A Historical Dare to Protestants

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHESTERTONRULES
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.
__________________.

I just noticed your signature. I was born again in a Baptist Church, attended a non-denominatinal Charismatic Church for several years, then we finally settled on a conservative rural Methodist church. We have very similar backgrounds.

To your point:

You shouldn’t just believe it, you should investigate to find out if it is true.

The evidence is there. It is not a matter of conjecture.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

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?

It’s already started, Fire away.

 

[MrS]

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

That is your choice to believe or not. No one is forcing you to accept the faith of the Catholic Church…not even Jesus Who founded only ONE Church… first called The Way, and whose members feared death, then called Catholic because all are called to join.

Again, you have shown nothing to support the existence of ANY other group that traces to the Apostles. History shows that it is the Catholic Church of today that alone can make that trace.

Denial, objection, rejection etc. are all the choices of free man.

People still “walk away” today. IMHO it is because they break the 1st commandment and put something else in place of God… usually their own erroneous understandings.

.

 

[SD_Catholic]

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

OK…

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

You said the CC was in error after the Apostles (or something like that)… The NT wasn’t compiled until much after the Apostles… It was compiled by bishops of the CC, whom you claim were in error… so why would you trust that Acts was even the true word of God? These CC bishops canonized what was in line with their beliefs, which you claim were in error.

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?

Because the Church that Jesus started is more than a street corner building where folks gather… The Church is Jesus’s body… can you break away from a part of Jesus and still be in the fullness of truth… If Jesus established one Church that was his body, than no other church that breaks from his body will contain the fullness of absolute truth, that which is Jesus… for what reason would there be to seperate… can one make a church better than the one Jesus did?

SD

 

[With_Questions]

How do you know this is God’s perspective?

For right now I am dealing with logical possibilities.

I personally believe the non-essentials are stuff that God has not provided all the details on and us humans thinking we know it all try to color in the blanks according to our best guesses. But that is me.

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

Good Scriptures.

I still don’t know why I should assume on the basis of these Scriptures, that one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book (or the adjacent county) must necessarily be the one true church while everybody else is imposters.

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

Yes, but this does not mean that one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book is in fact “the church” and the remaining organizations in my phone book are imposters.

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.

How is this relevant?

You are again saying that Martin Luther is wrong, therefore we must be right. Now you can start a separate thread on whether Martin Luther was wrong or right on the issues you raise.

However, even if Martin Luther was wrong, how does this translate into "one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book must in fact be “the” church of Jesus Christ.

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”

Well, Christianity is still around 2000 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, so I have no issues with this statement when worded like this.

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

Why is this impossible??

 

[christian77]

It’s already started, Fire away.

I think the proper way to discuss these issues is to start a new thread. I’ll be looking for it.

 

[With_Questions]

I just noticed your signature. I was born again in a Baptist Church, attended a non-denominatinal Charismatic Church for several years, then we finally settled on a conservative rural Methodist church. We have very similar backgrounds.

Cool

To your point:

You shouldn’t just believe it, you should investigate to find out if it is true.

The evidence is there. It is not a matter of conjecture.

I have.

The evidence is not as conclusive as you think it is. I would have to make several assumptions to come to the same conclusions that you do that I have no reason to make.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Cool

To your point:

I have.

The evidence is not as conclusive as you think it is. I would have to make several assumptions to come to the same conclusions that you do that I have no reason to make.

What makes you think you have seen all the evidence?

Have you read the writings of the early church fathers?

It would be almost impossible to conclude that they were anything other than Catholic.

Check out Clement of Rome(the fourth Pope) and St. Ignatius in particular:

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[cathopologist]

It is more important to find God.
Does your church teach you to hear Gods voice?
Do not look for a church Look for God.

God finds you, as He did when He came to earth in the flesh, as He did when He seeked His disciples and when He spoke to St Paul.

Our Church teaches us to listen to His voice, but our Church doesn’t teach us to challenge His authority.

Our Church is the place for God and for us to come and experience Him together as a community. We are not taught to be anti-socials.

 

[MrS]

However, even if Martin Luther was wrong, how does this translate into "one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book must in fact be “the” church of Jesus Christ.

I suppose if you are interpreting the phone book yourself, there will be lots of confusion.

If you ask the one who published it, you might get a clear answer.

As for Luther… he was a heretic. He was a baptized Catholic who chose to address legitimate problems with Church discipline and actions… by denying Church Doctrine and Truth… and then by teaching his new ideas as doctrine and truth.

:nope: not good then… not good now.

The Holy Spirit is often cited as the One upon whom a faith community relies to teach them truth.

Well, when multiple faith communities make that claim… we know for sure that at least all but one is wrong… and NOT led by the Holy Spirit. He will NOT lead anyone into error.

 

[With_Questions]

You said the CC was in error after the Apostles (or something like that)…

Actually I posed that as a logical possibilty when somebody made an “Either this” or “this” statement.

The “Either this” or “this” statement is a false choice when other logical possibilities.

