I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Ozzie]

dennisknapp:

Finally:This again should be taken in context. Chrysostom does not disagree with the historical view on faith as I have stated before.

Yes, but the basic tenets of faith, not law, and the sole authority of the Scriptures were still there in germ form. Something you constantly want to deny. And these writers are not Holy Spirit inspried and therefore even their writings and beliefs must be examined against Holy Writ. The problem is, the Roman Church wants to hold on to even all those “traditions” (teachings) that do not hold up to faith and the Holy Scriptures. This became the ambition of the Reformation: to clean up the mess and get back to a more Biblically grounded faith. For this reason all of the extrabiblical teachings (traditions) were dropped (like the Marian doctrines) - as they should have been. And those practices (traditions) that had a Biblical base were re-examined for their Biblical accuracy, such as the Mass and Baptism. If they did not hold up to Biblical accuracy, they were changed. Bottom line: Faith, not law (works) and the authority of the Scriptures were historically there.

 

[Ozzie]

As to your remarks about xrc’s excellent posts and your complete trust in Christ alone by faith alone, I have only one thing to say: BALONEY!

Have a wonderful New Year!

A most intelligent reply. Especially by someone who claims to be a “Booklover.” Nice way to start out the New Year. Suggested New Year’s resolution - “I will live up to my name and make only reasonable, even thought provoking posts.”

You have a wonderful New Year, too. May you grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, which is the will of God for you.

 

[ncgolf]

Ozzie:

Nowhere do the N.T. writers speak of any kind of Apostolic succession. To the contrary, the Church is being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and N.T. prophets, Jesus Christ being the corner stone (Eph. 2:21). A “foundation” is not continually built, it is *built upon. *Neither Paul, Peter or John said anything about “Apostolic succession.” “Elders,” yes, Deacons, yes, but no Apostolic succession. That’s a teaching (tradition) of men. Self-serving as it is.

No! The NT writers do not speak of the Trinity, the perpetual virginity of Mary or Mary born without original sin either. I guess those are false teachings??

Jesus gave Peter the keys … also the power to bind and loose. Jesus gave Peter the same authority on Earth as Christ wielded. That is powerful stuff. He did not give it to everyone. You mistakenly believe the Catholic church gives the Pope special powers … no … Christ gave that power to Peter … and it was passed on. Part of that power is the ability to forgive sins … just as Christ did on earth and to lead His people in their earthly journey. Peter became Christs vicar on earth (with the guidance of the Holy Spirit). He did not leave a manual with instructions on what He wanted after His ascension. What Jesus did leave was Peter at the head and the apostles … both filled with the Holy Spirit. That is the beginning of the Apostolic succession.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You say you believe all of God’s written word yet both you and xrc deny the literal words of John 6. The word symbolic never shows up … it says eat and drink 3 times. You are the one adding (or subtracting) from what John 6 is saying. If you read John 6 literally then there must be a way to consume the Body and Blood of Christ. There is … it is the Eucharist. That Bread of Life Discourse is the one section that needs no interpretation. Jesus said eat my body and drink my blood, that is not symbolism my friend.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie,

You claim the following:

Ozzie:

…
No my authority is the immutable, written Word of God. …

No one disputes the inerrancy of scripture. The problem is you believe that you are the immutable authority for interpreting it. You interpretations are error filled and “frequently” go against long standing protestant exegesis as well as the 2000 year understandings of the Catholic Church.

Your point about Ignatius of Antioch in another post is the most absurd comment I have read in a awhile. You place your personal interpretation of scripture over scripture and the clear words of a disciple of the apostle John and you claim that you are without a doubt correct in doing so. As I said, you are your own church, your own apostle, and your own pope. Your ego knows no bounds.

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

Yes, but the basic tenets of faith, not law, and the sole authority of the Scriptures were still there in germ form. Something you constantly want to deny. And these writers are not Holy Spirit inspried and therefore even their writings and beliefs must be examined against Holy Writ. The problem is, the Roman Church wants to hold on to even all those “traditions” (teachings) that do not hold up to faith and the Holy Scriptures. This became the ambition of the Reformation: to clean up the mess and get back to a more Biblically grounded faith. For this reason all of the extrabiblical teachings (traditions) were dropped (like the Marian doctrines) - as they should have been. And those practices (traditions) that had a Biblical base were re-examined for their Biblical accuracy, such as the Mass and Baptism. If they did not hold up to Biblical accuracy, they were changed. Bottom line: Faith, not law (works) and the authority of the Scriptures were historically there.

Ozzie,

You could not be more wrong. You change the meaning of scripture and discount the validity and truth of apostolic tradition at your whim. I have said it before and I will say it again. It is all in your head and it is your interpretation alone. Moreover, your interpretations are so far a field that they frequently fail to correspond to main stream protestant understandings. You need to re-examine everything in your thinking from the bottom up, and be a lot more critical of your own thinking as opposed to your criticism of 2000 years of Christian wisdom that exists both inside and outside the Catholic Church.

