A question for all Protestants

[mark_a]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

These are all good questions, but I thought the dogma of the Trinity was implicit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like I said earlier you always say he was humble so he never said he was pope. That’s simply not true he demonstrates time after time he was a fellow elder. That title elder is a biblical one. Nothing more nothing less.

And in one sense, he was a “fellow elder” since Peter was an Apostle and the Pope is also a Bishop like the other Bishops.

However, over time, the faithful developed a new word to refer to Peter’s successor that distinguished him from the other Bishops of the Church since he is also the Vicar of Christ on earth.

 

[searchman40]

Some Protestants do believe in Purgatory, Mary’s assuming into Heaven etc. and some do not. Just as not all Catholics believe in the banning of contraception or the transubstantiation. In the end, it is down to the individual and their personal relationship with God that determines what they believe.
Hope this helps.
Searchman40.

 

[jericho777]

And in one sense, he was a “fellow elder” since Peter was an Apostle and the Pope is also a Bishop like the other Bishops.

However, over time, the faithful developed a new word to refer to Peter’s successor that distinguished him from the other Bishops of the Church since he is also the Vicar of Christ on earth.

In scripture there are no uber elders or apostles just regular ones. Christ only promises to live in the believer and we all are called to be ambassadors of Christ. He never ascribes anyone to be Him personally.

 

[Lutheranteach]

The Trinity is clearly demonstrated throughout the bible. The foundation and complete revelation is plainly laid out. The argument you are using is the one used by JW’s in relationship to Jesus and His divinity. Where as throughout both OT and NT Jesus is demonstrated as God incarnate. Peter, Paul, and John all exercise great authority in scripture. No one ever refers to Peter as pope. He only refers to himself as a fellow elder nothing more.

It’s premise #1 that many protestants would take issue with, disagree with, or flat out reject and have any number of reasons why.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Some Protestants do believe in Purgatory, Mary’s assuming into Heaven etc. and some do not. Just as not all Catholics believe in the banning of contraception or the transubstantiation. In the end, it is down to the individual and their personal relationship with God that determines what they believe.
Hope this helps.
Searchman40.

It is a contradiction to say some Catholics do not believe in banning contraception or transubstantiation. If you believe in ALL of the RCC’s teachings, then you are Catholic. If you do not believe, then you are Excommunicated, and can not participate in the sacraments until they repent.

Excommunicable offenses begin with canon 1364. Those who embrace schism, heresy, or apostasy incur automatic excommunication. Schism, heresy, and apostasy are offenses against the Catholic faith and the unity of the Church. The schismatic refuses subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or to maintain communion with those subject to the Holy Father; the heretic, despite having been baptized into the faith, obstinately denies a well-defined Christian truth; and the apostate totally renounces Christ and the Christian faith. The canon permits the competent ecclesiastical authority to add other penalties, including dismissal from the clerical state, when the offense is committed by a deacon, priest, or bishop.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp

 

[mark_a]

In the end, it is down to the individual and their personal relationship with God that determines what they believe.
Hope this helps.
Searchman40.

This is totally unworkable for the Catholic non-negotiable beliefs.

 

[chessmane4e5]

In scripture there are no uber elders or apostles just regular ones. Christ only promises to live in the believer and we all are called to be ambassadors of Christ. He never ascribes anyone to be Him personally.

I agree, their are no “uber elders”. Everyone is equal in Christ’s eyes.

But how then do we explain Matt 16:13-19? Jesus announces that Simon was given knowledge from God the Father about Jesus. Jesus changes Simon’s name to Peter (Rock). God also changed Abram’s name to Abraham. Nowhere in the Bible is anyone ever called Rock except God. Jesus then says He is going to build His Church upon Peter (rock). He gives Peter the Keys of the Kingdom. How much more evidence do you require from Scripture?

If that is not enough, look at the Early Church. Peter exercised Authority, and NONE of the Apostles challenged him for this. Why? Because they knew what Jesus did in Matt 16. Then their is all kinds of evidence of the Early Church looking to Rome and the Bishop (Pope) there that was taught by Peter. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE, ever questioned the Authority of Rome.

Deny all this if you will, it is your free will. I simply choose to accept what Jesus did in Matt 16.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In scripture there are no uber elders or apostles just regular ones. Christ only promises to live in the believer and we all are called to be ambassadors of Christ. He never ascribes anyone to be Him personally.

I think I can agree with this. All of the Apostles had similar authority in the Church with the exception that Peter was the head of the Apostles. Their successors, the Bishops, also have equal authority with the exception of the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

And you are correct here: Peter is not “Him personally”…just His vicar.

 

[RDJ12345]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

As a Protestant, I don’t believe in the Catholic teachings you mentioned simply because the version of The Bible (KJV) that I read is different from the versions of The Bible that have been accepted by the Catholic Church.

 

[chessmane4e5]

As a Protestant, I don’t believe in the Catholic teachings you mentioned simply because the version of The Bible (KJV) that I read is different from the versions of The Bible that have been accepted by the Catholic Church.

Here is something from the catholic.com Q&A

Q: Why do you Catholics refuse to accept the only authorized version of the Bible, the King James Version? Your false Catholic Bibles have books added to them that don’t belong in the Bible. If you used the King James Bible you would become real Christians.

