Attention Protestants in favor of the Refomation!

[Image_of_God]

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.

We do go to the bible, but not the way some Protestants do it. This private interpretation is the reason their are some 60,000 denom in the Protestant Church. Each comes up with a different interpretation and divides upon it. Does not the Spirit have one interpretation? I will have you know that it is not the Pope that established how the bible would be interpreted. It is was Tradition and the Magesterium. The Bible is God’s Voice and should not have hundreds of different meanings. I understand you are a faithful Protestant and believe in Jesus and that is Good. But to go and to create a whole new Church and yet believe that the Jesus said he would never lead the Church into error is simply contradictory. The main motive behind a reformation, or most reformations for that matter, is that something needs to be fixed because it was in error.

 

[JaneFrances]

This is a mute point because God commanded in many places for His spoken word to be the written word and there is no difference between the two:

Isaiah 8:1 Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man’s pen concerning Mahershalalhashbaz.

The point is neither “mute” nor moot.

You have not proven, by this verse, the Protestant position that the written Word is the ONLY authoritative Word. Which, of course, brings us back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” The Catholic position thus is the Biblical position. We stand firm and hold fast to the teachings both by word of mouth (Sacred Tradition) and by letter (Sacred Scripture).

The onus, then, is still upon the Protestant to prove, from Scripture, that Scripture alone is the ONLY source of God’s authoritative Word.

 

[Protestant101]

The PROBLEM I will state again, is that Jesus said he would be with the Church until the end of time. Luther created a completely new church, teaching new doctrines. This is true. The Pope has never replaced God. If you say this then you are saying that Peter replaced God. And this is the problem today. Each Protestant denomination can link itself someway or another to the Catholic Church(all of them!). There was only one Church. If you Believe the Holy Spirit does not teach error and you agree with the Reformation purposely, you are being contradictory. For the reason why the Reformation was started was because many people thought the Church was in error. My last doctrine that I put was directly quoted to Calvinists and it was a mistake. There has been a pope for almost 2,000 years and all of a sudden you do not need him anymore.

I am sorry if you are misunderstanding me, but there was only one Church with Peter as her physical leader established by Christ, not 60,000. Please forgive me for any mistake. But where is the rock Peter in your church?

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.

 

[Protestant101]

The point is neither “mute” nor moot.

You have not proven, by this verse, the Protestant position that the written Word is the ONLY authoritative Word. Which, of course, brings us back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” The Catholic position thus is the Biblical position. We stand firm and hold fast to the teachings both by word of mouth (Sacred Tradition) and by letter (Sacred Scripture).

The onus, then, is still upon the Protestant to prove, from Scripture, that Scripture alone is the ONLY source of God’s authoritative Word.

I am sorry; but I am not trying to prove that at all. This is what I mean by the strawman approach which opposers to “Fundamentalism” so like to use. Go back & read my posts more carefully; I have not claimed that Scripture is the sole authority. I have stated that it is enough authority. it is complete, inthat it has enough gospel in it that anyone who reads it, and accepts it as it reads will be saved. The Bible is God’s Voice.

 

[Image_of_God]

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.

You still have not answered the question. If you believe the Church teaches false doctines then you don’t believe everyone of Jesus’s words. I still don’t understand how you could believe in a Church that has lasted only 500 years or even less and choose it over the Church that has lasted for almost 2,000 years, proven by historical fact. As I stated before, where is the rock that Peter is in your Church?

 

[mozart-250]

The point is neither “mute” nor moot.

You have not proven, by this verse, the Protestant position that the written Word is the ONLY authoritative Word. Which, of course, brings us back to 2 Thessalonians 2:15:
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” The Catholic position thus is the Biblical position. We stand firm and hold fast to the teachings both by word of mouth (Sacred Tradition) and by letter (Sacred Scripture).

The onus, then, is still upon the Protestant to prove, from Scripture, that Scripture alone is the ONLY source of God’s authoritative Word.

Why should the Protestant have to prove that the 66 book Bible is the only source of God’s authoritative Word when the Catholic can not prove that the magisterium and tradition are as equally authoritative as the 73 book Bible.

Neither can the Catholic prove which traditions are from men and which are apostolic, let alone that the 73 book Bible is the true Bible (as opposed to the 66 or 81 book).

The fact is that both claims of authority are unprovable.

2 Thess. 2:15 is insufficient proof because no where in this verse is the authority level of tradition stated, nor does it give a method 2000 years later to identify true apostolic tradition.

