Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[mustrdseedfaith]

I think CAF would be so amazing if I felt safer with my objections here. I even find I get drawn in and join out of the sinfulness of my flesh because I have to one up those who are being ‘smart’ with me.

It’s wrong, and I’ve said already that I’m working to improve it. I often drop out of discussions when I feel like I’m being spoken to as if I’m a moron.

But there are so many good people that you can have good talks with! I won’t name names of even the ones who really shine and give Catholicism a great name, but there’s some wonderful posters here and I really do think you should share your objections with them and ignore the sarcasm and belittling.

Good luck on your journey, searching for truth!

Thank you, dronald!

 

[guanophore]

Hi…Guan…well here is the Lutherano inconsistency…as much as i can recall…a lutheran poster provided a link to support that annointing of the sick is not a sacrament…luther’s own words…in the same link…luther also says confession is not a sacrament…then in another post…it was posted that the confessions dogmatically define only two…baptism and the eucharist… Then he says confession is a sacrament, yet the confessions they are bound to say confession is not…so are you dizzy yet?

Yes. That is why I started another thread, so I would not derail this one. I am particularly interested in this topic because as the Lutheran communion continues to fragment and fall into modernism, those traditional Lutherans have little recourse but to return to Rome. It seems that there is enough room in the Confessions and other formative documents for the Lutheran faith that receiving what are now considered “rites” as sacraments will not be difficult, but I am still confused about why they are not considered sacraments in the first place.

I would crave your participation in the discussion.

 

[dronald]

Welcome to the Church.

Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

As an Anglican, I would say that I do indeed have questions about Catholic dogma that I came into this forum to have answered. All credit goes to EWTN for demonstrating a very vital and attractive spirituality in the Catholic Church that I had not seen there before. I didn’t intend to get hooked on Catholic TV, it was just so much richer and deeper than the non-Catholic programming. That said, there are some things that I can’t quite embrace and feel that perhaps I need to study them more.

However, after reading this forum for a day or two, I would be afraid to open up and share my heartfelt questions. Some posters convey a sense of “pounciness” of “slam dunking points” of elitism and Protest bashing that prevents this from being a safe venue for me.

Sorry about this, Mustrd. We do have a tendency to be pouncy.

You may prefer the Catholic Living section. They are not so antagonistic over there.

 

[mustrdseedfaith]

Sorry about this, Mustrd. We do have a tendency to be pouncy.

You may prefer the Catholic Living section. They are not so antagonistic over there.

Oh good tip, Quanophore! Thanks for that.

 

[guanophore]

All I’m asking for is something we know Jesus said that’s not found in any NT book. Something kept in oral Tradition and eventually written down later.

I think it can confidently be said at this point that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that has not been written somewhere at some point in the last 2000 years.

Sacred Tradition contain contains the “what” and the “how”.

27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself… 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” Lk 24:27–35

Lk 24:45–46 Then** he opened their minds to understand the scriptures **

It is this perspective, this understanding that has been lost in the Reformation. The separation from the Sacred Tradition, combined with the errancy of Sola Scriptura, has produced continued separation and fragmentation in the Body. When one is separated from Jesus’ point of view, and His opening of the mind to understand the Scriptures, everyone just understands them as best he can.

" So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."2 Th 2:15

It is no longer possible to keep the Apostolic commandment.

So who was the first to declare that Jesus specifically mentioned that there would be 27 NT books? I didn’t know Catholics believed He specifically mentioned 27 books.

We believe that He speaks through the Holy Councils, just as He did at the very first Council in Jerusalem.

The elders gather, pray, discuss, and discern His Voice, so that it can be said:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” Ac 15:28

And the same for the infallibly declaration of the successor of Peter.

Today I learned Christ said, “There will be 27 canonized books about me” according to Catholics.

Would you feel more comfortable if we said “It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us” that there should be 27 books?

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." Jn 16:12–15

How did you think that Jesus would communicate to His fledgling Church the things that they were not yet ready to hear? How were they to hear the Spirit Speak?

