A Historical Dare to Protestants

[ncgolf]

I definitely read theologians and sat under a bunch for 3.1/2 yrs in seminary.

Just like many here, I did not but that does not disqualify me.

But I also know how to analyze a passage and sllow the Holy Spirit to illumine it.

Just like many here, why are we any different.

Questioning someone’s possession of the Spirit is by no means the necessary last resort. I repeatedly ask posters to explain the text.

I think it reveals a frustration but the fact is true many accuse the Catholic posters of not having the HS as a guide.

But folks like Guano don’t want to. They instead want to just tell you what they’ve been told it DOESN’T mean. That reveals a fatal flaw.

Guanophore has his own style so if it is inferior to yours then he should be easy pickens.

 

[jblake]

guanophore;:

Do you make a habit of asking the pope to save you?
If so, why?

UtSuShImI is citing a common misperception that is is very strongly implied by reading The Teaching of Christ and/or CCC. IWO, in as much as neither of those texts, which do contain the Nihil Obstat, and Imprimenteur explicitly state that the Pope only has limited temporal power, that, and related misconceptions are going to remain.

Catholics believe that worshipping anything or anyone other than Almighty God constitutes the sin of idolatry.

To an outsider, there is no difference between the veneration of Saints, and the worship of idols. The behavioural pattern associated with each is identical.

jonathon

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Yeah, Tom, I know what you’re talking about. I believe they refer to that as the Essentials vs. Non Essential doctrines.

Even the Catholics believe in the difference between essential and non-essential. After all, most Protestants are referred to as “separated brethren” whereas others (Mormons, for example) are regarded as not being Christian at all.

This puts both groups on different levels and bears out that belief in and acknowledgement of the Trinity is inherently more important than, say, artificial birth control.

 

[jblake]

Katrina5;:

f course, they don’t know what “protestant” means-- they were protesting against the Catholic church.

Wrong. The “protest” in “Protestantism” was about political power, and secular in nature. Catholic Christianity comes into it, only to the extant the The Holy See is.

They seem to be working terribly hard at doing this-- establishing churches centuries later in their imaginations.

If you tracked scholastic literature on Early Christianity, you’d discover that the current thinking is radically different from that of the 1950s.

One major problem is that manuscripts that outline specific beliefs and practices, written by, and used by the Early Christians that were on the losing side isn’t available. (This is as true for Christians in Antioch, as it is for Christians in Kyoto.)

What is available, is what the winning side perceived as the teachings and practices of those on the losing side. Enough evidence exists to demonstrate that the understanding of the other side was faulty, more often than not.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

thought you believed in Sola Scriptura - not some book published by a non-ispired writer.

What you may not have realised, is that I am more likely to lay out reasons to support a position that I don’t accept, than for a position that I do accept. Likewise, I’m more likely to lay out reasons to demolish a position I accept, than a position I do not accept.

jonathon

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

John Wesley was onced asked by a man, *“Where was your church before the Reformation?” *To which Wesley replied, “Where was your face before you washed it? Behind the dirt.”

 

[jblake]

Tomster;:

although all Protestants, blithely unaware of any kinship between themselves and Luther

In as much as “Protestantism” is a pot into which virtually everything other than Catholic and Orthodox Christianity get thrown into, people tend to forget that there are branches that never had any kinship with Luther— either theologically, or historically.

jonathon

 

[jblake]

elvisman;:

is a self-refuting doctrine.

It is no more self-refuting than deciding that the claims of a small group of individuals has sole authority to make decisions for all.

jonathon

 

[elvisman]

What you may not have realised, is that I am more likely to lay out reasons to support a position that I don’t accept, than for a position that I do accept. Likewise, I’m more likely to lay out reasons to demolish a position I accept, than a position I do not accept.

jonathon

While dancing around the issue is sometimes fun rolleyes: ), it’s interesting to note that when debating with adherents to Sola Scriptura, they always dismiss Catholic extra-biblical sources while defending their own.

The fact is - Jesus didn’t come to set up different denominations - a claim that is not only ludicrous, but unscriptural as well.

