A
adstrinity
Guest
:yup:
:clapping:
- Status
:clapping:
K
kaycee
Guest
Is’nt that reading a bit more into the text???IMoses went up with 70 of the elders! This was a Synod. Before the books were brought to the people of Israel, they Synod approved the books.
Once again we see Protestants selectively picking passages to support their private interpretation and just a little digging undermines their entire case.
The tablets were still hot from being written with the finger of GOD but it needed a “synod” to infallibly aprove them?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Perhaps it is due for another thread, but I wanted to share that this is a thought I’ve been exploring recently, and it has disturbing implications. I wouldn’t say that Protestantism ever became the dominant form of Christianity, as it absolutely hasn’t ever even come close. What HAS happened, however, is that Protestant thinking (or lack thereof) has infiltrated the Christian mind, even many Catholics. It absolutely infiltrated European culture and society, and I believe that is precisely why European culture and faith has collapsed in the past two centuries.
If there’s no causality, it’s at least an interesting observation given what we know of the conclusions that Protestantism logically leads to.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Ever read “Liberalism is Sin”? It basically offers the same theory. By removing Tradition and the Magesterium, people could interpret the Bible–and God–however they saw fit. Catholic moral culture lasted a while, but with no solid foundation, it gave way and people were more likely to be swept around by their passions. Now, of course, many Protestants still interpret God to a point where they are at least close to Catholic moral culture (with the exception of contraception and divorce in most cases). Then on the other hand, there are many protestants (and dissenting Catholics, essentially Protestants because they deny the Magesterium and Tradition) who interpret God to approve of attrocities like abortion and homosexuality among other things.
I
inflyt
Guest
It depends on what textual traditional one follows. If one accepts the Alexandrian tradition then Luther is right. However, if one accepts the Byzantine tradition then one follows a tradition centered in Antioch. If “Papists” is used in a general sense by Luther as the “early catholic church,” then his use is ignorantly loaded since Antioch and Rome were often in competition with each other (and still are in a sense if, for example, one follows the byzantine tradition).
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
I bolded part of your statement because it jumped out at me.
Do you realize what you’re saying here? You trust them because they happen to agree with *you. *You have set yourself up as an authority, as the final arbitrator.
So very true–and one of the main problems with Protestanism. Whenever a group splinters into two, one of them must be in error. Therefore, error is promulgated.
And what if you’re on the wrong side? Isn’t that a lot to gamble your immortal soul on?
Besides, God has already revealed who is right. He promised us that the gates of Hell would never overcome the Church He founded.
E
Eden
Guest
Luther broke away from the Western church. The great schism had already occurred. “Eastern” and “Western” were one church called “Catholic” at the 4th century synods in which the canon was decided. The Church that Luther “protested against” was the Western “Roman” Catholic Church. So, Luther’s statement is accurate with respect to Protestantism.
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
Someone asked him this question. He answered by saying it wasn’t a synod because Moses went up on the mountain alone and left the others behind while God gave him the word.
I
inflyt
Guest
Obviously, Luther protested against Rome. My point is that the various centers of the early church had fierce contention among themselves over who had the greatest authority. Out of this contention two different canons emerged: one based on the byzantine text tradition (the majority text tradition) and the other (the Roman Catholic tradition) based on the Alexandrian text tradition (used by Jerome).
As far as who I trust for my eternal salvation? I would rather trust the leadings of the holy ghost and the concurrence of fellowship that I have with a few than with the traditions of men. The peace I have with God, the fellowship I have with my family, as well as the quickening of his spirit are my comforters.
As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against his church, my family and those like us (i.e. a scattered church that rejects organized religion) are proof that the gates of hell have not prevailed.
As far as who I trust for my eternal salvation? I would rather trust the leadings of the holy ghost and the concurrence of fellowship that I have with a few than with the traditions of men. The peace I have with God, the fellowship I have with my family, as well as the quickening of his spirit are my comforters.
As far as the gates of hell not prevailing against his church, my family and those like us (i.e. a scattered church that rejects organized religion) are proof that the gates of hell have not prevailed.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Does it matter to you that the Apostles used the OT canon containing the “extra” books?
I
inflyt
Guest
Not really. God created the majority text based on the inspired writings of the Apostles that he wanted to include. The majority text doesn’t have to contain every inspired word ever written, just those God knows is necessary for completeness in the faith. I find the letters of Enoch (from which Jude quotes for example) personally interesting, but I would not want them included in the Bible.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Real quick…Does anyone here know the actual quote by John Henry Cardinal Newman about Protestantism and History? Someone mentioned part of it in this thread, but not the whole thing. It is a very interesting quote, but I have seen several versions of it and haven’t been able to find the original source. So, does anyone know what the actual quote is and where I can find it? Thanks!
God Bless!
God Bless!
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
The Iambic Pen:
From *An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. *Available online here:
www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
From *An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. *Available online here:
www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html
J
janman55
Guest
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Thanks Kay Cee! 
I
inflyt
Guest
I need to clarify my use of “church.” I have used it loosely in previous postings. My definition of church is “the fellowship of believers.” I do not believe that the earthly organization of the true church continued after the departure of Paul. Furthermore, Peter’s spiritual authority is passed down exclusively through the authority of the Majority Text. The early authority was centered in Peter because the Majority Text was still forming. That generally recognized as “the church” today is from my perspective Babylon (Roman Catholicism) and her daughters (all the other religious institutions who claim Christ, e.g. Protestantism).