A: Catholics refuse to accept the King James Version of the Bible, or the Authorized Version as some still call it, precisely because it is not an authorized translation.

The only authority behind the King James Version was King James himself. But who was King James? He was a temporal ruler, a head of state, specifically king of England in the seventeenth century. What authority did he have to authorize a translation of Scripture? No authority whatsoever.

Let’s look at it another way. What authority would a Bill Clinton Bible have? As a political head of state he has just as much right to have Scripture translated as King James had. You would reject a Bill Clinton Version. If so, why accept a King James Version?

As to Catholic Bibles having added books that are not in the King James Version, they may not be in your modern edition of the King James Version, but the deuterocanonical books as Catholics know them were in the original King James Bible. Those who compiled the original translation, having rejected the authority of the Church, mistakenly put these books of Scripture in a separate section labeled “Apocrypha” but providentially did not take it upon themselves to remove them completely from the Bible. In 1615 the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury imposed a year’s imprisonment as penalty for publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. The same cannot be said of modern editions like your own, which have removed them and thus fail to measure up to the original King James Version.

Finally, reading the King James version is no guarantee that the reader will reject Catholicism and embrace Protestantism. The example of Anne of Denmark should suffice. The Lutheran princess Anne married King James of Bible fame and subsequently converted to Catholicism.

Here is an article on translations in general catholic.com/library/Bible_Translations_Guide.asp

 

[Bill_Pick]

Scripture does not establish or teach Peter was Pope it is catholic doctrine. Peter had many oppourtunities to establish the office but never any where in scripture does he do this. The excuse given every time is that he was humble. That’s nonsense because he noe anyone else never establishes or referrences the office any where because it does not exist.

“Upon this rock I will build My” Church,This is Our Lord speaking, what more do you need.

 

[joe370]

As I read the Bible I could see the trinity developing before me without much help from others pointing it out. I dont even see infallibility when you do!

Rd, is the holy spirit, Who is forever guiding Jesus’ church leaders (who are all sinful, fallible people) - into all truth (John 16:13) - infallible?

 

[joe370]

As a Protestant, I don’t believe in the Catholic teachings you mentioned simply because the version of The Bible (KJV) that I read is different from the versions of The Bible that have been accepted by the Catholic Church.

Rd, the same 27 books of the NT are used in all bibles. Which NT teachings do you not believe, and what does this have to do with one person using the KJV and one person using the New Jerusalem bible, when both versions contain the same 27 books?

Martin Luther Luther had a low view of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical, at least until the CC settled the mater. If ML was wrong about these 4 NT books, and he was according to all Protestants, then logically speaking, he could have been wrong about the 7 books the CC supposedly added - is that a fair assessment?

You might be surprised to learn that ML also translated the so called Apocrypha as well. The editors of Luther’s Work explain, “In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’” If, as ML suggested, these books are useful and good to read, then why don’t Protestants read them? I guess my point is, if ML included these 7 books in his German bible, why doesn’t the KJV include these 7 books, with the same caption?

 

[Bill_Pick]

And many Anglicans left the RCC and wouldn’t return on a bet.

Oh my gosh. This is poppycock. Can you stop with the usuall rhetoric and the “we are better than you are garbage”? King Henry sought an annulment and if you knew anything about history, he wasn’t granted it because the Vatican was surrounded by the army of the king who vehimately pushed the pope not to grant it. It was politics, not righteousness by any stretch. And why would you think that the pope would grant a divorce when Catholicism declares that there is no such thing? Better do some research on your own denomination while you are learning something about Anglicanism because clearly as you said earlier, you don’t know much about it.

Last part A+

 

[Teneas]

It depends if you are going to let scripture say what it says even if it goes against Church teaching. That takes courage!

It’s obvious that all denominations besides the Catholic Church have great courage then.

 

[Teneas]

BTW Justy, you haven’t answered my question on post #137. Or anyone for that matter.

 

[Justy90]

Justy90;6202363:

And who is the judge of this? Who is the judge of whether tradition is still parallel with Scripture or not?

Who are you, or anyone to say that tradition is not in parallel with scripture? Your interpretation? The guy down the street’s interpretation? The Southern Baptist Convention? The Lutheran’s? The Catholic’s? Who?

There has to be someone here to tell us. Other than “Well God will tell us”. Cause, guess what…God works through man.

Someone did come here to tell us and it’s contained in Scripture. It’s not any one institution. It’s the Church founded by Christ (Petra) upon Christ (Petra). That’s not the answer you were hoping for I know, but I couldn’t lie to you. Sorry.

 

[Teneas]

Someone did come here to tell us and it’s contained in Scripture. It’s not any one institution. It’s the Church founded by Christ (Petra) upon Christ (Petra). That’s not the answer you were hoping for I know, but I couldn’t lie to you. Sorry.

You still didn’t answer it however. You can’t tell me who is responsible for such things. You can’t tell me who is responsible for knowing when scripture and tradition isn’t living in parallel.

 

[Justy90]

You still didn’t answer it however. You can’t tell me who is responsible for such things. You can’t tell me who is responsible for knowing when scripture and tradition isn’t living in parallel.

Scripture interprets itself and with the reason that God gave us, it is plain to see when things such as venerating Mary or indulgences do not parallel Scripture and in many cases contradict it. It is up to you to prove how these so called traditions are truth and you can’t do it.