Do we really want another 500 years of division between Catholics and Protestants?

[Nikicosier]

Can you give an example of one thing that the Magisterium teaches that is in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches?

Yes, how many examples do you want? I’l start listing some and you can contact me again if you want more!

1. The arguement for tradition itself to be held as an authority as well as the Papal line.
2. Purgatory and Indulgences
3. The Exultation of Mary
4. Sacramentalism
5. The Apocrypha
6. Papal infallibility & the Teaching Authority of the Chruch

Just to name a few. Let me know if you want me to expand on any of these issues or if you want me to expand my list!

 

[cheezey]

Originally Posted by Nikicosier
I’m don’t believe that belonging to a PARTICULAR religion is necessary for my salvation (the Bible says that the only thing required is faith in Jesus Christ). I have that, thankfully!

I am not familiar with that verse. What verse says that the ONLY thing that is necessary for salvation is faith in Jesus? Book, chapter and verse, please.

Is Niki referring to John 3:16?

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

:
John 3 ? (Douay-Rheims)

33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God doth not give the Spirit by measure.
35 The Father loveth the Son: and he hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth in the Son hath life everlasting: but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life: but the wrath of God abideth on him.

 

[Nikicosier]

Niki, what is the denomination of the Church that you attend? Do you believe that all truth comes from the bible? And that the bible alone is needed for a Christian?

At the moment I attend a Baptist Church but am at home in lots of Churches (including the Catholic Church - we disagree… but that’s not a bad thing!). I believe that the Bible is infallible (without error) and believe that some of the traditions of the church have merit too! So I would say that i’m Christian Protestant but not attached to a PARTICULAR denomination. I believe that Christ alone is needed for a Christian. If the bible is the word of God, and God doesn’t make mistakes, then anything that conflicts with what the Bible says should be rejected! The Bible (thus God) warns us about being led astray and Paul commands us to be like the Bereans and test what we are told against the scriptures!
Does that help?

 

[Nikicosier]

Originally Posted by Nikicosier
I’m don’t believe that belonging to a PARTICULAR religion is necessary for my salvation (the Bible says that the only thing required is faith in Jesus Christ). I have that, thankfully!

I am not familiar with that verse. What verse says that the ONLY thing that is necessary for salvation is faith in Jesus? Book, chapter and verse, please.

Is Niki referring to John 3:16? John 13:34-35?

Yes you are right on both counts and then add this one into the mix too!

John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, how many examples do you want? I’l start listing some and you can contact me again if you want more!

1. The arguement for tradition itself to be held as an authority as well as the Papal line

Not sure what you mean by “papal line” but as far as Tradition being a channel of God’s revelation…I posit that you yourself are an advocate of Sacred Tradition.

You acknowledge Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from, say, the Gospel of Mark.

For the fact that the Gospel of Mark is* theopneustos* is only known because of…

Sacred Tradition.

You would not know it any other way, Nikicosier. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Amen!

But I didn’t see the word “only” in that verse.

Is that not adding to Scripture?

 

[cheezey]

Yes you are right on both counts and then add this one into the mix too!

John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

But to be fair to the argument, there is no ‘only’ here. ‘No one comes to…’ This limits the who, not the how…

 

[benjohnson]

1. Sacramentalism

“To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to ‘be saved.’ To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.” – Martin Luther

 

[Nikicosier]

Not sure what you mean by “papal line” but as far as Tradition being a channel of God’s revelation…I posit that you yourself are an advocate of Sacred Tradition.

You acknowledge Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from, say, the Gospel of Mark.

For the fact that the Gospel of Mark is* theopneustos* is only know because of…

Sacred Tradition.

Not true, each of the Apostles were given the authority of God! The Bible states as much. It is not only by tradition that we believe that the Bible has authority! If that were the case… Christians would not have a very good arguement for sharing the good news of the Gospel!
I don’t believe that Tradition has NO place… just not the same authority as that of the Bible!

I respect tradition - not exault it!

Protestants don’t believe that there wasn’t a time when God’s word was spoken (tradition) but we believe that the Scriptures are God’s final and full revelation to humankind. The oral traditions once communicated by the apostles have been committed to apostolic writing for all generations to come.
There is no evidence in the Bible that Tradition is ‘apostolic’, or as being God’s revelation, or as something that has an authority equal to that of Scripture. I have great respect for our common early church fathers, though I obviously don’t believe they are infallible.

You can’t argue for Tradition using tradition as the evidence… it’s circular reasoning - so invalid. Just to point that out…

 

[PRmerger]

Not true, each of the Apostles were given the authority of God!

