Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[FathersKnowBest]

As you believe the pope and the magisterium is ultimately guided, so I believe that each believer, indwelt, is ultimately guided. The Holy Spirit determines truth and guides us to it (or to Him, in the case of Jesus). I believe in absolute truth, and that the key to understanding it and faithing on it is the Spirit. I’ve seen many threads here that show that Catholics believe converts are guided to their church via the Holy Spirit, if you can understand that, y’all can understand what I’m saying; Christians believe in the power of the Spirit to guide, I’m not alone in that belief.

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides us all. But does He guide us into His Church, or does He guide us in every belief?

How did it work at the very beginning?

Let’s look at one of the very first arguments: Whether a believer had to first become a Jew (be circumcised). The Judaizers and St. Paul had strong disagreements about this. I know for certain that St. Paul was spirit-filled, but I also think that many of the Judaizers were sincere in their beliefs and were attempting to be Holy.

Did the Holy Spirit guide the Judaizers into the truth? NO!
Rather, He guided the Church Magisterium, led by St. Peter and secondarily by St. James, into pronouncing God’s Will.

So, we Catholics follow the scriptural precedent, and say that the “individual believer” paradigm is NOT the way the scriptures and Tradition teach us to resolve matters.

As for what “tradition” I was brought up in, I was brought up being taught that if you open your mouth about something, esp. anything having to do with religion, you better be able to provide evidence for your belief. The only major “tradition” I was surrounded by besides general Christian beliefs (I wasn’t raised in a church, but have watched, listened and learned from many pastors, teachers, ministers, and yes, even, nuns) was that the Bible is utterly true.

Great! Then you’ll see that the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 teaches the Catholic approach.

 

[clem456]

clem,

Not watering down at all. They are authoritative Church documents. Not opinions. Just like my link to Dominus Iesus. With which I strongly agree.

Also, the element of knowledge and conscience play a major factor here. A person who is not being obstinate but sincere and honest is not a damnable person. The Church is extremely clear about this. And it needs to be stressed.

If I was a Non-Catholic, some of steve’s posts would make me run away (not walk) from anything that had the name Catholic. I have made this same mistake in the past and I wish someone would have brought it to my attention.

Ok.
But what is the message we are going to proclaim?
It can’t be the message of damnation and exclusion for sure, cause that’s not the Good News.
We also can’t provide so many justifications for choosing our own path in life that we obscure the only path by throwing up our hands in vacillation. We need to call people to mature faith. Choices are important.
It’s a fairly simply teaching. Christ is the way. He formed one Church for our salvation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ok.
But what is the message we are going to proclaim?

What was proclaimed from the beginning:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell;
the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting.
Amen.

 

[clem456]

What was proclaimed from the beginning:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell;
the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Amen to that.
The Apostles Creed is not counting the “outs”…the number of ways in which I can go my own way and still claim unity with the “holos”.
It’s a profession of faith that led many of them to die rather than make justifications for going across the street.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Amen to that.
The Apostles Creed is not counting the “outs”…the number of ways in which I can go my own way and still claim unity with the “holos”.
It’s a profession of faith that led many of them to die rather than make justifications for going across the street.

Isn’t it strange how we as Catholics always need to find something to add? A need to clarify, a need to point something out…

Marana tha!

 

[clem456]

Isn’t it strange how we as Catholics always need to find something to add? A need to clarify, a need to point something out…

Marana tha!

Yes it is odd. Best to let the Church just speak.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Let me chime in here amd share with an observation from Gary Michuta:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=809279&page=2

Today, some Protestants are arguing that Luther did not subtract books from the Canon of Scripture, because the canon was not officially adopted until the Council of Trent which began in 1545. Since the canon was not formally recognized prior to Luther’s rejection of the Deuterocanonicals, it is not correct to say that he subtracted books from the Bible.

This type of argument is quickly beginning to become a favorite among our separated brethren. They want to divert attention away from how these books were accepted within Christianity and focus instead on technical language in regards to their definition by the Church.

