Attention Protestants in favor of the Refomation!

[Melchior]

Oh yeah!

John Calvin’s No need to pray Doctrine

1 Timothy 2,1
First of all, then, I ask that supplications,prayers,petitions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone.

You have never read Calvin have you?

Mel

 

[Protestant101]

You have never read Calvin have you?

Mel

Howdy Mel

If you could explain to me what your comments re Calvin’s “no need to pray doctrine” has to do with my comments above regarding holy communion and “the fulness of truth;” I would appreciate it. Right now, I have no idea what you are getting at.

 

[Contarini]

You have never read Calvin have you?

Mel

I certainly have, and I have not encountered any such idea–on the contrary, Calvin thinks prayer is vitally important.

Edwin

 

[Image_of_God]

You have never read Calvin have you?

Mel

Not then, but now I have.

I have come to a deeper understanding of the Reformation, and I understand that some good has come out of it, but that does not mean I condone any of the nontraditional things that were taught.

 

[TheRaiders]

There was no Pope in the Bible. The one, true Church was a “remnant” from the Protestants who protested the wandering into false doctrines and practices.

Which of the early heresies (these people resisting the Orthodox Church lead by the Apostles successors) do you identify with? I think if you look into it, you will not agree fully with any of them. I also think if you read Luther, you will see that you don’t agree with him all the time either. This unbreaking line of Protestants dating back and beginning with the Apostles is not supported by the writings of the early Church, and historical evidence. Many a protestant has been surprised to read the early Church Fathers to find that their Christianity aligns most completely with Catholic and Orthodox (two lungs of the same true Church, tragically in schism).

 

[jmcrae]

There was no Pope in the Bible. The one, true Church was a “remnant” from the Protestants who protested the wandering into false doctrines and practices.

Show how Jesus is not ordaining St. Peter as chief shepherd of the Church in John 21:15-19.

Do so without contradicting the text, or adding any "we know"s to it.

 

[Protestant101]

Show how Jesus is not ordaining St. Peter as chief shepherd of the Church in John 21:15-19.

Do so without contradicting the text, or adding any "we know"s to it.

LOL…Looks like you added a “we knows” to your last post by St Ambrose; whoever that is. But thats OK.

In terms of “explaining” John 21:15-19, I find it very curious that you would not also include vs.20 which clearly shows another disciple “whom Jesus loved;” being much closer to Jesus than was Peter. “We know” this by reading the text:

20 ¶ Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

 

[jmcrae]

LOL…Looks like you added a “we knows” to your last post by St Ambrose; whoever that is. But thats OK.

You don’t know who St. Ambrose is? I hope you don’t consider yourself a scholar of the Early Church - he’s the Bishop who gave St. Augustine his RCIA Catechesis, and initiated him into the Church. He’s also one of those Holy Spirit-led guys who helped figure out the canon of the New Testament.

In terms of “explaining” John 21:15-19, I find it very curious that you would not also include vs.20 which clearly shows another disciple “whom Jesus loved;” being much closer to Jesus than was Peter. “We know” this by reading the text:

We aren’t talking about which disciple Jesus loved best: we are talking about which one He ordained as chief shepherd of His Church.

 

[TheRaiders]

LOL…Looks like you added a “we knows” to your last post by St Ambrose; whoever that is. But thats OK.

In terms of “explaining” John 21:15-19, I find it very curious that you would not also include vs.20 which clearly shows another disciple “whom Jesus loved;” being much closer to Jesus than was Peter. “We know” this by reading the text:

I’d also like to add to the previous post that John is not bragging by reffering to himself thus, but is being humble. He wants us all to put ourselves in his place as the one Jesus loves, and be at his breast. He also doesn’t name himself or his brother, but merely says something like ‘sons of Zebedee’. He goes to great lengths to not name himself in his own gospel.
What we Catholics are talking about is an office Jesus gave to Peter. That office is much like the office of all the 12 (yes John, too, held an office so you prove too much by including him in the discussion) and Paul, and the one later given to bishops and priests, but Peter was made the lead shepard, and told to feed His flock (read the end of John). If you read Isaiah 22:17-22, you see it is God’s perogative to give (and take) whatever office He pleases. Jesus quotes Isaiah 22 pretty closely here in John 21:15-19 because He is drawing a parallel. Isaiah 22 is talking about the office of Steward in the Davidic Kingdom. The Steward was in charge of religious matters, and ruled the kingdom when the king was away. The King (Jesus) is in heaven, so he named a human to govern His kingdom.

