A Historical Dare to Protestants

[stbruderklaus]

and lets all remember they all die as martyrs , but john

Indeed-- and none of them wrote of a Petrine or Roman primacy… even the last one who presided over the church in Ephesus, and probably had correspondence with the Christians in Rome.

Interesting indeed.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Nothing personal, but I believe Luther rejected the apostles and substituted his own understanding.

He might have been sincere, and he might be forgiven, but he was not following the command to listen to those sent by Jesus.

I think he fits this description:

Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

I believe Luther has caused much trouble, including wars and heresies, by his refusal to listen to the apostles.

Can you understand how I could reach this conclusion?

I can understand that you believe this, but you make no justification for your belief. On the contrary, we can pull much historical evidence for the suffering and wars caused by numerous popes… even a heretic condemned by ecumenical council (the monophysite Honorius.)

I understand that you believe these things, but I don’t understand why.

 

[NonCatholic]

I’m able to see only that you can take snippets of Scripture to make a certain point. I equally could do the very same thing in the favor of the Catholic Church. I could do that and make it sound like Buddah is right, or Islam, or Scientology, or the cult of mashed potatoes, anything.
What is the GENERAL point of Jesus Christ’s message? What do you think THAT is? If you read the entire Bible, what do you think you would conclude if not using any type of bias toward a specific religion? Do you think God’s message would be that only some of us are saved and only because he said so? Do you think that all evil on this earth is caused by God himself then? THat some of us are set up just to fail? That’s a pretty bleak outlook on life.
I asked: “Why are we so obviously expected to take some responsibility for our own salvation throughout Scripture, if it doesn’t matter what we do when some of us are saved and some aren’t?”

You said: “The fact that you have to ask may be reason for concern”
The fact that ANYONE should ask that question is a reason for concern! THAT’S MY POINT! This is to show why this type of OSAS and pre-destiny is dangerous and faulty thinking.

That may be true if don’t believe and/or understand what God has said. Remember we are all doomed to hell and we all deserve hell; when we understand the standard the Creator has set.

Each of us has offended God and therefore deserving of death. With that said, God in His great mercy has chosen a people for Himself. The creation, including man, is for God to display His glory. We are secondary to all that. God is glorified when He displays His wrath as well as when He displays His saving grace.

 

[stbruderklaus]

I heard too many times of pastors’ children growing up little hellions because Daddy was too busy worrying about the salvation of his congregation than that of his own family. It can happen to ANYONE, but maybe this could have been avoided if he’d picked one vocation and stuck to it? My neighbor’s kids have turned out pretty good, but then his congregation is TINY. Good for him!

As a Lutheran priest, married with children, I take that dual vocation very seriously. The early Church did, too-- as do many catholics the world over who are not under the Latin Rite. And even in the Latin Rite, there are married priests. The marriage of priests is a canonical discipline… not a Scriptural or even a Traditional mandate.

To be sure, some pastoral settings are best served by single priests… and arguably, some are better served by married priests. Our canons give us freedom to serve the People of God as they have need… the Roman canons are considerably more restrictive, and to my mind, not in the best interest of the Body of Christ.

Peace.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Not exactly accurate.

This was a developing doctrine.

Men of good will were on both sides of the issue and they simply wanted the issue resolved.

They turned to the authority created by Jesus to answer their question.

Unfortunately, men without authority had previously attempted to make doctrinal decisions. This added to the confusion.

The decision of the Church ended the confusion.

Sound familiar?

Actually, the Apostles were appealed to in order to resolve the dispute, so that the truth of the situation might be made obvious to all. That truth was made known, and there was rejoicing. The Councils which followed in that pattern did great good for the Christian community (cf. the first 7 ecumenical councils.)

However, truth is not by human fiat-- it was true because the Apostles said it, but it was true and the Apostles presented it. The Church doesn’t make truth-- it reports and presents it. Thus the centrality of the Scriptures to the early Church, the Church Fathers, and the Councils.

Peace.

 

[stbruderklaus]

That may be true if don’t believe and/or understand what God has said. Remember we are all doomed to hell and we all deserve hell; when we understand the standard the Creator has set.

Each of us has offended God and therefore deserving of death. With that said, God in His great mercy has chosen a people for Himself. The creation, including man, is for God to display His glory. We are secondary to all that. God is glorified when He displays His wrath as well as when He displays His saving grace.