 

[Pax]

dennisknapp:

Finally:

"For you believe the faith; why then do you add other things, as if faith were not sufficient to justify? You make yourselves captive, and you subject yourself to the law." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to Titus, Homily 3, PG 62.651)

Here is the full quote:

“Ver. 14. “Not giving heed,” he says, “to Jewish fables.”

The Jewish tenets were fables in two ways, because they were imitations, and because the thing was past its season, for such things become fables at last. For when a thing ought not to be done, and being done, is injurious, it is a fable even as it is useless. As then those ought not to be regarded, so neither ought these. For this is not being sound. For if thou believest the Faith, why dost thou add other things, as if the faith were not sufficient to justify? Why dost thou enslave thyself by subjection to the Law? Hast thou no confidence in what thou believest? This is a mark of an unsound and unbelieving mind. For one who is faithful does not doubt, but such an one evidently doubts.”

This again should be taken in context. Chrysostom does not disagree with the historical view on faith as I have stated before.

Dennis,

Thanks for researching the quote. It shows what Ozzie is really up to and it does not include an honest approach to scripture or the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Booklover]

Ozzie:

A most intelligent reply. Especially by someone who claims to be a “Booklover.” Nice way to start out the New Year. Suggested New Year’s resolution - “I will live up to my name and make only reasonable, even thought provoking posts.”

You have a wonderful New Year, too. May you grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, which is the will of God for you.

The problem is Ozzie, that I don’t think any of you come here with any desire to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches. You simply come fully armed with mortar and artillery to attack what we hold most dear and to try to destroy everything we believe in!

There’s so much anti-catholic bigotry out there especially the filth coming from people like Jack Chick and Ian Paisley and their ilk, that any attack on the Church makes my blood boil! Some of the posts with their brutal attack on the Church make me sick.

As long as you come here with your preconceived ideas and to try to turn us to your way of thinking, there can be no real dialogue, debate or as you called it “thought provoking posts”.

Peace be to you!

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

A most intelligent reply. Especially by someone who claims to be a “Booklover.” Nice way to start out the New Year. Suggested New Year’s resolution - “I will live up to my name and make only reasonable, even thought provoking posts.”

You have a wonderful New Year, too. May you grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, which is the will of God for you.

Ozzie,

Try taking your own advice, the rest of mankind would be grateful if you did.

 

[dennisknapp]

Ozzie:

Yes, but the basic tenets of faith, not law, and the sole authority of the Scriptures were still there in germ form. Something you constantly want to deny. And these writers are not Holy Spirit inspried and therefore even their writings and beliefs must be examined against Holy Writ. The problem is, the Roman Church wants to hold on to even all those “traditions” (teachings) that do not hold up to faith and the Holy Scriptures. This became the ambition of the Reformation: to clean up the mess and get back to a more Biblically grounded faith. For this reason all of the extrabiblical teachings (traditions) were dropped (like the Marian doctrines) - as they should have been. And those practices (traditions) that had a Biblical base were re-examined for their Biblical accuracy, such as the Mass and Baptism. If they did not hold up to Biblical accuracy, they were changed. Bottom line: Faith, not law (works) and the authority of the Scriptures were historically there.

Ozzie, what you are really peddling are “traditions of men.”

Your illegitimate innovations have no ground in history prior to the 16th century no matter how many germs or seeds you wish to see–its just not there.

You wish us Catholics to abandon the Truth to follow your innovations–no way.

Why abandon order for chaos? Why abandon beauty for disfigurement? Why abandon the Truth for a lie?

 

[xrc]

As to your remarks about xrc’s excellent posts and your complete trust in Christ alone by faith alone, I have only one thing to say: BALONEY!

Have a wonderful New Year!

**Now you’ve touched on the real issue, you do not believe that what Jesus Christ did on Calvary’s cross was enough. You believe that you must trust in Mary, the RCC and your works to be saved. What a slap in the face of Our Savior! How dare you call yourself a Christian! You are so blinded by your Catholic indoctrination that you have lost your ability to think for yourself, instead you cling to the traditions of an apostate “religion” that teaches the insufficiency of Christ’s death. **

---

**It amazes me that no Catholic on this thread has the courage to answer a simple question. Instead, you all go into attack mode, not realizing that poeple like me were Catholic before you were born! It was not until I started reading the bible for myself that I could see the unbelieveable differences between true Christianity and “Roman” Catholicism. **

---

**Much of the problem lies in the fact that you use the same terms that Christians do however, you pour different meanings into those same terms. For example, you believe that grace is something earned or merited whereas Christians know that grace is the unmerited, undeserved favor of God. You blur the distinction between justification and sanctification. You replace Christ with Mary. You pray to and for the dead. You believe in a second chance in Purgatory. You believe that a priest has the power to call the Creator of the Universe down from Heaven, turn Him into bread and wine and represented Him as a bloodless sacrifice again and again at each Mass and then think you are eating your God. **

---

**I guess it boils down to the fact that you have made God too small in your eyes and have elevated your"Church" and its “Traditions” to a place where it now usurps the authority of the word of God. **

---

Mark 7:7; 8; 13 states, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men…You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men…And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions…Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” This verse is a clear rebuke of Catholic tradition.

