Dear Protestant: Where Did You Get Your Bible?

[JMM1957]

I’m not just talking about the Pope (I saw that one was constructed very well. Although some historical things make me wonder) . More in a sense that the Catholic Church is/has Always been right. And that led to numerous material where every controversy has to be carefully defended not to contradict this.

Scriptural references are too numerous to mention that show Paul claiming authority concerning his teachings, and other NT writers do the same with their teachings, so why is it so hard for you to grasp that the CC claims that same authority in regards to matters of faith and morals? Why is it always a double standard with some people? Again, as I said in an earlier post, why are you denying or limiting the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus to teach and guide the Church?

 

[MichaelP3]

Scriptural references are too numerous to mention that show Paul claiming authority concerning his teachings, and other NT writers do the same with their teachings, so why is it so hard for you to grasp that the CC claims that same authority in regards to matters of faith and morals? Why is it always a double standard with some people? Again, as I said in an earlier post, why are you denying or limiting the power of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus to teach and guide the Church?

This post is hardly a way to approach a matter on this forum. It takes assumptions to a next level that will not result in a pleasant end. Please rephrase and I will respond.

 

[JMM1957]

This post is hardly a way to approach a matter on this forum. It takes assumptions to a next level that will not result in a pleasant end. Please rephrase and I will respond.

You call it assumptions, I call it connecting the dots.

 

[rcwitness]

There has to be a balance when following God. He gives His Spirit to guide and give understanding, but He also gives authority to the Church, so that we can move on from disputes and divisions. Our personal opinions must be put aside and assent to the Church of God.

 

[JMM1957]

There has to be a balance when following God. He gives His Spirit to guide and give understanding, but He also gives authority to the Church, so that we can move on from disputes and divisions. Our personal opinions must be put aside and assent to the Church of God.

 

[MichaelP3]

You call it assumptions, I call it connecting the dots.

By resorting to personal attacks on another’s faith? Therefore forgive me for not responding to any of your comments from this point forward. It’s not very fruitful this way.

Regards

 

[JMM1957]

By resorting to personal attacks on another’s faith? Therefore forgive me for not responding to any of your comments from this point forward. It’s not very fruitful this way.

Regards

Where do you see this?

 

[Moonboots]

I should say you have a point in your first sentence. But that’s exactly why you won’t approach an Atheist in the same way. You won’t convince him by saying he will go to heaven because Jesus died on the cross or whatever. He will think well so what, what makes Jesus so special?. Thus you assumed he already believe in Jesus like we do.

Just like trying to argue with me about the assumption of Mary by stating a reason would be that she was without sin. That would not be a reason for me and thus I guess we would move a step back to sort that one out first.

In your final quote, there is an assumption again. That the Catholic Church is the same one who wrote the scriptures. We won’t deny there is a Church but again that’s another one that sets us apart on what “Church” would mean.

Thanks for the response

Just catching up on the many replies since we engaged last Thursday, but would like to re-open our discussion based on the assumption you refer to in the last quote.

The questions I would like to pose are:

1. How do you define “the Church” and why? Is it only an invisible entity? Is it both invisible and possesses a visible, hierarchical structure? What evidence do you propose to assert your definition of "the Church’ as being the full truth regarding the definition of “the Church”?
2. Who started/founded the Catholic Church? Is that Church, in authority and ecclesial structure, derived from the words of Christ to St. Peter, that Christ’s Church will be built on him and the gates of hell would not prevail? If not, precisely when did that divide or apostasy occur?
3. How do you know, with certainty, that the 27 books of the New Testament are the authentic and inspired Word of God?

I know you mentioned that you have outlined your beliefs and their origin in another thread. If you prefer not to engage these three questions (or sets of questions, rather) in here, I would appreciate a link to that thread to learn for myself the position from which you approach the Christian life to ensure a charitable and accurate dialogue.

Blessings,

DK

 

[mattp0625]

Yea I know that’s what Catholics say about it. And Carthage 419(as one example) makes me wonder if that is really the case. The fact that we have an Orthodox Church also makes me wonder. Because a Dogma is supposedly nothing new but has always been believed.

I once had a conversation with a Catholic who assumed the Reformers don’t say that because they think they can’t. While in fact they don’t believe anyone can.