The fact of the matter is that even if something like the definition given at Trent had happened before Luther’s day, Luther would have rejected it as being in error, and Protestants wouldn’t have abandoned Luther because of his position any more than they abandoned Luther when he brushed aside other councils. In other words, this argument really isn’t about the legitimacy of the Protestant position, but rather it is a form of propaganda to make it look like the Church is dishonest.

In 1519, Johann Eck debated Luther and pointed out to him that the Church had already confirmed that the Deuterocanon was canonical Scripture and he explicitly cited Florence as a proof of this. What was Luther’s response? Was it that the Church has authoritatively defined the canon yet so everything is still up for grabs? This is what the Protestant historian H. H. Howorth says about what Luther said:

“He [Luther] says he knows that he Church had accepted this book [2 Maccabees], but the Church could not give a greater authority and strength to a book than it already possessed by its own virtue.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, p. 251).

So, Luther knew the Church accepted the Deuterocanon as canonical Scripture. He was aware of Florence and the other decrees (apparently), but by this point he believed that Church councils could err. Moreover, Luther seems to have been working on a principle that he would more explicitly develop a few years later; namely, that a book is canonical and authoritative to the extent that Luther heard “Christ preached” in it.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Now, we’re not sure when this final ratification was given, but we do know that, by A.D. 405, Pope St. Innocent I was promoting the so-called “canon of Carthage” (397) throughout the Western Church. Rome would also have sent rescripts of its decison (final ratification of the Carthaginian canon) to Alexandria, the 2nd See of the universal Church and the primate in the East, with the expectation that Alexandria (as Eastern primate)would disseminate it throughout the East.
Now, this was modified somewhat when, at both the Byzantine Council of Trullo (692) and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), both the church of Constantinople and the church of Antioch (along with Rome and Alexandria) recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage (397).

As you and I have discussed so often, Luther didn’t exclude any of the deuterocanon from his definition of Scripture. Concerning Martin Luther at least, his Bible isn’t smaller–it’s actually bigger.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, the Holy Spirit guides us all. But does He guide us into His Church, or does He guide us in every belief?

He leads and guides unto *all *truth.

How did it work at the very beginning?

Let’s look at one of the very first arguments: Whether a believer had to first become a Jew (be circumcised). The Judaizers and St. Paul had strong disagreements about this. I know for certain that St. Paul was spirit-filled, but I also think that many of the Judaizers were sincere in their beliefs and were attempting to be Holy.

Did the Holy Spirit guide the Judaizers into the truth? NO!

He did.

Rather, He guided the Church Magisterium, led by St. Peter and secondarily by St. James, into pronouncing God’s Will.

He led several more, including Paul who corrected Peter in public. Those Christians that believe as I do, do not in any way discount messengers, teachers, pastors, ministers, etc… What we do is make sure there is not a message told to us that is contradicted by scripture. That is where the main hang up comes in for one such as me. If I’m told something I search scripture to see if it is true. If I find something that apparently contradicts, then I need to study it from all angles to see if there is something that explains the seeming contradiction. At this point I cannot say that I’ve found a way to explain many of the seeming contradictions that I see between RCC formal dogma and scripture. I’m still looking, and obviously still talking it through. But, as I said I have no wish to argue over it in a negative sense. God’s guided me on several important teachings to change my mind when I’m wrong. I rely on Him, and know He is capable as He is the author and finisher of faith, my job is to yield to Him.

Great! Then you’ll see that the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 teaches the Catholic approach.

I’ll leave that alone.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell;
the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Amen.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12375501]
The point I was making, he did create an apocrypha, and his actions are still with most protestants today. And the LCMS which Jon belongs to said as much in their opening page. I’m seeing a conflict in message there.

As if he was the first to not consider them canonical. That’s simply not true.
There is no conflict in message. Many Lutherans consider them apocrypha. The problem in America is Lutherans forgot the “important to read and study”.
OTOH, no Lutheran is bound to think of them as apocrypha, since the Confessions do not refer to them as such. IOW, the Lutheran position is similar to the Catholic position pre-Trent. People were permitted their own opinion on the books, as expressed by many down through the centuries.