 

[Image_of_God]

Why should the Protestant have to prove that the 66 book Bible is the only source of God’s authoritative Word when the Catholic can not prove that the magisterium and tradition are as equally authoritative as the 73 book Bible.

Neither can the Catholic prove which traditions are from men and which are apostolic, let alone that the 73 book Bible is the true Bible (as opposed to the 66 or 81 book).

The fact is that both claims of authority are unprovable.

2 Thess. 2:15 is insufficient proof because no where in this verse is the authority level of tradition stated, nor does it give a method 2000 years later to identify true apostolic tradition.

It is possible. We can go back to old letters, say like St. Augustine and see what they say. This claim is provable in the fact that many Protestants teach things completely different from the Fathers.
We can prove this in the fact that the Church of the Fathers was much like the Catholic Church, not the Protestant. There has been a Pope for almost 2,000 years and there writngs still survive. We have proof.

Here
www.newadvent.org

Click the Fathers section

 

[Protestant101]

You still have not answered the question. If you believe the Church teaches false doctines then you don’t believe everyone of Jesus’s words. I still don’t understand how you could believe in a Church that has lasted only 500 years or even less and choose it over the Church that has lasted for almost 2,000 years, proven by historical fact. As I stated before, where is the rock that Peter is in your Church?

You have not admitted that my posts do not make the claim that scripture is the only source of inspiration. You have not acknowledged or disproven anything that I said about the Church. I have stated that it is my belief that “the Church” as you are referring to it, was/is not the Catholic Church.

The real Rock of the true Church is Jesus Christ Himself. Always was. Always will be. No amount of “apologetics” cliches can undo this eternal truth:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

 

[Protestant101]

It is possible. We can go back to old letters, say like St. Augustine and see what they say. This claim is provable in the fact that many Protestants teach things completely different from the Fathers.
We can prove this in the fact that the Church of the Fathers was much like the Catholic Church, not the Protestant. There has been a Pope for almost 2,000 years and there writngs still survive. We have proof.

Here
www.newadvent.org

Click the Fathers section

The original Protestants were the Apostles. Their Rock was Christ, not another man. The Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees etc. were the part of the Church that Jesus condemned. True Protestantism comes directly from the Apostles, without the medium of another man’s mind filtering everything for them.

You must face the fact that there was a part of the Church in Jesus’ time that Jesus did condemn.

 

[Image_of_God]

You have not admitted that my posts do not make the claim that scripture is the only source of inspiration. You have not acknowledged or disproven anything that I said about the Church. I have stated that it is my belief that “the Church” as you are referring to it, was/is not the Catholic Church.

The real Rock of the true Church is Jesus Christ Himself. Always was. Always will be. No amount of “apologetics” cliches can undo this eternal truth:

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Jesus is the rock, but read this.

“You are Peter and upon this rock I will set my Church.”

Jesus and Peter are both the Rock. Peter gets his foundation from Jesus.

Peter’s faith
Jesus
Peter

If you look around the verse you will read that Jesus gave Peter the keys. And keys are a sign of authority in the NT and OT.

 

[Image_of_God]

The original Protestants were the Apostles. Their Rock was Christ, not another man. The Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees etc. were the part of the Church that Jesus condemned. True Protestantism comes directly from the Apostles, without the medium of another man’s mind filtering everything for them.

You must face the fact that there was a part of the Church in Jesus’ time that Jesus did condemn.

No they were not! Then where did the Protestants go. The apostles did not Protest against any thing. Why is it that the Church Fathers teach something totally different from Protestants. Is it not the apostles from which they got there teaching? Jesus condemned the Pharisees who were Jews. The Church did not come into complete existence until after Pentecost when the apostles recieved the Spirit. The doctrines of Faith Alone did not come from the disciples. The doctrines of OSAS were not taught by the apostles. Paul and James teach something completely different. And the fact that each Protestant Church chooses what doctrines they want and yet they say they are one Church is exactly contradictory. Which Protestant Church came first may I ask? Since so many have contradictory doctrines. I assure these doctrines were never fully heared of until the 1500’s.

 

[JaneFrances]

Why should the Protestant have to prove that the 66 book Bible is the only source of God’s authoritative Word when the Catholic can not prove that the magisterium and tradition are as equally authoritative as the 73 book Bible.

The Protestant should prove that “the 66 book Bible” is the only source of God’s authoritative word, because that is his belief. One should be able to defend something that is so central to one’s faith.

Neither can the Catholic prove which traditions are from men and which are apostolic, let alone that the 73 book Bible is the true Bible (as opposed to the 66 or 81 book).