 

[TheRaiders]

By the way, Protestant, your spirit of inquiry has been very commendable in the posts I’ve seen you write. I like how you actually read posts, and links before firing off an answer.
Patrick

 

[Protestant101]

By the way, Protestant, your spirit of inquiry has been very commendable in the posts I’ve seen you write. I like how you actually read posts, and links before firing off an answer.
Patrick

Thanks, I know though that some forum members feel the opposite of your comment; but I appreciate what you said in post #129. I do have questions about it still; but I can agree that John was not bragging. I didn’t see it that way when I made my post.

What I was thinking in my [protestant] mind was how that there are too many things in the Bible that suggest or imply that maybe this business about Peter is misunderstood.

There are a number of texts that suggest other disciples had just as much appointed to them by Jesus; and the text I mentioned in John above is only one.

Without getting into semantics and word studies yet, I think also of the passage in Gal. 2 where Peter shows some instability of faith; and then I have trouble trying to reconcile this with the idea that He is the first Pope, and that God entrusted church leadership only to him, at that time.

I understand the doctrinal assertions of the Pope to be “infallible;” yet here, in the Bible, Peter is definitely showing the “fallible” side of his doctrinal understanding. If you put yourself into the shoes of a Protestant for a moment (keep your Catholic shoes nearby!), you might see now why it is so hard for us to invision Peter as the first church leader of the new testament church.

I believe though that the NT church did descend from the OT church, so there is a whole other can of worms. But maybe we can look at the text in Galations first, and get each other’s take on it?

**Gal. 2:11 ** But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

Peter does not show very good judgment here; and he had to be set straight by Paul. To me, this casts doubt on the “infallibility” part of Papal doctrinal understanding. This text in Gal. was well after the short address given Peter by Jesus, regarding the “Rock” of the Church; which I see as Jesus. I don’t understand at all how a mere human [Pope] could be in charge of the “church of the living God.”

Paul says clearly about Peter:

"when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Is it wrong then for christians to do this today with the current Pope, should a good reason present itself?

 

[TheRaiders]

What I was thinking in my [protestant] mind was how that there are too many things in the Bible that suggest or imply that maybe this business about Peter is misunderstood.
There are a number of texts that suggest other disciples had just as much appointed to them by Jesus; and the text I mentioned in John above is only one.

Do you really think that one in any way has to do with the office of St. Peter? To me, it only would mean that if you took it as saying “I, John, am the one Jesus loves best, because I am at Jesus’ breast.”

Without getting into semantics and word studies yet, I think also of the passage in Gal. 2 where Peter shows some instability of faith; and then I have trouble trying to reconcile this with the idea that He is the first Pope, and that God entrusted church leadership only to him, at that time.

His instability is not in faith or doctrines in this passage. Remember Jesus prayed for him in Luke 22:31-32 that “his faith not fail.” I’ll show later that Peter was, in fact, in need of rebuking not because he lacked sound doctrine, or practiced unsound doctrine, but because his actions were hypocritical. I’ll explain the difference in a bit.

I understand the doctrinal assertions of the Pope to be “infallible;” yet here, in the Bible, Peter is definitely showing the “fallible” side of his doctrinal understanding. If you put yourself into the shoes of a Protestant for a moment (keep your Catholic shoes nearby!), you might see now why it is so hard for us to invision Peter as the first church leader of the new testament church.

