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

[E.E.N.S]

ruzz:

Dennis,

Why do you care what the Early Church believed. Don’t you care more about what Christ taught or what the Apostles believed and taught?

You should go back before the Early Church was formed and see what THEY did. That is the SOURCE or CHRISTianity. What did Jesus do?

Wherever that lines up is where we should be.

Interesting…perhaps Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp (disciples of John) early enough for you? Or Barbanbas even?
Ignatius of Antioch
You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1 A.D. 110]).
** Ignatius of Antioch
Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his blood, and one single altar of sacrifice —even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 A.D. 110]).
Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox 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, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 A.D. 110]).
. . . and are now ready to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of bread – the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore (*Letter to the Ephesians *20 A.D. 110]).
The Letter of Barnabas
You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light (Letter of Barnabas 19 A.D. 74]).
Ignatius of Antioch
For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 A.D. 110]).
For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop (ibid. 8).

Or how about the Didache?
The Didache
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. **A.D. 70]).
The Didache
Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . , On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure (Didache 4:14,14:1 A.D.70]).

And there’s plenty more where that came from…

 

[E.E.N.S]

Oh, how could I forget this striking statement?!~
Ignatius of Antioch
Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism , he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine , he has no part in the Passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3-4:1 A.D. 110]).

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Uh… if you’re truly keeping track, Jaroslav Pelikan isn’t Protestant, he’s Orthodox. >>

I am keeping track, hello I know my stuff.

I wrote “Lutheran, now Orthodox” in reference to Pelikan. I am well aware he become Orthodox (hooray :clapping: ) in the 1990s. However, in 1971 when he wrote the first volume of The Christian Tradition, he was Lutheran. Thanks. I have nothing against Orthodox, they are close enough to Catholicism. In fact I don’t even like to argue with them, only with evangelicals and fundamentalists who like to quote the Church Fathers as if they were evangelicals or fundamentalists. That is totally dishonest and wrong.

Now someone who is keeping track can please go back and read JND Kelly, Philip Schaff, and Jaroslav Pelikan, all Protestant scholars and experts on the Fathers when they wrote what I quote they did. Hooray.

Phil P

 

[Philthy]

Shlemele:

For the record what do you mean by symbolic baptism? I’m Anababtist so my definition might be different from Protestant. I think the quote does lend credence to the fact that even in 200 AD there was no concensus on the matter.

Symbolic baptism means that the baptism has no actual EFFECT on the recipient - it is merely symbolic of his status as a christian which, usually, is thought of as having occured when he/she confessed and believed in Jesus.
That much being said, your quote does not in any way address the topic of baptismal regeneration. It does , however, clearly demonstrate that infant baptism was underway very early in the Church and was not some later invention.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

dennisknapp:

This is just a lively debate, no p***ing matches.

You should not judge the whole thread by the reply of one poster.

What do you think of what’s been brought forth?

I find it very interesting.

Peace

I have to say I have been incredibly impressed with PhilVaz - thank you for sharing all your knowledge of the ECFs. I have not read them much and was thinking of getting The Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgensen - Marcus Grodi had recommended it highly and I have heard good things from others. It’s just hard with several young kids and a full time job, but I will do it.
One thing I don’t understand is how a Protestant historian could come to the conclusion that Sola Fide or Sola scriptura was not part of the early Church yet remain Protestant. How’s that work PhilVaz?

Phil

 

[Styree]

St. Justin the Martyr (100?-165) (St. Justin was a pagan philosopher who converted to the Christian faith. He became a defender of the faith during the times of the persecutions. He is being included here as he attests to both the Catholic doctrines of both apostolic tradition and baptism. This letter, known as the “First Apology” was written between the years of A. D. 148-155.)

      *(126)..in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, the receive the washing with water. For Christ said, “Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”…**The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles.*** (Emphasis added)

Protestants…where in your faith do you have room for Apostolic tradition?

 

[Styree]

(exerpt from an apologetics class, sorry it’s longwinded )

---

The Continuity of the Church in Sacred Scripture and History

      In our previous session, we discussed what Sacred Scripture tells us about the church founded by the Apostles. We have also discussed the placement of authority within Sacred Scripture. Protestants maintain that authority follows this progression: It begins with God the Father, who bestows it to Jesus, who then bestows it to the Apostles who place it in their writings. 

