Here is your chance Protestants!

[Church_Militant]

oriel36:

You are a modern form of the Alogi or those people who made a nuisance of themselves by trying to deny the Johannine works and subsequently it shows up in your views of the Church as dictating faith and morals.

"But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God."usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm

You became a Catholic by your own decision but I am a Catholic who became an Apostolic Christian by the gift of God.This is why there are always two Christians within the ranks of Apostolic Christianity.While I treaure my Catholic heritage from the community,the ground in which God chooses to bestow the gift,just as the Johannine Word says is non denominational Love.

Anyone on either denominational side who works towards baiting is not a Christian,Catholic or otherwise.

Go serve your master - the devil.

I just have to weigh in here and offer this, Oriel36 has some highly messed up ideas about the early church and is frankly a long way from being a Catholic in what she espouses. What I believe we have here is either a non-Catholic posing as a Catholic, or a “charismatic Catholic” who has become so messed up by her associations with Pentecostals that she is now more Pentecostal than anything else. This is probably the result of her wanting to fit in with them and be accepted by them, and in so doing she has sacrificed all that made her part of the Catholic Church to begin with. She has espoused Sola Scriptura in her posts and implied that we are not apostolic Christians. I note with some distress that she never uses a Catholic version of the Bible and the sites she links are not Catholic aside from New Advent (but only once I think).

Her allegations and statements are (IMO) a fine example of what will happen if a Catholic does not know and understand what the Church really teaches and then seeks communion with the variant denoms of American Pentecostalism.

Her final statement is typical of someone immmersed in anti-Catholicism…as are her relatavistic arguments .
Pax vobiscum,

 

[JPhoenix75]

That last qoute she states is just plain blatant Anti-Catholicism. I’ll even laugh if she says says that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

 

[RedDeathsMask]

Church Militant:

What I believe we have here is either a non-Catholic posing as a Catholic, or a “charismatic Catholic” who has become so messed up by her associations with Pentecostals that she is now more Pentecostal than anything else.

 

[Marquette]

Why knit pick on the extracurriculars? We (protestants and Catholics) believe in the five basic tenets of Christianity:

The virgin birth
Christ died on the cross
The blood atonement for sins
Christ arose from the grave
Christ is coming again

In essentials, UNITY
In non-essentials CHARITY
In all things to GLORIFY CHRIST

“But the goal of our instruction is LOVE from a PURE HEART and GOOD CONSCIENCE and a SINCERE FAITH, for some men, straying from these things have turned aside to fruitless discussion.” 1 Timothy 1:5,6

“Thanks to God for my Redeemer”

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon7.gif Marquette

 

[2BinChrist]

Charity, charity, charity…
I am a new, two day member, and I can only say that to win and bring people closer to Christ, you have to start with Charity…“faith, hope and love, the greatest of these is love…” I am not suggesting to water down the Truth but your approach is a little bit startling “Here is your chance, Protestants”…It can be frustrating because it almost seems at times my Protestant friends have horse blinders on, and just can’t accept the Truth. In God’s time, not ours, they will seek to have ALL TRUTH AND UNDERSTANDING…but until then we have to love them as they are, and where they are…
Robin

 

[RMA]

This is a huge thread. It is nice to see such interest in a debate. But I would like to add several observations-

1. A debate should have a well defined thesis- "Tell us your idea of church history is not a good theses. A more likely debate topic here (IMHO) would be to start with the split and work from there. (i.e. OK, why do you believe Luther was correct?). This is a better boundary than the origianl question. And my hat is off ot Mr. Knapp, his heart is in the right place, and it is a good thread.
2. Why not alos ask difference form the closer relativees, like the Orthodox churches? Or go completely the other way and ask non Christian religions their view on why they aren’t looking towards the one true faith? (Hindu, Buddhists, etc.)
3. I would rather talk about our similarities, and then, with great humility, work towrds a common bond, and as Pope John Paul II did so eloquently, to change peoples hearts throughout the world.

Debate, as a discussion only is effective when it can be narrowly defined to the objective.

Thanks
RMA

 

[Kostja]

"

dennisknapp:

Here is your chance Protestants.

Here is your chance to show us where we have gone astray.

I would like you to show us a Protestant view of Church history and how it developed after the time of the Apostles until the Reformation.

Please provide evidence for you historical assessment, for we do not want this to be just a bunch of name calling".

Do you think so? I think you are readig, what St Paul says in Romans:" Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness". I say again “and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”. This is the point, what ST Paul says Romans 3:28:" For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law". But James said (James 2:24) that “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Thats´ the question, where already Klemens have gone astray.

Kostja

 

[Philthy]

Hi Catherine :bounce:

CatherineofA:

… Even if the Catholic Church was the instrument used for a while to present God’s message. Even if the Catholic Church spearheaded the collection of scriptures in text form, they still regard the men in that church as devinely led to get it right. Because the scriptures were meant to be and not because one church organization had to be the one to do it.

Im not sure if you are in agreement with this statement or simply representing the views of others, but this bolded statement is just total desperation for anyone who claims Sola Scriptura. On what basis do these folks decide that the Catholic Church was Divinely led? Certainly not from Scripture - Not a single word is ever written that indicates a New Testament was forthcoming. In addition, this belief is not a part of Apostolic Tradition - the Apostles did not set the New Testament. This is purely having no other option(ie desperation) other than “believing” that the Church was divinely led to produce Scripture because they have absolutely no foundation for their version of faith otherwise. Therefore, God “must have” divinely inspired the evil Catholic Church to produce the Bible. Pure rationalization out of desperate necessity.

