I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Booklover]

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

**Now you’re trying to tell us that there is truth outside the Bible! How interesting! Aren’t you contradicting yourself? You’ve been telling us all along that you don’t believe anything not in the Bible. That’s what we’ve been trying to tell you, that there is truth not in the Bible but I suppose when the Catholic Church says it, it’s a lie but when you say it Mike, it’s true? **

 

[Booklover]

"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.

Mike

As to the first thing I underlined, do you really believe that private interpretation has made any sense? AS I ASKED YOU BEFORE, IF THE SOLA SCRIPTURA THEORY, WERE TRUE, why is it that there are so many Protestant denominations and no two of them can agree on what the Bible means? Wouldn’t they all interpret it the same way? The Holy Spirit wouldn’t cause all this confusion. Therefore Sola Scriptura is false!

The second one is wrong, Mike! No belief or practice has any justification independent of the interacting realities we know as Church, Scripture and Tradition. When it comes to the Word of God and divine revelation, the definitive guide for Catholics is Scripture!

 

[RBushlow]

xrc:

**RBushlow:
*Then you must know what grace is.

I have a question for you now:
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?*

God Bless and guide you.
**

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

---

**
You still haven’t answered the 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?

God Bless.

 

[xrc]

ncgolf:

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?

"Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man
and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You"
**Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six and the above headlined verse 53 are literal. Thus Jesus is giving absolute and unconditional requirements for eternal life. In fact, this literal interpretation forms the foundation for Rome’s doctrine of transubstantiation – the miraculous changing of bread and wine into the living Christ, His body and blood, soul and divinity. Each Catholic priest is said to have the power to call Jesus down from the right hand of the Father when he elevates the wafer and whispers the words “Hoc corpus meus est.” Catholics believe as they consume the lifeless wafer they are actually eating and drinking the living body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a vital and important step in their salvation and a doctrine they must believe and accept to become a Catholic. **

If priests indeed have the exclusive power to change finite bread and wine into the body and blood of the infinite Christ, and if indeed consuming His body and blood is necessary for salvation, then the whole world must become Catholic to escape the wrath of God. On the other hand, if Jesus was speaking in figurative language then this teaching becomes the most blasphemous and deceptive hoax any religion could impose on its people. There is no middle ground. Therefore the question of utmost importance is – Was the message Jesus conveyed to the Jewish multitude to be understood as literal or figurative? Rome has never presented a good argument for defending its literal interpretation. Yet there are at least seven convincing reasons why this passage must be taken figuratively. Counterfeit Miracle****There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

---

Con’t

 

[xrc]

ncgolf:

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?

Drinking Blood ForbiddenThe Law of Moses strictly forbade Jews from drinking blood (Leviticus 17:10-14) A literal interpretation would have Jesus teaching the Jews to disobey the Mosaic Law. This would have been enough cause to persecute Jesus. (See John 5:16) **
**Biblical DisharmonyWhen John 6:53 is interpreted literally it is in disharmony with the rest of the Bible. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you,” gives no hope of eternal life to any Christian who has not consumed the literal body and blood of Christ. It opposes hundreds of Scriptures that declare justification and salvation are by faith alone in Christ.
Produces Dilemma****It appears that the "eating and drinking" in verse 6:54 and the “believing” in verse 6:40 produce the same result - eternal life. If both are literal we have a dilemma. What if a person “believes” but does not “eat or drink”? Or what if a person “eats and drinks” but does not “believe?” This could happen any time a non-believer walked into a Catholic Church and received the Eucharist. Does this person have eternal life because he met one of the requirements but not the other? The only possible way to harmonize these two verses is to accept one verse as figurative and one as literal.
Figurative In Old Testament****The Jews were familiar with “eating and drinking” being used figuratively in the Old Testament to describe the appropriation of divine blessings to one’s innermost being. It was God’s way of providing spiritual nourishment for the soul. (See Jeremiah 15:16; Isaiah 55:1-3; and Ezekiel 2:8, 3:1)
Jesus ConfirmedJesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. The Gospel of John records seven figurative declarations Jesus made of Himself – “the bread of life” (6:48), “the light of the world” (8:12), “the door” (10:9), “the good shepherd” (10:11), “the resurrection and the life” (11:25), “the way, the truth and the life” (14:6), and “the true vine” (15:1). He also referred to His body as the temple (2:19). **
**Words Were SpiritualJesus ended this teaching by revealing “the words I have spoken to you are spirit” (6:63). As with each of the seven miracles in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses the miracle to convey a spiritual truth. Here Jesus has just multiplied the loaves and fish and uses a human analogy to teach the necessity of spiritual nourishment. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. “God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.
**When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach. **

---

In Christ Alone,
Mike

 

[Catherine_S]

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

Look at your closing line :whacky: !

" In Christ Alone, Mike."

Now look at mine !

With Him…In Him…and through Him !

You do not know ? God definately would ! I find it hard to believe that you are an** XRC**. I think this is **how **you make mistakes when reading scripture as well.

Shalom,
Catherine

 

[Vincent]

Mike’s been cutting and pasting from anti-Catholic websites. Like this one.

