ATTN: I will revert to Protestantism if Protestants can....

[Shiann]

Of course it couldn’t be a method of evangelization…



…Spur debate for the sole purpose of allowing others to see for themselves through their own research- the errors of what they had been taught by their own faiths…

 

[Mickey]

O.S. Luke:

I’m descended from the Church of England - and placing Anglicans and Methodists under the Lutheran category of Protestants is also flawed - and where Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and symbolic understandings of the sacraments are concerned, the classic Lutheran understandings simply don’t hold. John Wesley quoted the Early Church Fathers ad nauseam. Wesley also believed in the balance between the evangelical (making of disciples) and the sacramental (means of grace), and the sacraments are NOT ‘purely’ symbolic (we baptize infants, too). Faith is discerned and obtained by scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. Works of piety are a Wesleyan means of grace as well. All of this is a far cry from sola scriptura and sola fide.

Greetings O.s. Luke!

It sounds like you would make a very smooth transition into the Catholic or Orthodox Church.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Milliardo:

It has something to do with how they interpret things, mainly the Bible: they isolate verses from the main point, and so get a different view which suits their purpose. So they read the early Church Fathers the same, isolating quotes from the main body so that they would read differently from what was actually the main point. Again, they also do not take into consideration other works made by the same author, as we again see in how they interpret the Bible. So they miss out, for instance, how faith and works go together by simply emphasizing on one aspect, but either completely ignoring the other, or simply not aware of it.

Clement of Alexandria had the same thing to say:

  And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves  of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will **not make  use of all the Scriptures**, **and then they will not quote them entire,  nor as the body and texture** of prophecy prescribe. **But, selecting  ambiguous expressions**, they wrest them to their own opinions,  gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the  sense, **but making use of the mere words. ****For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone**, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.

But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures. Neither, then, do they want to turn to the truth, being ashamed to abandon the claims of self-love; nor are they able to manage their opinions, by doing violence to the Scriptures. But having first promulgated false dogmas to men; plainly fighting against almost the whole Scriptures, and constantly confuted by us who contradict them; for the rest, even now partly they hold out against admitting the prophetic Scriptures, and partly disparage us as of a different nature, and incapable of understanding what is peculiar to them. And sometimes even they deny their own dogmas, when these are confuted, being ashamed openly to own what in private they glory in teaching. For this may be seen in all the heresies, when you examine the iniquities of their dogmas. For when they are overturned by our clearly showing that they are opposed to the Scriptures, one of two things may be seen to have been done by those who defend the dogma. For they either despise the consistency of their own dogmas, or despise the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope. And they invariably prefer what seems to them to be more evident to what has been spoken by the Lord through the prophets and by the Gospel, and, besides, attested and confirmed by the apostles.
-Clement of Alex., Stromata, Book VII Ch16

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Since you’ve asked, I’ll respond.

1. All Protestants do not embrace the beliefs that you post.
2. You present the “I’ll convert if you …” - and quote a distorted version of the beliefs of many Protestants (such as my own tradition)
3. You attack that position.
4. Therefore, the Protestant position is false and flawed.

You know good and well what Christian history says and doesn’t say, and I have no argument with what you’ve said about the Early Church. You also know that not all Protestants embrace all of the tenets of Martin Luther. And if you’ve read history, you further know that the Protestant Reformation was as much about the flawed politics of the day and corrupt churchmen who were more about supporting the polity of the Church rather than the faith.

You’ve painted all Protestants with the same broad brush. That’s flawed. I’m descended from the Church of England - and placing Anglicans and Methodists under the Lutheran category of Protestants is also flawed - and where Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and symbolic understandings of the sacraments are concerned, the classic Lutheran understandings simply don’t hold. John Wesley quoted the Early Church Fathers ad nauseam. Wesley also believed in the balance between the evangelical (making of disciples) and the sacramental (means of grace), and the sacraments are NOT ‘purely’ symbolic (we baptize infants, too). Faith is discerned and obtained by scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. Works of piety are a Wesleyan means of grace as well. All of this is a far cry from sola scriptura and sola fide.

So it’s classic Strawman, if you ask me (and you did). You obviously enjoy debate, as is your right. But I think the faith is less about debate and more about faithfulness, truth, and charity. Our country desperately needs a moral center and example, and doesn’t need Christians fighting amongst themselves.
O+

It is no strawman to pick the fundemental beliefs (the solas) of MOST Protestants and ask for evidence of it is history.

