of Peter, and the first amongst equals in ecumenical debate.
• Recognition of the communion of saints, and their ability to utilize intercessory prayer. Though like iconoclasm the use of intercessory prayer may, and should, be neglected if it leads one to a state of sin.
• Apologies for the martyrdom of Catholics during the religious wars and, (POSSIBLY) apologies for allowing the evangelical/non-denominational movement to grow to the point it currently exists at.

Again this is meant to be largely unserious, and is only really meant to encourage dialogue amongst us Christians. I recognize reading through this that my bias is apparent, and that I have been largely unfair in my requests. However, as it stands these are my terms. If you have any suggestions for concessions for either side feel free to note them down, or if I you think I have absolutely misunderstood the nature of ecumenicism let me know. God Bless.

Hey Everyone, As the title suggests I'm trying to better understand the Reformed Doctrine of Mainline Protestantism. I'm a recent catholic convert from Atheism, and prior evangelical dispensational Protestantism, but I have an interest in ecumenicism and inter-denominational dialogue. Recently, I have been reading through the philosophies of John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Huldrych Zwingli to understand the foundational tenants of Mainline Protestantism. So far I have liked a lot of what I have read, despite having some disagreements which was to be expected. The Doctrines of Sola Gratia and Sola Fide are very well articulated, as is the idea of Total Depravity. I also like the Idea of Irresistible, though I understand it from a more universal outlook than it has been previously explained to me. Additionally, from what I've read on Covenant Theology and Kingdom Theology the two frameworks seem amazing additions to the Faith. I particularly like the works I have read by Karl Barth on the subject.

That being said there are Certain ideas i take issue with, however I a similar vein to the issues many protestants espouse towards Catholics (i.e. Accusations of Worship of Saints, Anti-papism, idolatry, etc.) I imagine these issues are due to ignorance on my part and that of my fellow Catholics. So I figured I would ask those of you who hold to some of these ideas to better explain them to me, and correct me if I am in error.

Here They Are in order.

Predestination: To my understanding Predestination feels both unnecessarily cruel and unjust while simultaneously removing free will. Additionally, it seems to place god within time, rather than beyond it, with god making a decision on who are included in the elect at a specific point in the past rather than existing ex temporally and thus knowing the results of individuals actions now without compromising on free will. This confusion extends to all beliefs which stem from predestination.

Sola Scriptura: I know there is a difference between solo and sola scriptura, I know you guys don't hold that the bible alone is the only source of authority. However, the claim that scripture is the ultimate source of authority seems inaccurate to me for two reasons. First, the church existed prior to the compilation of the bible, thus would have authority over it. And second, Had scripture held authority over the oral tradition of the New covenant the proponents of the old covenant, the pharisees, could have used scripture from the old covenant to attack the new covenant before its tenets were transcribed to scripture.

Universal Priesthood: I'm Kind of halfway on this one. I believe that the individual ought to be able to read and comprehend the scriptures on his own, and that the work of the reformers to restore this right was noble. However, personal interpretation has led to the foundation of various heretical groups, namely the JWs and LDS, and thus there ought to be some authority to help the individual define their interpretation, that being the church.

There are other ideas I take issue with, however these are the tree main ones. Hopefully you guys can help me out with understanding, and if you guys can provide sources (either biblical or extra-biblical) that would be phenomenal. Again thank you so much, God Bless.

Hey all, so during my APUSH test today I finished the Essay portion with roughly 40 minutes left and so, bored out of my mind and with nothing else to do, I started to glance around the room. The person next to me is a friend of mine, and she's lwk a bit of a tweaker, and our proctor thought she was making gestures and that I was looking over at her in order to ascertain answers. She kept us in afterword and said she would file an incident report despite my argument against the claim. I went in to our admin later that day to confront the issue with the help of our vice principal, who supported me, but the incident had already been filed. I'm genuinely at a loss, I didn't do anything wrong and I still got accused of cheating. Does anyone know what I'm in for? Is there a precedent for this kind of a report?