The NT wasn’t compiled until much after the Apostles… It was compiled by bishops of the CC, whom you claim were in error… so why would you trust that Acts was even the true word of God? These CC bishops canonized what was in line with their beliefs, which you claim were in error.

Again, I think I made that list as a set of logical possibilities.

But…

Suppose they were in error…at least on some points.

It is not impossible for men who are wrong on some things to be right on others. It happens in real life all the time. Even authority figures who we trust with our lives (Doctors) can and have been wrong.

I believe the men who decided the canon got that issue right. It is totally irrelevant to my beliefs whether they were wrong or right on other issues.

Because the Church that Jesus started is more than a street corner building where folks gather… The Church is Jesus’s body… can you break away from a part of Jesus and still be in the fullness of truth… If Jesus established one Church that was his body, than no other church that breaks from his body will contain the fullness of absolute truth, that which is Jesus… for what reason would there be to seperate… can one make a church better than the one Jesus did?
SD

Again, you are asking me to make the assumption that all the denominations in my phone book (except one) are break away denominations that are not a part of the “fulness of truth” and that only one denomination possesses the fulness of truth.

Why should I believe that this in fact is the relationship from God’s perspective of the various denominations in my phone book.

This is an assumption you are asking me to make. I am not going to make it on your say so.

(But even if I were to make this assumption…I would immediately be stuck on which denomination in my phone book (or the adjacent county to include the Orthodox) is it)

 

[MrS]

Originally Posted by Hisalone forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
It is more important to find God.
Does your church teach you to hear Gods voice?
Do not look for a church Look for God.

God finds you, as He did when He came to earth in the flesh, as He did when He seeked His disciples and when He spoke to St Paul.

Our Church teaches us to listen to His voice, but our Church doesn’t teach us to challenge His authority.

Our Church is the place for God and for us to come and experience Him together as a community. We are not taught to be anti-socials.

Additionally, Jesus told the first Catholics… the Apostles… and Scripture affirms this… that

“…he who hears you hears Me… and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One Who send ME…”

 

[With_Questions]

What makes you think you have seen all the evidence?

Probably I have not. Have you?

Have you read the writings of the early church fathers?

It would be almost impossible to conclude that they were anything other than Catholic.

Some. I have concluded they are quite unlike anything we see in 20th century Western civilization. If I were to compare them to anything, to me the closest match would be a persecuted church in the 10-40 window or something like that.

Check out Clement of Rome(the fourth Pope) and St. Ignatius in particular:

newadvent.org/fathers/

Actually I have read those. At least Clement I remember of reading…and I think Ignatious also…

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Probably I have not. Have you?

QUOTE]

My guess is that I have seen more evidence in support of the Catholic Church than you have.

I doubt that you can teach me much about the Charismatic or Methodist understanding that I don’t already know.

 

[With_Questions]

The Holy Spirit is often cited as the One upon whom a faith community relies to teach them truth.

Well, when multiple faith communities make that claim… we know for sure that at least all but one is wrong… and NOT led by the Holy Spirit. He will NOT lead anyone into error.

Why does this follow.

Why isn’t it possible for one of the divisions in my phone book to be led into truth by the Holy Spirit yet at the same time depart into some error when on their own accord they get a good idea instead of following the Holy Spirit.

The promises you are referring to in the Bible never promise that this process is immediate, perfect at once, or error free on our part.

 

[jenlovesyu]

For right now I am dealing with logical possibilities.

I personally believe the non-essentials are stuff that God has not provided all the details on and us humans thinking we know it all try to color in the blanks according to our best guesses. But that is me.

That is possible but perhaps the “non-essentials” you are thinking of are actually things that have already been provided. Perhaps you are just lacking them?

Good Scriptures.

I still don’t know why I should assume on the basis of these Scriptures, that one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book (or the adjacent county) must necessarily be the one true church while everybody else is imposters.

Not necessarily imposters, but ones lacking the fullness of Truth. Those scriptures speak of the faithful being of the “same fold, same faith.” When churches are different in the way they worship God and view God it is not logically correct to say they are of the same fold.

Yes, but this does not mean that one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book is in fact “the church” and the remaining organizations in my phone book are imposters.

How is this relevant?

You are again saying that Martin Luther is wrong, therefore we must be right. Now you can start a separate thread on whether Martin Luther was wrong or right on the issues you raise.

However, even if Martin Luther was wrong, how does this translate into "one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book must in fact be “the” church of Jesus Christ.

What I am trying to say, also in response to what you said earlier, is that there are teachings that are not just in the Bible. Of course if they contradicted teachings in the Bible then they would be wrong but what separates other Christians from the Catholics is the fact that the Catholic Church has those other oral Tradition teachings. Protestants and other Christians are lacking the Fullness of Truth. That is why they are not in unity. That is what happens when men try to teach new theologies in place of what Jesus gave us in the first place. The Early Church Fathers have written these Truths down and yet people today still wont believe it. They would rather believe the teachings of men. I hope that makes sense.

Well, Christianity is still around 2000 years after the death and resurrection of Christ, so I have no issues with this statement when worded like this.

Why is this impossible??