CatherineofA:

Christ and God’s message was always first and that message was presented through the men who collected it. They were tools.

Yes they were, and they were the tools hand-picked by God.

CatherineofA:

It was about the message and God’s word, not who was used by God to get the message out.

Again, this is a conclusion of necessity for the Sola Scripturist. Otherwise they have to submit to the Pope, and, well, that just cant be what God wants. God chose people carefully and gave them his holy Spirit to guide them and us. You cannot simply step in and take their writings while ignoring all they taught. Certainly the bible teaches no such thing. The Church per se is the “pillar and foundation of Truth” not simply the Bible.

CatherineofA:

. …many Southern Baptists and others I have known in other denominations never consider history an issue.

How convenient. History is painful when it forces you to reconsider what you’ve always been told.

CatherineofA:

That is Catholic Church history to them. In addition, they see church bodies and events as being used by God to get out what was the most important. The scriptures. Being used as the means does not mean you are part of the end. Most in my experience are so ingrained in scripture as guide and head that anything outside of it is considered secondary. Even if it was there and in front of their face, they wouldn’t care because they think scripture is the basis for church activities and not the scripture and a designated earthly church as basis for the activities.

Yes, but unfortunately they have reached this conclusion on their own! Scripture doesn’t predict it, provide it or support it. Without this conclusion, however, they are faced with accepting the Catholic Church as Christs Church and they don’t want to do that.

CatherineofA:

I am somwhat getting started in the study of early church history and that is the main reason I have participated in these threads.

good move! Be prepared for some shocking revelations. Might I recommend that, based on your own faith experience, that you attempt to predict what you believe the earliest Christians had to say on topics of interest(Baptism, priesthood, Lords Supper, etc)
before you read anything and then see how far from reality those predictions were and how close in actuality the Church Fathers are to the Catholic Church?

sorry to butt in…

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Fr Ambrose:

In the “Retractions” which St Augustine wrote in his mature years to correct the theological errors in his earlier writings, he wrote that he had come to believe that Peter is NOT the Rock.

However, he also said that if others wanted to interpret the verse in that way, they had that freedom. **But the fact is that the greatest theologian of the West personally denied that the Rock is Peter.****/**QUOTE]

Hello Fr Ambrose

The connotation of your conclusion is misleading. A more proper conclusion would be that:
St Augustine both accepted AND denied that the Rock is Peter AND recognized his own fallibility in doing so by supporting others to interpret it either way as well. Isn’t that a bit closer to the truth?

Phil

 

[dennisknapp]

Philthy:

Hi Catherine :bounce:

Im not sure if you are in agreement with this statement or simply representing the views of others, but this bolded statement is just total desperation for anyone who claims Sola Scriptura. On what basis do these folks decide that the Catholic Church was Divinely led? Certainly not from Scripture - Not a single word is ever written that indicates a New Testament was forthcoming. In addition, this belief is not a part of Apostolic Tradition - the Apostles did not set the New Testament. This is purely having no other option(ie desperation) other than “believing” that the Church was divinely led to produce Scripture because they have absolutely no foundation for their version of faith otherwise. Therefore, God “must have” divinely inspired the evil Catholic Church to produce the Bible. Pure rationalization out of desperate necessity.

Yes they were, and they were the tools hand-picked by God.

Again, this is a conclusion of necessity for the Sola Scripturist. Otherwise they have to submit to the Pope, and, well, that just cant be what God wants. God chose people carefully and gave them his holy Spirit to guide them and us. You cannot simply step in and take their writings while ignoring all they taught. Certainly the bible teaches no such thing. The Church per se is the “pillar and foundation of Truth” not simply the Bible.

How convenient. History is painful when it forces you to reconsider what you’ve always been told.

Yes, but unfortunately they have reached this conclusion on their own! Scripture doesn’t predict it, provide it or support it. Without this conclusion, however, they are faced with accepting the Catholic Church as Christs Church and they don’t want to do that.

good move! Be prepared for some shocking revelations. Might I recommend that, based on your own faith experience, that you attempt to predict what you believe the earliest Christians had to say on topics of interest(Baptism, priesthood, Lords Supper, etc)
before you read anything and then see how far from reality those predictions were and how close in actuality the Church Fathers are to the Catholic Church?

sorry to butt in…

Phil

Excellent points Phil!

Thanks

Peace

 

[wabrams]

***************************************************************************
Wabrams you have said that The Bishop of Rome had no influence outside of Rome UNTIL 425. There are more than a few letters written by the Early Fathers of The Roman Catholic Church that discus Peter settling disputes and Peter’s leading or teaching the other Bishops. Peter was certainly acting as the Pope does today.

One of these men was Ignatias , Bishop of Antioch. I believe we have three letters by Ignatias that dis cis Peter as the Pope. Your 425 is a far cry from the actual dates of Ignatias’ letters. He write between the year 70 and 117. He died in Rome in 117. Find them and you’ll be satisfied.

I’ve read some of Ignatias’ writings, and I’m not satisfied.

 

[dennisknapp]

wabrams:

I’ve read some of Ignatias’ writings, and I’m not satisfied.

What does not satisfy you?

Peace