Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[mackbrislawn]

The designation of “Protestant” is used more now these days to deasignate those who are not Catholc or Orthodx or Mormon or ??? It has little to do with protesting the abuses of Catholicism. I don’t know one Protestant who even gives the meaning “protest against the Catholic church” , that’s more of a Catholic use of a word that never meant your definition in the first place

Most of us don’t give your church a second thought concerning its claims to authority nor of its unique beliefs .for lost of us the Catholic church is just one more claimant that they are the true church organization…for most of us it IS just another church organization,denomination…which I realize Catholics don’t see themselves as such, but you are in our eyes. Some are Roman, some are “Old” some are "
Eastern" … Some are “Orthodox” or “Copt” or a host of other denominations that distances themselves from one another fairly early in church history…each claiming it’s own leadership and tenets…“walks like a suck, quacks like a duck”.

I’ve never protested against the Catholc church…don’t know anyone who has:shrug:

I imagine many don’t know after all these centuries what they are protesting. Of course many would prefer to say they are professing rather than protesting because protesting means you are defining yourselves relative to something else, in this case the Catholic Church. It’s not a positive definition, but a negative one. “Professing” sounds more affirmative.

But in spite of ‘professing’, Protestants nevertheless would not exist without the Catholic Church, even a Quaker who considers it to be just one of those “denominations” which aren’t worth thinking about. They can do that since so much time has passed, and Quakers are only indirectly descended from Catholicism anyway, and more directly from the Protestants themselves. They can do that since Quakers have forgotten history.

Because if you remember history you will know that the Catholic Church is not just another denomination, but it is the Church that evangelized western Europe and is the one responsible for western Europeans (including the Reformers) belief in God and the Bible to begin with. Without the CC, we would be still pagans, or more likely, Muslims.

Quakers, however, are more logical than most denominations descended from the Reformation, in that they do not have hired preachers. One of the tenants of the Reformation was denial of the existence of an official teaching authority. Persons, therefore, should be able to read Scripture for themselves and get their doctrine directly for themselves. However, in most denominations, illogically, they hire somebody else, a pastor, to preach and tell them what the Bible means. In other words, they still hold to the old, discredited, Catholic system!

In this way Quakers follow the logic of the Reformation more fully. They still gather themselves together, as that is in Scripture, but don’t have a hired preacher to get up and tell them what to think. Therefore they gather and wait until someone is moved to say something.

In that sense Quakers are logical. But to think of the Catholic Church as just another claimant to being the true Church is not logical, since it is the Catholic Church that gave their ancestors the Bible and their belief in God. They owe that debt only to the Catholic Church, not to another.

 

[dronald]

Good luck finding an answer to that question. The truth is, we don’t have literal proof of anything. The only thing you know for sure is, you are alive on Sept 16 2014, and you know something about this Christianity because you are standing on the shoulders of those who witnessed Christ before you. You are trusting centuries of Christians who you know nothing about. And you can say bible bible all you want but the bible didn’t exist when Jesus walked the earth. You are trusting other persons for your faith, whether you will acknowledge it or not.

That was sort of my point actually

Then how do you explain the FACT that Jesus’ words are recorded in Greek, whilst He spoke in Aramaic?

They were recorded correctly.

You think, or you know?

I have absolute faith in those that came before me.

The Bible does not say anything…it does not have a voice of its own. Its voice is the Church.

When you say “what the Bible says”…what you are really saying is what the Church says the Bible says.

The only difference is for you, it is not the CC…but it is whatever denomination you belong too.

But the question is…do you trust what your denomination says the Bible says? Do you think it will teach you something in error or not?

Yes, I do.

Do you?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest View Post
Then how do you explain the FACT that Jesus’ words are recorded in Greek, whilst He spoke in Aramaic?

But they were obviously not the actual words of Christ, since He pronounced them in Aramaic, and they were translated by the writers to Greek.

You know, the actual words of Christ, the very thing you insist on?

Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest View Post

You think, or you know?

I have absolute faith in those that came before me.

Why?

As for me, it is because I know that those to whom Christ entrusted Divine Authority have determined that. You can’t possibly deny that same Authority and yet have “absolute faith” in the very things that they, through the promised protection of the Holy Spirit, have determined.

 

[pablope]

That was sort of my point actually

They were recorded correctly.

Yes, I do.

Do you?

Yes, I do.

Do you?

So…what gives you the confidence? Do you believe then believe in the infallibility of your denomination? Your pastor, who teaches and preaches, is infallible then, it follows?
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[dronald]

But they were obviously not the actual words of Christ, since He pronounced them in Aramaic, and they were translated by the writers to Greek.

You know, the actual words of Christ, the very thing you insist on?

Sure they were! Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am”, those were His words. English or not.

You’re trying to argue that a translation is the same thing as… well, nothing. I disagree. The CC produces no words of Christ (what He actually said) other than that of the Bible.

Why?