      Question for Protestants: Where do any of the Apostles state that their written documents replace what they have already taught?

      Not only is there no scriptural evidence for this doctrine, it actually is contrary to Sacred Scripture. The Apostles established the office of bishop. 

      1 Timothy 3:1

The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office ofbishop, he desires a noble task.

** The next logical question is; “An office in what organization?” Obviously, they established the office of bishop in the church they had founded. But what kind of authority did a bishop have in early church? Well, lets look in scripture and find out.**

      Titus 1:7

                For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless;

Titus 2:15

                Declare these things; exhort and reprove with ***all ***authority. Let

no one disregard you.

---

      So, scripture shows that the progression is not as the Protestants say, that is the authority of the Apostles is not place in their writings, but in the men they appointed to run the various churches. Here then is the real progression of authority.



      Acts 1:7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his ownauthority.

Matthew 28: 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

Matthew 16:19 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Titus 2:15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all****authority. Let

no one disregard you.

1 Timothy 4:11

      Command and teach these things.

From the Father, to the Son, to the Apostles, and then to the Bishops, who are God’s stewards, teaching and commanding the faithful with all authority. That is what Sacred Scripture is showing to us. Some Protestants affirm that Titus and Timothy were special cases. They had direct access to the Apostles, and had the Apostles laid hands upon them, and once they died, the authority of the bishops defaulted to the writings of the Apostles.
Questions for Protestants: “Where does scripture teach that the office of bishop is only a passing institution? If Jesus Christ said that Church would prevail against the “powers of death”, then why would it’s leadership disappear?”

 

[Styree]

Again, not only is such and idea **not **found in scripture, it actually contradicts it! Do you remember what St. Paul told Timothy to do in his epistle?

      2 Timothy 2:1-2

** **You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others.

Also

Titus 1:5

                This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as directed by you.



      Let us recall the warning St. Peter gave in one of his epistles.

2 Peter 2:1

                But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there **will be** false teachers among you



      The Apostles established the office of bishop to combat these false heresies.

      Titus 1:9

He must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

      Also

** 1Timothy, 1:3 **

** **As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrines

      Commonsense dictates, that if indeed our interpretations of scripture is accurate, then this church founded by the Apostles would have been known, and it would have been just as described by the passages we have shown. It would have been a single entity,  teaching (Ephesians 4:5) “…one Lord, one faith, one baptism”. And it would have bishops administering as God’s stewards, commanding and teaching the faithful with authority. 

      A common Protestant myth is that the Catholic Church did not exist until the 4th Century, when Emperor Constantine made the Christian faith legal in the Roman Empire. We will now go the writings of the early Christians to see what kind of Church existed in the three centuries before Constantine

 

[Styree]

St. Clement of Rome, Pope: (St. Clement was the third successor after St. Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He wrote a letter to the Corinthians, usually dated between the years A.D. 92-101, but William Jurgens places this letter much earlier, around the year 80 A.D. Whatever the case, this letter is a Papal document as St. Clement instructs the Corinthians to reinstate some of the presbyters. What is so startling about this letter from the Bishop of Rome, is that St. John the Apostle was still alive at this time and living in Ephesus, which is much closer to Corinth than Rome! But it was to the Bishop of Rome that the Corinthians directed their inquiries, and it was Rome’s command the Corinthians followed. This is the earliest evidence the Bishop of Rome having authority over the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the study of the Papacy is not within the scope of this class, and we will stick with Clement’s writing regarding the church and the role of bishops.

•      (10a)The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ…Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters of dispute among you, beloved.*

• (21)Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who were afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame, humbly peaceably and with dignity, and who have for many years received commendations of all, we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry.*

 

[Styree]

Ignatius of Antioch: (The third bishop of Antioch and disciple of St. John. St Ignatius was martyred circa 110ad and as he traveled from Antioch to Rome to die in the arena, he wrote to seven letters to various churches. All quotes are from “The Faith of the Early Fathers Vol 1, translated by William Jurgens, The Liturgical Press 1970) Let’s see what a man, a bishop who walked with the Apostles, has to say about the church founded by Jesus Christ.

