Fresh Starting: Protestants

[inJESUS]

Zooey, regarding the creation event, how can i possibly go to hell for not believing it “must” be taken literally? i mean, i don’t know…it could be literal or not, but why would it change anything? no i don’t think this will lead to rejecting all scripture!! but there ARE things that CANNOT be taken literally and things were you just don’t know.

regarding salvation, i believe that all who strive to follow Christ,who listen and do what He asked and who put their faith in Him, are going to heaven. Now am sure i’ll get remarks from “some” Catholics but that’s my own understanding about the Jesus’ Love.

 

[JMM159]

Ok, am one of those who do not differentiate between Christians and i never lived this contentions or even felt it.

Really? Do you know atleast what your Catholic catechism says? Here is a glimpse:

Lesson 14:
Interpreting The Bible
1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?
The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: “… hard to be understood …” (II Pet. III,16).

2. Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?
The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us.

3. Is it natural that we should have a guide in interpreting the Bible?
Quite natural, just as in America, we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States. The difference is that the Church is infallible and the Supreme Court is not!

4. So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?
No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

**5. How does that guidance manifest itself? **
Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men.

6. Do Protestants acknowledge the interpretation of the Church or of any other authority?
No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation.

**7. Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one? **
No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason.

8. How is it against reason?
Because the result of this belief has been that, as many interpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and many of these interpretations contradict each other; since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants is false.
drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson14

If the belief of Protestants (that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation) is against the Bible, against Tradition and against reason according to Catholic catechism then in what sense you as a Catholic “do not differentiate between Christians and you never lived this contentions or even felt it”? You must either be a most ignorant catholic or a deceiver and liar.

And if you “do not differentiate between Christians and you never lived this contentions or even felt it” then why your Church excommunicated Luther? Was he not a Christian even after opposing views of your Church? Was he a most ignorant person like you? or Are you more knowlegeable than Luther about what Catholic church is all about?

Is you Church ready to appoint a Protestant as an infallible Pope?

 

[inJESUS]

you already hijacked other threads with your hatred Muslim.Back off from this thead and may God save you from your hatred through His love.

 

[Eden]

I think we should let JMM go on and on. His posts just turn more people away from what he is promoting.

 

[inJESUS]

I think we should let JMM go on and on. His posts just turn more people away from what he is promoting.

yea and now he posted a new thread on how great Islam is …

 

[JMM159]

you already hijacked other threads with your hatred Muslim.Back off from this thead and may God save you from your hatred through His love.

You mean when you say anything about Islam it is not hatred and if someone merely qoutes what your Catholic catechism says, it is hatred towards you?

Did I write the following:

**6. Do Protestants acknowledge the interpretation of the Church or of any other authority? **
No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation.

7. Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one?
No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason.

**8. How is it against reason? **
Because the result of this belief has been that, as many interpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and many of these interpretations contradict each other; since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants is false.
drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson14

I am simply asking you to read atleast your own Catechism first before making very bold statements such as:

Originally Posted by inJESUS
Ok, am one of those who do not differentiate between Christians and i never lived this contentions or even felt it.

unless you are actually not a Catholic or did not really believe in what Catholic catechism teaches about Protestants/Protestantism.

Now tell me with the above Catechism, who your really fooling by saying “you do not differentiate between Christians”? Atleast not me nor I think any knowledgeable Protestant will take your word seriously as they know what infact Catholic church teaches and why Luther was excommunicated.

 

[JMM159]

I think we should let JMM go on and on. His posts just turn more people away from what he is promoting.

Thanks Eden fro your support. It is evident that how much inJesus have hatred for Islam and Muslims.

But as far your signature is concerned which says:

Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Rt. Rev. H.G. Graham

Are you telling us that Orthodox Bibles which have more books than your Catholic Bibles are because of your Church? If so then from where did Orthodox got extra books?

