A Historical Dare to Protestants

[broski234]

Fortunately we have millions and millions of Christians in the world who have the Holy Spirit–“the Teacher” according to Jesus–living inside them to discern what is truth and what is error.

Which explains exactly why there are 33,000 protestant denominations.

 

[elvisman]

There is a past, present and future tense of salvation for sure. But the past tense is HUGE, and I wonder why the RCC doesn’t treat it the way the NT writers do. You could sort of compare the three tenses of salvation to the birth of a child into a family (past tense) and then the growth of the child (present tense) and then the child leaving the home to get married (future tense). All are important, but the birth is HUGE and literally life-changing. It happened, will never be repeated and is irreversible!! The new birth is all of that and more! Yet you guys seem to rank it somewhere around, say, an exchange student coming to live with you!

Protestant101 understands what is meant by these scriptures. Unfortunately for you, your interpretation is in the minority of Protestant interpretation.**

The “inheritance which is imperishable” is JESUS, not people. The “new birth” is not a one time event. It is an ongoing process of victory after victory. But the "new birth is a state of being; not a state of doing. That’s why we are called “Human Beings.” God created us to be this way; and because we have fallen into sin (a state of being) we need to “be born again,” we need to allow Jesus to bring us back to being a human being. “Being” as in being like Christ in all areas of our life. Do you know anyone who has done this instantly? History shows that that just does NOT happen. I think the Catholic Church would be in basic agreement to this post?

 

[broski234]

1. That is one of the reasons the Apocrapha was rejected by most–it contradicts the rest of Scripture and the words of Jesus.

I

Again, you continue to show your ignorance. The deuterocanonical books (Apocrapha) do NOT contradict scripture and the words of Jesus. Why was it that all Christian bibles contained the 7 books of the O.T. that are in the Catholic Bible, but not in the Protestant Bible, from the time the canon was officially recognized by the Church in 382 A.D. until Martin Luther came along in the 1500’s? You do know that Martin Luther threw out those 7 books of the Bible based solely on his own authority, don’t you? Of course you do not know, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. there are several places where the New Testament very definitely alludes to the 7 books of the Catholic Bible that are missing from the Protestant Bible. Here are just a few examples: Matt 6:14 – Sirach 28:2; Matt 27:39-43 – Wisdom 2:16-20; Rom 1:20-32 – Wisdom 13 & 14; Heb 11:35 – 2 Mac 7:1-42; James 1:19 – Sirach 5:11.

 

[broski234]

I feel for you. Once a man is literally born of God’s Spirit and placed in Christ, everything has changed FOREVER. We don’t jump in and out of Christ when we siin. You have a very low view of what it means to be “In Christ”. I can’t help you.

Well, the bible doesn’t agree with you. St. Paul doesn’t agree with you. His letters to the Romans doesn’t agree with you. If we continue to be slaves of sin, we are not in Christ. Now, if we repent and ask for forgiveness, we are joined together with Christ. Your interpretation has scripture contradicting itself.

 

[jblake]

broski234;:

You do know that Martin Luther threw out those 7 books of the Bible based solely on his own authority, don’t you?

Reopeat after me: “Martin Luther did not throw out the Deuterocanonical Books”. He did make a distinction between the protocanonical books and deuterocanonical books, of both the OT and NT.

The only book that he can be credited with throwing out, is one that most Christians have never heard of, much less read.

there are several places where the New Testament very definitely alludes to the 7 books of the Catholic Bible that are missing from the Protestant Bible.

The NT also contains allusions to the five books that Catholic Christianity threw out.

I don’t have a complete translation in English, of _The Ehtiiopiac Canon of Eighty One (narrower canon), but there are at least two allusions in the NT, to books within that Canon, that are not part of the Canon of either Orthodox Christianity or Catholic Christianity.

jonathon

 

[broski234]

Reopeat after me: “Martin Luther did not throw out the Deuterocanonical Books”. He did make a distinction between the protocanonical books and deuterocanonical books, of both the OT and NT.