The choice of including symbolic baptism and communion was done to also include Protestants who hold to the solas, plus what was just meantioned.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

You have no intention of converting back. Why the continued baiting?

Which leads to Bait and switch.

If you took your catechism seriously, and honor your church vows, I doubt very seriously that you would revert back to Protestantism at the risk of your soul. Your tone here, and your statement, “I became a Catholic because I could not find these beliefs, but I could have missed something” seems very disingenuous,

I will follow the truth where ever it leds me! And if that is back to Protestantism, so be it!

If I were to not do this my soul would truly be in jeopardy, for I would be convinced of the truth something and not follow it.
O.S. Luke:

I enjoy the conversation on the Non-Catholic forums, and occasionally participate, partly to dispel untruths that are occasionally posted. I also do not post on other forums here, for the simple reason that I am not Catholic. I EXPECT you to hold to your beliefs, and I also respect them. But to offer false offerings of conversion to bait Protestants when (I suspect) you already know the answers is classic bait-and-switch, is it not?

No, I am sincere in my challenge. To do otherwise would be telling a lie, which is what you are accusing me of doing in a nice way.
O.S. Luke:

You may be honest and genuine in your statements, Dennis. But I find it hard to believe - I mean, if your catechumenate was a good one, why would you even make such an offer? Do you not believe that the Catholic Church is correct in its doctrine, beliefs, history, and tradition? If so… why would you ever offer such a challenge? Is it not an affront to your faith?

I do believe the Church is correct in all that you have just stated, but I can be wrong. This a your chance to show me where I am.
O.S. Luke:

I suspect you have an instant answer, and I suspect I’ll get pounded by other Catholics. I just find it funny that I have defended and supported Catholics in the area I live (they are very small in number), and find Protestant bashing and baiting among Catholics. I know most Catholics don’t do this.

It is a debate, not baiting. Why is this such a difficult thing to do now-a-days? We are called to seek the truth and sometimes that requires disagreeing. We find the truth through investigating the evidence and coming to a conclusion. Do you think debating is a waste of time and that what matters most is they we get along no matter what the cost?
O.S. Luke:

Dennis… it just doesn’t come across too charitably to start you posts with “Attention all Protestants.” What do you hope to gain? And more importantly: is it in keeping with Christ’s nature and attitude?

Pax vobiscum,

O+

Again, lively debate is informative and can be fun. Be less serious and have fun. You may learn something.

Peace

 

[Contarini]

Why would we want you to become a Protestant? Many, probably most of us believe that all Christians are part of the True Church, and it’s a matter of relatively little importance which Christian group you belong to.

Edwin

 

[Malachi4U]

dennisknapp:

What is this? I don’t want to download anything unknown.

Peace

When I was a Protestant everyone (including myself ) just went around joining churches BEFORE we found out what they believed! Why should clicking on an unknown link be any different? As long as a church was fun and you had friends and games and picnics and song it must have had Jesus, right?

If the churches you joined didn’t have the exact ‘Burger King’ have it your way theology, you just started your own church or stopped going and stayed home to read the Bible alone since eveyone else was wrong. This is what Jesus taught and since the Holy Spirit tells each of us ho to self-interpret Scripture how could it be wrong?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Contarini:

Why would we want you to become a Protestant? Many, probably most of us believe that all Christians are part of the True Church, and it’s a matter of relatively little importance which Christian group you belong to.

Edwin

Well, to put it honestly and simply…most of you are wrong.

 

[EA_Man]

E.E.N.S.:

Well, to put it honestly and simply…most of you are wrong.

Yes, that was simple.

 

[dennisknapp]

Thank to everyone who posted.

Based on the evidence provided, I will be staying in the Catholic Church.

I hope this discussion gave Protestants who are interested in the Church some food for thought.

I hope those Protestants who are not interested in the Church came away challenged about the origins and history of their faith.

May all come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Since you’ve asked, I’ll respond.

1. All Protestants do not embrace the beliefs that you post.
2. You present the “I’ll convert if you …” - and quote a distorted version of the beliefs of many Protestants (such as my own tradition)
3. You attack that position.
4. Therefore, the Protestant position is false and flawed.

You know good and well what Christian history says and doesn’t say, and I have no argument with what you’ve said about the Early Church. You also know that not all Protestants embrace all of the tenets of Martin Luther. And if you’ve read history, you further know that the Protestant Reformation was as much about the flawed politics of the day and corrupt churchmen who were more about supporting the polity of the Church rather than the faith.