I agree, it is a difficult concept to explain and understand. But, if you think about it in terms of only practical matters, the central authority is the only way Jesus could allow us to keep our free will and not run His Church into doctrinal error. And we both agree how easy this is (Some we can probably both agree on: Unitarians, Mormons, Branch Davidians, Iglesia Di Cristi, Dr. Gene Scott, Freemasonry). We believe the the Holy Spirit guides a pope, and if a Pope decides to go against God, and teach false doctrines, God will not allow it. (He may even kill a pope in order to prevent it). So he only had to limit one man’s free will in order to preserve doctrines, as opposed to the rest of the billions of Christians (if everyone had authority).

I believe though that the NT church did descend from the OT church, so there is a whole other can of worms. But maybe we can look at the text in Galations first, and get each other’s take on it?

I agree, lets stick to one at a time so it doesn’t turn into a passage battle.

Peter does not show very good judgment here; and he had to be set straight by Paul. To me, this casts doubt on the “infallibility” part of Papal doctrinal understanding. This text in Gal. was well after the short address given Peter by Jesus, regarding the “Rock” of the Church; which I see as Jesus. I don’t understand at all how a mere human [Pope] could be in charge of the “church of the living God.”

Is it wrong then for christians to do this today with the current Pope, should a good reason present itself?

No, it is not. But we are not all Paul. Some saints have been inspired to chastise the pope. St. Bernard and St. Catherine of Sienna to name two. It is fraternal correction of conduct, not doctrine.
His doctrine was sound, but he feared (rightly so) that he would scandalize fresh Jewish converts, so he chickened out. Paul says ‘you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile’, so he was obviously following the new Christian rules. For it was Peter that decided these rules at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:10. He left the table for fear of scandalizing the converted Jews.

 

[TheRaiders]

Here’s a made-up analogy:
The pope visits Iran, and out of fear of upsetting the Muslims, did not talk about Christ in his speech. Then, back in Rome, he told the fresh converted Christians (there are a few Christians in Iran) to be bold in there faith and proclaim Christ from the mountaintops.
Well, then a Christian woman who was tortured by Iranian Muslims meets with the pope, and tells him he should be more bold if he expects others to be.

Though she respects the Pope’s authority (as did Sts. Bernard and Catherine), she is obligated to fraternal correction because of a wrong against her, AND she keeps it between her and the pope.(Matt 18:15)

In answer to your last question, it would be a very different thing if I thought I could challenge the pope on doctrine because I think the pope made some mistake.

 

[Protestant101]

I agree with the principle you outlined from Mat.18:5, and I liked the analogy you drew about “not everyone is a Paul.” That is quite true, and church authority should be respected - in any church…I find myself wondering though, now that we are on the subject, what would be “one of those Pauls” in today’s world? In today’s Catholic Church?

I remember in the news, quite some time ago, (late 1979), some of the “fallibility” of the Roman Catholic Popes came through in an almost un-noticed way. It was on Nov.3rd, of the year when 63 American hostages were taken at the Tehran Embassy, by the revolutionary guards of the Ayatollah Khomeni. John Paul II instructed his Tehran representative, (Archbishop Annibale Bugnini) to intercede in his name with the Ayatollah; but, as we all know, it was to no avail.

The Ayatolah basically said in the news reports at the time: “I am surprised that only now does the great Pope want to see hostages freed…the great Pope did not intervene for us when the Shah oppressed our people…you Christians do not behave like Christ, we expected you to do what Jesus would have done, for He certainly would have protested against the Shah’s oppression…why do Christians behave like that?”

We could go through the historical accounts of almost any Pope and find practices and policies that were definitely fallible. Some of the mistakes made by the current Pope re Muslims would be current-day examples of same.