And as far Protestants’ Bibles your Catholic catechism tells us (and I simply qoute):

Lesson 16:
Differences Between Catholic And Protestant Versions

**1. Does the Catholic version of the Bible differ from Protestant versions? **
Yes, in many ways.

**2. What is the most noticeable difference? **
The most noticeable difference is the absence of seven whole books and parts of two others from the Protestant versions.

**3. What books are not contained in the Protestant version? **
The Deutero-Canonical Books (See lesson 6).

**4. Why are the Deutero-Canonical Books Omitted by Protestants? **
Because the Protestant versions of the Bible follow the late Palestinian version of the Bible, which also omits these books (See lesson 8).

5. Name another difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions.
Many important arbitrary changes are found in the texts of the Protestant Bible. According to some scholars, the most popular Protestant Bibles have literally hundreds of mistranslations, additions and omissions.

**6. To what do such changes of text lead? **
They lead to an entirely different interpretation from the one intended by the Sacred Writer.

7. Give an example of this change of text.
St Paul says, “… Being therefore justified by Faith …” (Rom. V, 1), and Luther inserted the word “alone” so that the text reads, “Being therefore justified by faith alone.”

8. Why were the Reformers so anxious to change texts?
They were anxious to change texts to give force to the particular doctrine of their choice.

**9. Should that behavior of the Reformers raise some questions in our mind? **
Yes, what did they believe exactly concerning the Bible? Either they did not believe it was the Word of God, and therefore felt free to change it any which way; or if they did believe it was the Word of God, it took a lot of pride and presumption to correct God’s word. In either case, they should be called “Deformers” rather than Reformers.

10. Name other differences between the King James version and the Douay version.
The King James version has a preference for words of Anglo-Saxon origin whereas the Douay version freely uses words of Latin origin. The Douay version latinizes the name of some books while the King James gives what they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name. Many Protestant versions other than King James omit the Epistle of St. James.

drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson16

Now I will cite an example to see how different are Protestant and Catholic Bibles:

cont

 

[JMM159]

Now I will cite an example to see how different are Protestant and Catholic Bibles:

in Isaiah 7:20 - Authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1611 says:

007:020 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.
jesus-is-lord.com/23_isaia.htm

But your Catholic The New American Bible says in same Isaiah 7:20:

20 9 On that day the LORD shall shave with the razor hired from across the River (with the king of Assyria) the head, and the hair between the legs. It shall also shave off the beard.
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah7.htm

The question is from where this latest Catholic Bible of your “infallible” Church got the words “the hair between the legs” which I do not see in the Authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1611 which is “according to some scholars, have literally hundreds of mistranslations, additions and omissions.”

If your Catholic Bible is more accurate and infallible then your God will shave the hair between your legs. If Protestant Bible is more accurate then their Protestant God will shave the hair of their feet …though it did not specify how high he will shave their feet thus this is Protestants’ headache to clarify it.

What surprises me is that your Douay R. Bible too have mentioned “hairs of the feet” earlier unlike your latest New American Bible.

So what made or who inspired the writers of the New American Bible to go into specific details of shaving acts of Catholic God by specifically mentioning “the hair between the legs” after more than a thousand years in the 1970s?

Is Catholic Church receiving new inspiration from Holy Ghost? If so then how your God will shave the hair between your legs with a rented razor without taking your genitals in his hands? Is it done publically or in secret individually one-o-one basis? If individually then what guarantee is that your God will shave all of his people to inflict his disgrace and sufferings? What if he comes out from ‘Room for shaving the hair between your legs’ and just say to the Buddhists, “I shaved the hair between the legs of all of my people” but infact may not have shaved and Buddhists must be at the false impression?

But I think, Buddhists may believe in such disgracefull/suffering acts of your Loving God because if your God can spread not just your own dung on your faces but also the dung of your sacrificed animals, then why not shaving the hair between your legs and genitals with a rented razor is possible even if it is done secretly on 1-o-1 basis? And why your God has to worry about the shaving razor if it becomes unholy due to shaving your genitals because it is not his but belongs to the Assyrians, anyway. duh…!!! Don’t forget this fact…But I am amazed at the speciality and durablity of Assyrians’ razor which will shave hairs of all of your God’s people.

