A Question For Protestants

[Rightlydivide]

I read them. The first one does contain a few assertions that are biblically and historically inaccurate, but I am sure they can be reasoned away. I will try to find the books cited, but the one that implies that the early Church did not worship on Sunday is very problematic.

The second one is a typical mis-quote and half-quote anti-Catholic work. For example, no rational is given as to why the Church calls Mary “Mother of God.” It just throws it out there and lets you draw your own conclusions.

I think both clearly show that the beliefs that seperate us cannot be proved from the Bible or early history…on the Catholic side…

 

[ralphinal]

I think both clearly show that the beliefs that seperate us cannot be proved from the Bible or early history…on the Catholic side…

If I may be so bold as to ask, do you agree with the website that you posted that the only reason that Christians have service on Sunday is to appease the Roman sun worshippers?

 

[Rightlydivide]

If I may be so bold as to ask, do you agree with the website that you posted that the only reason that Christians have service on Sunday is to appease the Roman sun worshippers?

You have to pick the one little sentence…
I notice with the second book you do not mention anything after the first part either
Makes me wonder if you just scan the first couple of things…
The question is not bold at all…nope, dont agree with that. I think you know that one can find a lot of agreement without agreeing with every detail.
An example, you state the second does not adequately give the RC position. Do any apologetic works really do that?

 

[ralphinal]

You have to pick the one little sentence…
I notice with the second book you do not mention anything after the first part either
Makes me wonder if you just scan the first couple of things…
The question is not bold at all…nope, dont agree with that. I think you know that one can find a lot of agreement without agreeing with every detail.
An example, you state the second does not adequately give the RC position. Do any apologetic works really do that?

I will go backwards

Actually, yes, they do. A great many of the Eastern Orthodox position works doa great job of explaining Catholic Positions on things.

I read the entire work. For some unknown reason, I actually did the pdf thing and printed it. It was nothing new. Again, take the Mother of God claim. To deny she is the Mother of GOd is to deny that Jesus is God. That statement is about her son, not her.

The reason that I point to that one line, and it was one of several, is one of honesty. How can you be sure the whole thing is accurate when they miss something handled in Acts of the Apostles?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I will go backwards

Actually, yes, they do. A great many of the Eastern Orthodox position works doa great job of explaining Catholic Positions on things.

I read the entire work. For some unknown reason, I actually did the pdf thing and printed it. It was nothing new. Again, take the Mother of God claim. To deny she is the Mother of GOd is to deny that Jesus is God. That statement is about her son, not her.

The reason that I point to that one line, and it was one of several, is one of honesty. How can you be sure the whole thing is accurate when they miss something handled in Acts of the Apostles?

I think that is an incredible overstatement ralphinal. People who adhere to a rigid view about…titles if you will…may or may not share the same basic theological understanding as you whether they use theotokos or not.
As far as your last statement, the “all or nothing” scenario is too simplistic I believe. I can discern history well enough

 

[ralphinal]

I think that is an incredible overstatement ralphinal. People who adhere to a rigid view about…titles if you will…may or may not share the same basic theological understanding as you whether they use theotokos or not.
As far as your last statement, the “all or nothing” scenario is too simplistic I believe. I can discern history well enough

It is not about MY or YOUR understanding but of the history of the term. To show why the term is bad but not show where it comes from is intellectual dishonesty. Tell the whole story or leave it alone.

I am not making an all or nothing statement. I am asking for one of two things. Either be a scholarly work and proof your text or say this is one man’s opinion, take it or leave it.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It is not about MY or YOUR understanding but of the history of the term. To show why the term is bad but not show where it comes from is intellectual dishonesty. Tell the whole story or leave it alone.

I am not making an all or nothing statement. I am asking for one of two things. Either be a scholarly work and proof your text or say this is one man’s opinion, take it or leave it.

You are asking for a standard of apologists that does not exist,
no apologist does that
neither one is going to publish an article in a peer reviewed theological journal but that is not what we are talking about.
Take it or leave it? I shall leave it then. You do realize the irony of you saying it is not an all or nothing statement…and then making one the very next sentence…or perhaps you do not

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We recongnize the contribution of the ECF’s in Christian history. We believe they were sincere. There were other groups in those first centuries of the Christian movement which vied for dominance. The 'proto-catholic/orthodox" groups finally won their place, mainly due to the developing myth of “apostolic sucession” they taught and the hierarchy of government they employed.

Catholicism/Orthodoxy became the dominant form of Christianity for 1500 years. With the majority of the Western world illiterate and uneducated the church was the repository of literature…with the “explosion” of literacy after the advent of the printing press and the publication of the Bible available to the common man, things changed drastically.