Do you imagine that the need for this type of guidance has ceased? I have heard the absurd notion that there was no more need of it after the canon was closed.

All I’m asking for is something we know Jesus said that’s not found in any NT book. Something kept in oral Tradition and eventually written down later.

A very good example of this is that He meant exactly what He said when he uttered the words “this is my Body”, “this is my blood”. He did not mean them symbolically. This is an example of the Apostolic perspective of the Scriptures, and the words of Christ that has been lost as the denominations drift further from the Apostolic faith.

Another is that being “born again from above” through baptism refers to baptism with water, and that Jesus joined the Holy Spirit to the water when He entered the baptismal waters. Many Christians today do not believe that baptism is regenerative, but the Apostles taught that it is.

 

[dronald]

I think it can confidently be said at this point that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition that has not been written somewhere at some point in the last 2000 years.

Sacred Tradition contain contains the “what” and the “how”.

27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself… 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” Lk 24:27–35

Lk 24:45–46 Then** he opened their minds to understand the scriptures **

It is this perspective, this understanding that has been lost in the Reformation. The separation from the Sacred Tradition, combined with the errancy of Sola Scriptura, has produced continued separation and fragmentation in the Body. When one is separated from Jesus’ point of view, and His opening of the mind to understand the Scriptures, everyone just understands them as best he can.

I believe there is separation when we stop acting in love; whether it’s been from the 16th Century Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the witch burners or turning discussions into petty arguments.

I’ll explain at the end what I mean, because you mentioned something that stood out.

" So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."2 Th 2:15

It is no longer possible to keep the Apostolic commandment.

I believe it is, and I believe we do.

We believe that He speaks through the Holy Councils, just as He did at the very first Council in Jerusalem.

The elders gather, pray, discuss, and discern His Voice, so that it can be said:

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” Ac 15:28

And the same for the infallibly declaration of the successor of Peter.

Would you feel more comfortable if we said “It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to us” that there should be 27 books?

I do not doubt that much prayer was used when asking for God’s help in determining the Canon of Scripture. But at the same time we both must admit that much study and historical research was done as well. This wasn’t a matter of praying and casting lots.

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." Jn 16:12–15

How did you think that Jesus would communicate to His fledgling Church the things that they were not yet ready to hear? How were they to hear the Spirit Speak?

Do you imagine that the need for this type of guidance has ceased? I have heard the absurd notion that there was no more need of it after the canon was closed.

The difference again is how we react to our differences I believe.

A very good example of this is that He meant exactly what He said when he uttered the words “this is my Body”, “this is my blood”. He did not mean them symbolically. This is an example of the Apostolic perspective of the Scriptures, and the words of Christ that has been lost as the denominations drift further from the Apostolic faith.

Another is that being “born again from above” through baptism refers to baptism with water, and that Jesus joined the Holy Spirit to the water when He entered the baptismal waters. Many Christians today do not believe that baptism is regenerative, but the Apostles taught that it is.

So this is what I wanted to touch on.

No doubt there were early heresies like Arianism and Gnosticism which were condemned by Orthodox Christianity. But there were also disagreements within Orthodoxy just because people weren’t entirely sure.

Now, I can say that Peter was the Rock and then change my mind and say Christ was the Rock, and you must say I’m wrong. What if I did that in the 1500’s? What if I told the Pope that Peter was no the Rock? I could be seriously harmed. This is where I believe separation lies.

But what if Augustine believed that Peter was the Rock and then later changed his mind? What would happen to him? Or even Tertullian who it is believed fell into some type of heresy believed he had the proper Oral Traditions on Baptism and wrote explicitly against infant Baptism.

So, so what? I say that Christ is the Rock while you say Peter. I believe that a child should preferably know something about the sacrament and you say infancy. All of these beliefs were believed to be held in Tradition but one was picked and anyone who opposed would later be cast out and often killed.

So the title of the thread “Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?” Ironically, it’s separation and persecution for difference in belief. Although we’re just as bad.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never actually heard the claim that Jesus said specifically how many books.