To me; these are just simple things in the news that everyone in the world notices and wonders about. They are not opinions or cherished vendettas of any kind. I find disappointment when Catholics try to explain such things by saying that “it wasn’t a doctrine” it was just a practice, or a cultural thing. By it’s very definition, a doctrine is “a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school…” Doctrines are “authoritative” in forming our outward actions and practices, so in effect, if we are a church leader, our official doctrine will be instrumental in forming our policy, and practice.

Many see the Catholic Church as sacrificing too much of her spiritual values, in a trade-off with secular, commercial values, and that it all started with Constantine, in the early 300s. History books, in general, record Constantine as the one who first established the Bishop of Rome in full power, in western Europe. Popes of that era received from Constantine vast real estate, extensive judicial authority, , immense “liquid” wealth, control over the armed forces, and political dominance. This earned a very valuable and lofty status in the eyes of the public, and then to crown his efforts, Constantine organized the Council Of Nicea in 325…I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that some of this business about the Popes succeeding from Peter, may not be understood correctly. It seems there was a lot of political manouvering that was used to establish Papal authority. To me, this is different than Bible authority.

The Catholic Church has never officially relinquished the commercial and political control; (although some has been wrested from them) and it is hard for us who are not Catholics to see it from the perspectives of “infallible” and of “successor of Peter;” and as “spiritual authority” of the Pope. History books from my local library seem to sugest other possibilities and sources of weakness that suggest maybe some of the Bible passages used to support the Pope as being the successor of Peter, or as “infallible” should be understood differently.

Even in your own “Our Sunday Visitor, Encyclopedia of Catholic History,” some of those Popes and anti-Popes were pretty colorful characters. I have that CD ROM disk here; and as I look through it, I find a lot of questions forming…

I see it as “the curse of Constantine” following the Catholic Church down the slippery slope of mixing Church with state, way too much; thus forfeiting the kingdom of God, and allowing God to give it to others who will look after it better, without needing political power to do it. To me, this is one of the reasons behind “Reformation” which is the original topic of this thread.

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

I see this as God’s call to the reformation.

I feel too though that there are many fine Christians in the Catholic Church. Please don’t try to accuse me of being anti-Catholic!! I am trying to explain what ideas (not people) that I see the reformation is/was all about. I am trying to oppose/question ideas here; not people. I have a Catholic gentleman whom I talk with almost daily; and although we do have some spirited disagreement, we are **far **from being enemies.

 

[reneeville]

As a former Protestant, I find your nic interesting. As a Protestant (4+ decades) who was becoming ever more confused at the differences between denominations and non-denoms, I entered an eight month period of contemplative and meditative prayer to which the Lord responded with a question…asking me why I was a Protestant. Wow! My family had always been Protestant… there was no alternative…until He asked me to visit the Church He built. So, I guess the point to my post is Protestant 101 was invaluable to me as I came into the fullness of Truth in the Catholic Faith where I continue to grow in inumerable graces… not to mention the celebration of the Sacraments.
Wishing you light for your path~

Well, it is possible that God is calling you into the Protestant Reformation.

It is my humble opinion that many Catholics misunderstand the Reformation; and what Protestants mean/should mean, by a) how we are saved, and b) by “sola scriptura.”

To me, it is the strawman approach when Catholics say, such as you have here, that Protestants teach “by faith alone.” Granted, some protestants are misled, and they seem to be saying that; but your assertion here tries to lead people to believe that all Protestants teach it that way; and that is not true.

Many Protestants recognize the truth in Eph.2:8-9 that says:

We are saved only by Jesus (Jo.1:29), and even the Protestants who are saying “by faith alone” are just trying to emphasize this grand truth. Of course, “faith without works is dead;” but can you explain to the reformation please, just how we can claim there is any merit in the death of Christ for our sins, if it is so that we are saved by “our works?”

Also, those who are so opposed to what they call “sola scriptura” use the strawman approach there. They say that we mean divine revelation/inspiration comes only from the Bible; yet, the Bible clearly tells us that there are several other ways God speaks to us. Many protestants do not deny this, as you say they do; but yes, we do have a different take on it than Catholics.