As I said, I only quoted the LCMS link, because Jon is LCMS. blogs.lcms.org/2012/cph-publishes-first-lutheran-english-edition-of-apocrypha

Did they, misdirect on their front page, use of apocrypha, and NOT deuterocanonical in Luther’s translation? Who speaks authoritatively for the Lutherans?

No, they did not misdirect. It is typical to refer to them as apocrypha, but it is not dogmatic.

Jon

 

[clem456]

…
What we do is make sure there is not a message told to us that is contradicted by scripture. That is where the main hang up comes in for one such as me. If I’m told something I search scripture to see if it is true. If I find something that apparently contradicts, then I need to study it from all angles to see if there is something that explains the seeming contradiction. At this point I cannot say that I’ve found a way to explain many of the seeming contradictions that I see between RCC formal dogma and scripture. I’m still looking, and obviously still talking it through. But, as I said I have no wish to argue over it in a negative sense. God’s guided me on several important teachings to change my mind when I’m wrong. I rely on Him, and know He is capable as He is the author and finisher of faith, my job is to yield to Him.

When you examine scripture, expose it’s truth, wrangle with contradictions, study dogma etc…
Do you do this privately? Or is your study connected to others in some way? A bible study perhaps. Pastors, elders, etc…
Likewise, when you say you rely on God for guidance, is this done through private revelation (not trying to get snarky here, serious question)? That would seem to contradict the reliance on Scripture alone.
How do you know the guidance or inspiration you receive from God is from God? Keep in mind Terry Jones and others would say they are hearing God’s will also.
Or do you also rely on others as above.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;12376286]You didn’t answer my question. Let me say it this way. Quote the Church document that says I as a Catholic can change allegiance and become Lutheran with no consequence to my soul?

I already said, as a member of the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, you may not have that privilege, but the OHCAC is not only and exclusively in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Describe Luther’s apocrypha. Name the books in it.

Its irrelevant.

Those books you list are NOT canonical to Luther.

So, are you bound to Luther’s opinion on this, because I’m not. But you did not answer the question:

You tell me.
Is Tobit canonical? Luther included it.
Is Judith canonical? "
Is Eclesiasticus canonical? "
Is 1 Macc canonical? "
Is 2 Macc canonical? "
Is Baruch canonical? "
Is Wisdom canonical? "

If you say “yes” to any or all of these, then you have to say Luther included these canonical books in his translation.

Jon,

Remember, even Luther admitted “we” got the scriptures from the Catholic Church. That means “canon”. He had the Vulgate. That’s the canon that has been in place since the council of Rome in 382. It’s the same canon we have today. 20 versions of that bible were printed "in German " before Luther printed his bibel.

The Local Synod at Rome was not a binding general council, as you know. But you have answered your question: regardless of who translated, Tobit, for example, it is canonical. Therefore, Luther’s translation includes the 73 books typically considered canonical in the western Church.

Excuse me? “These books” of the Apocrypha, wrote Luther, “are not held equal to the Scriptures.

He affected all of protestantism.

Which non-Lutheran, non-Catholic western communion was required, forced by Luther to accept his opinion of the canon over that of the Bishop of Rome? And further, why does their opinion cause you such angst? Do you consider them canonical? Does your communion hold them to canonical? If so, when you read Luther’s translation of them, you are reading from the canon, Luther’s opinion notwithstanding.

When the LCMS link I quoted says Luther’s “apocrypha” NOT DC, do you agree with their statement?

I think I already answered this. I consider them canonical, in a similar way that Cardinal Cajetan expresses it, so no, I do not agree with Luther’s opinion.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

When you examine scripture, expose it’s truth, wrangle with contradictions, study dogma etc…
Do you do this privately? Or is your study connected to others in some way? A bible study perhaps. Pastors, elders, etc…
Likewise, when you say you rely on God for guidance, is this done through private revelation (not trying to get snarky here, serious question)? That would seem to contradict the reliance on Scripture alone.
How do you know the guidance or inspiration you receive from God is from God? Keep in mind Terry Jones and others would say they are hearing God’s will also.
Or do you also rely on others as above.

