I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Pax]

I do know about the Catholic faith, thats why I am no longer Catholic!!!

---

Regarding the questions, I wanted your definition of grace!

When I say “In Christ Alone” I am excluding Mary, the saints, the RCC etc.

You still haven’t answered the following: 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?

In Christ Alone,
Mike

Mike,

It has already been demonstrated by you that you do not know the Catholic faith. If you did you would have a scriptural and catechetical understanding of baptismal regeneration among other things.

I answered your hypothetical question on standing before God at the judgment. What is your response to my answer to you?

 

[Pax]

Philthy:

…But if I were to try and articulate an answer NOW, I would probably say, “Lord, I am not worthy. Look not on my sins but on the faith of your Church in your beloved Son. For the sake of His sorrowful passion have mercy on me, a sinner. Still, not my will Father, but your will be done.” Now my wife - who’s much better at these things than I am - without a moment’s hesitation says that she would say,“Because I am your child.” I kinda like that answer, but I still think we’ll be SPEECHLESS.

BTW - I beg you - please stop the bold red print - it’s obnoxious to the human visual system.

Phil

Phil,

This is a great answer, and I like your wife’s…she sounds like a truly wonderful Catholic.

And I agree with the your request about eliminating the use of red as the color of choice in a post. It’s hard on my tired old eyes, and it is kind of obnoxious too.

 

[Pax]

Con’t

---

It appears that the early Church had a very high regard for the Scriptures but no positive mention of tradition. How curious?

In Christ Alone,
Mikehttp://bible-studies.net/l5/spirit_poured/spirit_poured.htm#spiritpoured

Mike,

You do not know your scriptures and you quote randomly and to no useful purpose. You claim that scripture makes no positive mention of tradition. Are you kidding or are you that uninformed in the word of God?

Try the following:

2Thess 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, **either by word of mouth ** or by our letter.

2 Tim 2:2
and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

1 Cor 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

1 Thess 2:13
We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The apostles’ teaching is both written in scripture and is oral and the apostolic traditions have been handed down and protected in the Church.

 

[dennisknapp]

Pax:

Mike,

You do not know your scriptures and you quote randomly and to no useful purpose. You claim that scripture makes no positive mention of tradition. Are you kidding or are you that uninformed in the word of God?

Try the following:

2Thess 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, **either by word of mouth **or by our letter.

2 Tim 2:2
and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

1 Cor 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

1 Thess 2:13
We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The apostles’ teaching is both written in scripture and is oral and the apostolic traditions have been handed down and protected in the Church.

Amen, Pax!

And I agree. Not more red, please.

 

[aridite]

Philthy:

Nice try, but you’ve confused the grammar. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an honest mistake. This is the kind of thing that happens when you have your “Protestant Glasses” on . Let me rewrite it for you so it makes sense.
Hail Holy Queen, mother of JESUS. Jesus is MERCIFUL AND OUR LIFE, OUR SWEETNESS AND OUR HOPE. Those attributes are being attributed to Christ not Mary. Yes, the Catholic Church holds Mary in high regard - like Luther - but only in relation to Christ. And don’t forget the rest: Pray for us, oh holy mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ." Now you may disagree with the theology, but there is no “worship of Mary” here, just a request for her prayers on our behalf.

I’m sorry, but to be accurate, the nouns after “mercy” do refer to Mary. The prayer was composed in Latin and begins:
Salve Regina, Mater misericordiae - Hail (Holy) Queen, Mother of mercy (this could refer to Jesus – I have never heard an explanation of the Salve Regina).
Vita, Dulcedo, et Spes nostra, Salve. - Hail O Life, O Sweetness, and our Hope.
If it meant that Mary were the Mother of Life, of Sweetness and of our Hope it would be Vitae, Dulcedinis, et Spei nostrae.
But the Catholic point is the same: Mary is our life, sweetness and hope because she brought Jesus into the world. She is our Mother because she is His Mother.
Also, you can’t hang too much on a prayer of popular piety. Prayers are not de fide. The Salve Regina is not part of the official Liturgy of the Church.

 

[Catherine_S]

Pax:

cont. from prior post

Baptism—Nicodemus

Some people, including Ozzie, try to claim that when Jesus speaks with Nicodemus that he his talking about natural child birth and the bag of waters in terms of being born of water rather than speaking of baptism.

This view does violence to the passage in which Jesus tells Nicodemus that a man must be born anew in baptism. Clearly, the bag of waters interpretation cannot be true. First of all, those who make the case for the interpretation do not offer any evidence that the Jews described childbirth in terms of the bag of waters. We know that Jesus was talking about the water of baptism because the scriptures that immediately follow the meeting with Nicodemus say that, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea: there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22). The subsequent verses also mention that John the Baptist was nearby baptizing because there was an abundance of water. Baptism has always been associated with water, whereas childbirth in Jewish usage was more likely associated with blood. A biblical foundation for this latter point is found in John 1:12-13 where we read, “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

You guys are still at it !!.. You have a lot of patience !!