You’ve painted all Protestants with the same broad brush. That’s flawed. I’m descended from the Church of England - and placing Anglicans and Methodists under the Lutheran category of Protestants is also flawed - and where Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and symbolic understandings of the sacraments are concerned, the classic Lutheran understandings simply don’t hold. John Wesley quoted the Early Church Fathers ad nauseam. Wesley also believed in the balance between the evangelical (making of disciples) and the sacramental (means of grace), and the sacraments are NOT ‘purely’ symbolic (we baptize infants, too). Faith is discerned and obtained by scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. Works of piety are a Wesleyan means of grace as well. All of this is a far cry from sola scriptura and sola fide.

So it’s classic Strawman, if you ask me (and you did). You obviously enjoy debate, as is your right. But I think the faith is less about debate and more about faithfulness, truth, and charity. Our country desperately needs a moral center and example, and doesn’t need Christians fighting amongst themselves.

You have no intention of converting back. Why the continued baiting?

Which leads to Bait and switch.

If you took your catechism seriously, and honor your church vows, I doubt very seriously that you would revert back to Protestantism at the risk of your soul. Your tone here, and your statement, “I became a Catholic because I could not find these beliefs, but I could have missed something” seems very disingenuous,

I enjoy the conversation on the Non-Catholic forums, and occasionally participate, partly to dispel untruths that are occasionally posted. I also do not post on other forums here, for the simple reason that I am not Catholic. I EXPECT you to hold to your beliefs, and I also respect them. But to offer false offerings of conversion to bait Protestants when (I suspect) you already know the answers is classic bait-and-switch, is it not?

You may be honest and genuine in your statements, Dennis. But I find it hard to believe - I mean, if your catechumenate was a good one, why would you even make such an offer? Do you not believe that the Catholic Church is correct in its doctrine, beliefs, history, and tradition? If so… why would you ever offer such a challenge? Is it not an affront to your faith?

I suspect you have an instant answer, and I suspect I’ll get pounded by other Catholics. I just find it funny that I have defended and supported Catholics in the area I live (they are very small in number), and find Protestant bashing and baiting among Catholics. I know most Catholics don’t do this.

Dennis… it just doesn’t come across too charitably to start you posts with “Attention all Protestants.” What do you hope to gain? And more importantly: is it in keeping with Christ’s nature and attitude?

Pax vobiscum,

O+

Did you get a chance to read my defence?

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

Did you get a chance to read my defence?

Peace

I did. I don’t doubt your sincerity… but as the saying goes, “it’s how you say it.” Your “Attention all protestants” line sometimes comes across cyberspace as demeaning and condescending. I know now that it isn’t the case. I’m not the first one to point this out to you (given other posts).

Your language (and challenges) are better suited for the courtroom than for discussing theology. Law is black and white. Theology can be shades of gray; the scientific method of proving/disproving doesn’t work very well.

Grace and peace my friend,

O+

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

I did. I don’t doubt your sincerity… but as the saying goes, “it’s how you say it.” Your “Attention all protestants” line sometimes comes across cyberspace as demeaning and condescending. I know now that it isn’t the case. I’m not the first one to point this out to you (given other posts).

Your language (and challenges) are better suited for the courtroom than for discussing theology. Law is black and white. Theology can be shades of gray; the scientific method of proving/disproving doesn’t work very well.

Grace and peace my friend,

O+

Are not all beliefs by their very nature as truth claims inviting debate? If you say something is true then you should be able to defend it, yes?

This is all I seek to do with my posts. I want to put our differences on the board and discuss them like civilized people.

Is not the quest for truth worth it?

Peace

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dennisknapp:

Greetings,

This is a call to all Protestants out there.

If you can show me sola scriptura (bible alone), sola fide (faith alone), purely symbolic baptism and communion in the early Church, I will revert back to Protestantism.

For the sake of time let’s make the period between 100 and 300 AD. This is just after the Apostles (John died in 100) and before Constantine and the Edict of Milan.

But what if the Church went wrong before 100 - and stayed wrong ?​

This is no joke. If I am shown that the early Church actually believed these things and it was the Catholic Church which erred, I will change.

There are other possibilities than a simple “either Catholics or Protestants are right”, however.​

For example:

• Catholics may be right on some things, Protestants on others, other Christians on others
• Catholics and Protestants may both be wrong, and Orthodox may be alone be totally right in its teaching

The possibilities are very numerous: for one has to bear in mind, and to distinguish between:

• each way of Christian thinking;
• doctrine;
• life;
• the possibility that one can be right in the past and wrong now:
• being wrong in the past and right now
• being wrong in some things in the past, but rigt about some of those things now
• the possibility that Jesus did not even invisage one one Christian body to be the Church in a unique sense
• the possibility that one, some, many or all current churches are Christian in complementary ways - simply because the original Jewish Chuerch is what Jesus may have had in mind…

…and so the alternatives mount up.

