Do Protestants have "Faith"?

[t68ware]

YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THE PART WHEN JESUS SAYS TO THE APOSTLES “WHOEVER LISTENS TO YOU LISTENS TO ME.” DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT?

Please enlighten me as to where it says that in the Bible. I am not familiar with that verse. I do know Jesus said “Whoever receives you, receives Me and the One who sent Me.”
But I am not familiar with your particuluar quote.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It seems to me, then, that we have no hope in preventing protestants from spreading misconceptions of the catholic church if the catechism contains error. When I talk to some catholics they direct me to the catechism for further understanding of what they believe. If it contains error, how will I know which is Truth and which is error? If the catholic church uses the catechism why would they use something that contains error?

Maybe this would be best suited in another thread, can I use your quote to start one?

**A good idea IMHO ****If I were the poster whom the OP = other poster] was replying to, I would be really confused **​

As for discerning **truth from falsehood: this is done largely by thinking theologically & systematically. Theological assertions are not like heaps of sand, with their countless unconnected grains - they are organic & interconnected, like the parts of a living & growing human being. One test of a theological assertion is whether it fits (or can fit) into this harmonious pattern. If it can’t fit even by being grafted into the living stock of the body of doctrines, if it is more like an ear grown from the back of a rat, that is a warning sign. **

The CC’s teaching authority does not cause doctrinal truth: it is a means to discern it, & when that is done, of recognising it. What TA never is, & of its very nature cannot be, is an exhibition of power to make people believe any old thing whatever. So the TA is not competent to teach any old thing; the capacity to do so, does not confer the moral right to do so. So the CC’s authority to teach cannot be understood as power without moral content, without seriously distorting the meaning of authority - for three reasons at least:

• **because the TA, is the authority is not primarily of the Church, but of Christ. Christ’s authority cannot be exercised by His servants other than is pleasing to Him. It is eternally His - His servants do not own it: He graciously deigns to do through them, what He is well able to do without them **
• Church authority is not reducible to power - it is specifically Christian; it is not morally indeterminate
• **It is authority to shepherd the People of God by setting forth the meaning of His Revelation - not authority to fleece them **
  IOW - the moral obligation to believe the teaching of the Church is not founded on the sheer exercise of authority alone. Usually, “Believe this” is enough for practical purposes to tell us what is wanted of us by the TA. To understand why **belief is commanded, one has to dig deeper: otherwise the moral & Christian foundations of the obligation, & the authority, & the belief, will be invisible. **

There are:

• different degrees of intellectual assent
• different motives for belief
• **different objects of belief **
  **- even when the one duty of belief is enjoined by the same TA. **

RCism would be a howling wilderness of conflicting beliefs, if there were no way to discern the value of one from another, & if obedience to the TA were the only motive for belief - mercifully, discernment is possible; just as it is in the Protestant Churches.

**Obviously a highly analytic approach to Christian believing can be criticised - this post is an attempt only to say something about how discernment is carried out; it’s not an attempt to establish its rightness. **

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Please enlighten me as to where it says that in the Bible. I am not familiar with that verse. I do know Jesus said “Whoever receives you, receives Me and the One who sent Me.”
But I am not familiar with your particuluar quote.

The OP may be referring to Luke 10.16:​

• **Luk 10:1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. **
• **Luk 10:2 And he said to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. **
• Luk 10:3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.
• Luk 10:4 Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and salute no one on the road.
• Luk 10:5 Whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house!'
• Luk 10:6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you.
• **Luk 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages; do not go from house to house. **
• **Luk 10:8 Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; **
• **Luk 10:9 heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ **
• **Luk 10:10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, **
• **Luk 10:11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off against you; nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ **
• **Luk 10:12 I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom than for that town. **
• **Luk 10:13 "Woe to you, Chora’zin! woe to you, Beth-sa’ida! for if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. **
• Luk 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
• **Luk 10:15 And you, Caper’na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. **
• Luk 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."
• **Luk 10:17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!” **
• **Luk 10:18 And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. **
• **Luk 10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you. **
• **Luk 10:20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven." **
• **Luk 10:21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit… **
  blueletterbible.org/rsv/Luk/Luk010.html

• or to:

• Mat 10:40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
• Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
• Mar 9:37 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
• Luk 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.
• Jhn 13:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

 

[Church_Militant]

Please enlighten me as to where it says that in the Bible. I am not familiar with that verse. I do know Jesus said “Whoever receives you, receives Me and the One who sent Me.”
But I am not familiar with your particuluar quote.

That would be Luke Chapter 10:16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

 

[guanophore]

If they are catholic then i have no problem with that. Even catholics can be right some of the time…

Actually a more correct term would be Christian since the Scriptures never use the term catholic for believers or the church.