Might also be worth noting that the doctrine of election is also found in the Roman Catechism. It sounds a bit more like Luther’s explication than Calvin’s, but it’s there because the Scriptures teach it… just like they teach individual accountability. It’s a paradox, but that’s what the Apostles told us… so we believe, teach, and confess it.

Cheers.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I can understand that you believe this, but you make no justification for your belief. On the contrary, we can pull much historical evidence for the suffering and wars caused by numerous popes… even a heretic condemned by ecumenical council (the monophysite Honorius.)

I understand that you believe these things, but I don’t understand why.

Luther, IMO, was primarily motivated by pride. There were problems in the Church at the time, (as there always have been and always will be until the end of our age), but rather than attempt to work through them with an attitude of respect and submission to authority he chose the route of pride and defiance of authority.

Imagine if the Protestant and Catholic churches were united in faith today. How much greater would our witness be?

My justification is the historical record of Catholics and Protestants slaughtering eachother AND the gradual decline of faith and morals in the mainline protestant world.

One by one articles of faith and morals that were held by Luther have been jettisoned. He pulled the plug that started the drain.

 

[NonCatholic]

The Catholic Church is God’s revelation to man. ** For what purpose?**

Jesus only started one Church. He gave his authority to his apostles and told us to listen to them.

The Church has always listened and preserved the truth they taught. ** What do we need a Bible?**

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The Catholic Church is God’s revelation to man. For what purpose?

What do we need a Bible?

Jesus created the Church to lead us into all truth and to help us get to heaven.

The Church compiled the bible as a testimony to the truth of the gospel.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Actually, the Apostles were appealed to in order to resolve the dispute, so that the truth of the situation might be made obvious to all. That truth was made known, and there was rejoicing. The Councils which followed in that pattern did great good for the Christian community (cf. the first 7 ecumenical councils.)

However, truth is not by human fiat-- it was true because the Apostles said it, but it was true and the Apostles presented it. The Church doesn’t make truth-- it reports and presents it. Thus the centrality of the Scriptures to the early Church, the Church Fathers, and the Councils.

Peace.

God communicates to us through his Church.

In this case, the communication came as a direct revelation to Peter through a vision.

Without a central authority, errors can multiply and take root.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Good questions. In the first 700 years or so, when the united Church held councils, they consulted the Scriptures and attempted to apply them to the questions of their day. The Church, and the Church Fathers, all held themselves under the authority of the Holy Scriptures, even if that conflicted with bishops and popes. Hence we have St. Athenasius against the world… good thing he didn’t just fold to episcopal pressure, or we would all be Arians right now.

Unfortunately, when Rome decided it was the measure of all things, that situation became inverted… I am thankful that modern popes have worked so diligently to get back to a fundamental reliance upon Scripture. I’ll keep rooting them on, even while their Traditionalist faction screams bloody murder.

Cheers.

 

[stbruderklaus]

God communicates to us through his Church.

In this case, the communication came as a direct revelation to Peter through a vision.

Without a central authority, errors can multiply and take root.

Indeed, and with authority, one has the same trouble of error. Consider when St. Paul had to take St. Peter down a notch for hypocrisy… good thing Paul didn’t bow to Peter’s error, or all the Gentiles would be trying to fulfill the ceremonial laws of Moses into our very day.

Neither authority nor lack of authority is a gaurantee of truth-- only God is Truth. Resting on His divine revelation in the Scriptures is our surest footing.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Indeed, and with authority, one has the same trouble of error. Consider when St. Paul had to take St. Peter down a notch for hypocrisy… good thing Paul didn’t bow to Peter’s error, or all the Gentiles would be trying to fulfill the ceremonial laws of Moses into our very day.

Neither authority nor lack of authority is a gaurantee of truth-- only God is Truth. Resting on His divine revelation in the Scriptures is our surest footing.

Individuals will error. Peter’s error was personal hypocrisy, not declaring false doctrine.

I’m sure Peter understood the doctrine as well as Paul did, his failure was human pride.

Lack of authority guarantees that errors will multiply and take root.

Jesus recognized the need for a hierarchical central authority.

This is why he gave only Peter the keys to the kingdom.