There is significant historical proof that the Septuagint is the composite Old Testament canon used by Jesus and his Apostles. Protestant and Catholic scholars alike have proven this.

The fact is that both claims of authority are unprovable.

Unprovable by whose standards? Jesus Christ, our Lord, seemed to trust the authority of the Septuagint as that was the canon he quoted.

2 Thess. 2:15 is insufficient proof because no where in this verse is the authority level of tradition stated, nor does it give a method 2000 years later to identify true apostolic tradition.

You are correct. The “authority level” of Sacred Tradition is not stated in this verse just as “the authority level” of Sacred Scripture is not mentioned. In fact, no where in Sacred Scripture is an “authority level” discussed in reference to Scripture versus Tradition. They are two sides of the same coin, which is God’s Word.

And. . .Sacred Scripture is not a method manual. It is the inspired Word of God. If you are interested in identifying “true apostolic tradition,” I would suggest you begin in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Ignatius of Antioch, thought by scholars to be a pupil of St. John the Apostle, is a particularly good reference. In his writings, you will find a good account of proper Church authority and the apostolic teaching regarding the Eucharist. For example:

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God adn with the presbyters in the place of the Apostles, and with the deacons. . .” (letter to the magnesians, AD 110)

“Take note of those who hold heterdox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” (letter to the smyrnaeans, AD 110)

 

[Image_of_God]

This is also proof about apostolic succesion:

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp

These are quotes from people from the earliest times. They seem more Catholic than Protestant.

 

[JaneFrances]

The original Protestants were the Apostles

.

Their Rock was Christ, not another man.

Catholic teaching would agree with you that Christ is the Rock, do not misunderstand. However, Christ being the Rock upon which everything else is founded does not in anyway exclude St. Peter from being the rock upon which Christ builds his Church. Scritpure is a wonderful testament to how a particular image can be used to describe Christ and “other men” without making the “other men” somehow superior to Christ. This is the Protestant misconception of proper Catholic teaching.

The Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees etc. were the part of the Church that Jesus condemned.

Where did Christ condemn a Church?

True Protestantism comes directly from the Apostles, without the medium of another man’s mind filtering everything for them.

I have no idea what that even means. Even your sole authority, “the 66 book Bible,” has been “filtered”–first by a post-Christ Jewish council, then by a Protestant reformer who thought the book of James and Revelation weren’t worth the paper on which they were written.

You must face the fact that there was a part of the Church in Jesus’ time that Jesus did condemn.

You seem to be referring here to two separate bodies and equating them as the same. First, the Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, on the whole were not considered part of the Christian Church. They were authoritative Hebraic teachers.

Second, Jesus does teach us that there are goats and sheep/wheat and weeds that co-exist in his Body, the Church. This fact, however, does not prove your absurd assertion that the original Christian Protestants were the Apostles.

 

[mozart-250]

The Protestant should prove that “the 66 book Bible” is the only source of God’s authoritative word, because that is his belief. One should be able to defend something that is so central to one’s faith.

There is a difference between defending something and proving something. There is a difference also between evidence and proof.

From what I have read both Catholics and Protestants can provide reasonable defenses and provide some evidence for their respective faith sources. Neither amount to proof however.

I don’t even know how you prove a faith source (as opposed to providing evidence)

Pertaining the amount of books in the canon, I honestly have not studied that topic that much. Maybe someday if I feel inspired I will. From the little I have read the arguments boil down to different readings of history. D’uh…historians disagree…what else is new. Does a historical argument constitute proof anyways?

Curious, how would the Catholic prove 73 books as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox 81?

You are correct. The “authority level” of Sacred Tradition is not stated in this verse just as “the authority level” of Sacred Scripture is not mentioned. In fact, no where in Sacred Scripture is an “authority level” discussed in reference to Scripture versus Tradition. They are two sides of the same coin, which is God’s Word.

And. . .Sacred Scripture is not a method manual. It is the inspired Word of God. If you are interested in identifying “true apostolic tradition,” I would suggest you begin in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Ignatius of Antioch, thought by scholars to be a pupil of St. John the Apostle, is a particularly good reference. In his writings, you will find a good account of proper Church authority and the apostolic teaching regarding the Eucharist. For example:

“Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God adn with the presbyters in the place of the Apostles, and with the deacons. . .” (letter to the magnesians, AD 110)

“Take note of those who hold heterdox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ.” (letter to the smyrnaeans, AD 110)

My main interest in tradition is identifying that which belongs to “we passed down to you” and that which is from other sources. How does the Catholic church prove that the tradition it claims is apostolic is indeed apostolic. I don’t think it can.