Col 1:5-6
Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel 6 which has come to you, as indeed **in the whole world **it is bearing fruit and growing -

No, it was first used to refer to the “word of truth” which was Kathos Holos (throughout the whole world).

Catholic was used to describe the church from the letter of Colossians to the present day.

“You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 110)

I am not posting this so much for you, ja4, as for the lurkers. I know that you don’t accept Sacred Tradition, so this part of history will be immaterial to you.

Do you 100% confidence in this?

How does one “measure” confidence? I have made a decision to believe that God will do what He said He would do.

In this particular case it would not have to. Sometimes the scriptures use the term to refer to all but not necessarily in a literal sense. If there are to be exceptions as you point out here that would be valid. In the case of Mary, there is no evidence in scripture that she was an exception to being without sin.

I am sure this belongs on another thread. You admit that sometimes, all does not mean all. Does it only mean all when you decide it does?

I agree that if its from an apostle we are to accept it since it has the full authority of Christ. When it comes to many catholic doctrines and practices we run into a number of problems. For one these men are not apostles and their writings are not considered inspired-inerrant. If what they teach does not line up with the greater authority of the scriptures it is not binding and would be false if it contradicts the scriptures.

Letsee, that leaves out Mark, Luke, Hebrews, which other books cannot be attributed to an Apostle?

No record of any Apostle ever teaching that we should observe the Sabbath on Sunday, either.

 

[saint_rafael]

singingbeauty,

The reason the '92 Catechism contains error is because they included Vatican II teaching that is not infallible, dogmatic, or even taught by the Magisterium.

If you want to know what the Church has taught get the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of Trent.
Look at the Catechism of Trent, Pius X, Baltimore, or any of the other pre-VII catechisms. They all teach the same truths. '92 Catechism has these teachings but they merged it with the un-trent like spirit of VII.

 

[guanophore]

Please enlighten me as to where it says that in the Bible. I am not familiar with that verse. I do know Jesus said “Whoever receives you, receives Me and the One who sent Me.”
But I am not familiar with your particuluar quote.

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Luke 10:16

 

[saint_rafael]

847 of the Catechism is talking about the doctrine of invisible ignorace. A while back I said that the invisible ignorance doctrine is an exception to the No salvation outside RC doctrine. Invisible ignorace applies to the truly ignorant who nver heard of Jesus and the Church and lived according to the natural law.

It certainly does not apply to Protestants who are not ignorant of the Church. Many have heard about Catholicism and it’s claim to salvation. It certainly does not apply to people who have actually read the Catechism and those who hang around Catholic forums as senior members.

 

[Swan]

I have watched this thread with some interest. First I don’t really care whether any particular Catholic thinks I don’t have Faith. I know that I do and the only one whose opinion I care about is God.

That being said, I think this thread shows the remarkable advantage that the Catholic Church has in having an infallible authority and how its members are obediant to that authority.

Now, if Catholics could only agree about what that infallible authority says.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following about non-Catholic Christians:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

This seems to be pretty clear in what it says. But then maybe the Catechism is wrong and the Church is teaching error through it. Of course, that can’t be because the Church can’t err in matters of faith and morals and promulgating an inaccurate Catechism for the laity would certainly mean such an error had taken place.

Of course there are all those saints and popes who appear to say different things than the Catechism. Were they in error or has the Church changed its view? We know that can’t be the case because the Catholic Church doesn’t change doctrine.

So between the Catechism (and other recent statements and actions by popes and others) and the sayings of other popes and saints so bountifully quoted in this thread there must be some consistent truth being taught. The problem is that Catholics can’t seem to tell what that truth is.

The result we find, as demonstrated in this thread, is that Catholics can be seen indulging in what they so often condemn Protestants for doing: engaging in private interpretation and cherry-picking. If we don’t like what one document of the Church says, let’s say that it isn’t authoritative and infallible. They we can find other statements that are more to our liking and follow those.

If we don’t like what the current leadership says we don’t have to obey it as long as we can find something saying the contrary that we can agree with. We only have to accept and obey what the Church currently says if we happen to agree with it. If we don’t agree with it we can say it is wrong and do what we want.

So much for an infallible authority and so much for obediance.

Ain’t that the truth! I’ve never seen so many folks in one place with a God complex. Didn’t Jesus warn about that?

And exactly how does “the gates of hell will not prevail” equate to infallibility?

 

[Swan]

Lloyd Benson knows Charlesh?

The original quote was, “I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy.”