 

[NonCatholic]

Might also be worth noting that the doctrine of election is also found in the Roman Catechism. It sounds a bit more like Luther’s explication than Calvin’s, but it’s there because the Scriptures teach it… just like they teach individual accountability. It’s a paradox, but that’s what the Apostles told us… so we believe, teach, and confess it.

Cheers.

The Catholic view of Predestination seems to be different than what the Bible teaches.

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
That is of course if one has an adequate interpreter of what is written on the link above.

I particularly thought this statement by St Augustine quoted in the reference was interesting. "Like St. Paul, Augustine, too, speaks of an election to grace apart from the celestial glory (loc. cit., xix): “Prædestinatio est gratiæ præparatio, gratia vero jam ipsa donatio.” It is evident, however, that this (inadequate)predestination does not exclude the possibility that one chosen to grace, faith, and justification goes nevertheless to hell." Either Jesus lost one or they were not justified.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The Catholic view of Predestination seems to be different than what the Bible teaches.

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
That is of course if one has an adequate interpreter of what is written on the link above.

I particularly thought this statement by St Augustine quoted in the reference was interesting. "Like St. Paul, Augustine, too, speaks of an election to grace apart from the celestial glory (loc. cit., xix): “Prædestinatio est gratiæ præparatio, gratia vero jam ipsa donatio.” It is evident, however, that this (inadequate)predestination does not exclude the possibility that one chosen to grace, faith, and justification goes nevertheless to hell." Either Jesus lost one or they were not justified.

No one can snatch us from the hands of Jesus, but we can walk away.

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father.”

 

[catholic_daddy]

God communicates to us through his Church.

In this case, the communication came as a direct revelation to Peter through a vision.

Without a central authority, errors can multiply and take root.

You mistake the RCC for the Word of God. He uses those with the gift of teaching to help us. Paul told Timothy the Scriptures were able to make him wise and were God-breathed, for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in Righteousness.

 

[catholic_daddy]

No one can snatch us from the hands of Jesus, but we can walk away.

2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.”

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father.”

The only people who walk away are those who were never of us, according to John. Those that are truly His sheep WILL be kept from falling. “Now unto him who is able to keep you from falling and present you faultless before his presence…”.

 

[NonCatholic]

No one can snatch us from the hands of Jesus, but we can walk away.
Good example of the characteristics and contrast between the elect and non-elect. 2 Timothy 2:12 cited below is a good example; the first is an attribute of the elect and the second part is the attribute of the non-elect.
2 Timothy 2:12 “If we endure, we shall also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us”.

2 Peter 2:20-21 “They were made free from the evil in the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. But if they return to evil things and those things control them, then it is worse for them than it was before. Yes, it would be better for them to have never known the right way than to know it and to turn away from the holy teaching that was given to them.” Another good example of the non-elect, they always turn away and will not endure till the end; Jesus never knowing them.

Matthew 10:22 "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. **Same attribute as previous.
**
Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved. DITTO

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father.” **This is the “many” spoken of in Matthew 7:13-14, also the non-elect. **

 

[NonCatholic]

The only people who walk away are those who were never of us, according to John. Those that are truly His sheep WILL be kept from falling. “Now unto him who is able to keep you from falling and present you faultless before his presence…”.

AMEN! You have been reading and understanding…May God increase you faith.

 

[stbruderklaus]

Individuals will error. Peter’s error was personal hypocrisy, not declaring false doctrine.

I’m sure Peter understood the doctrine as well as Paul did, his failure was human pride.

Lack of authority guarantees that errors will multiply and take root.

Jesus recognized the need for a hierarchical central authority.

This is why he gave only Peter the keys to the kingdom.

I understand the rhetorical gymnastics Romans will use to explain the foibles of popes… sadly only necessary after a pope decided to declare himself infallible in the 1800’s, once again causing schism. Hopefully we’ll get a pope someday willing to reverse that decision, and declare infallibly his own fallibility. Man, what a day that would be.

Neither authority nor its lack gaurantees anything. And, if you really think the keys were given only to St. Peter, you might want to read some of those Church Fathers… they didn’t understand it that way. Might be why St. John recounts Jesus giving the authority to remit and retain sins to all the Apostles… and perhaps anyone else who was standing in that room with Him when He breathed on them all…

Peace.