As for me, it is because I know that those to whom Christ entrusted Divine Authority have determined that. You can’t possibly deny that same Authority and yet have “absolute faith” in the very things that they, through the promised protection of the Holy Spirit, have determined.

How do you know that?

 

[dronald]

How do you know?

You don’t believe that Jesus’s words were recorded correctly?

Were they recorded incorrectly?

So…what gives you the confidence? Do you believe then believe in the infallibility of your denomination? Your pastor, who teaches and preaches, is infallible then, it follows?

I believe my Church is correct on a great matter of things.

Do you believe those things?

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t believe that Jesus’s words were recorded correctly?

Correctly? Yes.

Thanks to the Catholic Church.

Exactly? No

I believe my Church is correct on a great matter of things.

What do you use as your canon, or measuring stick, for when they are correct or when they are mistaken? If they agree with what you have decided is true?

 

[PRmerger]

I have absolute faith in those that came before me.

So you do believe that men can be infallible?

You believe that the inspired authors–Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter were able to teach, without error, some of the truths revealed by God?

 

[dronald]

Correctly? Yes.

Thanks to the Catholic Church.

Exactly? No

Okay. But they are the words of Jesus, and they don’t extend past the Bible.

What do you use as your canon, or measuring stick, for when they are correct or when they are mistaken? If they agree with what you have decided is true?

What do you do?

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. But they are the words of Jesus, and they don’t extend past the Bible.

dronald, I am sorry to say that you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition.

You just heard someone say that Jesus words “don’t extend past the Bible.”

But you didn’t get that idea from…the Bible.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Okay. But they are the words of Jesus,

NO, they are NOT!

Not His exact words, which, for yet another time, were in Aramaic.

Now, we believe that they convey Jesus’ meanings accurately. How?

2Ti 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

IOW, because we trust the Apostles who conveyed Jesus’ teaching to us, through the bishops of the Church. They also teach us that Jesus taught that we are to follow that Church, and that He taught that He had given them the Authority to teach in His name.

and they don’t extend past the Bible.

Prove it.

What do you do?

You don’t seem to have thought this through much.

I’ve explained it before, and I also explained it above.

Now it’s your turn.

 

[dronald]

dronald, I am sorry to say that you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition.

You just heard someone say that Jesus words “don’t extend past the Bible.”

But you didn’t get that idea from…the Bible.

While He certainly said more than what is recorded, we have no record of anything else He said. So I’m asking if the Catholic Church does?

 

[Captain_America]

In my experience, modern Protestants go to their Protestant church because that’s what they’ve always done, and that’s what their parents did.

They lack an understanding of church doctrine. They haven’t been able to explain, for instance, how Methodists are different from Presbyterians or Lutherans.

BUT remember that most occasional Catholics have a pretty modest understanding of church doctrine. So take all this in stride. . .

I see the Catholic approach to Christianity as being very philosophically thick, very aware of all the issues involved, while the Protestant approach tends to make a virtue of simplicity and clarity—sometimes distortingly so.

And of course, the vast majority of Protestants keep repeating propaganda points from the 1600s. . .

 

[Per_Crucem]

IOW, because we trust the Apostles who conveyed Jesus’ teaching to us, through the bishops of the Church. They also teach us that Jesus taught that we are to follow that Church, and that He taught that He had given them the Authority to teach in His name.

May I ask why you trust them?

 

[PRmerger]

While He certainly said more than what is recorded, we have no record of anything else He said. So I’m asking if the Catholic Church does?

Yes.

He said that there will be no more public revelation after the death of the last apostle.

You do believe this, right?

Yet you never read, in a single page of the Bible, that Jesus said this.

How do you know this?

Because you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, which took Jesus’ words, in the form of Sacred Tradition, and preserved it for you and me.

 

[PRmerger]

While He certainly said more than what is recorded, we have no record of anything else He said. So I’m asking if the Catholic Church does?

While He certainly said more than what is recorded, we have no -]record/-] written record of anything else He said.

 

[dronald]

Yes.

He said that there will be no more public revelation after the death of the last apostle.

You do believe this, right?

Yet you never read, in a single page of the Bible, that Jesus said this.

How do you know this?

Because you defer to the authority of the Catholic Church, which took Jesus’ words, in the form of Sacred Tradition, and preserved it for you and me.

I just can’t think of any other books I want in the Bible, nor can you, nor your Church. But it doesn’t change my question; why do you even trust that the Catholic Church got it right?

 

[PRmerger]

May I ask why you trust them?

Because they saw Him.
And they loved Him.
And He gave them the authority to speak in His name.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because they saw Him.
And they loved Him.
And He gave them the authority to speak in His name.

How do you know they saw Him, loved Him and that He gave them that authority?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

May I ask why you trust them?

Don’t you trust them?

OK, that was for dronald, since that is the type of “answer” he’s been giving.

In addition to what PR said, with which I agree, my real answer is history and universality.

These men went to their deaths professing something that, if it was a lie, they would know so. Nobody ever does that.

And, the Church believes what the Early Church always believed. Believed always, everywhere, and by everyone in the Church.