A Historical Dare to Protestants

[SD_Catholic]

Just because you say you are doesn’t make it so.

I trust my soul to the Lord Jesus Christ. Acts says believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and Thou shalt be saved.

And that would be your opinion. Just because you say so doesn’t make it so.

1. Oh you mean they can join a different church than the one Jesus started? I never said anything about it being the Catholic Church, but obviously something inside you did
2. Why do you quote from Acts? it was those error teaching Catholic bishops that said it should be part of the NT that you trust every word of.
3. So one can split from the Church Jesus started and still be full of absolute truth? Again, you are the one saying that Church is the Catholic Church, I didn’t… I think I like your pattern

SD

please forgive my sarcasm… I don’t want to be uncharitable…

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Oh, the issues go way beyond what you have posted. We need to explore all that is written in the Scirptures on the topic, which goes beyond the thread topic. Are you saying Augustine was a semi-pelagius in his theology…LOL!

I quoted Augustine.

If you disagree with what he wrote, please explain your disagreement.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Oh some that come to mind off the top of my head are…

(1) The church at the time of the apostles is not exclusively the Catholic church to the exclusion of everybody else
(2) The Catholic church began to teach error after the apostles
(3) When the church divided upon itself, no one denomination after the division after the various splits possessed the “fulness of truth” to the exclusion of everybody else.

1. If you have evidence for this, please provide. You and I both know that there is no such evidence because it is not true.
2. If this were true, then this would make Jesus into a liar when he said he would be with them until the end of the world.
3. Again, this would make Jesus into a liar.

 

[With_Questions]

I’m jumping into this a little late, but I thought I would leave some food for thought

Let’s break down the logic here. We can assume from logic that everyone can not be right. Every single church or “denomination” that bears the name of Christ on its building can NOT be right. It is impossible. Illogical.

If you say completely right I would agree with.

However, from God’s perspective it is possible that there be “essentials” and “non-essentials”. It is possible for more than one group to agree on “essentials” and disagree on “non-essentials”.

Why? Well obviously they are all different. Some people like to claim that the differences are very minor but I have experienced the differences firsthand and they are anything BUT minor.

For example, some “denominations” believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, some do not. Some believe that homosexual acts are an abomination, some do not. Some believe that artificial contraceptives are evil (if they are used to separate sex from procreation), some do not. Some believe divorce is okay in some (not so dire) situations, some do not. I hope you get the point. These aren’t just little things we can dismiss.

Then either
(1) These points are not essentials
(2) The points are essentials and those denominations that are wrong are really “false prophets”. The Bible does warn of this.

I am sure we have all heard the “one faith, one baptism” phrase over and over but try and really read it this time. One faith, not two, not twenty, not twenty-thousand, but ONE.

It does not necessarily follow that one and exclusively one denomination is this one faith.

AND, if none of the denominations are correct, then that leaves us with only two conclusions (dare I say): Our God is not perfect or God does not care what we do or believe.

There are other alternatives.

For example God has given us free will and we can choose to believe incorrectly.

Or that man in his arrogance chooses to speculate and create as dogma points that God really has not revealed to the church. Better to leave some things as a mystery.

gasps Surely we don’t wish to believe this but to say that no church/faith is founded by our Lord is to say that the Holy Spirit divides people and creates chaos.

I thought the only being who does these horrible things was Satan

Or man divides things and causes chaos. He did create us with free will.

Sola Scriptura did not come into play until about 1500 years after the onset of Christianity. Did Martin Luther and the other men claim to have revelations from God? Even if they did, didn’t our Lord say there will be no more public revelations? Could these men possibly be the “false prophets” that our very own Christ spoke of? Hold on, the NT wasn’t even written in the first few decades after Christ’s ministry and ascension into Heaven! The culture of Jesus’ time was mostly an oral culture! Oh my what an epiphany!

Forgive me for sounding sarcastic. This is just how I realized that being Protestant just wouldn’t cut it anymore. I am now on my way Home

Again this is a “You are wrong, therefore we must be right” argument.

Even if hypothetically Martin Luther is wrong, it does not mean you are right.

 

[With_Questions]

1. If you have evidence for this, please provide. You and I both know that there is no such evidence because it is not true.