Probably because no Protestant has been able to connect the dots.

IF you believe that it is correct to have 27 books in the NT (and, of course, you do), then you MUST believe that this came from Christ.

Otherwise, who do you believe this comes from? Mohammed? Brigham Young?

Nope.

You believe, just like Catholics, that this revelation comes from Christ.

 

[JWH123]

As a Catholic in an area with many non-Catholic’s I often hear that Martin Luther was a great man that saved the church through reformation. However, when the question is posed about the “need” for Martin Luther’s protest I hear explanations like… “Because the Catholic Church was corrupt” or “the church lost its authority”, et. Al. What I don’t understand, and my question is if the issue was corruption why change the dogma? If the issue was loss of authority, whether through corruption or some other reason, how do they explain Matthew 16:18. Would that not mean the church fell due to evil (“the gates of hell”)? If it did not fall then the teachings of the church were still sound, so why did Martin Luther (with no authority if his own) decide it truthful and appropriate to change teaching? If it did fall, how could that be, as it runs contrary to Jesus’s own words, which is “truth”?

What is a “modern Protestant” anyway?

When Martin Luther sparked the Reformation, he was protesting a handful of teachings which he felt had become corrupted. Numero Uno on this list was the teaching on the mechanics of Purgatory. Church leaders had started to express a soul’s term in Purgatory using “earth time” (days and years, which are utterly MEANINGLESS concepts in the next life, which knows only one measure of time–eternity) and come up with a litany of ways this time could be reduced through the purchase of indulgences. If you read the 95 theses, one of them (#27 if you care to look it up) plainly says that “There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.” It’s not even Purgatory itself that Luther was protesting, primarily, though he felt it would be a lot easier for him if he denounced the entire idea of it (hence removing books from the Canon). Luther was Protestantism.

However, instead of there becoming just a Protestant denomination following Luther, look at what happened. John Calvin came along and said that your destiny of Heaven or Hell is pre-determined and there is nothing you can do to change it. Other people came along and started preaching things which are even more bizarre and ridiculously false, like the Pope being the Beast of Revelation. Another person came along and said that the 144,000 number in Revelation is a LITERAL number indicating how many souls will be saved, all-time (of course, when his cult’s number grew larger than 144,000, its leaders changed their tune on this number being some sort of quota limit). Another person came along and said that the Bible assures that the world is going to end on an exact date, which he changed three times after each guaranteed date of Armageddon passed without incident. Then there was the guy who summed up the entire Bible in one three-word sentence, “God Hates Fags,” and another “church” was spawned. The followers of these self-made “religions” can’t agree with each other on much; their disagreement with the Catholic Church has become secondary. They all say that Catholicism is wrong, but can’t agree with each other about why. A few of these denominations will literally ordain to the ministry any man who can say the word “God,” and moving up (to the rank of “bishop”) is a privilege which is purchased.

So many of these modern “Protestants” don’t even know who they are, let alone know what they are protesting. Those who are pure Protestants (tracing their tradition back to Luther) understand the basis of their protesting, but many of those in the offshoot sects only know how to condemn others by cherry-picking individual verses out of scripture which support the point they are looking to make, oftentimes not bothering to gain context by reading the entire chapter that the verse comes from. You’ve seen the tracts which are created by throwing 15 verses from all over the Bible together into one “paragraph” in order to prove some point. Those people aren’t protesting anything; they are just saying “we’re right, you’re wrong, and here is proof.”

 

[PRmerger]

The way I see it is that the Church said, “This was written by James, we should probably keep it and compile it with these letters by Paul, etc.”

And the Church said, “This book contains that which we have been preaching, so it is part of the kerygma. And this book has some novel concepts so we reject it as part of the kerygma.”

And all of that comes from Christ, who first preached the kerymga.

Again, this makes you NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate.

This makes you subject to the authority of the Catholic Church.