Strong contentions over authority existed among believers in the early church. Groups such as the Montanists fought centralized control of believers. Tertullian “fiercely attacks those” who condemned the montanists and attacked the “church” authorities as more interested in their own political power in the “church” than in listening to the spirit.
The issue is not whether the montanists survived as a specific group. If they had they would have no doubt become a daughter of Babylon. The issue is that God raises up individuals through history who oppose the institutional forces that ultimately canonize the wrong Bible and the wrong doctrine. The true canon found in the majority text is forever brought alive by God’s true saints.
In more recent times, William Tyndale (martryed by Babylon) carried on this tradition by revealing the true new testament canon in English. Millions across Europe were martyred by Babylon because they too “came out of her” and returned to the true authority of Peter: the authority of scripture and the spirit of God.
God loves to work in new ways according to earthly appearance to magnify his spiritual truths found in the majority text which remain forever the same.
Today, the true church is found in the collective body of family churches that with growing knowledge of Babylon reject organized religion altogether and hold to the majority text.
Strong contentions over authority existed among believers in the early church. Groups such as the Montanists fought centralized control of believers. Tertullian “fiercely attacks those” who condemned the montanists and attacked the “church” authorities as more interested in their own political power in the “church” than in listening to the spirit.
The issue is not whether the montanists survived as a specific group. If they had they would have no doubt become a daughter of Babylon. The issue is that God raises up individuals through history who oppose the institutional forces that ultimately canonize the wrong Bible and the wrong doctrine. The true canon found in the majority text is forever brought alive by God’s true saints.
In more recent times, William Tyndale (martryed by Babylon) carried on this tradition by revealing the true new testament canon in English. Millions across Europe were martyred by Babylon because they too “came out of her” and returned to the true authority of Peter: the authority of scripture and the spirit of God.
God loves to work in new ways according to earthly appearance to magnify his spiritual truths found in the majority text which remain forever the same.
Today, the true church is found in the collective body of family churches that with growing knowledge of Babylon reject organized religion altogether and hold to the majority text.
W
Wormwood
Guest
Insert: “the flawed logic of” in front of “the infallable”, and address the question yourself. Perhaps you are wrong; surely winning an election whose ballots were cast by fallable men, can not infere upon you infallable status. Also don’t forget, it was the corruption of the catholic church which led to the splintering…it wasn’t protestants manipulating governments and selling indulgences. All people are flawed, hence the need for religion and moral instruction. If you put ten people into a room and gave each a copy of the same book, you would hear ten different interpretations of meaning and importance of one chapter over another, and that seems to be the case with christianity. It seems like everyone is just splitting hairs and making this way more difficult than it has to be. I think in all this petty arguing about minute themes, you forget the major ones like don’t judge people and love your neighbor. In this culture, and especially with younger people, you should just be glad they are interested in God at all, and know that on some base level you guys are all on the same team.If they’d even entertain the idea that they might be wrong. I find it highly ironic that people who will not/cannot believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church think that they can take it upon themselves that very infallibility for what they want to think is true and what they want to believe.
G
Ghosty
Guest
You would not, however, find this in the Catholic Church. It has been consistant in its doctrinal interpretations since its founding in c 30 A.D.
Being the Church that wrote the Scriptures in the first place gives it a perspective that the others, to put it mildly, lack.
As for your notions of infallibility, you seem to be forgetting that there is nothing inherent in the pope that makes him infallible. The office of the Papacy is what is infallible. When the pope isn’t acting in the capacity of that office, he is most assuredly not considered infallible. The “elected by fallible men” really means nothing, because the office of the Papacy was not established by infallible men, but by the Son of God.
Futhermore, the corruption you cite was not actually at the core of Catholicism. The bishops who were “selling indulgences” in the manner Luther complained about were punished, some removed from their bishopric, long before Luther made his actual split. Not all of the 95 Theses were condemned by the Church, after all.
G
Genesis315
Guest
People who say forget everything but the two things you mentioned, usually have no clue what those things mean. Don’t judge means don’t judge the state of someone’s soul. We can objectively judge their actions as being in line with God’s commadments or not. Showing others the erros of their ways IS loving them. To be indifferent to fact that they are on a potentially destructive path is not love.
Pointing out the errors people hold concerning their idea of God is also loving. A loving person wants all men to come to know all Truth. We need to discus the things we don’t agree on because that is the only way to teach the Truth to those in error. If a teacher knows one of her students thinks 2+2=3, she doesn’t brush that under the table and focus on the fact that at least the kid knows the alphabet. Quite the contrary, she stops teaching the alphabet once the kid gets it and moves on to new lessons.
As for being happy kids are interested in God, that’s great, but we shouldn’t be ahppy with them having lukewarm faith. Jesus spits out the lukewarm into the pit of fire. Being happy with them having a mild interest on God is not loving at all.
Feel-good kumbaya stuff is not love. Here’s what our pope says about that stuff:
And here’s another by Bishop Fulton Sheen whish is also on this theme:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Hmmm, I had no idea Iraq was was martyring millions is Europe…
By the way, when listing an anti-Catholic “fact,” please cite the Lorraine Boettner book, JM Carroll lecture, or Chick tract you got it from.
- Status