John Calvin was a mere human with an idea. Whatever he thought isn’t binding in any way. Even to the Reformed denomination. We can say this if people had crazy ideas while Catholics have to defend everything.

So one could say the reformed tradition is a protest of a protest that happened between the 17th and 19th centuries. That’s a lot of years that the truth was withheld from Christianity? They do not even agree with the original reformers.

This assumes that Christ granted authority to no one and that He gave the OK for conflicting doctrine in His church.

The Orthodox broke away around the year 1000AD. Yet some of them stayed. In any event, most of them recognize Ignatius of Antioch as their link to the apostles. Even Ignatius recognized that the church in Rome was the instructor of others

 

[MichaelP3]

So one could say the reformed tradition is a protest of a protest that happened between the 17th and 19th centuries. That’s a lot of years that the truth was withheld from Christianity? They do not even agree with the original reformers.

This assumes that Christ granted authority to no one and that He gave the OK for conflicting doctrine in His church.

The Orthodox broke away around the year 1000AD. Yet some of them stayed. In any event, most of them recognize Ignatius of Antioch as their link to the apostles. Even Ignatius recognized that the church in Rome was the instructor of others

Could you please elaborate on your first paragraph?

For the second, Catholics agree in the real presence for Orthodox. Although inter communion is only possible in very special circumstances. Orthodox not being in communion with Rome which is non-negotiable to be Catholic,. Though Catholics still state their real presence but they are not in union. I won’t say I have an answer to your question but does this makes sense?

I don’t deny stating Ignatius as a valid point. But naming one or a few others as I know won’t do it yet for me. You must understand other again would state the obvious and in the case I mentioned an entire Council. If a Parish or diocese says anything in that regard today, they will be expelled from Catholicism. Yet Africa and Alexandria stayed in commotion with all the other sees, including Rome for another while.

BTW. If anyone can direct me to a source on Romes response there I will appreciate it.

 

[MichaelP3]

Just catching up on the many replies since we engaged last Thursday, but would like to re-open our discussion based on the assumption you refer to in the last quote.

The questions I would like to pose are:

1. How do you define “the Church” and why? Is it only an invisible entity? Is it both invisible and possesses a visible, hierarchical structure? What evidence do you propose to assert your definition of "the Church’ as being the full truth regarding the definition of “the Church”?
2. Who started/founded the Catholic Church? Is that Church, in authority and ecclesial structure, derived from the words of Christ to St. Peter, that Christ’s Church will be built on him and the gates of hell would not prevail? If not, precisely when did that divide or apostasy occur?
3. How do you know, with certainty, that the 27 books of the New Testament are the authentic and inspired Word of God?

I know you mentioned that you have outlined your beliefs and their origin in another thread. If you prefer not to engage these three questions (or sets of questions, rather) in here, I would appreciate a link to that thread to learn for myself the position from which you approach the Christian life to ensure a charitable and accurate dialogue.

Blessings,

DK

Hi DK

I’ll see if I can find it. Otherwise I’ll get back to you.

Regards

 

[ffg]

Heard an interesting comment the other day. Someone from a Protestant perspective was naming all the versions of the Bible that he might reference, then said -

“when I want to go back to the original version, I pull up the KJV”.

Using a quick google search, it seems we have from a protestant perspective -

the Great Bible, commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535),

and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568…

Before the kjv in early 1600’s.

Is the kjv as an ‘original’ source a common thought?

It’s confusing why someone would reference multiple English versions, only to check against the ‘original’, which is accessible.

During the event, it wasn’t my place to get into a discussion with him on his comment.

Take care,

Mike

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

The topic please, not each other.

 

[commenter]

I’m not just talking about the Pope (I saw that one was constructed very well. Although some historical things make me wonder) . More in a sense that the Catholic Church is/has Always been right. And that led to numerous material where every controversy has to be carefully defended not to contradict this.

I would not so much say “the Catholic Church has always been right”. Obviously not.
Rather, one small agency- the Magisterium - is protected from teaching error, within a narrow range of “Faith and Morals”. It does not mean a pope or bishop will always practice good morality. It does not even mean they will preach the truth. It may be that the Spirit was leading Pope X in the Renaissance to teach something, but he was too busy partying, or too timid, or whatever. It only means that if the Magisterium teaches on faith and morals, it is reliable.