This is very Catholic of you to say, Nikicosier. It is a non-sequitur, but true nonetheless.

You have not addressed how it is you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired, except through the authority of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

 

[Nikicosier]

Amen!

But I didn’t see the word “only” in that verse.

Is that not adding to Scripture?

No… it seems pretty final… the words themselves don’t leave much room for anything else. Also it should be taken within the context of ALL scripture…which has a distinct emphasis on the exact same thing. no-one (well that is self explainitory… doesn’t leave exceptions in that word…eg no one except catholics?? nope… pretty clear) and then “except” is also pretty exclusive… (not except through me - by way of the Catholic church through the sacraments and the adhering to the authority of the pope and magisterium…)
It seems pretty final and clear. You are right though… I don’t intend to ‘add’ to the Bible (for church the Bible itself says we should be put to death for that particular crime…).

 

[Nikicosier]

“To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to ‘be saved.’ To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever.” – Martin Luther

Jesus doesn’t say that Baptism is crucial for salvation and that we will go to purgatory in the interrim otherwise…

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants don’t believe that there wasn’t a time when God’s word was spoken (tradition) but we believe that the Scriptures are God’s final and full revelation to humankind.

Well, since Protestants are a behemoth of denominations, claiming a multitude of beliefs, it’s actually not correct to say that “Protestants don’t believe that…”

Some do. Some don’t.

However, to say that the Scriptures are God’s final and full revelation to mankind is a…

man-made tradition.

Ironic, isn’t it? You are criticizing the CC for holding beliefs not found in Scripture, yet here you are proclaiming one of your own!

There is NO VERSE that says that the Scriptures are God’s final and full revelation to mankind.

While it is true that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16) that does not equate to Scripture being God’s final and full revelation to mankind.

You have simply been duped into believing what a (fallible) man has told you, who heard it from another (fallible) man…who heard it from another (fallible) man…

but no one read “the Scriptures are God’s final and full revelation to mankind” in a single page of Scripture.

One can search from Genesis to Revelation for that verse…but he will never find that.

 

[Porknpie]

At the moment I attend a Baptist Church but am at home in lots of Churches (including the Catholic Church - we disagree… but that’s not a bad thing!). I believe that the Bible is infallible (without error) and believe that some of the traditions of the church have merit too! So I would say that i’m Christian Protestant but not attached to a PARTICULAR denomination. I believe that Christ alone is needed for a Christian. If the bible is the word of God, and God doesn’t make mistakes, then anything that conflicts with what the Bible says should be rejected! The Bible (thus God) warns us about being led astray and Paul commands us to be like the Bereans and test what we are told against the scriptures!
Does that help?

Great Niki. Thank you for sharing. All Catholics agree with your bolded words above. So the bible says …

• that one must be baptized to be saved. Do you believe this? Do you know if you were baptized?Mark 16:16
  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
• Jesus tell us in John 6, multiple times, that we need to receive his body and blood in the Eucharist. Do you believe in the real presence?

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

• do you believe that you have to keep the commandments in order to be saved?

Matthew 19
17 He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.* If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

 

[cheezey]

well, since protestants are a behemoth of denominations, claiming a multitude of beliefs, it’s actually not correct to say that “protestants don’t believe that…”

some do. Some don’t.

thank you!!!
:clapping:

 

[guanophore]

  Yes, how many examples do you want? I'l start listing some and you can contact me again if you want more!

1. The arguement for tradition itself to be held as an authority

Can you explain why these Apostolic instructions should not be followed?

1 Cor 11:2-3
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

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

How do you see that what is by mouth is not equal to what is written?

as well as the Papal line.

What exactly is a “papal line”?

1. Purgatory and Indulgences

I can see why you would have a hard time seeing purgatory in your Bible, since some of the books were removed. It does leave you at a disadvantage. However, I will give you one scriptural reference to purgatory:

1 Cor 3:15
15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Purgatory is the state during which people are purged (cleansed) of any works not commendable to God. It is only available to those who are saved.

What is an indulgence?

1. The Exultation of Mary

there is nothing more biblical than the exultation of Mary. Perhaps you might look this up before you level this charge against Catholics. You are probably wanting to charge us with exaltation.

1. Sacramentalism

Can you please define a “sacrament”, and then “sacramentalism”? I am assuming you are referring to believing in a “sacrament”. What is that, exactly?

1. The Apocrypha

I think you are referring to the Deuterocanon? Can you show me where in the bible there is a list of what books belong in the Bible? Maybe that is the best place to start on this point.