 

[dennisknapp]

Vincent:

Mike’s been cutting and pasting from anti-Catholic websites. Like this one.

Busted!

So, we are getting second hand propaganda?

 

[aridite]

xrc:

"Unless You Eat the Flesh of the Son of Man
and Drink His Blood You Have No Life In You"
**Are these words of Jesus from John 6:53 to be taken literally or figuratively? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the context of John chapter six and the above headlined verse 53 are literal. **

Are you Mike Gendron, or did you just copy his essay?

 

[aridite]

Vincent:

Mike’s been cutting and pasting from anti-Catholic websites. Like this one.

Oops, you beat me to it.

 

[ncgolf]

xrc:

Drinking Blood Forbidden

Jesus was eventually persecuted anyway …. He declared himself I Am. At the point of time in the Discourse they could not have eaten His body and blood anyway …. That was something that could only happen after the resurrection. It is the glorified Christ available in the Eucharist. The Old Covenant at that point was …. Maybe this is not a good term …. Replaced by the New covenant.

xrc:

Biblical Disharmony

You are right it would be disharmonious but wrong in why the Discourse causes disharmony. The Body and Blood of described in the Discourse is Christ. It is taking the faith in Christ to another level … one beyond the bonds of earth. The disharmony exists because you misinterpret what faith in Christ is … it is not only faith in His spirit but faith in His words also … He would not lead you astray. You seem to want to fit Christ into your mold of a savior instead of taking Christ at His word and following it … trusting that understanding would come. All who seek find.

xrc:

Produces Dilemma.

No …. See my above point. You cannot distinguish between believing in Christ and believing in His words. What I see is your inability to reconcile Christ’s Truth with the truth of His words. He is not lying when He says, “eat my body”.

xrc:

Figurative In Old Testament

Christ was not in the old testament so His body would not have been available. Christ redefined the Jews covenant with God. Christ was a living, breathing man … why would not Christ give His flesh for us to eat and nurture us spiritually. Christ was and is available to us … body and soul in the Eucharist. The old was being redefined by the new.

xrc:

Jesus Confirmed

[/indent]**Jesus informed His disciples there were times when He spoke figuratively (John 16:25) and often used that type of language to describe Himself. **
I am glad you said He informed his disciples when He spoke figuratively …. Because in John 6, Christ makes no such claim. What you are saying is that if Christ wanted to be taken figuratively, He said so early on as to not confuse his audience or disciples. You are trying to read something that just is not there in John 6.

xrc:

Words Were Spiritual. This is consistent with His teaching on how we are to worship God. “God is Spirit and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth”

(John 4:24). As we worship Christ He is present spiritually, not physically. In fact, Jesus can only be bodily present at one place at one time. His omnipresence refers only to His spirit. It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.
How can you say worship in spirit and truth when you doubt Christ’s own words. He promises us to give us spiritual nourishment … His Body and Blood under the ordinary elements of bread and wine. It is a miracle that happens daily around the world. I am impressed that you know the limits of Christ’s powers. Jesus after the resurrection is a glorified body. It has no limits. I am sorry but you cannot know what is possible with Christ. Remember …. Anything is possible with God. Christ never breaks His promises … and He did promise eternal life for those believe … one of those beliefs is that you can and must eat His Body and Blood.

 

[Booklover]

xrc:

It is impossible for Christ to be bodily present in thousands of Catholic Churches around the world.

**When Jesus is received spiritually, one time in the heart, there is no need to receive him physically, over and over again in the stomach. **

In Christ Alone,
Mike

Oh, I thought nothing was impossible with God!

As for the 2nd paragraph, SAYS WHO? There you go again, Mike, telling Jesus what he can and cannot do!

 

[Booklover]

Con’t

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?
Please don’t try to rewrite history!

In Christ Alone,
Mike

Where did you get the figures for that 50 million you’re talking about??? :banghead: You’re getting all this garbage from one of those rabid anti-catholic sites. That figure’s pure fabrication! You’re the one who’s rewriting history.

---

---

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

Of course Jesus said “it is finished” on the cross. That was my whole point. There on the cross HE FINISHED the work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation…“once for all.” No more sacrifice is ever required!! That’s why a vacant cross is a better symbol than a crucifix.

Ozzie - you are almost as stubborn as I am persistent! I told you when we started to pick your battles wisely - attempting to criticize Catholics for wearing Crucifixes is simply foolish. I’ll state it again: I don’t have a problem with people wearing crosses and you shouldn’t have a problem with Crucifixes. Criticism of the crucifix is (at least) foolish and (possibly) vengeful. I will, again, prove it from your own argument that your logic above fails.
The problem with your argument is that it is DERIVED ENTIRELY FROM CHRIST ON THE CROSS. “It was finished” with Christ **ON **the Cross. Here, let me quote you:“There on the cross HE FINISHED the work of redemption, reconciliation and propitiation…“once for all.” No more sacrifice is ever required!!” Exactly Ozzie - ALL ON THE CROSS. Nothing more perfectly represents ALL OF IT, because ON the Cross is where it happened. If, as you say, he finished it all ON the cross, why would you or I want to remember it any differently by removing Him from it?