To me, both Catholics and Protestants need to be urged to go to their Bibles for themselves. Catholics are dependent on the Pope for the final say so in doctrine; and many, (not all) Protestants follow on their heels, not by looking to the Pope, but by looking to "Apologetics Ministries/Experts.

Very few people just sit down and quietly read/study their own Bibles to see what God is speaking to the world today. We all are so lost in seeking the Sacred meaning from the medium of another person’s mind.

Sola Scriptura simply means that if you had nothing else (which is the case sometimes) then the Bible would give you all the knowledge you would ever need for salvation.

The Bible is God’s Voice, speaking to us, just as surely as though we could hear it with our own ears. As Jesus put it in Jo.6:63: “The Words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” We miss out on so much when we do not choose to make the Bible our primary Source for our personal devotions and study.

 

[jmcrae]

Protestant;

“Infallible” doesn’t mean that the Pope behaves perfectly. He can be a complete scoundrel, yet still have infallibility.

The only thing that is meant by “infallibility” is that he is protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching us anything false. As long as he never does that, he can sin all day long - as some in the past have done. (Thank God we live in an age of good Popes.) It is a mistake to think that the Pope has to be without sin - he doesn’t.

All the Pope has to do is stay quiet and don’t say anything at all until he is absolutely certain that what he is saying is the truth.

 

[TheRaiders]

What would be “one of those Pauls” in today’s world? In today’s Catholic Church?

Not sure, good question. I’m not sure what saints we have in the works right now.

It was on Nov.3rd, of the year when 63 American hostages were taken at the Tehran Embassy, by the revolutionary guards of the Ayatollah Khomeni. John Paul II instructed his Tehran representative, (Archbishop Annibale Bugnini) to intercede in his name with the Ayatollah; but, as we all know, it was to no avail.

Pope John Paul II was only elected Pope shortly AFTER Iran’s Islamic revolution. Also, a Catholic Pope has very little to do with a nearly all-Muslim country’s policies. It is funny that likely the only Christians that Ayotollah would come across in his country would be ones that fear exposing themselves because of torture and death under the tutelage of his Islamic Republic.

The Ayatolah basically said in the news reports at the time: “I am surprised that only now does the great Pope want to see hostages freed…the great Pope did not intervene for us when the Shah oppressed our people…you Christians do not behave like Christ, we expected you to do what Jesus would have done, for He certainly would have protested against the Shah’s oppression…why do Christians behave like that?”

The Church has a long history of protesting oppression. Maybe the reason the Church did not promote overthrowing the Shah is that we knew the chaos that would ensue. The early days after the revolution, there were horrible human rights abuses, including the aforementioned hostage taking. Assassinations, throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil, and other acts of violence punctuated this period. And now, they are possibly the top terrorism sponsors in the world. Ayotollah’s quote is rediculous. He accuses US for not being Christ-like, when all the Pope did was ask him to release prisoners? Absurd.

We could go through the historical accounts of almost any Pope and find practices and policies that were definitely fallible. Some of the mistakes made by the current Pope re Muslims would be current-day examples of same.

The mistake the Pope made in his speech that upset Muslims was in his clarity, not in any false teaching. He said nothing false in the speech that I am aware of.

To me; these are just simple things in the news that everyone in the world notices and wonders about. They are not opinions or cherished vendettas of any kind. I find disappointment when Catholics try to explain such things by saying that “it wasn’t a doctrine” it was just a practice, or a cultural thing. By it’s very definition, a doctrine is “a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school…” Doctrines are “authoritative” in forming our outward actions and practices, so in effect, if we are a church leader, our official doctrine will be instrumental in forming our policy, and practice.

I guess you and I just have different expectations of the Pope. For me, I just am thankfull that there is a Church that has grown from a mustard seed into a tree that spreads its branches accross the globe, and its roots are fed by Jesus. I am thankfull that I can be sure that its beliefs are correct and she has been polished, not tarnished, by the tumultuous, chaotic waves of history crashing on her the last 2000 years.