The ECF’s and their “decendants” gained dominance in the Christian world with the acceptance of their version of Christianity by the Roman emperor. The Christian message was preserved through their writings and a deep spirituality provided down through the ages.

Do I 'believe the ECF’s"…I believe they believed what they understood…it is apocrypha that they were “taught by the apostles”. We have no direct written gospels or letters from any of the original apostles. We have the writings of Paul and various schools of Christianity…the best known writings are today bound in what is known as “The Bible”…but with the discovery of Nag Hamaddi, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gospel of Judas and a few others, the history of Christianity has bee greatly expanded and much better understood how Western Christianity developed from one school of thought among many to the dominant understanding…at least until recently.

I respect your OPINION ONLY, and because the post is addressed to Protestants. But your history has many flaws as far as the Early church fathers, and first century christiantity.

I dont want to expose the many flaws in your commentary, so I will just mention ONE. Who is this Roman Emperor are you referring to? and in what century? Surely you are not trying to suggest that this Roman Emperor was the Pope from Rome where he resided not ruled pagan Rome. I hope we can clear this up, and then maybe you can have a better understanding of the Early church fathers?

Peace be with you

 

[ralphinal]

You are asking for a standard of apologists that does not exist,
no apologist does that
neither one is going to publish an article in a peer reviewed theological journal but that is not what we are talking about.
Take it or leave it? I shall leave it then. You do realize the irony of you saying it is not an all or nothing statement…and then making one the very next sentence…or perhaps you do not

Here is the situation as I see it. Let’s say I write a paper about how George Washington was a bad president. I cite souces and have some footnotes. Would the common person think that this has some validity to it? Probably. Afterall, it is on the internet and I have sources. Now, let’s say that in the first few lines, I state something that anyone who studies history as a hobby can pick up on. Does that make my paper less correct? Yes. It is something that I could have left out. Does the common person know about it? Probably not. Therefore, because I had incorrect information in there, I am either intentionally or unintentionally leading people to the wrong conclusion.

Is this a standard that does not exist? Perhaps. Is it unreasonable? NO. there is no reason someone cannot find information that is correct and use it. Unless it damages their case too much I guess.

There is no historical proof that Constantine founded the Catholic Church. It is simply made up.

A good non-Catholic apologist can do quite well on actualpoints of doctrine without mis-stating or mis-representing the facts that can be found in the bookstore or on this site.

 

[ralphinal]

the more I think about it, the more I think that I am being unfair.

I expect people to be honest about what they say. I should not.

I expect facts to be presented as facts, and falicies to be presented as such. I should not.

I expect people to understand and research the Catholic position on things, since it is so well published. I should not.

Catholics have two inherent disadvantages in these types of discussions. First, lots of stuff is out there about what the Church teaches, but not all of it is factually correct. Choosing the correct source is crucial. Second, we have a published list of teachings and doctrines. Not all faiths have this. We cannot change what we teach to hide or obfuscate it.

The vast majority of literature against Catholic teachings (note I did not say anti-Catholic) are based on a “Here is the correct understanding of what Scripture means.” this is a false argument as there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are people to interprit it. This cannot lead to a productive discussion.

 

[Cathdefender]

Why do Protestants think Constantine founded the Catholic church? Is this what they teach them in their ‘auditoriums’? Your pastors have wrong information…man, anyone will say anything against the church.

 

[SIA]

Protestants: Do you believe in the early church fathers?

If not, why not?

If you attempt to say that you only go by the bible, it was the church fathers who created the bible, so why wouldn’t you listen to men God chose to reveal His Word to?

Are the church fathers teaching credited to them in your church? (Salvation, justification, Trinity, etc…)

For example does your religious leader state who it was that revealed the Doctrine of the Trinity? (A.D. 325 Council of Nicea)

Absolutely! It’s all in Scripture and its about how the Holy Spirit guided and discerned the early church. Not about one single denomination. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or otherwise.

 

[Cathdefender]

Absolutely! It’s all in Scripture and its about how the Holy Spirit guided and discerned the early church. Not about one single denomination. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or otherwise.

Then you must realize that the ECF were Catholic. Doesn’t it make sense to you who was in fact around back then, and Christ must have started that church, the one who told St. Peter to have authority over?

 

[SIA]

Then you must realize that the ECF were Catholic. Doesn’t it make sense to you who was in fact around back then, and Christ must have started that church, the one who told St. Peter to have authority over?