What is not in the least self-evident, is that today’s CC “presided over in charity” (God willing) by HH Benedict XVI, “by Divine Providence Pope” - is the same entity, morally, spiritually, in purpose, nature, and origin, as the kenishta/ekklesia/church founded by the Messianic King Jesus of Nazareth Our Lord and God.

Far too often, people try to settle the question with a quotation from Matthew 16 - what no one does, is ask whether what we (being Catholics) see in the passage, is

• the same as
• compatible with
• or a development of

what the passage meant to its earliest readers and hearers.

Jesus was not a Catholic - He was a Galilean Jew, in first-century Palestine, “under Pontius Pilate”. He never went to Mass in his Life; He did not say the rosary; He was not in communion with Rome; any more than with Antioch or Byzantium. If He did not read His New Testament before going to bed, neither did He wear the Brown Scapular, or join the Knights of Columbus or the Legion of Mary.

Trying to claim that the ekklesia founded by Jesus was Catholic, is to make the same mistake as to think that He read the NT. Catholics see the latter blunder - they seem less well able to see the former, perhaps because it is too close to home. The reasoning that undermines the Evangelical blunder, also undermines the Catholic one.

The CC may be that kenishta/ekklesia - it is not obvious that it is that church. We may see black & white, right and left, right and wrong, wholy right or wholly wrong - it is not so clear that God sees like this; for God is not man - so we cannot ascribe to God the pettiness and blindness of our own hearts. A God no better than we are, would not be worthy of our worship: still less of our unlimited and total devotion

** [continue…]**

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

========

gospelpedlar.com/testaments.html

**"**But in the Bible of the early Christians––the Greek Bible––the continuity was plain, for the Greek New Testament word ekklesia, which is translated ‘church’ in the English Bible, is also used in the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Old Testament to denote Israel as the community (‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’) of Jehovah. Indeed, we find it used twice in this sense in the New Testament: in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:38, where he says that Moses ‘was with the church in the wilderness’ (where the whole people of Israel is meant), and in a quotation from Psa. 22:22 in Heb. 2:12: ‘in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto Thee’ (where a particular local community of Israelites appears to be meant).9]
The Christian Church was, of course, a new beginning: Christ used the future tense when He said: ‘upon this rock I will build My church’ (Matt. 16.18). But the very word that He used for His new community (ekklesia) pointed to its connection with the ekklesia of Old Testament times.10] For He Himself forms the organic link between the two and embodies the continuity of both."

gospelpedlar.com/testamentsnotes.html

"9]In these two New Testament passages A.V wes ‘church’; R.V. has ‘church’ In Acts 7:38 (‘congregation’ in margin), and ‘congregation’ in Heb. 2:12 (‘church’ in margin); R.S.V. has ‘congregation’ : the word in both cases is Greek ekklesia. See p.244.

10]This is true no matter what language our Lord was speaking on the occasion. Probably He used the Aramaic term kenishta"

========

I became a Catholic because I could not find these beliefs, but I could have missed something.

Peace

 

[papist1]

Yes, please show me a preacher preaching non catholic and fully protestant doctrine in the first 3 centuries, and I also will revert to the divisive chaotic land of protestantism and bible churches.

 

[E.E.N.S]

## But what if the Church went wrong before 100 - and stayed wrong ? ##

Then would that make Christ a liar? For He says that this would never happen…

## Trying to claim that the ekklesia founded by Jesus was Catholic, is to make the same mistake as to think that He read the NT. Catholics see the latter blunder - they seem less well able to see the former, perhaps because it is too close to home. The reasoning that undermines the Evangelical blunder, also undermines the Catholic one.

This is not the same thing…proving “scripture alone” wrong is not the same thing as not being able to see devotions in the scriptures (ie wearing the brown scapular). Don’t forget that the Church is a living thing, not just brick and mortar…theoak tree isn’t supposed to look like the acorn - nor the 36 year old male supposed to look like a new born baby.