Really? History says very differently. Those deuterocanonical books were accepted by all until the 1500’s. The original Septuagint contained those 7 books that are in the Catholic bible that aren’t in your protestant bible. There was much dispute among the Jews about which books should be contained in scripture as well as disputes among Christians. It is well known by Protestant scholars that the Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books of the O.T. (the Pentateuch) as inspired Scripture. That’s it. Also, the Essenes, the Jewish sect from which we got the Dead Sea Scrolls, had a slightly different canon than the Pharisees. So there was much dispute amongst the Jews regarding the canon of Scripture. Plus, are you not aware that 2/3 of the quotes in the New Testament come from the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), which contains the 7 books that Catholics have in their O.T. that Protestants do not?

 

[Bramble]

**Sorry, my confused friend - we are not **forbidden to interpret the scriptures. We are guided by the pillar and foundation of truth (the Church) in that interpretation - whereas you’re not. That’s why there are thousands of bickering denominations that all claim to be “the church”.

**Sorry my wanting-to-change-the-subject-because-it’s-soooo-uncomfortable-for-you friend, I never said you were forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but what I did say is that, according to your Church, you can’t rightly divide the Scripture.

Your Church claims that status for herself only, and excludes you from it. You are reduced to relying on her interpretations, no matter how bizarre hers might be.**

Besides, Jesus guaranteed that the Holy spirit would giude the Church into ALL truth. Who do you think he meant when he said this? Do you think he was kidding?

How would you know? The Church claims only She can rightly divide Scripture. If Her understanding is wrong, you wouldn’t know because the correct interpretation of Scripture is not yours to determine, but Hers only. The most you can do is agree with her, and follow her.

Don’t forget - the gates of hell will not prevail against his Churvch (1 Church - not thousands) Matt. 16:18. The rest of you have no guarantee because you’re not part of his Church.

How do you know?

 

[rinnie]

‘Catholic’ simply means ‘universal’. Jesus founded his Church and the only churches that are part of his Universal church are those who hold to the original gospel, are led by elders and deacons, follow the teachings of Scripture and practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

CCC here is the brief teachings of Catholic.

The Church is Catholic she proclaims the Fullness of the Faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples, She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is missionary of her very nature.

In order to have the TRUE CHURCH the Church must have all the ,Marks.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Really? History says very differently. Those deuterocanonical books were accepted by all until the 1500’s. The original Septuagint contained those 7 books that are in the Catholic bible that aren’t in your protestant bible. There was much dispute among the Jews about which books should be contained in scripture as well as disputes among Christians. It is well known by Protestant scholars that the Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books of the O.T. (the Pentateuch) as inspired Scripture. That’s it. Also, the Essenes, the Jewish sect from which we got the Dead Sea Scrolls, had a slightly different canon than the Pharisees. So there was much dispute amongst the Jews regarding the canon of Scripture. Plus, are you not aware that 2/3 of the quotes in the New Testament come from the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), which contains the 7 books that Catholics have in their O.T. that Protestants do not?

Another interesting fact that can be verified in history is that Martin Luther also wanted to throw out the book of James because of James statement regarding “Faith AND works”.

But those with him refused.

God bless all!!!

 

[broski234]

Another interesting fact that can be verified in history is that Martin Luther also wanted to throw out the book of James because of James statement regarding “Faith AND works”.

But those with him refused.

God bless all!!!

Also true! I believed he referred to the Letter of James as the “Epistle of Straw”.

 

[rinnie]

‘Catholic’ simply means ‘universal’. Jesus founded his Church and the only churches that are part of his Universal church are those who hold to the original gospel, are led by elders and deacons, follow the teachings of Scripture and practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Exactly, Also how a can protestant follow the teachings of Scripture if they do not have all of the books. Do you not agree also that we need SS with Tradition, the way it tells us in the bible?