What the early church was and what the RCC is today are not the same. I don’t want to get into the sex abuse stuff and all of that because I don’t want to play the offense game, but i do not believe that what the RCC is and what is has become is what Jesus intended. That’s why I left.

 

[Cathdefender]

What the early church was and what the RCC is today are not the same. I don’t want to get into the sex abuse stuff and all of that because I don’t want to play the offense game, but i do not believe that what the RCC is and what is has become is what Jesus intended. That’s why I left.

But you are skipping over 2,000 years to the year 2001 with the priest scandal. What happened to the last 2,000 years before that?
Jesus makes the church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus himself said there would be both good and bad members within the church (John 6:70), and not all members would go to heaven. (Matt. 7:21-23).
On www.reformation.com, there are hundreds of ministers who have been in abuse situations, including many Anglicans. Why didn’t you leave your own church knowing this? You left the CC because of the scandal, but don’t leave your church with even more scandal? Isn’t this a double edged sword?

 

[SIA]

But you are skipping over 2,000 years to the year 2001 with the priest scandal. What happened to the last 2,000 years before that?
QUOTE]

Purgatory, the Assumption, The Immaculate Conception, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition. The decades before 2001 when the pedophile priests were protected and moved around by their bishops. God would never be in support of this. Just like God doesn’t condone TV evangelism that makes millions by oppressing the poor, clearly not Biblical.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why do Protestants think Constantine founded the Catholic church? Is this what they teach them in their ‘auditoriums’? Your pastors have wrong information…man, anyone will say anything against the church.

I do not think that, I dont imagine most do, perhaps an online survey of all 800 million…

 

[Cathdefender]

Cathdefender;3749218:

But you are skipping over 2,000 years to the year 2001 with the priest scandal. What happened to the last 2,000 years before that?
QUOTE]

Purgatory, the Assumption, The Immaculate Conception, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition. The decades before 2001 when the pedophile priests were protected and moved around by their bishops. God would never be in support of this. Just like God doesn’t condone TV evangelism that makes millions by oppressing the poor, clearly not Biblical.

You are using excuses Sia. How about Jesus C
hrist? How about being a Catholic because Jesus founded the church? Why so much about Purgatory? So what, you go there to get cleansed of your sins. You cannot enter the Kingdom as a sinner. The Immaculate Conception is in the bible. So isn’t purgatory. And? Your excuses for not wanting to be a Catholic are not supportive at all.
The priest scandal is a thing of the past. The church can’t even die because of that, that just shows you how we’ve stood the test of time. A test. That is all it is. We are being tested every day in our churches. Satan is entering them and trying to bring it down but it isn’t going to happen. This is a test of faith. To turn your back on Jesus. You know what makes a saint a saint?
PERSERVERANCE. Until the end. I will perservere until the end being a Catholic (but no saint). The scandal had nothing to do with the faith.

 

[SIA]

SIA;3749266:

You are using excuses Sia. How about Jesus C
hrist? How about being a Catholic because Jesus founded the church? Why so much about Purgatory? So what, you go there to get cleansed of your sins. You cannot enter the Kingdom as a sinner. The Immaculate Conception is in the bible. So isn’t purgatory. And? Your excuses for not wanting to be a Catholic are not supportive at all.
The priest scandal is a thing of the past. The church can’t even die because of that, that just shows you how we’ve stood the test of time. A test. That is all it is. We are being tested every day in our churches. Satan is entering them and trying to bring it down but it isn’t going to happen. This is a test of faith. To turn your back on Jesus. You know what makes a saint a saint?
PERSERVERANCE. Until the end. I will perservere until the end being a Catholic (but no saint). The scandal had nothing to do with the faith.

Read your post here out loud to yourself and try to make a conscienceable effort to make yourself believe it truly in your heart. It won’t happen. It only exists in words because you wish to believe it, you have been trained to profess to believe it but deeply in your Christian heart you know that it is not true. It IS contrary to Holy Scripture and was NOT spoken by Jesus in the Gospels. Put your faith in Christ. Not the RCC, not Mary, not man who can deceive, molest and lie, not schemes not anything but God and his holy Word of truth and salvation. Paul got it. James got it. Peter got it. I get it! Why not you. Draw closer to God and he will draw closer to you.

 

[ralphinal]

I would say that most Protestants, at least in America do not know who Constantine was. Same with Catholics. So, no most do not think that he started the Church. There are some who do. Many agnostis and atheists think that too.

With Purgatory, would it make any difference if the Jews of Jesus time believed in it? Judaism is a religion that has a concept oof both oral and written tradition. Plus, it took for granted that its members already knew information related to the faith.

Again, would it matter if Jesus believed in it?