 

[dennisknapp]

## But what if the Church went wrong before 100 - and stayed wrong ? ##

Proof, please. What ifs are not evidence for anything.
Gottle of Geer:

There are other possibilities than a simple “either Catholics or Protestants are right”, however.​

For example:

• Catholics may be right on some things, Protestants on others, other Christians on others
• Catholics and Protestants may both be wrong, and Orthodox may be alone be totally right in its teaching

Catholics agree with the Orthodox on almost everything, so Catholics would still be right given your choices above.
Gottle of Geer:

The possibilities are very numerous: for one has to bear in mind, and to distinguish between:

• each way of Christian thinking;
• doctrine;
• life;
• the possibility that one can be right in the past and wrong now:
• being wrong in the past and right now
• being wrong in some things in the past, but rigt about some of those things now
• the possibility that Jesus did not even invisage one one Christian body to be the Church in a unique sense
• the possibility that one, some, many or all current churches are Christian in complementary ways - simply because the original Jewish Chuerch is what Jesus may have had in mind…

…and so the alternatives mount up.

Conjecture. What if invisible elfs are holding me down instead of gravity? Do you have any evidence? I have searched the writings of the early Christians themselves, I see none of your possibilities in their writings.
Gottle of Geer:

What is not in the least self-evident, is that today’s CC “presided over in charity” (God willing) by HH Benedict XVI, “by Divine Providence Pope” - is the same entity, morally, spiritually, in purpose, nature, and origin, as the kenishta/ekklesia/church founded by the Messianic King Jesus of Nazareth Our Lord and God.

Please explain this further? Are you saying that the Pope is the spiritual head of the Church? I have heard Protestants say this before.
Gottle of Geer:

Far too often, people try to settle the question with a quotation from Matthew 16 - what no one does, is ask whether what we (being Catholics) see in the passage, is

• the same as
• compatible with
• or a development of

what the passage meant to its earliest readers and hearers.

It seems pretty clear from the context.
Gottle of Geer:

Jesus was not a Catholic - He was a Galilean Jew, in first-century Palestine, “under Pontius Pilate”. He never went to Mass in his Life; He did not say the rosary; He was not in communion with Rome; any more than with Antioch or Byzantium. If He did not read His New Testament before going to bed, neither did He wear the Brown Scapular, or join the Knights of Columbus or the Legion of Mary.

By your reasoning Jesus is not to be associated with Christians of any type, for I never read of Him going to a bible study, singing worship songs with a guitar, etc. He is the founder, we are the followers. We do what the Church He established tells us to do.
Gottle of Geer:

Trying to claim that the ekklesia founded by Jesus was Catholic, is to make the same mistake as to think that He read the NT. Catholics see the latter blunder - they seem less well able to see the former, perhaps because it is too close to home. The reasoning that undermines the Evangelical blunder, also undermines the Catholic one.

But the Church was Catholic. The first place the word Catholic is meantioned is in a letter of Ignatius around the year 107 AD. The Catholic Church is the heir of the Apostles. It is a historical fact.
Gottle of Geer:

The CC may be that kenishta/ekklesia - it is not obvious that it is that church. We may see black & white, right and left, right and wrong, wholy right or wholly wrong - it is not so clear that God sees like this; for God is not man - so we cannot ascribe to God the pettiness and blindness of our own hearts. A God no better than we are, would not be worthy of our worship: still less of our unlimited and total devotion

So, truth is…? A role of the dice, chance? Just a gray haze that we hope to gleam a bit of the truth from? Truth is black and white and God does see like this. He can not lie and no darkness can dwell in Him.

Peace

 

[Shibboleth]

Shiann:

Of course it couldn’t be a method of evangelization…



…Spur debate for the sole purpose of allowing others to see for themselves through their own research- the errors of what they had been taught by their own faiths…

Proverb 26
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

There is a right and wrong way to do this… I think this thread fits the first part of the proverb and not the last.

 

[Shiann]

Shibboleth:

Proverb 26
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes.

There is a right and wrong way to do this… I think this thread fits the first part of the proverb and not the last.

bible.org/page.asp?page_id=618

Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge (14:7).

Drive out the scoffer, and contention will go out, Even strife and dishonor will cease (22:10).

(These are also passages of the “fool”). If given your interpretation, we are to completely avoid discussion with “fools”.

Proverbs 26:4-5

“These verses from Proverbs tell us how to address a self confident, conceited, person who is acting foolishly. Verse 4 tells us when a person is acting conceited and haughty that we are not to stoop to their level and act the same way.”

I do not think this addresses the method by which dennis has chosen to set up this discussion. Therefore, I do not believe the premise of your comment holds. I stand by my previous statement.