A Protestant believes honestly that we go by the Bible alone and that each individual has the right to interpret the Bible as **he sees fit. **This is very important to understand.

The best **a Protestant can do when talking to a Catholic is to say that ****he believes ****his **fallible interpretation is better than your fallible interpretation.

What he cannot say with any internal logic is that your interpretation is wrong. That would go against one of his core beliefs—the belief that every individual has the right to interpret Scripture for himself. He has to believe that your interpretation is a valid interpretation,** even if he** disagrees with it. Otherwise he is a hypocrite.

---

Shalom,
Catherine

 

[xrc]

With Him…In Him…and through Him !
Shalom,
Catherine

**If you were to die tonight and God asked you why He should let you into His heaven, what would you say? With Him…In Him…and through Him !:banghead: **

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[xrc]

You guys are still at it !!.. You have a lot of patience !!

A Protestant believes honestly that we go by the Bible alone and that each individual has the right to interpret the Bible as he sees fit. This is very important to understand.

The best **a Protestant can do when talking to a Catholic is to say that ****he believes ****his **fallible interpretation is better than your fallible interpretation.

What he cannot say with any internal logic is that your interpretation is wrong. That would go against one of his core beliefs—the belief that every individual has the right to interpret Scripture for himself. He has to believe that your interpretation is a valid interpretation,** even if he** disagrees with it. Otherwise he is a hypocrite.

Shalom,
Catherine

The idea of sola scriptura is simply this - for matters of doctrine, faith, and morality the written word of God is the ultimate authority. This is not to say that truth cannot be found outside the Bible of course (for that would violate its own teaching - Psalm 19:1; Romans 2:12-15), but rather it is that the Bible alone is our final court of appeal… once Scripture has been consulted on an issue, no further argument remains. Teachings added to Scripture may well explain or enlighten us, but they may never replace or change what has been written. What happens when we move away from this principle? Usually heretical false teaching. It is simply applied logic - if the Bible is the sure word of God, then all it teaches is true; therefore to teach that which is false would requires that additions or subtractions be made to the Bible. If no additions or subtractions are made, it is much more difficult to introduce heretical belief.

---

Con’t

 

[xrc]

You guys are still at it !!.. You have a lot of patience !!

A Protestant believes honestly that we go by the Bible alone and that each individual has the right to interpret the Bible as he sees fit. This is very important to understand.

The best **a Protestant can do when talking to a Catholic is to say that ****he believes ****his **fallible interpretation is better than your fallible interpretation.

What he cannot say with any internal logic is that your interpretation is wrong. That would go against one of his core beliefs—the belief that every individual has the right to interpret Scripture for himself. He has to believe that your interpretation is a valid interpretation,** even if he** disagrees with it. Otherwise he is a hypocrite.

Shalom,
Catherine

"no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scriptures… contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers" ***-The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent ***Where the Roman Catholic Church diverts from this clear path is in their belief in the necessity of a teaching magesterium. Roman Catholicism believes that the Bible may not be properly understood without the church’s infallible interpretation for the masses.

This of course allows them to introduce false teachings to what Scripture actually affirms. Much like other false religions, the church is the final authority on matters of faith and practice, not the word of God.

---

**Oral traditions are unreliable. They are not able to be tested against each other, they cannot be proven from history, they can easily become distorted as they are passed along. Common sense should tell us that a thing written is more reliable than a thing spoken. **

Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Many traditions have been accepted without the “unanimous agreement of the Fathers”, so this argument holds no water either.

Many of the most divisive areas in Roman Catholic belief are of very late origin, often proclaimed only as a dividing line between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. How can a “tradition” that was not practiced for 1500 years suddenly become an infallible position in the church?

And if there exists this supposed “oral tradition”, why has not the Roman Catholic Church codified those teachings? If these traditions exist, we should be able to list them. Where are they written down? How do we know what they are? How do we know if someone changes them??? These questions are unanswerable under the banner of “tradition”, because they are not tradition - they are fabrication.

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[xrc]

dennisknapp:

So, are we going to get an answer here or what?

Like stated very clearly before, I don’t need to provide Scriptural support for my views because, and pay attention… NOWHERE IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH HAS SCRIPTURE BEEN THE ONLY AUTHORITY.

I have Tradition and the Magisterium as well. This includes Councils, creeds, and a living interpretive body know as the College of Bishops and the Pope. With these, as well as a proper understanding of Scripture do I justify my beliefs.