 

[distracted]

Interesting. The Christians I know talk about how they were saved and the momentous event when they came out of darkness into the light. Its huge for Paul and Jesus, but seems to be a nonevent for most RC’s. Wonder why?

I could tell you some “interesting” things that happened to me AFTER i was “born again”…

I wasn’t catechized so, well, to back up…
When i first had this born again conversion experience… Yes, it was WONDERFUL… never was happier… was madly in love with Jesus… For 2 yrs i was doing great…

I still don’t know what happened, at first, to get me on that downward spiral… probably a combination of things… but in any case, my life began to unravel… slowly but surely… & i got further from Jesus, without even trying…

and it just kept unraveling… The main reason WHY??

I wasn’t catechized… but i didn’t SEE that then because… well, because i didn’t know what i know now… As they say Knowledge is power.

when i was still very young,i met someone who told me that even if i sin, if i have accepted Christ, it doesn’t matter, i will go to Heaven anyway… i wasn’t catechized, so i believed that… and lived my life accordingly… doing what i wanted (thought i wanted) to do…
Suffice it to say my life hit rock bottom…
when i started to pray the rosary, i began to get better but my life began to get worse… (at 1st)… I now see that the devil was enraged about me praying the rosary… but something (I know it was th Holy spirit) told me to keep praying it. Eventually, things got… well, maybe not better the way i wanted them to be better… but better the way God wanted them to be better… VERY long, complicated story…
Anyway, now that i am catechized… life is still not a bed of thorn-less roses… but i have found the narrow way… I don’t always stay on it very well… maybe no one really does ( forever & always & in every way…) because we are human/weak…
but in any case, at least I KNOW the narrow way… If i fall off of it, i know how to get back on it… I know where it IS… It is in the R Catholic Church…

I particularly love spending time with Jesus (absolute Truth) @ the Blessed Sacrament, the Real Presence, which tangibly abides in the Catholic (and only the Catholic) Church…

 

[elvisman]

**Sorry my **

**wanting-to-**change-the-subject-because-it’s-soooo-uncomfortable-for-you friend, I never said you were forbidden from interpreting Scripture, but what I did say is that, according to your Church, you can’t rightly divide the Scripture.

**Your Church claims **that status for herself only, and excludes you from it. You are reduced to relying on her interpretations, no matter how bizarre hers might be.

How would you know? The Church claims only She can rightly divide Scripture. If Her understanding is wrong, you wouldn’t know because the correct interpretation of Scripture is not yours to determine, but Hers only. The most you can do is agree with her, and follow her.

That’s what Jesus prescribed. If you have a problem with the Church being the the custodian of the truth - take it up with Jesus.

How do you know?

How do I know?
**Read Matt. 16:18 very slowl*y - it might come to you. **

 

[Tomster]

Exactly, Also how a can protestant follow the teachings of Scripture if they do not have all of the books. Do you not agree also that we need SS with Tradition, the way it tells us in the bible?

Exactly!

However, there are some strictly Bible-alone Protestants; the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible types who flatly deny any type of tradition. It really amazes me how staunchly they believe this and then go to church on Sunday and listen to and believe what their pastors preach to them.

Just another example of contradictory Protestant “traditions” (the small “t” variety).

 

[catholic_daddy]

I want to point out a couple of things in your posting. … the original gospel was orally taught … by the Apostles … we read about those in Acts and the Pauline letters.

So to truly follow what the original Apostles taught is where you want to be … hence why we are an Apostolic Church. That is what Tradition is … the confidence that we have the same teaching we receive today is the same teaching taught by the Apostles. Paul would have no bone to pick with what Catholics derive from his writings.

I understand why Guanophore continually uses Apostolic in many of his responses … it is true that many have lost the Apostolic connection. It is even in his signature. The Gospel does not change … it can’t … Paul would not have taught one way in 49 and another way in 2009 … any Christian must reconcile their understanding to the original Apostles undertanding in all matters of faith … a church cannot be mostly right. Catholcism does this … though not all believe but the reasons why a Church must be Apostolic still hold. If a church is not Apostolic then there is legitmate reason to distrust what it teaches.