And this also implies your tacit acknowledgement that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

 

[dronald]

And the Church said, “This book contains that which we have been preaching, so it is part of the kerygma. And this book has some novel concepts so we reject it as part of the kerygma.”

And all of that comes from Christ, who first preached the kerymga.

It wasn’t just based on what was being taught in the books but the origin of where it came from.

Again, this makes you NOT a Sola Scriptura advocate.

It means I’ve looked into it, as has my Church, as has yours.

This makes you subject to the authority of the Catholic Church.

Then why is your book so heavy?

And this also implies your tacit acknowledgement that the CC has been given the charism of infallibility. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT.

I think you and I have been through this already. Simply, no it doesn’t.

 

[johnnyc176]

However, after reading this forum for a day or two, I would be afraid to open up and share my heartfelt questions. Some posters convey a sense of “pounciness” of “slam dunking points” of elitism and Protest bashing that prevents this from being a safe venue for me.

Well the Truth itself is polarizing so it’s understandable that when Catholics proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church you would be upset and resort to name calling.

 

[guanophore]

I believe it is, and I believe we do.

How can you keep traditions transmitted by word of mouth when you don’t believe they exist?

Of course faithful bible believing Christians all keep the part about the writings, ,but have been separated by the Word of Mouth part for 500 years.

I do not doubt that much prayer was used when asking for God’s help in determining the Canon of Scripture. But at the same time we both must admit that much study and historical research was done as well. This wasn’t a matter of praying and casting lots.

You don’t seem to leave any room here for God revealing the Truth. Do you really think that God does not continue to reveal Truth to the Church? Do you really believe that the discovery of the canon was based only on human enterprise?

The difference again is how we react to our differences I believe.

Well, yes and no. Certainly faith is not kept pure by killing those who abandon it, or part of it. On the other hand, we have a responsibility to vigorously contend for the faith, and not to allow any “different doctrine”.

No doubt there were early heresies like Arianism and Gnosticism which were condemned by Orthodox Christianity. But there were also disagreements within Orthodoxy just because people weren’t entirely sure.

This is where recognizing the authority of the Church is critical. All theologians, even those who may not have agreed, submitted their work to the authority of the Church.

Now, I can say that Peter was the Rock and then change my mind and say Christ was the Rock, and you must say I’m wrong. What if I did that in the 1500’s? What if I told the Pope that Peter was no the Rock? I could be seriously harmed. This is where I believe separation lies.

I don’t think so. Peter is a rock, as Jesus demonstrated by naming him"rock". Jesus Himself is THE rock, as attested in both the old and the NT. Peter’s statement of faith was also a “rocky” statement. All of these rocks are foundations of the Church, Jesus being the cornerstone, Jesus grafting Peter into Himself, and making him part of the foundation, and the firm foundation of Peter’s faith, which is what the Church rests upon.

But what if Augustine believed that Peter was the Rock and then later changed his mind? What would happen to him? Or even Tertullian who it is believed fell into some type of heresy believed he had the proper Oral Traditions on Baptism and wrote explicitly against infant Baptism.

The difference in all these cases is submission to the Teaching of the Church.

All of these beliefs were believed to be held in Tradition but one was picked and anyone who opposed would later be cast out and often killed.

The authority put in place by Christ has the duty to decide, and to enforce the One Faith that was handed down. Yes, there may be many views, sometimes these can all exist together within the authorative Teaching of the Church, but sometimes they cannot.
The Church is not a democracy, where the majority rules, or heterodox opinions are tolerable. It is a theocracy.

So the title of the thread “Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?” Ironically, it’s separation and persecution for difference in belief. Although we’re just as bad.

This just does not ring true anymore, though dr. There is no longer persecution for difference of belief. The separation that remains is protest against the teachings of the CC. It is not based in fear of reprisal or “killing” as you claim. It is a rejection of the doctrine.

All Protestants re defined by which parts, and to what extent, they reject the Catholic faith. I don’t think that most Protestants realize it. Then again, I think there are a lot of people who claim they are Catholic who are actually Protestant, and don’t know it!