6. Papal infallibility

What does this term mean?

& the Teaching Authority of the Chruch

I am curious to learn what authority you believe Jesus gave to His Apostles.

Just to name a few. Let me know if you want me to expand on any of these issues or if you want me to expand my list!

Yes, please, expand, but let’s not add any mroe to the list just yet.

 

[PRmerger]

No… it seems pretty final… the words themselves don’t leave much room for anything else.

It does appear that you are adding to Scripture, Niki. For nowhere do those verses claim that the ONLY thing that is required for salvation is faith in Jesus.

Rather, this is how Catholics believe we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

There are no ONLYs in our sotieriology except these: ONLY through JESUS are we saved ONLY through His Body, the Catholic Church.

 

[Nikicosier]

Along the lines of this same theme of difficulty in having unity, I would ask the following: Is preaching a Gospel based on “faith alone” preaching a “different” Gospel, as Paul warned about? Don’t know, just asking.

He was talking about preaching something other than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A good example is that of the JWs who teach that Jesus was Michael incarnate and not the Son of God but just another god (little god emphasised).
Well… thats the short answer!

 

[Nikicosier]

This is very Catholic of you to say, Nikicosier. It is a non-sequitur, but true nonetheless.

You have not addressed how it is you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired, except through the authority of the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Sorry PR… I missed this one earlier! It’s very difficult to keep track of all the qu/responses.

Ok FIRSTLY… IIf i turn that around and aks you “how do you know that Tradition is divinely inspired”

SECONDLY, Mark was an Apostle of God (as can be read in the Bible) and thus divinely elected to teach and have the authority of God (do you disagree) therefore, what he teaches and therefore writes, has the full weighting of divine authority behind it!

Please don’t missunderstand, as i’ve said in other posts (difficult to catch them all…) i do not reject tradition wholy but I do reject tradition as having the same authority as the Bible or that it has divine authority. Many of the traditions of the Church were NOT 1st century traditions. Many came much much much later (generations) time enough for untruths to be injected in. Tradition has a very valid place but not when it conflicts with what the Bible says.

 

[guanophore]

Not sure what you mean by “papal line” but as far as Tradition being a channel of God’s revelation…I posit that you yourself are an advocate of Sacred Tradition.

You acknowledge Sacred Tradition each and every time you quote from, say, the Gospel of Mark.

For the fact that the Gospel of Mark is* theopneustos* is only know because of…

Sacred Tradition.

Not true, each of the Apostles were given the authority of God! The Bible states as much.

I think you are missing PR’s point, Niki. PR is saying that you affirm Sacred Tradition whenever you use teh Gospel of Mark. Mark’s authority came from Peter, through the Apostolic Succession.

It is not only by tradition that we believe that the Bible has authority! If that were the case... Christians would not have a very good arguement for sharing the good news of the Gospel!

Really? Then where do you think the authority comes from? Scripture itself says that all authority comes from God. Where did He give the table of contents for the Bible?

 I don't believe that Tradition has NO place... just not the same authority as that of the Bible!

It seems that the Bible says differently, since the two are considered equal.

I respect tradition - not exault it!

Sacred Tradition is the Word of God at work in the Church. God is able to preserve His Word where it is placed.

1 Thess 2:13-14

13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men** but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. **

The Word of God is authorative, whether it is written, or by word of mouth.

Protestants don’t believe that there wasn’t a time when God’s word was spoken (tradition) but we believe that the Scriptures are God’s final and full revelation to humankind.

This is interesting, because it opposes the Scriptures.

The oral traditions once communicated by the apostles have been committed to apostolic writing for all generations to come.

Where does it say this in your bible?

I think you are clinging to an extrabiblical tradition of men here. It was necessary for the Reformers to create this myth, so as to set aside the authority of the Catholic Church.

It is much easier to disobey Sacred Tradition when you can claim it does not exist!

There is no evidence in the Bible that Tradition is ‘apostolic’, or as being God’s revelation, or as something that has an authority equal to that of Scripture.

Clearly you read your bible differently than we do. It seems clear to us that the Apostles commended the Christians for holding fast to the traditions as they were communicated by the Apostles.

I have great respect for our common early church fathers, though I obviously don’t believe they are infallible.

I don’t see how you can claim to respect them, since they espouse Sacred Tradition.

You can’t argue for Tradition using tradition as the evidence… it’s circular reasoning - so invalid. Just to point that out…

I can see your point. The entire NT is a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition, so it does seem circular to quote the contents of the NT to “prove” ST.