      Letter to the Ephesians (ca A. D. 110)

(38)For Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the will of the Father, just as bishops, who have been appointed throughout the world, are the will of Jesus Christ. It is fitting therefore, that you should live in harmony with the will of the bishop- as, indeed, you do.
(38a)Let us be careful, then, if we would be submissive to God, not to oppose the bishop.
(38b)It is clear, then that we must look upon the bishop as the Lord himself.
*(42)I will (send you further doctrinal explanations) especially if the Lord should reveal to me that all of you to a man, through grace derived from the Name, join in the common meeting in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was the family of David according to the flesh, the Son of Man and the Son of God, so that you give ear to the bishop and to the presbytery **with and undivided mind, breaking one Bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ. ***(Emphasis added)

Letter to the Magnesians (ca A. D. 110)

      *(43a)Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas;…for he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ.*

•      (43b)It becomes you not to presume on the youth of the bishop, but to show him all reverence in considerations of the authority of God the Father: just as even the holy presbyters, so I have heard, do not take advantage of his outwardly youthful appearance, but yield to him in their godly prudence: yet not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the Bishop of all.*

• (44)Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the Apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest.*

 

[Styree]

Letter to the Trallians (ca A. D. 110)

      *(48)Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men, but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in His death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore, -and such is your practice,- that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him.*

Letter to the Romans (ca A. D. 110)

      *(54a)I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David, and for drink I desire His Blood, which is love incorruptible. *(This has nothing to do with bishops, I just wanted to show that the doctrine of the Eucharist has existed since the beginning of Christianity.)

Letter to the Philadelphians (ca. A. D. 110)

      *(56)Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.*

•      (57)They are saints worthy of love and worthy of admirations, approved by Jesus Christ and numbered together in the gospel of common hope.*

Letter to the Smyrnaeans (ca. A. D. 110)
*(65)You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the **Catholic Church. **Nor is it permitted without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate the agape; but whatever he approve, this to is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid.*

 

[Styree]

As we can see, we can no longer pretend that the church founded by Jesus Christ is anything but the Catholic Church, since St. Ignatius names is explicitly, hundreds of years before the anti-Catholic says it even exists! But are there any other references to the Catholic Church in the years before the Emperor Constantine? You bet! Lets look at a letter sent from the Church of Smyrna to Christian community of Philomelium in Greater Phrygia. A man named Marcion wrote it. This letter details how the Romans martyred St. Polycarp, who was a bishop of Smyrna. He was also a disciple of St. John. It is a heart wrenching letter, and the earliest account extant of a martyrdom.

The Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp (A. D. 155/157)

      *(77)The Church of God which sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place: May mercy, peace, and love of God the Father and of our Lord Jesus Christ be given you in abundance.*

•      (79)When finally (Polycarp) had finished his prayer, in which he remembered everyone with whom he had ever been acquainted, the small and the great, the renowned and the unknown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, and the moment of departure had arrived, they seated him on an *** and led him into the city. It was a great Sabbath.*

•      (80a)And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled.*

 

[Styree]

•      *As we can see, the interpretations that have been given of the Sacred Scriptures concerning the Church and the role of bishops within it match the historical Church. We have seen the importance of bishops, that they are the successors of the Apostles, and we see that the office of bishop was not transitory. We have also seen that celebrating the Eucharist as the real body and blood of Jesus Christ was known from the earliest times, from the men who knew the Apostle John, and perhaps Peter and Paul as well, as attested by ancient historians. This is a powerful testimony of faithful Christians who died for the faith and worked hard, giving their all in martyrdom, to spread the gospel.
  
      Earlier we discussed how the Reformation has not produced the one baptism St. Paul wrote about and Jesus said was necessary for salvation. Let us look to see if the Church Fathers have anything to say on the matter.

St. Justin the Martyr (100?-165) (St. Justin was a pagan philosopher who converted to the Christian faith. He became a defender of the faith during the times of the persecutions. He is being included here as he attests to both the Catholic doctrines of both apostolic tradition and baptism. This letter, known as the “First Apology” was written between the years of A. D. 148-155.)