 

[JMM159]

I hope now you understand why Islam is growing faster and why the present Pope was out of his mind to attack Islam instead of defending his own faith because he can never make his case of Catholicism rationally and logically even with his new inspired verse of Isaiah 7:20 which specifically says that his Catholic God will shave the hair between the legs of his own people to inflict his disgracwe ans sufferings…even then Pope attacked Islam with a bogus outdated centuries old comment of a nonsens Emporer. I wish he had used Isaiah 7:20 of his “infallible” New American Bible to justify his Catholic “rationality”. Do you think Pope is not aware of this verse and Malachi 2:3?

 

[Zooey]

Zooey, regarding the creation event, how can i possibly go to hell for not believing it “must” be taken literally? i mean, i don’t know…it could be literal or not, but why would it change anything? no i don’t think this will lead to rejecting all scripture!! but there ARE things that CANNOT be taken literally and things were you just don’t know.

regarding salvation, i believe that all who strive to follow Christ,who listen and do what He asked and who put their faith in Him, are going to heaven. Now am sure i’ll get remarks from “some” Catholics but that’s my own understanding about the Jesus’ Love.

And I agree with everything you’ve said here…I suspect I may take parts of the Bible a little more literally than you do, only because of the way you phrased this answer, but that’s OK!!
It’s just that there are people among fundamentalists especially, who have a very, very rigid idea of what folks “have to believe” in order to be saved.
Now, I sometimes have spent days & nights on end,( seemingly at least), at this computer, arguing with this particular lot when they show up here. I have to chuckle a little inwardly, in fact, when a Catholic poster says something about Protestants thinking that “all you have to do is believe in Jesus”, & I think: “Oh, boy; you don’t know the half of it!!”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Protestants are taught from very young to read their Bible and Pray for the Holy Spirit toguide them in what to believe. The ones who grow up in one or the other, generally believe what they have been taught their whole lives. Others study them and the scriptures and choose what makes the most sense to them.

In my case, I grew up in non-denominational churches that never went indepth in studying these things, but someone gave me a Bible Commentary when I was 9 years old that I started to use in my Bible studies. NOW, I understand that that commentary shaped many of my beliefs because it was slanted towards Arminianism.

I believe Catholics have some optins on what to believe too, like Predestination (not Double) and weather to believe Creation was literal in the Bible or not literally that way. How do you handle those sorts of choices?

IIRC, double predestination is fine - double ***positive ***predestination, is not​

So it would be impermissible for a Catholic to maintain that God positively predestines anyone to be reprobated - if by this were meant, that the act of God in decreeing the predestination of those He elects to salvation, & His activity toward the non-elect, were symmetrical. So to say that He decrees the non-election of the non-elect in such a way that He positively wills that they be reprobated, is not allowed - one is forbidden to ascribe to Him the same sort of activity in both cases.

I don’t know whether there is (in Catholic theology) any decree regarding the non-elect at all.

I prefer Calvin’s method of approach, as it consults the Bible constantly - the Catholic approach is too remorselessly philosophical. Since these things are revealed truths, not metaphysical propositions, human philosophising has to be curbed by what it has pleased Almighty God to reveal of his purposes. I particularly love Calvin’s frequent rebukes of the tendency of reason to pry into the secret things of God - he insists that we must rather adore that which our blind, fallen, and sinful minds cannot penetrate.

As to the further question whether one is allowed to hold double pos. pred. ***if ***one can reconcile it with Catholic teaching, I don’t know the answer. The teaching of the Council of Orange, Quierzy, & Trent, is permanent Catholic teaching, & cannot legitimately be rejected - supplemented, yes; subtracted from, no, fasified, no; neither can their anathemas.

That said, this does not settle whether DPP is absolutely & in all possible forms condemned - what is condemned, is (for instance) anything that makes God the Author of evil, or denies the reality of moral choice, or requires Him to create human beings purely so that He may condemn them to damnation.