Notice I did not say everyone must understand all aspects … I think if one is honest there are passages are that are confusing … that my mind cannot reconcile to the true meaning of the entirety of the Bible … so if I want an answer I want the answer the Apostles would have given. I want an authentic answer and not an opinion.

I know you will disagree but hear me out … look at what some other religions have done to begin their cause … they sever their ties to the Apostolic teaching … like the Great Aposasty … if you can sever those ties to the original Apostles you are indeed seemingly free to do whatever you want.

I know you will not agree but that’s never stopped me before.

There are no more Apostles. God saw to it that His Word would be preserved. His authority rests on all church leaders who submit to His authority as revealed in his Word. I have say under so many incredibly gifted and annointed teachers that I have not the least bit of doubt as to where His Spirit is and how He communicates to his people. It truly is a non-issue for me and countless millions of others.
Try Googling R C Sproul if you want to hear one of the greatest theologians alive today. (He is not with the RCC)
God Bless

 

[distracted]

Since this is a “historical dare,” would you allow me to turn the tables for the purpose of clarification? I would be interested to know what specific Scriptures you are using when you say that “The Apostles forgave sins.”

Jesus said “Which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven or to say [you are healed]?”

Also, Jesus gave the Apostles the Holy Spirit (breathed on them) and in so doing, gave them HIS power to forgive sins. (John 20:19) It is Christ who forgives sins in the confessional… through the priest. It is the Church that absolves… The Church (RCC) is Christ on Earth.

 

[rinnie]

Exactly!

However, there are some strictly Bible-alone Protestants; the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible types who flatly deny any type of tradition. It really amazes me how staunchly they believe this and then go to church on Sunday and listen to and believe what their pastors preach to them.

Just another example of contradictory Protestant “traditions” (the small “t” variety).

I agree with you tomster. But in all do respect I do and can see where alot of these people are comming from. I believe in my heart they are good people. They just do not understand that unless you have the whole faith it just will not work. You cannot take protestants, Catholics, etc and put them all together in one Church and say okay we all love God and the rest is not that important.

In order to have the true and full faith, it must come from the Catholic Church and the Catholic teachings. So many non-dem. Church’s are trying to do something that is impossible. They are trying to get everyone to be one faith. That is only possible one way. They all must come back to the fullness of the faith. There is no other way. It must be the Church Christ started not man.

 

[rinnie]

There are no more Apostles. God saw to it that His Word would be preserved. His authority rests on all church leaders who submit to His authority as revealed in his Word. I have say under so many incredibly gifted and annointed teachers that I have not the least bit of doubt as to where His Spirit is and how He communicates to his people. It truly is a non-issue for me and countless millions of others.
Try Googling R C Sproul if you want to hear one of the greatest theologians alive today. (He is not with the RCC)
God Bless

How can you say there are no more Apostles. To say that would deny the word of Jesus. He said You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail. Do you know what these words mean. They mean that death will not take away Apostolic Power. That the power that Jesus gave his apostles will never die, The devil will never be able through sin and death to take away this Apostolic Power. It will live on until Jesus comes again in Glory. Jesus promised us that. How can you deny these words of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He promised us that this power will be passed on until he comes back. Would not to deny Apostolic Succession be denying Christ?

 

[distracted]

Did Jesus say:

“I will build my Bible and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” ?

 

[broski234]

Reopeat after me: “Martin Luther did not throw out the Deuterocanonical Books”. He did make a distinction between the protocanonical books and deuterocanonical books, of both the OT and NT.

What is your basis for saying he did not throw out the 7 deuterocanonical books? History simply doesn’t support it. All of Christendom accepted those 7 books until Martin Luther decided he didn’t like them