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe the Catholic Catechism answers in the affirmative, however, I know of at least one Catholic bishop who says “No. They have simple human belief.” I think the bishop’s response is a fair and accurate answer since the definition of Faith given in the CCC necessarily excludes all non-Catholics by virtue of their open rejection of Church teaching, not to mention open rejection of the Vicar of Christ which is tantamount to rejection of Jesus Christ (He who hears you, hears Me. He who rejects you, rejects Me.). The fact that Faith is Truth, and a gift from God necessitates one accepting Catholic truth. Since all non-Catholics (including Protestants) are in open rejection of Truth, they cannot have Faith. I’m open to correction.

Hi

Taking the defination “Faith is Truth”, I think, neither the Catholics nor the Protestant have it with them. This is one reason that GodAllahYHWH has sent the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 to let them know the truth.

Differing voices are also welcome here; these help understanding the truth

Thanks

 

[dolphinlove]

Hi

Taking the defination “Faith is Truth”, I think, neither the Catholics nor the Protestant have it with them. This is one reason that GodAllahYHWH has sent the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 to let them know the truth.

Differing voices are also welcome here; these help understanding the truth

Thanks

Doesnt Mohammed claim to be the last prophet paars?? If so, how could your promisedmessiah be a prophet as well?

 

[paarsurrey]

Doesnt Mohammed claim to be the last prophet paars?? If so, how could your promisedmessiah be a prophet as well?

Hi

Muhammad has been named Khatam, a singular noun with vowel “a” not “e”, which means a SEAL. He has been named SEAL OF PROPHETS. What is a seal or what a seal signifies; for that kindly see any secular encylopedia.

Muhammad himself prophesized for coming of Issa, a prophet, after him; if he would have understood for himself to be the last prophet he would have not mentioned that.

Thanks

 

[t68ware]

That would be Luke Chapter 10:16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Thank you.

 

[saint_rafael]

paarsurrey,

There is only one true religion that God has revealed and that is Roman Catholicism.

Islam is an over-simplified natural religion that is utterly falese.
Muhammad was another man used by the devil to spread error. He made up a religion, in which he “borrrowed” alot from Judiasm and Christianity. His relatives were Nestorians and this heretical faith influenced him.

Jesus was no prophet, but God himself in human flesh. God has revealed himself through Jesus and walked upon us in history. The Second person in the Trinity came to redeem men, so they can be saved, which he left his Church to do with him until the end of time.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Please enlighten me as to where it says that in the Bible. I am not familiar with that verse. I do know Jesus said “Whoever receives you, receives Me and the One who sent Me.”
But I am not familiar with your particuluar quote.

what do you think it means “whoever receives you, receive me.”?

 

[t68ware]

what do you think it means “whoever receives you, receive me.”?

Your original quote was Jesus said “Whoever LISTENS to you …” That word is not in the original Greek so I was wondering where you found the word “Listen”. There is a great deal of difference between “receive” and “listen”, esp. depending on what doctrine of the Church you are defending

 

[justasking4]

Gottle of Geer;3484693]## **The Catechism is the source to rely on. If Catholics ****contradict it, or deny its teaching - that is not a reflection on the Catechism. **

What about all the other documents and statements that are in the catholic church?

Protestants do not lack faith, merely by being “outside” the CC. Any obstacles to faith there may be, are obstacles for Catholics too.** The Gospel is clear that the grace of God is not limited to “the usual channels”. I hope that quotation from paragraph 819 answers the question in the title of the thread. **

Can a person be saved who rejects Christ i.e. that He is God and died for sins?

**BTW: Papal infallibility is not compromised by disobedience: if human disobedience invalidated Divine authority, there would be no People of God left. There are objections to Papal Infallibility, as there are to just about anything, but Catholic failure to attend to a Catholic authority is not one of them. The difference between the CCC & posts by Catholics on a message-board, is that the CCC is written by men who know the details of what they are talking about; most Catholics lack that depth of understanding in theology & associated sciences, so don’t. **

**I hope that clears that up. **

 

[Nordar]

The original quote was, “I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And you, sir, are no Jack Kennedy.”

 

[colliric]

necessary, for the grace of it can be effective without the sacramental act that confers the grace.

I disagree here strongly. The only times that Baptism is not absolutly necessary is when the person wants to be baptised but is murdered/killed before they get the chance to be baptised, OR they never get that chance to make the choice in the first place because they are murdered/killed in infancy. For example when a person is on Death Row and decides they are christian, this person many not get the chance to make the choice because they only realise they are christian and love god but it’s only at the very end as they are being strapped in… just like what happened to the criminal hanging with Jesus at the crucifixion, who realised what he had done wrong.

In all other times Baptism is Nessecery, absolutely nessecery. You can’t go around saying “I’m christian” and choose not be Baptised for an extended period of time because that is not a Christian belief.