I trust that I have the correct books in my NT, because of the Magisterium. There are lots of things I wish might be more defined. Some leading Catholic writer in the 1800s wrote that he wishes he could get a new papal encyclical every morning with his breakfast. But the reality is there are lots of things Pope Francis does not know, or he does not know conclusively enough to express it as an infallible teaching. The same was true of his predecessors.

I used to wonder why did the papacy (or God) wait till 1950 to define the Assumption? With events of recent decades, the timing seems a little more plausible.

 

[JMM1957]

I would not so much say “the Catholic Church has always been right”. Obviously not.
Rather, one small agency- the Magisterium - is protected from teaching error, within a narrow range of “Faith and Morals”. It does not mean a pope or bishop will always practice good morality. It does not even mean they will preach the truth. It may be that the Spirit was leading Pope X in the Renaissance to teach something, but he was too busy partying, or too timid, or whatever. It only means that if the Magisterium teaches on faith and morals, it is reliable.

I trust that I have the correct books in my NT, because of the Magisterium. There are lots of things I wish might be more defined. Some leading Catholic writer in the 1800s wrote that he wishes he could get a new papal encyclical every morning with his breakfast. But the reality is there are lots of things Pope Francis does not know, or he does not know conclusively enough to express it as an infallible teaching. The same was true of his predecessors.

I used to wonder why did the papacy (or God) wait till 1950 to define the Assumption? With events of recent decades, the timing seems a little more plausible.

Agreed. It is quite the mystery how the HS works in the world. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. (Isaiah 55:8)

 

[mattp0625]

Could you please elaborate on your first paragraph?

For the second, Catholics agree in the real presence for Orthodox. Although inter communion is only possible in very special circumstances. Orthodox not being in communion with Rome which is non-negotiable to be Catholic,. Though Catholics still state their real presence but they are not in union. I won’t say I have an answer to your question but does this makes sense?

I don’t deny stating Ignatius as a valid point. But naming one or a few others as I know won’t do it yet for me. You must understand other again would state the obvious and in the case I mentioned an entire Council. If a Parish or diocese says anything in that regard today, they will be expelled from Catholicism. Yet Africa and Alexandria stayed in commotion with all the other sees, including Rome for another while.

BTW. If anyone can direct me to a source on Romes response there I will appreciate it.

I am referencing the reforms after the “great apostasy”.

So, many Protestants have reformed doctrines that evolved out of the original reformation into something else. A lot of this took place during the three “Great Awakening” periods. The only point here is that these doctrines have history that begins 1700-1900 years after Christ. If they represent the truth, then Christ waited that long after His death to reveal the truth of Christianity to folks such as DL Moody and Charles Finney. However, they do not even resemble the doctrines of their original predecessors- Luther and Calvin.

Did Christ wait “only” 1500 years to reveal the real truth to Luther and Calvin? If so, that still contradicts Matthew 16 and 28- Jesus said he gave all His authority to the church, that the gates of hell would not prevail, and that he would be with the church until the end. Protestantism creates an undefined time period where Jesus’s words would have to be untrue which is impossible.

 

[MichaelP3]

I am referencing the reforms after the “great apostasy”.

So, many Protestants have reformed doctrines that evolved out of the original reformation into something else. A lot of this took place during the three “Great Awakening” periods. The only point here is that these doctrines have history that begins 1700-1900 years after Christ. If they represent the truth, then Christ waited that long after His death to reveal the truth of Christianity to folks such as DL Moody and Charles Finney. However, they do not even resemble the doctrines of their original predecessors- Luther and Calvin.

Did Christ wait “only” 1500 years to reveal the real truth to Luther and Calvin? If so, that still contradicts Matthew 16 and 28- Jesus said he gave all His authority to the church, that the gates of hell would not prevail, and that he would be with the church until the end. Protestantism creates an undefined time period where Jesus’s words would have to be untrue which is impossible.