Many see the Catholic Church as sacrificing too much of her spiritual values, in a trade-off with secular, commercial values, and that it all started with Constantine, in the early 300s…

It is 2 a.m. here and I am too tired to answer this stuff right now, but I will try tomorrow. You had me researching Iran-Contra and the Islamic Republic because I knew next to nothing about it. That took hours because I got sidetracked by a few other interesting things I found.

I feel too though that there are many fine Christians in the Catholic Church. Please don’t try to accuse me of being anti-Catholic!! I am trying to explain what ideas (not people) that I see the reformation is/was all about. I am trying to oppose/question ideas here; not people. I have a Catholic gentleman whom I talk with almost daily; and although we do have some spirited disagreement, we are **far **from being enemies.

I don’t get an anti-Catholic feeling from you at all. A true anti-Catholic wouldn’t be on here, because he/she would be too busy running their own “hate-the-papists” Web site

 

[Protestant101]

The mistake the Pope made in his speech that upset Muslims was in his clarity, not in any false teaching. He said nothing false in the speech that I am aware of.

I guess you and I just have different expectations of the Pope.
I don’t get an anti-Catholic feeling from you at all. A true anti-Catholic wouldn’t be on here, because he/she would be too busy running their own “hate-the-papists” Web site

Sorry for taking so long to get back - My work can keep me tied up quite intensely at times.

Just to clarify; I do agree that in this instance, the Pope’s “mistake” was in his clarity, not in a doctrinal teaching.

But to me, that kind of thing just makes it harder to fathom the infallibility doctrines of the Catholic Church.

I am active in opposing any “hate the papist” website; especially if they are claiming to be Adventists.

But, personally speaking; I find it hard to get past the concept of not being able to think things out for myself, and reason from the scriptures for myself, rather than going through the medium of another man’s mind, such as the Pope.

There is a verse I really have come to love and appreciate…Ps.119:105. “Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my path…” I believe this can happen with or without a Pope, or a minister/pastor.

 

[jmcrae]

But, personally speaking; I find it hard to get past the concept of not being able to think things out for myself, and reason from the scriptures for myself, rather than going through the medium of another man’s mind, such as the Pope.

This is a false impression of what actually happens. In reality, by laying a foundational groundwork of “things that we know to be true” the Catholic actually has a much greater ability to think about deep theological questions.

I noticed that my old Protestant church is still going round and round on the homosexuality issue. For Catholics, this issue is solved - we don’t need to debate it endlessly because the Pope has spoken and the case is closed. We can still have very interesting conversations about what he said, but each individual person doesn’t have to “reinvent the wheel” as far as figuring out what God wants from us, regarding this subject. It’s easy to just look it up and then get on with our lives, or else move on to more interesting subjects.

We’ll work on these ones until they, too, are solved, and then we’ll move on to the next thing. We won’t spend the rest of Eternity going around and around the same merry-go-round - we’ll get to try every game and toy in the whole park, and we’ll get to discover even more wonderful new things about our God.

There is a verse I really have come to love and appreciate…Ps.119:105. “Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my path…” I believe this can happen with or without a Pope, or a minister/pastor.

That’s one of my favourites, too. I remember singing a song with that verse in it when I was a child.

 

[Protestant101]

This is a false impression of what actually happens. In reality, by laying a foundational groundwork of “things that we know to be true” the Catholic actually has a much greater ability to think about deep theological questions.

I noticed that my old Protestant church is still going round and round on the homosexuality issue. For Catholics, this issue is solved - we don’t need to debate it endlessly because the Pope has spoken and the case is closed.

If the Pope has spoken thus; and you accept this in a given situation, then He is your conscience, and has made a decision for you that God expects people to reason out for themselves from His Word. “Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet…”

God’s invitation has always been “Come, let us reason together…” (Isa.1:18).