In Christ Alone,
Mike

---

 

[Vincent]

For example, you believe that grace is something earned or merited whereas Christians know that grace is the unmerited, undeserved favor of God.

“Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life”

—Catechism of the Catholic Church 1996​

 

[RBushlow]

Ozzie:

Well now, this is certainly an interesting statement. Can you tell me where these Patristic, expository, verse by verse, commentaries on the N.T. Epistles are kept? Who has access to them?

They are not a vers by vers exposition. They are the epistles and homilies of those taught by John, Paul, Peter and the others. For instance, both Polycarp and Ignatious were tought by John. The ancient writings are available to any qualified scholars. The Greek and Israeli government have repositories. Also, of course the Vatican library also has a large collection going back right to the time of the Apostle.

The scripture is quite clear on this. Our Lord Jesus Christ said it in Matthew 7:21

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Christ said in Luke 10:26-28
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heard and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And He(Jesus) said unto him, Thou has answered right; this do, and thou shalt live."

This too is a very interesting comment. Jesus quotes

Read it again Ozzie, it was not Our Lord who quoted the law, but the person to whom He was speaking.
Also, as far as I am concerned, if Jesus said it, I consider it Gospel. I know that you prefer those who decided to reinterpret things 1600 years later, but I prefer the original, thanks.

 

[kerbear]

Mike,

So much for the “defending the Faith with gentleness and respect” mode, eh?

You have received a number of answers to your question, even though it poses a hypothetical situation which is found nowhere in Scripture. You refuse to respond to questions from others, offers of assistance in learning the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and you continue to rant against things that no knowledgeable Catholic believes, and that the Catholic Church does not in fact teach.

You refuse to take the time to learn the truth.

What would your answer to your question be?

 

[RBushlow]

Please read Ozzie’s post!

Scripture interprets Scripture. Here’s an example: Look at Rev. 12:1 and compare it to Gen. 37:9 !

**You still haven’t answered my question: **
If you were to die and were standing before God and He asked you, “Why should I let you into My heaven” what would you say? It seems that Catholics are having a hard time with this one!

In Christ Alone,

Mike

xrc,

God is not going to ask me why He should let me into Heaven. I answered your question, read my post, He has the words of eternal life. I stand by the Word of God; Christ said it, I believe it, that’s all there is to it.

 

[dennisknapp]

**Now you’ve touched on the real issue, you do not believe that what Jesus Christ did on Calvary’s cross was enough. You believe that you must trust in Mary, the RCC and your works to be saved. What a slap in the face of Our Savior! How dare you call yourself a Christian! You are so blinded by your Catholic indoctrination that you have lost your ability to think for yourself, instead you cling to the traditions of an apostate “religion” that teaches the insufficiency of Christ’s death. **

**It amazes me that no Catholic on this thread has the courage to answer a simple question. Instead, you all go into attack mode, not realizing that poeple like me were Catholic before you were born! It was not until I started reading the bible for myself that I could see the unbelieveable differences between true Christianity and “Roman” Catholicism. **

**Much of the problem lies in the fact that you use the same terms that Christians do however, you pour different meanings into those same terms. For example, you believe that grace is something earned or merited whereas Christians know that grace is the unmerited, undeserved favor of God. You blur the distinction between justification and sanctification. You replace Christ with Mary. You pray to and for the dead. You believe in a second chance in Purgatory. You believe that a priest has the power to call the Creator of the Universe down from Heaven, turn Him into bread and wine and represented Him as a bloodless sacrifice again and again at each Mass and then think you are eating your God. **

**I guess it boils down to the fact that you have made God too small in your eyes and have elevated your"Church" and its “Traditions” to a place where it now usurps the authority of the word of God. **

Mark 7:7; 8; 13 states, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men…You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men…And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions…Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” This verse is a clear rebuke of Catholic tradition.

In Christ Alone,
Mike

No, it is you my friend who are mistaken. Like I stated to Ozzie, it is you who are peddling “traditions of men.”

We are simply following what has been handed down from the beginning.

Have you even read the Catechism? Your statements regarding what Catholics believe is laughable at best, and sad at worst.

Why should we believe your innovations? Your form of Christianity didn’t even exist until fairly resently. If you would take the time to look into the history of the Church you would see this.

If we are supposed to believe you, then why should we not believe the Mormons or JW’s? Why not believe them?