      *(126)..in the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior, Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, the receive the washing with water. For Christ said, “Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.”…**The reason for doing this, we have learned from the Apostles.*** (Emphasis added)

•      (128)We call this food *Eucharist;* and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus.*

•     We do not have time to delve deeper into baptism, as it is outside the scope of this class. However, I would like to point out that whatever the correct doctrine is for baptism, it must come from the Apostles. I would repeat that the Reformation has failed to produce one unified doctrine on anything, let alone something our Savior said was necessary for salvation. 
  
  
  
      Questions for Protestants: “If Protestants are all using the same Bible, why hasn’t the Sola Scriptura doctrine you practice led to the same baptism? Is scripture not clear on this issue? How does one know which Protestant interpretation of scripture is the correct one to follow? Who has the authority to interpret what you say ***is*** the authority, that is the Bible?”

 

[Styree]

Sorry it was so long, but I didn’t want to lose a Brother Catholic to a heresy

 

[PhilVaz]

Phil << One thing I don’t understand is how a Protestant historian could come to the conclusion that Sola Fide or Sola scriptura was not part of the early Church yet remain Protestant. How’s that work PhilVaz? >>

Well I don’t understand how someone could remain Baptist or evangelical and seriously read the Fathers, but Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox is another story since they are liturgical, sacramental faiths, and leave some room for “tradition.” Pelikan (formerly Lutheran) did become Orthodox after his many years in the Fathers. I won’t deny Kelly, Pelikan, and Schaff know the Fathers a lot better than me and they read them in the original languages (Latin and Greek).

You’ll just have to get some of their books and see what they say. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines) argues the early Church did not have an explicit teaching on the Papacy until 4th, 5th century, and that it was fairly silent in the east, and I’ll grant that is a debatable point.

Schaff the Presbyterian/Reformed historian has a lot of arguments against specific Roman Catholic and Orthodox beliefs (Marian doctrines, transubstantiation, Papacy, etc) in his History of the Christian Church. But he is honest enough to admit the early Fathers did not hold to a simplistic “Scripture alone” belief but had a high place for tradition, both in forming the biblical canon, and in determining the correct interpretation of doctrine.

Also a read of Reformed writer Keith Mathison The Shape of Sola Scriptura will clear up misunderstandings. The way he defines sola scriptura in that book is very much in line with Catholic teaching (Scripture as material deposit with the visible Church as primary interpreter). He has issues with Catholics on other subjects (especially Papacy, etc) and claims we hold to a “two source” theory of revelation since the Council of Trent. But material sufficiency is OK. It gets complicated.

Phil P

 

[NiceGuyPose]

dennisknapp:

This is just a lively debate, no p***ing matches.

You should not judge the whole thread by the reply of one poster.

What do you think of what’s been brought forth?

I find it very interesting.

Peace

I’m sorry I was having fun… I’m not used to the serious debate…

 

[dennisknapp]

O.S. Luke:

Dennis… you are hereby crowned the King of Strawman and Bait-and-Switch.

Are all of your “Attention Protestant” posts really charitable, or just an effort to break down the Body of Christ?

O+

First, name one strawman.

Second, when have I baited-and-switched anyone?

Third, I know my challenge is difficult, for I failed it myself over four years ago.

An “effort to break down the Body of Christ?” No, just trying to expose people to the riches of the Body of Christ.

Peace

 

[Milliardo]

Philthy:

One thing I don’t understand is how a Protestant historian could come to the conclusion that Sola Fide or Sola scriptura was not part of the early Church yet remain Protestant. How’s that work PhilVaz?

Phil

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.

 

[dennisknapp]

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.

Great point, and well said!

It does seem in character to do this if this is your mode of operation.

Given the individualistic pattern of those who adhere to sola scriptura, it is no wonder they pick and choose passages out of the Fathers and interpret them as they do Sacred Scripture. They interpret Scripture through their 21st century Protestant presupposition, why not the Fathers.

Peace

 

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

First, name one strawman.

Second, when have I baited-and-switched anyone?

Third, I know my challenge is difficult, for I failed it myself over four years ago.

An “effort to break down the Body of Christ?” No, just trying to expose people to the riches of the Body of Christ.

Peace

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+