What does seem not to be allowed, is any suggestion that condemned propositions do not accurately represent the ideas they express. From which it seems to follow that if someone is credited with a doctrine in a particular form, he taught it in that particular form. ##

 

[Syele]

IIRC, double predestination is fine - double ***positive ***predestination, is not​

So it would be impermissible for a Catholic to maintain that God positively predestines anyone to be reprobated - if by this were meant, that the act of God in decreeing the predestination of those He elects to salvation, & His activity toward the non-elect, were symmetrical. So to say that He decrees the non-election of the non-elect in such a way that He positively wills that they be reprobated, is not allowed - one is forbidden to ascribe to Him the same sort of activity in both cases.

I don’t know whether there is (in Catholic theology) any decree regarding the non-elect at all.

I prefer Calvin’s method of approach, as it consults the Bible constantly - the Catholic approach is too remorselessly philosophical. Since these things are revealed truths, not metaphysical propositions, human philosophising has to be curbed by what it has pleased Almighty God to reveal of his purposes. I particularly love Calvin’s frequent rebukes of the tendency of reason to pry into the secret things of God - he insists that we must rather adore that which our blind, fallen, and sinful minds cannot penetrate.

As to the further question whether one is allowed to hold double pos. pred. ***if ***one can reconcile it with Catholic teaching, I don’t know the answer. The teaching of the Council of Orange, Quierzy, & Trent, is permanent Catholic teaching, & cannot legitimately be rejected - supplemented, yes; subtracted from, no, fasified, no; neither can their anathemas.

That said, this does not settle whether DPP is absolutely & in all possible forms condemned - what is condemned, is (for instance) anything that makes God the Author of evil, or denies the reality of moral choice, or requires Him to create human beings purely so that He may condemn them to damnation.

What does seem not to be allowed, is any suggestion that condemned propositions do not accurately represent the ideas they express. From which it seems to follow that if someone is credited with a doctrine in a particular form, he taught it in that particular form. ##

Sorry to be unclear, I did mean double ***positive ***predestination.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Maybe he is aware he is talking to Protestants who use the Bible as their Authority?

Perhaps because the only reason to believe OSAS, TULIP, or a thousand other things, is the Bible ​

Only the revealed Word of God has anything to say about

• the Glory of Christ Our Head
• the eternal counsel of God
• the creation of all things by God
• His foreknowledge
• His Providence
• The Holy Spirit
• election
• predestination
• fore-ordination
• sin
• preterition
• love of predilection
• effectual calling
• justification
• regeneration
• sanctification
• preservation of the saints

• & all the other things relating to them. Nature suggests many analogies to some of these, but the revealed &inspired Word of God alone proclaims them as revealed truth.

Authoritative ? You bet !!!

 

[Syele]

Perhaps because the only reason to believe OSAS, TULIP, or a thousand other things, is the Bible ​

Only the revealed Word of God has anything to say about

• the Glory of Christ Our Head
• the eternal counsel of God
• the creation of all things by God
• His foreknowledge
• His Providence
• The Holy Spirit
• election
• predestination
• fore-ordination
• sin
• preterition
• love of predilection
• effectual calling
• justification
• regeneration
• sanctification
• preservation of the saints

• & all the other things relating to them. Nature suggests many analogies to some of these, but the revealed &inspired Word of God alone proclaims them as revealed truth.

Authoritative ? You bet !!!

Umm, I’m not getting your point. I already believe the Bible is Authoritative.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Now I will cite an example to see how different are Protestant and Catholic Bibles:

in Isaiah 7:20 - Authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1611 says:

But your Catholic The New American Bible says in same Isaiah 7:20:

The question is from where this latest Catholic Bible of your “infallible” Church got the words “the hair between the legs” which I do not see in the Authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1611 which is “according to some scholars, have literally hundreds of mistranslations, additions and omissions.”