To most protestants sola scripture doesn’t imply that there is not other humans involved in our learning and even in the traditions of the church, but rather, in a simple sense that all things that others say should not contradict scripture. Bible studies, commentaries, teachers, preachers, discussion groups (such as this board and in real life), etc… Also sola scripture is a way of affirming the role of the Spirit in being able to guide, and in fact that he did guide. “Private revelation” is usually meant to mean something that is not revealed in scripture, and most protestants don’t believe in private revelation. Instead, what I’m referring to the guidance of the Spirit when it comes to things already revealed in scripture.

So, take the subject of tithing or giving for example. Private revelation would be adding something not in scripture about tithing/giving. You can find every opinion out there under the sun about tithing and giving, and each side swears they are right, and each side uses scripture. I read each side, read scripture, read context, pray, and see what is actually written. Sometimes the writing is obviously supporting one side over another, and it is just like “studying to show you are approved.” You find the evidence and reasons and it is a very logical argument based on the text.

Other things I truly believe it is being lead by God and you have “a-ha” type of moments. Converts to Christianity often have stories like that, and it is something that most of us here, regardless of what church we belong to can relate to.

The best example that I have for that kind of issue is the death penalty. Believe me when I say it is a miracle of God that I believe what I believe now, because it does not line up with any of my family’s beliefs, what I was raised on, what most of my fellow protestants believe, etc… Once God led me to it and I read and studied on it, I formulated, for me what I believed based on scripture and personal conviction. Imagine my surprise when I read the CCC all about the death penalty and my new found belief matched pretty much word for word.

Does that help at least clarify where I’m coming from?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

To most protestants sola scripture doesn’t imply that there is not other humans involved in our learning and even in the traditions of the church, but rather, in a simple sense that all things that others say should not contradict scripture. Bible studies, commentaries, teachers, preachers, discussion groups (such as this board and in real life), etc… Also sola scripture is a way of affirming the role of the Spirit in being able to guide, and in fact that he did guide. “Private revelation” is usually meant to mean something that is not revealed in scripture, and most protestants don’t believe in private revelation. Instead, what I’m referring to the guidance of the Spirit when it comes to things already revealed in scripture.

So, take the subject of tithing or giving for example. Private revelation would be adding something not in scripture about tithing/giving. You can find every opinion out there under the sun about tithing and giving, and each side swears they are right, and each side uses scripture. I read each side, read scripture, read context, pray, and see what is actually written. Sometimes the writing is obviously supporting one side over another, and it is just like “studying to show you are approved.” You find the evidence and reasons and it is a very logical argument based on the text.

Other things I truly believe it is being lead by God and you have “a-ha” type of moments. Converts to Christianity often have stories like that, and it is something that most of us here, regardless of what church we belong to can relate to.

The best example that I have for that kind of issue is the death penalty. Believe me when I say it is a miracle of God that I believe what I believe now, because it does not line up with any of my family’s beliefs, what I was raised on, what most of my fellow protestants believe, etc… Once God led me to it and I read and studied on it, I formulated, for me what I believed based on scripture and personal conviction. Imagine my surprise when I read the CCC all about the death penalty and my new found belief matched pretty much word for word.

Does that help at least clarify where I’m coming from?

But the question still remains, sister.

Where do you go to make sure you have a correct understanding of certain passages?
How does this work?

 

[Kliska]

But the question still remains, sister.

Where do you go to make sure you have a correct understanding of certain passages?
How does this work?

You know I’m not making light of it, but how do you know you are in the right church? I suspect our answers would be similar.

I go to God, and He definitely has the power and capability to convict, lead, and guide. Again, it is what the Catholic faithful believe about the pope and the magisterium I believe, and converts to Christianity understand conviction and guidance of the Spirit?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You know I’m not making light of it, but how do you know you are in the right church? I suspect our answers would be similar.

I go to God, and He definitely has the power and capability to convict, lead, and guide. Again, it is what the Catholic faithful believe about the pope and the magisterium I believe, and converts to Christianity understand conviction and guidance of the Spirit?

We know my answer. I go to the Church.

But the question still stands for you.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Isn’t it strange how we as Catholics always need to find something to add? A need to clarify, a need to point something out…

Marana tha!