Read Jesus’s fervent prayer for the unity of his Body in John 17 a couple of times and tell me how you could rationalize that position.

 

[elvisman]

It is no more self-refuting than deciding that the claims of a small group of individuals has sole authority to make decisions for all.

jonathon

As I’ve already shown you and others on this thread number of times - Jesus made the decision to give all of his authority to the Church. the Holy Spirit is making these decisions through this “small group of individuals”, as you put it.

 

[SD_Catholic]

John Wesley was onced asked by a man, *“Where was your church before the Reformation?” *To which Wesley replied, “Where was your face before you washed it? Behind the dirt.”

What was his Church again?

SD

 

[jblake]

Hajnalcsillag;:

Even the Catholics believe in the difference between essential and non-essential.

The initial issue is defining what is “essential” and what is “non-essential”.

Landmark Baptists define it one. Evangelical Confessional Lutherans define it a second way. Traditional Catholics defines it a third way. Liberation Theology defines it a fourth way. Independent Christian churches define it a fifth way. Reformed Christianity defines it a sixth way. Noachides define it a seventh way.

The second issue is determining how to treat those whose*beliefs and practices of “essentials” are different.

Do you separate from, and create a new congregation just because:

• The wrong colour was used during a service;
• The church leaders voted for the “wrong” political party;
• An “incorrect” order of Service is used;
• A previous church leader may have committed a sin;
• The attire that is worn by attendees at a service is “unacceptable”;

jonathon

 

[broski234]

Did Jesus and God The Father have disagreements on doctrine? No! Please show me where the bible gives a list of essential and non-essential doctrines? I doubt you can.

 

[broski234]

The second issue is determining how to treat those whose*beliefs and practices of “essentials” are different.

Do you separate from, and create a new congregation just because:

Have you looked at Protestantism lately? That happens every day! New denominations are forming all the time because people are breaking fellowship over theological and doctrinal disagreements. That’s how Protestantism came to be in the first place. If you don’t think you should break fellowship over theological or doctrinal disagreement, then get thee back to the Catholic Church. Besides, didn’t the Apostles break fellowship with folks who were teaching false doctrines?

Do you have a responsibility to “demand the same level of understanding from all believers?” How about this instead – do you have the responsibility to teach the truth, the fullness of the truth, to all believers? People have to believe the truth with the full and free consent of their intellect and their will. You have the responsibility to present them with the truth and give them the option to accept or reject it. Doesn’t Jesus pray that we be one as He and the Father are one? Do He and the Father disagree on doctrine? Any doctrine? Even the so-called “non-essential” doctrines? No, of course they don’t. Did the Apostles disagree on doctrine? Did they teach all kinds of different doctrines to their disciples? Of course not.
Whether it be contraception or some other area of non-conformity to Church teaching, these folks have broken fellowship with the Church, with the Body of Christ. Again, this is a very serious and grave matter. They should not receive Communion if such is the case. They should not receive Communion, because they are not in communion with the Church. They are, in essence, out of fellowship with the Church until they repent and confess their sins and receive absolution. They may be “sincere followers of Christ,” but they are sincerely wrong in what they are doing. And, the Church extends the exact same understanding to non-Catholics who err in their beliefs…it tells them they are wrong and asks them to come to the knowledge of the truth…the truth that will set them free.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Jesus said He will send the Holy Spirit to the apostles. We Catholics (a simple adjective) are one Holy Catholic APOSTOLIC church. So it is you who dosen`t have the Holy Spirit to regurgiate things your man-made church has published.

Awww click your heals together three times and repeat that and …well, it still won’t be true.

 

[Hajnalcsillag]

Did Jesus and God The Father have disagreements on doctrine? No! Please show me where the bible gives a list of essential and non-essential doctrines? I doubt you can.

Since the greatest commandment, in fact the entire essence of the law, was (in short) “Love God and love your fellow man”, I’d say that’s essential.

I don’t seem to remember Jesus prattling on and on about doctrine; I do seem to remember Jesus continually setting aside the laws and traditions in order to fulfill that essence of the law.