As for you, please show me that prior to the 16th century anyone held you beliefs, and please no more Scriptural quotes taken out of context. Thanks.

You will not receive an answer until you first show me, in the New Testament, where you find baptismal regeneration, seven sacraments, sanctifying grace, transubstantiation, a continuing sacrifice, confession to a priest, temporal punishment, indulgences, purgatory, merited eternal reward, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Assumption into heaven, co-redemptive work, mediation of all grace etc. Just give me the Book, the chapter and the verse that supports these practices and I’ll concede and answer your question.

---

In Christ Alone,
**Mike

**

 

[xrc]

Pax:

Mike,

You do not know your scriptures and you quote randomly and to no useful purpose. You claim that scripture makes no positive mention of tradition. Are you kidding or are you that uninformed in the word of God?

Try the following:

2Thess 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, **either by word of mouth **or by our letter.

2 Tim 2:2
and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

1 Cor 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

1 Thess 2:13
We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The apostles’ teaching is both written in scripture and is oral and the apostolic traditions have been handed down and protected in the Church.

In Mark 7:7; 8; 13 Jesus 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.

Pretty clear!

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[xrc]

Pax:

Mike,

You do not know your scriptures and you quote randomly and to no useful purpose. You claim that scripture makes no positive mention of tradition. Are you kidding or are you that uninformed in the word of God?

Try the following:

2Thess 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Tim 2:2
and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.

1 Cor 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

1 Thess 2:13
We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers.

Acts 2:42
They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The apostles’ teaching is both written in scripture and is oral and the apostolic traditions have been handed down and protected in the Church.

**In these cases what is being spoken about is not Catholic tradition but direct apostalic teaching that was later written down. **

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[dennisknapp]

You will not receive an answer until you first show me, in the New Testament, where you find baptismal regeneration, seven sacraments, sanctifying grace, transubstantiation, a continuing sacrifice, confession to a priest, temporal punishment, indulgences, purgatory, merited eternal reward, the papacy, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Assumption into heaven, co-redemptive work, mediation of all grace etc. Just give me the Book, the chapter and the verse that supports these practices and I’ll concede and answer your question.

In Christ Alone,
Mike

---

---

Your request is contradictory. It expects me to justify my beliefs by Scripture alone. As a Catholic I do not except this belief. I view this belief as a 16th century innovation and therefore invalid.

I am not asking you to interperet Scripture or quote it. What I am asking you for is a history lesson. You know, like in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue…That sort of stuff.

What does the historical record say?

We can disagree with what Scripture teaches, but history is very clear.

Show me that Sola Scriptura is not an innovation of the 16th century and I will only use Scripture to justify my beliefs.

 

[ncgolf]

Please read posts #1337 & #1338

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

Sorry but again you have changed what Christ said. You are trying to change its meaning to fit your belief. I am saying what Christ said is what He meant. You are being the filter and the Discourse needs no filter. It is written on the page. Please don’t try to put your spin on the verses, they read clear enough as spoken by Christ and written by John.

As I have commented to Ozzie, I can quote Christ on the subject, can you?

 

[Booklover]

Ozzie:

Nah…it presupposes nothing of the sort. It simply presents an accurate, exegetical interpretation of the text. Interpreting what is there, instead of what is not there.Your false accusation toward me is the "red herring."Now you’re presenting the “red herring.” Paul makes it very clear in 1 Cor. 11…“do this in remembrance of Me” and “as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” It is a sacrament of “remembrance” and “proclamation.”

It’s very clear. There’s nothing “mysterious” or supernatural about it. It’s a sacramental expression of our faith until He comes for us.

Ozzie, do you believe that at the Last Supper, the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ or not? What do you believe happened there?

 

[Booklover]

Con’t
2 Peter 2:1** – “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies**, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.”

%between%

Speak for yourself and the fundamentalists, Mike!

 

[Booklover]

**In these cases what is being spoken about is not Catholic tradition but direct apostalic teaching that was later written down. **

In Christ Alone,
Mike

You’ll say anything to deny the rights of the Church, won’t you, Mike???

 

[Booklover]

In Mark 7:7; 8; 13 Jesus 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.

Pretty clear!

In Christ Alone,
Mike

BALONEY! :bigyikes:

 

[Pax]

In Mark 7:7; 8; 13 Jesus 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.

Pretty clear!

In Christ Alone,
Mike

This verse applies to your traditions of men, such as salvation by faith alone and sola scriptura.

 

[Pax]

**In these cases what is being spoken about is not Catholic tradition but direct apostalic teaching that was later written down. **

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

Please prove this. And besides, you are now back peddling away from your original remark about traditions. Nice try.