I should admit, I guess I was too interested in the Early Church and Reformation history too have ever actually heard or at least care about the so called great apostasy. Yes I had to google it

But I would want to ask (not saying this is you) to throw all Protestants with crazy ideas into the same box. A post on this thread implied it even with JW and Mormons. I also had no idea who those people were you used as examples. Regarding the “great apostasy” I have no comment firstly, because I don’t know much about it, secondly, I have always been against the notion that not being Catholic means Protestant. Yes I know what the word means and the history, but USA and Russia were both against Germany in WW2 and it doesn’t mean they are the same or would like to be thought of in such a way.

As for saying they think they have the truth. Well, generally I think that’s a misconception. We all have the truth confessing the Nicene Creed (Honestly I always wondered what’s more needed). Nothing we disagree on that. So yea, if you think of some famous Protestant and what I think about him. I probably never heard about him.

And the last part. I never said the Catholic Church did not profess truth. Catholics profess what’s in the Nicene Creed. That was never the problem to me. While most early Protestants also profess the Nicene Creed which we agree is the truth. And why should Jesus’s words be untrue? Don’t we both believe Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God came to earth to die on the cross for our sins? Even after everything that happened we still agree on that. Unless something is more important or there is a “but”?

Regards

 

[mattp0625]

I should admit, I guess I was too interested in the Early Church and Reformation history too have ever actually heard or at least care about the so called great apostasy. Yes I had to google it

But I would want to ask (not saying this is you) to throw all Protestants with crazy ideas into the same box. A post on this thread implied it even with JW and Mormons. I also had no idea who those people were you used as examples. Regarding the “great apostasy” I have no comment firstly, because I don’t know much about it, secondly, I have always been against the notion that not being Catholic means Protestant. Yes I know what the word means and the history, but USA and Russia were both against Germany in WW2 and it doesn’t mean they are the same or would like to be thought of in such a way.

As for saying they think they have the truth. Well, generally I think that’s a misconception. We all have the truth confessing the Nicene Creed (Honestly I always wondered what’s more needed). Nothing we disagree on that. So yea, if you think of some famous Protestant and what I think about him. I probably never heard about him.

And the last part. I never said the Catholic Church did not profess truth. Catholics profess what’s in the Nicene Creed. That was never the problem to me. While most early Protestants also profess the Nicene Creed which we agree is the truth. And why should Jesus’s words be untrue? Don’t we both believe Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God came to earth to die on the cross for our sins? Even after everything that happened we still agree on that. Unless something is more important or there is a “but”?

Regards

The underlying premise for the reformation was the apostasy - that the church fell away and lost its true form.

After the apostasy, the church was only restored to its true form by Luther and Calvin.

Matthew 16 and 28, with the words of Jesus, do not support this concept.

 

[MichaelP3]

The underlying premise for the reformation was the apostasy - that the church fell away and lost its true form.

After the apostasy, the church was only restored to its true form by Luther and Calvin.

Matthew 16 and 28, with the words of Jesus, do not support this concept.

The underlying premise for the reformation was the apostasy - that the church fell away and lost its true form.
idk, it could be. Won’t say that’s totally believed by everyone. Also won’t say it is totally needed to justify anything.

After the apostasy, the church was only restored to its true form by Luther and Calvin.
I think this is where we have a somewhat different take on “church”.

Matthew 16 and 28, with the words of Jesus, do not support this concept.
And if Jesus built his Church on the Faith that He is the Son of the Living God, why wouldn’t He support people/churches professing exactly that? Even through every controversy, dark day in history, and the Reformation, that has NEVER changed for Christians. So I would say yes, I agree with Jesus.

In fact now that I think of it. That verse even makes me believe more in my understanding of the “church” Never saw it like that.

Regards

 

[rcwitness]

I think this is where we have a somewhat different take on “church”.

… And if Jesus built his Church on the Faith that He is the Son of the Living God, why wouldn’t He support people/churches professing exactly that?

Who is saying that God does not support the faith in Christ as the Son of the living God?

The Church of God is one. It is Universal. Local churches find Communion with the Whole church through His Eucharist, Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Non-Catholic Christian contain various levels of this, but are primarily united to the Catholic Church through Baptism and what Baptism means. Baptism is a Sacrament which is founded on the Trinity of God, which obviously means belief in Jesus as the Son of the living God is essential.