You are on an island and we reside in the New Jerusalem.

 

[xrc]

Booklover:

The problem is Ozzie, that I don’t think any of you come here with any desire to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches. You simply come fully armed with mortar and artillery to attack what we hold most dear and to try to destroy everything we believe in!

There’s so much anti-catholic bigotry out there especially the filth coming from people like Jack Chick and Ian Paisley and their ilk, that any attack on the Church makes my blood boil! Some of the posts with their brutal attack on the Church make me sick.

As long as you come here with your preconceived ideas and to try to turn us to your way of thinking, there can be no real dialogue, debate or as you called it “thought provoking posts”.

Peace be to you!

Let’s get one thing straight, you are the one with preconceived ideas and are unwilling to read the Scriptures withour your Catholic glasses. This I did for the first time some 7 years ago and praise be to God that He opened my heart and mind to the truth!

---

Now let me ask you a question. If you were a doctor and knew that your sister had a life threatning condition that she was unaware of, would you keep quiet for fear of offending he or would you tell her the truth?

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[RBushlow]

xrc:

**1. What is grace? **
2. What is a state of grace?

---

Mike, I thought you knew all about the Catholic Faith. If that were the case, then you would know the answer to these questions. BTW, you say in Chris alone does that mean that you do not believe in the Holy Trinity?

Let us go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

.

 

[xrc]

dennisknapp:

No, it is you my friend who are mistaken. Like I stated to Ozzie, it is you who are peddling “traditions of men.”

We are simply following what has been handed down from the beginning.

Have you even read the Catechism? Your statements regarding what Catholics believe is laughable at best, and sad at worst.

Why should we believe your innovations? Your form of Christianity didn’t even exist until fairly resently. If you would take the time to look into the history of the Church you would see this.

If we are supposed to believe you, then why should we not believe the Mormons or JW’s? Why not believe them?

You are on an island and we reside in the New Jerusalem.

With all due respect, your Roman Catholic Church has added many unbiblical teachings over the centuries. These were not handed down by the apostles! They are the product of many centuries of gradual departure from the true faith of the Church found in the Word of God. For instance:

• **Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 **
• **The lighting of candles in 320 **
• **The worship of saints about 375 **
• **The mass was adopted in 394 **
• **The worship of Mary began to develop about 432 **
• **Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500 **
• **The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593 **
• **Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600 **
• **Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606 **
• **Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650 **
• **The custom of kissing the Pope’s foot was introduced in 709 **
• **The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788 **
• **The invention of holy water was about 850 **
• **The canonization of saints was formalized in 993 **
• **Feasts for the dead were introduced 1003 **
• **'The celibacy of the priesthood was declared 1074 **
• **The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced 1076 **
• **Prayer beads were introduced in 1090 **
• **The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140 **
• **The sale of indulgences began 1190 **
• **The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200 **
• **The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted 1215 **
• **Confession was instituted 1215 **
• **The adoration of the Wafer began 1220 **
• **'The Ave Maria was introduced 1316 **
• **The cup was taken from the laity in 1415 **
• **Purgatory was officially decreed In 1439 **
• **Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture 1546 **
• **The Apocrypha was received into the Canon 1546 **
• **The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced 1854 **
• **'The doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope proclaimed 1864 **
• The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven 1950

This is Rome. These are the dogmas we associate with Rome. They are unscriptural. All of them are the very antithesis of New Testament doctrine.

---

Are you refering to the 1994 Catechism which has omitted the Second Commandment as found in Exodus 20? Or the one that states that Muslims will be in heaven? Yes, I’v read it!

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[xrc]

Con’t

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Rome’s attempt to keep the Bible from men has continued to recent times. Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit." Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the “Gospel of the Devil” in an encyclical letter of 1824. Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) railed “against the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of books of the holy Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongue.” Pope Leo XII, in January 1850, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted the fact that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.”

Dear Catholic friend, why do you think Rome prohibited Catholics, and others, from reading the Bible? Why do you think they killed over 50 million people and called them heretics for reading and believing the Holy Scriptures? Why did Pope Pius VII say that the Bible causes men more harm than benefit? Why would God’s word cause harm? You see, the Devil knows that if you read the Bible with the intention of learning the truth, you will FLY from the Catholic religion. ****
**Over hundreds of years, the Catholic religion, headed by the pope, did unimaginable cruelties to Bible-believers. They were ****burned, tortured, imprisoned, banished, ****etc. by the pope because they would only believe the Bible. **

---

Please don’t try to rewrite history!

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[Vincent]

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

Here’s the Fourth Session on the Council of Trent, which dealt with Scripture. I can’t find your assertion that the Bible was placed on the list of prohibited books, and I can’t seem to find your quote. The closest I can find is this, and it doesn’t seem as insidious as your alleged quote implies:

“And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.”