 

[guanophore]

IF you believe that it is correct to have 27 books in the NT (and, of course, you do), then you MUST believe that this came from Christ.

You believe, just like Catholics, that this revelation comes from Christ.

I still remember some years ago on CAF how shocked I was that people who accept Sola Scriptura “assume the canon”.

Then I was told that the canon is a “fallible collection of infallible documents”. It boggles the mind that people believe that Jesus would allow His Church to go off the rails about something so important.

 

[PRmerger]

I just answered the first so I’ll go to your follow up. The Apostles taught and wrote accurately I believe.

Welcome to the Church.

Indeed.

There comes a point, when one has been asked to connect the dots, and has, in one’s head, connected the dots, that it’s time to accept the invitation to dine at the Wedding Feast.

 

[PRmerger]

It wasn’t just based on what was being taught in the books but the origin of where it came from.

Very Catholic, this!

It means I’ve looked into it, as has my Church, as has yours.

So you affirm that you reject Sola Scriptura?

Then why is your book so heavy?

Nonsequitur.

You submit to the authority of the CC when it comes to the canon of the NT.

You would not know ANY OTHER WAY, save for giving tacit submission to the CC, that Hebrews is inspired and that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

I think you and I have been through this already. Simply, no it doesn’t.

Let’s connect the dots here, dronald. Where do you think the Church erred in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT?

If you don’t think she erred (and I’m sure you don’t), and you believe (and I’m sure you do) that the Church just didn’t “happen to get it right”, but was guided by the HS, then…

connect the dots…

this necessarily means…

you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility.

QED.

There is no other logical explanation for this. You just have to connect the dots.

 

[guanophore]

You submit to the authority of the CC when it comes to the canon of the NT.

You would not know ANY OTHER WAY, save for giving tacit submission to the CC, that Hebrews is inspired and that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.

Let’s connect the dots here, dronald. Where do you think the Church erred in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT?

If you don’t think she erred (and I’m sure you don’t), and you believe (and I’m sure you do) that the Church just didn’t “happen to get it right”, but was guided by the HS, then…

connect the dots…

this necessarily means…

you believe the CC was given the charism of infallibility.

QED.

There is no other logical explanation for this. You just have to connect the dots.

I think the dots just get connected differently. I have heard many that espouse SS say that God used Christians (not Catholics) to discern the canon, sometimes they will say “well that time the CC got it right…a broken clock is right twice a day”, but they accept that God somehow (almost DESPITE the CC) pulled the correct canon of Scripture out of the muck and confusion.

So they will affirm that God is infallible, but do not believe this was an action or function of the CC.

So, quite separate from how we connect the dots, it seems clear that a person can connect them in such a way that the CC is not responsible, and is certainly not infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the dots just get connected differently.

There is only one way to connect the dots to get a coherent picture.

 

[spina1953]

When the NT canon was being considered as Scripture, the Gospels were read to make sure that they were Apostolic and also did the Gospels say what had been and was being taught orally. if it wasn’t then it was not included as Scripture. The same for the Epistles that they had to conform to what was being taught orally, if it wasn’t then it was not included. It took time for this to be decided as there were a great ,many Epistles and Gospels that were being read that were not part of what the Apostles taught and handed down orally and needed to be rooted out. The 27 books that are the NT are writings that conform to what the Apostles taught and passed on.

 

[clem456]

If one assumes the Holy Spirit guided the nascent Church in the transmission of the Gospel through Tradition, then the Gospel becomes a “who”, not just a “what”. The Apostles had the gift or the authority to transmit the Gospel by Tradition, and to record it truthfully. This authority is vested in their persons, not because they carried a book around, cause the book didn’t exist in written form yet…

How do the Apostles have this charism, or authority?

If we assume they have it, is it possible for that grace, or charism, or authority, to ever die? How could the living action of the Holy Spirit act through the Apostles, but then die off?
It seems to me the source of this ongoing charism is the living God. Christ is alive and well, and his Spirit works in the Church. It cannot die because He lives.