 

[broski234]

Since the greatest commandment, in fact the entire essence of the law, was (in short) “Love God and love your fellow man”, I’d say that’s essential.

I don’t seem to remember Jesus prattling on and on about doctrine; I do seem to remember Jesus continually setting aside the laws and traditions in order to fulfill that essence of the law.

You still haven’t answered the question. Yes, the greatest commandment is very important. However, Jesus and the Apostles all taught that doctrine is very important and that we should have unity in doctrine. Again, I ask you does doctrine matter in Christ’s Church? Is it ok to have conflicting doctrine within the body of Christ? And scripture is very clear that we should have no conflicting doctrine: 1 Timothy 1:3; 1 Timothy 4:1; Ephesians 4:14; Titus 1:9.

So again, can we divide doctrine into essential and non-essential? No! Matthew 4:4; Matthew 5:18; Matthew 5:19 would disagree with you. AGAIN, is conflicting doctrine okay? NO! John 14:26, John 16:13; Malachi 3:6 would disagree with you.

Christians should be one as Jesus and the Father are one (John 17:22-23). We should have “one mind, one spirit”(Philippians 1:27) and have “no dissensions, same mind and judgment”(1 Corinthians 1:10)

Brock

 

[guanophore]

But what I don’t understand is that you, as the Catholic, should be able to show us the history that would affect the answers people see to the OPs question. You are repeating the same mistake that most of the Catholics make here - you simply repeat the claims about your Church, without real proof that the claims are so.

Actually, this is quite easy to do, you are right. The historical evidence supports the Catholic Church. However, that was not the request of the OP.

Rome's doctrines and practices thereof have not changed since the time when they did all their "Inquisition" ministry.

Such a statement reveals and ignorance of history, in addition being a blatant falsehood. It should be obvious by now that heretics are no longer put to death.

 In countries where she can get away with it - you can bet the legislation in favor of Catholic doctrines; in fact ENFORCING Catholic doctrine, is still flying high.

Catholics are obligated to be light and salt in the world. Wherever and whenever we can eliminate abortion, birth control, euthanasia, the death penalty, torture, disrespect to human rights, etc. we should do so. This is what Jesus taught.

 Rome is waiting, with a more conciliatory tone in other countries where it is not allowed; but the time will come.

I sure hope so! Blessed is the man who, when His master comes, will find him in obedience. does that bother you?

If Protestants are so wrong about Church History; how come you can't prove that the Roman Catholic Church no longer has the same political desires as it had during the Papacy of the middle ages?

First of all, it is off topic in this thread. Second, it is very easy to show that the political ambitions that existed in the middle ages no longer do. One simple example of that is that those under Holy Orders are not permitted to hold any secular office.

The Pope took over the administration of the secular society because the Emperor asked him to do so. Personally, I think it was a mistake, but, there was no other organized and competent authority to administrate when the Seat was moved to Constantinople. It is easy for us to look back and judge, based on our hindsight and knowledge of the outcomes. If the papacy had not taken over governership, the barbarians would have overrun Europe.

 What happened to "Infallibility?"  The big dare here should really be to the Catholics.

It is clear that you are unable, or unwilling to address the OP Protestant 101. Perhaps this is your way of admitting that you can’t?

If you wish to issue such a dare go ahead! I suggest you don’t post it on the NC religion thread, though

 

[catholic_daddy]

Hi guanophore,

From her writings:

***The Great Controversy (1888), page 564, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: Chapter XXXV - Character and Aims of the Papacy
The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas, she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented? Let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed, and Rome be re-instated in her former power, and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution. ***

***The Great Controversy (1911), page 76, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: The Waldenses
The very existence of this people, holding the faith of the ancient church, was a constant testimony to Rome’s apostasy, and therefore excited the most bitter hatred and persecution. Their refusal to surrender the Scriptures was also an offense that Rome could not tolerate. She determined to blot them from the earth. Now began the most terrible crusades against God’s people in their mountain homes. Inquisitors were put upon their track, and the scene of innocent Abel falling before the murderous Cain was often repeated. ***

Maranatha (1976), page 165, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: Apostasy Prepares the Way
Whenever the church has obtained secular power, she has employed it to punish dissent from her doctrines. Protestant churches that have followed in the steps of Rome by forming alliance with worldly powers have manifested a similar desire to restrict liberty of conscience. An example of this is given in the long-continued persecution of dissenters by the Church of England. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, thousands of nonconformist ministers were forced to flee from their churches, and many, both of pastors and people, were subjected to fine, imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom.