I would like it if you would not speak for me please.

I have put people on my ignore list for condescension. I do not want to add you to it.

There are two points I want to make.
(1) Given an entity ‘A’ that subdivides into itself. It is not logical to assume that after the subdivision that one part of ‘A’ retains all of the properties of ‘A’ while other parts of the subdivision are no longer a part of ‘A’.

(2) According to logical rules of inheritance, it is logically equally valid for any group that exists after the subdivision to claim the original group for itself as it is for you. That is because all pieces of the division existed in the original group.

Why should I make an exception for you>

1. If this were true, then this would make Jesus into a liar when he said he would be with them until the end of the world.
2. Again, this would make Jesus into a liar.

…if I were to adopt your peculiar interpretation of Matthew.

However, why should I adopt yours. Just because you say so??

 

[With_Questions]

1. Oh you mean they can join a different church than the one Jesus started? I never said anything about it being the Catholic Church, but obviously something inside you did

Actually I was not sure exactly what you were saying in point 1.

1. Why do you quote from Acts? it was those error teaching Catholic bishops that said it should be part of the NT that you trust every word of.

Why shouldn’t I quote from Acts I thought we agreed that Acts is the written word of God.

1. So one can split from the Church Jesus started and still be full of absolute truth? Again, you are the one saying that Church is the Catholic Church, I didn’t… I think I like your pattern

See my previous post on division.

When an entity divides, why should I assume that one part of the division must retain all of the characteristics of the source while the other parts of the division is deviant. That is not the assumptions we normally make in real life with respect to divisions.

Yet, you are asking me to make this assumption with the church. Why should I?

 

[Hisalone]

This may be off topic… but can you explain papal infallibility??

And can you show me why or where Scripture teaches that all Truth is contained in Scripture?

.

Im a former Catholic I know the teaching well.
I do believe there is truth outside scripture. I dont look for it in the magesterium.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Im a former Catholic I know the teaching well.
I do believe there is truth outside scripture. I dont look for it in the magesterium.

You statements make it very clear that you never knew the Catholic faith.

One example:

So you agree with most Catholics that tradition is preeminent over scripture?

The integrity of “the authority of the Apostles” is ever bit that of the quaran.

 

[sambos671]

Im a former Catholic I know the teaching well.
I do believe there is truth outside scripture. I dont look for it in the magesterium.

why would you look for truth outside the Magesterium? It seems to me that Scriptures are truth and are part of the Magesterium. To look outside the Magesterium for truth is to look outside of Scripture. The CCC clearly defines Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as two parts working hand in hand together for the fulness of truth. So, this is what the CC teaches and to look outside the magesterium is to look outside of scripture.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I would like it if you would not speak for me please.

 

[jenlovesyu]

If you say completely right I would agree with.

However, from God’s perspective it is possible that there be “essentials” and “non-essentials”. It is possible for more than one group to agree on “essentials” and disagree on “non-essentials”.

How do you know this is God’s perspective?

Then either
(1) These points are not essentials
(2) The points are essentials and those denominations that are wrong are really “false prophets”. The Bible does warn of this.

From scripture I have a hard time believing these things to be non-essentials. But yes I agree with number two

It does not necessarily follow that one and exclusively one denomination is this one faith.

But we do know that one and two are different numbers. One indicates unity right?

Jn 10:16 - there shall be one fold and one shepherd;
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissensions;
1 Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you;
Phil 2:2 - be of same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing;
Rom 15:5 - God grant you think in harmony with one another;
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that you may be one, as we are one;
Jn 17:23 - that they may be brought to perfection as one;
1 Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we were baptized into one body;
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ;
Eph 4:4 - one body, one Spirit, called to one hope;
Col. 3:15 - the peace into which you were called in one body

There are other alternatives.

For example God has given us free will and we can choose to believe incorrectly.

Or that man in his arrogance chooses to speculate and create as dogma points that God really has not revealed to the church. Better to leave some things as a mystery.

Yes we have the free will to believe whatever we want but our beliefs can never alter Truth.

You are aware that not everything Jesus or His Apostles spoke of are written down in the Bible correct? Those things were passed down orally throughout time. And plus, people like Martin Luther have removed some books from the Bible because he personally believed them to be uninspired. It was his opinion yet many people today follow him.