Think about it. Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn’t have a Bible. Without the Catholic Church you wouldn’t have Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley etc. Christianity has existed for 2000 years because of the Catholic Church. The documents have been preserved. The teachings have been preserved. No other Christian institution can say this. All these men started new institutions because of their pride. They could not humble themselves and conform to Christ’s initial teachings.

 

[SD_Catholic]

I still don’t know why I should assume on the basis of these Scriptures, that one organization in the yellow pages of my phone book (or the adjacent county) must necessarily be the one true church while everybody else is imposters.

I don’t think any good Catholic here would advise you to “assume” anything based on what we say… although it should make you consider the posssibilities… which should ultimately make you want to do the research to discover which Church is most likely the one that Jesus established… even if you don’t think it still exists… try to listen to what those early Christians (the disciples of the Apostles), the protectors of Scripture, the ones who worked so many years to give us a book, the ones who were martyred for their faith, the ones who protected God’s Church from heretics, etc… see what they believed Jesus meant by his words.

So please, we would all hope that you won’t take our word for it… study it for yourself… and base your decision on that information instead.

SD

 

[SD_Catholic]

Why should I believe that this in fact is the relationship from God’s perspective of the various denominations in my phone book.

This is an assumption you are asking me to make. I am not going to make it on your say so.

(But even if I were to make this assumption…I would immediately be stuck on which denomination in my phone book (or the adjacent county to include the Orthodox) is it)

Don’t ASSUME anything… read my prior post

 

[SD_Catholic]

Actually I posed that as a logical possibilty when somebody made an “Either this” or “this” statement.

The “Either this” or “this” statement is a false choice when other logical possibilities.

)

Jesus either is or isn’t the fullness of truth… If Jesus makes a Church his body which is the fullness of truth, than no other fragment of that truth becomes a “logical possibility” to still being the fullness of truth if it no longer holds all the truths of the one body.

Again, I think I made that list as a set of logical possibilities.

But…

Suppose they were in error…at least on some points.

It is not impossible for men who are wrong on some things to be right on others. It happens in real life all the time. Even authority figures who we trust with our lives (Doctors) can and have been wrong.

I believe the men who decided the canon got that issue right. It is totally irrelevant to my beliefs whether they were wrong or right on other issues.

Canonizing the books of the Bible is not an all the time in real life issue… it’s canonizing of the Bible for crying out loud… Totally irrelevant to your beliefs??? How could what they believed, which decided which writings went into the book that you wish to base your life on be irrelevant … We ARE talking about the issues of what the Bible says, and how they interpreted those words that were in the writings that were included in the canon… I’m not talking about whether they went to the market on Thursdays or Fridays… I’m talking about how they interpreted the words of Sacred Scripture.

SD

 

[With_Questions]

That is possible but perhaps the “non-essentials” you are thinking of are actually things that have already been provided. Perhaps you are just lacking them?

Don’t understand this

Not necessarily imposters, but ones lacking the fullness of Truth.

OK. Still the relationship is superior–>inferior or
One True Church–>something less

I still have no reason to believe why this is necessarily true

Those scriptures speak of the faithful being of the “same fold, same faith.” When churches are different in the way they worship God and view God it is not logically correct to say they are of the same fold.

Why does B logically follow from A.

Even in a flock of sheep, not all of the sheep are clones of each other.

Anyway, there seems to be a disconnect. You all are wanting to think of the church of Jesus Christ first and foremost as an organization. I think of it first and foremost as the people of God.

What I am trying to say, also in response to what you said earlier, is that there are teachings that are not just in the Bible. Of course if they contradicted teachings in the Bible then they would be wrong but what separates other Christians from the Catholics is the fact that the Catholic Church has those other oral Tradition teachings.

I agree that Catholics claim that they have oral Tradition apart from the Bible.

Now how they can prove that this comes straight from the apostles is kind of beyond me. But that is a separate issue.

Protestants and other Christians are lacking the Fullness of Truth. That is why they are not in unity. That is what happens when men try to teach new theologies in place of what Jesus gave us in the first place. The Early Church Fathers have written these Truths down and yet people today still wont believe it. They would rather believe the teachings of men. I hope that makes sense.

But again you are asking me to believe this because you said so. I just do not get how this logically follows from anything you said before.

Think about it. Without the Catholic Church, you wouldn’t have a Bible.

Again at the time of the Bible there was one ecclesiastical organization. Now in my phone book there are several.

Why should I believe that the one organization at the time the canon was adjudicated is exclusively the Catholic church in my phone book and everything else is somewhat less.

You are again asking me to take this on your say so.

Without the Catholic Church you wouldn’t have Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley etc. Christianity has existed for 2000 years because of the Catholic Church. The documents have been preserved. The teachings have been preserved. No other Christian institution can say this. All these men started new institutions because of their pride. They could not humble themselves and conform to Christ’s initial teachings.

Are you saying that you know Martin Luther’s, John Calvin’s, and John Wesley’s heart? Who are you to say you know their motives?

What if God told them to do what they did.

(Luther I am lukewarm on, Calvin a little cooler, but am a big fan of Wesley myself but anyway).