Been that way forever. As soon as St. James sent out his pastoral instructions on Judaising, the Judaisers wanted to “interpret” it away. This happens after every council and after most encyclicals.

 

[Kliska]

We know my answer. I go to the Church.

But *why *do you go to the RCC? Why *did *you go to the RCC? I would assume at some point you would say you were convicted and convinced?

But the question still stands for you.

I’ve answered it; God convicts and guides. He does so through scripture and also internal conviction. How do I know murder is wrong? Scripture is clear. How do I know what I know about the death penalty? Scripture, study, prayer, teachings by others, personal conviction, yes, being guided to the truth by the Spirit despite everyone else around me disagreeing with what I was finding. I would never expect someone just to believe I’m right; if they want to know, they need to do similar things to what I did, esp. study scripture and pray pray pray.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Originally Posted by FathersKnowBest View Post
Yes, the Holy Spirit guides us all. But does He guide us into His Church, or does He guide us in every belief?

Yes. Through His Church, not necessarily through individuals.

Did the Holy Spirit guide the Judaizers into the truth? NO!

He did.

Well, then He guided the Judaizers into a DIFFERENT “truth” than was revealed to St. Peter and the council in general.

That’s a very … incoherent … position, K.

He led several more, including Paul who corrected Peter in public.

Ummm … St. Paul was a part of the Magisterium in Acts 15.

Those Christians that believe as I do, do not in any way discount messengers, teachers, pastors, ministers, etc… What we do is make sure there is not a message told to us that is contradicted by scripture.

Again, by your interpretation of scripture.

 

[Kliska]

Yes. Through His Church, not necessarily through individuals.

The RCC is composed of individuals, such as the individual popes. At this point, it is the individual in the office of Pope; Francis that is considered to be convicted and guided by the Spirit in certain instances. Again, my belief is just one step removed.

Well, then He guided the Judaizers into a DIFFERENT “truth”

No, He corrected them, and that’s my point. God is the Shepherd who herds His sheep, He’s also the Father who corrects His kids. Please reread; God uses people to communicate truth, but that truth cannot contradict other revelations from God. In short, in today’s world, someone’s teaching cannot contradict scripture and be truth. Someone tells me it’s OK to murder, and I can confidently tell them it isn’t. Murder directly contradicts scripture.

Ummm … St. Paul was a part of the Magisterium in Acts 15.

Paul was Paul, and he rightly corrected Peter in public. The rest I’m not arguing.

Again, by your interpretation of scripture.

Don’t trust me, trust God. Nowhere am I asking you to trust “my interpretation” of scripture. I’m explaining my POV.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But *why *do you go to the RCC? Why *did *you go to the RCC? I would assume at some point you would say you were convicted and convinced?

I made a personal decision based on my conscience and prayer and history.

I’ve answered it; God convicts and guides. He does so through scripture and also internal conviction. How do I know murder is wrong? Scripture is clear. How do I know what I know about the death penalty? Scripture, study, prayer, teachings by others, personal conviction, yes, being guided to the truth by the Spirit despite everyone else around me disagreeing with what I was finding. I would never expect someone just to believe I’m right; if they want to know, they need to do similar things to what I did, esp. study scripture and pray pray pray.

That’s fine and dandy when you are walking with the Word of God. But there are many passages in Scriptures that are not explicit and some are downright obscure.

The problem is that we cannot be our sole judge and jury. Our mind, sentiments, prejudices, desires will get in the way.

Now I see you mentioned 2 very interesting things:

1. “teaching by others”.

This is exactly what we see in Scriptures. Only Prophets walked alone (mostly) and directly received instructions from God. The rest of us (unless you have been gifted with prophecy) learn from others. Yes, we learn on our own from the Spirit, but the moment we disagree in matters of Faith and Morals - contradictions are not an option. And either one of us is wrong or both of us are wrong.

1. “You were guided to the truth by the Spirit despite everyone else around you disagreeing with you”.

I understand what you are saying here. Not succumbing to peer pressure and having a very intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit.

But what happens when you find yourself against the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth? What’s your next step?