Again this is a “You are wrong, therefore we must be right” argument.

Even if hypothetically Martin Luther is wrong, it does not mean you are right.

I am not automatically coming to the conclusion that “we are right just because you are wrong.” I am searching though history that IF Christ founded a faith, it should be as unchanging as He is. Furthermore, it can only be a faith that has existed since the time of His life. Otherwise Jesus has lied to us all.
“Evil will not prevail against My Church”

Several churches that have started thousands of years later can not possible be teaching the Truths that our Beloved God gave to us.

 

[MrS]

Good post jenlovesyo.

Welcome to CAF

 

[MrS]

Im a former Catholic I know the teaching well.
I do believe there is truth outside scripture. I dont look for it in the magesterium.

Then please summarize it… if you know it well, that will be easy for you, and you could do it without looking for the answer elsewhere.

 

[christian77]

I quoted Augustine.

If you disagree with what he wrote, please explain your disagreement.

Just like the Bible, Augustine needs to be understood in context in all that he wrote. The Bible verses that you posted needs to be understood with all the Scriptures. I think these issues need a new thread.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Just like the Bible, Augustine needs to be understood in context in all that he wrote. The Bible verses that you posted needs to be understood with all the Scriptures. I think these issues need a new thread.

Start a thread!

 

[Hisalone]

Then please summarize it… if you know it well, that will be easy for you, and you could do it without looking for the answer elsewhere.

MrS it is off topic however it is enough to know the pope spoke ex cathedra on the Immaculate Conception to know that there is an error.

 

[MrS]

MrS it is off topic however it is enough to know the pope spoke ex cathedra on the Immaculate Conception to know that there is an error.

Then you have just shown that you do NOT understand Infallibility.

In fact, now I doubt you understand the Immaculate Conception.

Seriously. If so, protestantism is the place for you, for there you can self interpret and self absolve.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

MrS it is off topic however it is enough to know the pope spoke ex cathedra on the Immaculate Conception to know that there is an error.

Are you leaning on your own understanding?

 

[With_Questions]

I was not condescending. I merely pointed out the truth. If I am mistaken, then you will be able to provide evidence that supports your assertion. Don’t pretend that this evidence exists when you know that it does not.

No, you are pointing out a position of your denomination, claiming that it is truth, and demanding that I believe it because you say so.

I don’t know what you think ‘A’ is, but the Catholic Church is not subdivided.

Here is the crux of what I am trying to say.

Somewhere along the line the church of the apostles divided.

Today in my county there are 10-15 ecclesiastical organizations in the yellow pages of my phone book under the title Christian.

Most locales have a few more, because my county is largely rural. I don’t know of any locales that have near the 32,000 that you claim exist, but that is another subject.

If there had been yellow books at the time of the apostles there obviously would have only been one Christian ecclesiastical organization in their phone book. Who knows what it would have been called.

So somehow the one ecclesiastical organization at the time of the apostles became 10-15 in my county’s phone book today.

Now you want me to believe
(1) Only one of these organizations is in entirety the one church of the time of the apostles. Everyone else is it.

I believe that it is much more natural to believe that all of these 10-15 organizations retain some characteristics of the original organization while losing other characteristics.

Now upon investigation I might conclude that some of these 10-15 organizations are closer to the source than the other, but I would not start with that assumption from the beginning.

And believing that some are closer to the source and some are more distant from the source is not the same as believing that one is the source and the rest are the imposters.

(2) You want me to believe that your organization in the yellow pages of my phone book is actually the source.

Even if I came to believe somehow that one of these organizations in the yellow pages of my phone book is the source, I don’t believe I could with 100% certainty identify which one is the source.

Now admittedly the yellow pages in my county does not have Orthodoxy in it. But I will stretch it for the moment because the next county over does.

That may or may not be true. However, the parent still exists in its orginal form, so the point is moot.

See the above.

This is your say so of you and your denomination. Why should I believe either you or your denomination.

 

[christian77]

Start a thread!

Acts 13:48

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Maybe you can exercise your free will to start that thread that you were destined to start?