“feet” is a euphemism for “genitals”.​

The translators of both versions knew rather more about the text they were translating than some of their critics - which is no reflection on either group of translators.

Besides, unpleasant as the verse may seem when ripped out of context, it is from a passage describing an unpleasant experience - that of deportation by an invading army.

Or are the Prophets of God - such as Isaiah - not to warn His People what they are risking by their sins ?

This objection is very silly.

Of course the AV-KJV has its flaws - so what ? All versions do - that doesn’t matter a straw if God blesses the use of them to His People. And He has abundantly blessed the use of these versions. He is greater than the means we use to set Him forth. To Him be all the Glory !!

If your Catholic Bible is more accurate and infallible then your God will shave the hair between your legs. If Protestant Bible is more accurate then their Protestant God will shave the hair of their feet …though it did not specify how high he will shave their feet thus this is Protestants’ headache to clarify it.

What surprises me is that your Douay R. Bible too have mentioned “hairs of the feet” earlier unlike your latest New American Bible.

So what made or who inspired the writers of the New American Bible to go into specific details of shaving acts of Catholic God by specifically mentioning “the hair between the legs” after more than a thousand years in the 1970s?

Is Catholic Church receiving new inspiration from Holy Ghost? If so then how your God will shave the hair between your legs with a rented razor without taking your genitals in his hands? Is it done publically or in secret individually one-o-one basis? If individually then what guarantee is that your God will shave all of his people to inflict his disgrace and sufferings? What if he comes out from ‘Room for shaving the hair between your legs’ and just say to the Buddhists, “I shaved the hair between the legs of all of my people” but infact may not have shaved and Buddhists must be at the false impression?

But I think, Buddhists may believe in such disgracefull/suffering acts of your Loving God because if your God can spread not just your own dung on your faces but also the dung of your sacrificed animals, then why not shaving the hair between your legs and genitals with a rented razor is possible even if it is done secretly on 1-o-1 basis? And why your God has to worry about the shaving razor if it becomes unholy due to shaving your genitals because it is not his but belongs to the Assyrians, anyway. duh…!!! Don’t forget this fact…But I am amazed at the speciality and durablity of Assyrians’ razor which will shave hairs of all of your God’s people.

It is a great pity you insist on using the Word of God to your own destruction ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Umm, I’m not getting your point. I already believe the Bible is Authoritative.

I was responding to an implication in the post, that’s all ​

 

[Syele]

I was responding to an implication in the post, that’s all ​

my post was a response to someone who was surprised that a Catholic would ask a Protestant for Scripture to back up a position. Why shouldn’t a protestant back up their postion with scripture? they aren’t gonna back it up with the writings of the Catholic Church.

 

[lak611]

I missed answering this one erlier…

With predestination, All men have sinned and so offended God, and therefore deserve hell. It is only because he is merciful that He chose to save some of them.

This, to me, is contradictory to 1 Timothy 2:4. I believe that God wants everybody to be saved. If people do not get saved, it isn’t because God rejected them; but rather, because they rejected God’s gift of salvation. He offers it to all, but He does not force it upon any of us. We can choose to live in sin if that’s what we want.

 

[Syele]

This, to me, is contradictory to 1 Timothy 2:4. I believe that God wants everybody to be saved. If people do not get saved, it isn’t because God rejected them; but rather, because they rejected God’s gift of salvation. He offers it to all, but He does not force it upon any of us. We can choose to live in sin if that’s what we want.

I agree wioth you.

 

[flameburns623]

This, to me, is contradictory to 1 Timothy 2:4. I believe that God wants everybody to be saved. If people do not get saved, it isn’t because God rejected them; but rather, because they rejected God’s gift of salvation. He offers it to all, but He does not force it upon any of us. We can choose to live in sin if that’s what we want.

Take a look at this commentary on the passage you cite. Please note that the Catholic corollary to Arminianism is called ‘Molinism’.

albatrus.org/english/universalistic/universalistic_passages/1timothy_2.4.htm