(see con’t 2)

Expect a knock at your door any minute. This part right here is amazingly prophetic:

“The Spirit of Prophecy Volume Four (1884), page 383, paragraph 3Chapter Title: Chapter XXX. - Character and Aims of the Papacy.A religion of externals is attractive to the unrenewed heart. The pomp and ceremony of the Catholic worship have a seductive, bewitching power by which many are deceived; and they come to look upon the Roman Church as the very gate of Heaven. None are proof against her influence but those who have planted their feet firmly upon the foundation of truth, and whose hearts are renewed by the Spirit of God. Thousands who have not an experimental knowledge of Christ will be swept into this deception. 384A form of godliness without the power is just what they desire. The Romanist feels at liberty to sin, because the church claims the right to pardon. To him who loves self-indulgence, it is more pleasing to confess to a fellow-mortal than to open the soul to God. It is more palatable to human nature to do penance than to renounce sin. It is easier to mortify the flesh by sackcloth and nettles and galling chains than to crucify fleshly lusts. Heavy is the yoke which the carnal heart is willing to bear rather than bow to the yoke of Christ. The Review and Herald, November 11, 1890, paragraph 5Article Title: The Mystic Ladder.-By Mrs. E. G. White.-When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” he uttered a truth of wonderful significance. The transgression of man had separated earth from heaven, and finite man from the infinite God. As an island is separated from a continent, so earth was cut off from heaven, and a wide channel intervened between man and God. Jesus bridged this gulf, and made a way for man to come to God. He who has no spiritual light sees no way, has no hope; and men have originated theories of their own regarding the way to life. The Romanist points the sinner to the Virgin Mary, to penances, indulgences, and the absolution of the priest; and to this theory come those who would be saved in their sins, and those who would be saved by their own merit.”

 

[guanophore]

.

You can’t do it, can you?! Please don’t hide behind starting a new thread. You say a ton of stuff that is 'off topic! I am new on this site and don’t know how to start a new thead

Surely it can be done, not daddy’s boy. All you do to start a new thread is go to the forum home page, and click on the button that says 'new thread". This may seem difficult for you to grasp, since you seem to revel in rebellion against authority, but following the forum rules is not “hiding”. It is respecting the value of CAF, which is very important to me. I have to work hard to stay on topic, but such a blatant invitation as this is even obvious to me.

.Nor do I know what the OP is.

I love many quotes of Abe Lincoln. One of my favorites is “it is better to be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”. This principle can especially be applied when one is new to an environment. One can certainly appear wiser by quietly learning before putting one’s foot in one’s mouth.

The OP is the “Original Post”. Go back to the first post on the thread. Read it, then click the ‘quote’ button at the bottom and see how you do!

. But I can see you are intimidated about breaking down the text. You might be concerned that you aren’t able to see how the first sentence shows this is not just about things in the past.

Clearly not, since some of what the Apostle references also applies to us. Taunting me and trying to bait my ego to get me off the topic is not going to work, though.

. If you really are able to exegete that passage and deal with what is in there, then start the thread.

I have no need for one! It is clear to me what it means. You seem to be the one with the problem. You have adopted an interpretation that contradicts the Apostolic Teaching. This is one of the reasons for the OP.

. The NT was written by men who were part of the universal (‘catholic’) church. It was a simple adjective, friend. But you need the same Holy Spirit they had in order to interpret. I’m beginnining to wonder if He lives in you. You don’t have to have the Holy Spirit to regurgitate things your church has published.

I think your personal disparagements are also off topic.