It would seem reasonable to me that God would preserve tradition by making sure it is written down. That is what is done in the human realm with oral communications. But reason does not constitute proof.

BTW I agree with Ignatius. John Wesley would also. So would Lutherans and Anglicans. It is a part of reading the Bible through the lens of history.

 

[Syele]

Once again I will say I am sorry for my generalized statement and my misinterpretation of Calvinist doctrine.

My point was not that you misstated Calvinist doctrine, it was that you assumed that all protestants are Calvinist. I wouldn’t even agree that most protestants are calvinist. I am protestant and quite the opposite of a Calvinist. If your goal is to prove to me I am wrong you must first have a clue what it is that I’m wrong about. You began the thread by telling me the following things are wrong:
**“By Faith Alone”

** Protestantism dosn’t reject works… only the order in which they appear. Works are a natural byproduct and a verification of our faith. “Alone” doesn’t mean “You have faith and that’s it”. It means that I am not justified before God because I do good works. I’m simply not good enough. I am not perfect, I’m a sinner! I am justified by my faith not my works.

Tell me, How can a person live by faith in Jesus Christ and have no works? If I trully, deeply have faith in God and live accordingly would I not be doing what He asks?

I do not believe that faith without any works is even possible. Greater faith may result in more works, but if I have any faith at all some works will follow.

Sola Scriptura

Not even in the bible!!!

Neither is the Trinity!!! There are a great many definitions of “Sola Scriptura” Which one(s) are you complaining about? I believe that the scriptures are not corrupt and are infalliable. Anyone who contradicts an incorrut and infalliable source has to be incorrect.

Once saved always saved
We are not being unsaved every time we sin and then saved again. However, it does not follow that it is therefore impossible to become unsaved when you were saved before. As a parent I do not kick my kid out of the house and disown her every time she disobeys. Does it follow, then, that she is allowed to do whatever she likes? NO. Everytime she disobeys she has to deal with consequenses. There could be a time when she might run away from home and refuse to ever speak to me again. She has free-will. In the same way, everytime I sin I have consequences to face God about. God deals with me on these issues so that I can grow closer to Him and become a better person. He does not abandon me and condemn me to hell for my mistakes because I am His child. This does not mean He will not discipline me! I have an option to run away from Him and totally reject Him because I have free will. Should I do that I will be given what I wanted… hell (An absence of God’s presence for eternity, I believe that would be much worse then a pit of fire).

continued…

 

[ALLFORHIM]

But have you thought of this:
Maybe me talking to you right now is one of God’s ways of leading you into the Catholic Church. But you must understand that the Catholic Church is the one who organized the Bible into what is today. She is the one who infallibly decided what books would go in and which would not. We could use someone faithful like you. Maybe God is calling you right now and you don’t know it. Every moment is filled with God’s mercy and yet we usaullly don’t realize it.

Hi,
Yes I agree that the Universal church put the Bible together led by the Holy Spirit. I do not feel the church did this solely. I have heard many catholics on this forum proudly say that RCC gave us the Bible. That is simply not true. GOD gave us the Bible and made sure that the people putting it together did it HIS way.

Maybe God is calling me to the CC but I dont feel anything as of yet. I would not be so full of myself as to say that I would never go to the CC because I dont know what God has in store for me. So, the jury is still out

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM…just an FYI, non denom is a denomination.

Hi,
I guess then I can say I am in the denom of following God or what the Bible teaches me. Our rules come from the Bible instead of an organization. So I guess that is why I say non-denom.

 

[Contarini]

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.

Calvin taught no such doctrine. You might try learning something about the Reformation before attacking it.

Read Institutes 3.20. The entire chapter is about the importance of prayer.

Edwin

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi there ALLFORHIM,

I am confused and questioning your “feeling” concerning that the fullness of God’s truth is in the Bible. If you are a Bible believing Christian and I also feel as a Catholic, I am as well (I truly believe 100% of EVERYTHING the Bible says) … then why in 1 Timothy 3:15 does it tell us that that it is the church that is the pillar and foundation of truth and not the Bible?
1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
The problem is, I don’t believe in YOUR interpretation of that verse because as a Bible believing Christian, the Bible tells me as a Catholic differently!

Peace of Christ,
Kevin

Hi,
Yes,we have different intrepretations. I believe the CHURCH to be a spiritual unity of the body of believers not an institution such as the CC. I suppose that is where the difference lies.