Ozzie:

“The cross is vacant, the tomb is empty” (see Rom. 4:25-5:1-2).

Even Paul has to edify the empty cross with the empty tomb because the empty cross doesn’t stand on it’s own. But Paul has no problem speaking of Christ crucified alone; " …I resolved to know nothing…except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" 1cor 2:2. Nothing you’ve said contributes one iota toward your illogical dislike of the Crucifix. In fact, the empty cross is looking more and more lacking.

Ozzie:

You can add nothing to it, Phil, nor can you subtract from it, or you are quilty of violating it. And you must accept His FINISHED work by faith.

Well, for the record Ozzie I didn’t add anything to the Cross and I haven’t removed anything from it either - some might argue that you have, but I won’t. As I said, I don’t have a problem with the cross vs crucifix issue. But here in your statement , finally, we can get a glimpse of where your illogical, misplaced distaste for the crucifix comes from: you judge the faith of others - particularly Catholics. You inject theological disputes into every aspect of Christianity. It’s not good enough that they are choosing to proclaim their belief in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior by wearing a representation of Good Friday around their neck. Oh no, not good enough because you know their heart- they need to have the empty cross because, well, that just means so much more. Think about how rediculous that is. It seems distinctly uncharitable to me. I hope I am wrong, but I don’t think so; I’ve been guilty of the same, and as the saying goes, “It takes one to know one.” I realize I’m coming on a little strong here Oz, but we really should be striving for unity, not division, and I really sensed that somehow rather than looking at it objectively you have allowed pride or some other bias to cloud your mind and your heart.

Phil

 

[Philthy]

Ozzie:

Symbolism is determined by the context. Do you take Him literally when He says, “I am the door” in Jn. 10:9. Do you think He is a door in your church building? Do you believe you’re saved by walking through it? When He said “I am the light of the world” in Jn. 8:12 do you take Him literally? Do you think He’s literally a cosmic flashlight that walks in front of you to light your way? Jesus begins his discourse in Jn. 6 by saying, “I am the bread of life.” That should give you your first clue.

Hey Oswald-

I forget where I first read what I’m about to say, but it’s not “mine”.

There is no logical parallel between:

I am the door *

I am the vine * ** and** " This is my body"

I am the way *

You may think there is one, but I don’t see it - you’ll need to do better. Christ is figuratively like a door that allows one to pass through to something else; Christ is like the vine in that we, the branches, have no life apart from him; and he is the way in a real sense; but how is he like bread(apart from other foods)? Bread is pretty ignoble, no?

The two statements you need to simultaneously reconcile are:

“I am the bread of life and this is my body”

And you also have to reconcile why, if he simply meant it figuratively, it was a “difficult” teaching for his disciples; so difficult that all but the apostles rejected it and no longer followed him.

Andyou also have to explain why, if he simply meant it figuratively, he didn’t bring back those who were misled by him to explain that he just meant it figuratively. Not very shepherd-like.

And you also have to explain why, if he simply meant it figuratively, Paul calls participating in the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner being guilty of the very “body and blood” of our Lord.

And you also have to explain why, if he simply meant it figuratively, Ignatious, a martyr if I’m not mistaken, and a companion of St.John for over 30 years also believed in the Real Presence.
Phil

 

[Pax]

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
**

I showed you quite clearly everything you need to know and understand as the basis for baptismal regeneration yet you persist. Do you read what people write in response to your posts?

 

[Philthy]

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

You continue with your sophomoric questions and obnoxious bold red print - thanks.
You continue to demosnstrate your ignorance of Catholic teaching by your comments.
You’ve told us you are a well educated Catholic
You’ve told us you were Catholic “before most of us were born”
And now you tell us that you only read Scripture for the first time 7 years ago

Well thank you! I think we are all starting to get the picture of what a great Catholic you never were…

Phil

 

[Pax]

xrc:

b]Counterfeit Miracle

[/indent]There is no Biblical precedent where something supernatural occurred where the outward evidence indicated no miracle had taken place. (The wafer and wine look, taste and feel the same before and after the supposed miracle of transubstantion). When Jesus changed water into wine, all the elements of water changed into the actual elements of wine.

---

Con’t

You are seriously ignorant of scripture and of your own traditions. I have demonstrated in my posts concerning baptismal regeneration that a miracle is taking place. The washing away of sin and the receiving of the Holy Spirit are both miracles. Yet there is no outward “appearance” of a miracle as you demand. Your justification does not include a glowing halo or any other phsical manifestation of God’s unbelievable supernatural gift. Your reception of the supernatural gifts of faith, hope, and love are truly miraculous but they do not have a physical miraculous manifestation. You are so utterly wrong in logic and devoid of appreciation of God’s word when it comes to the Eucharist that it is an enormous pity.

God is under no obligation to do anything the way you demand it to be by your misunderstanding and twisting of scripture.

 

[Philthy]

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 -

What is the actual meaning from the original texts for “do this in memory of Me”? Did it mean anything different than “in memory” means now? What is the actual greek? Is this term used in the OT at all and what does it mean there?

PHil

 

[Philthy]

xrc:

As I requested in my last post: Please 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 humor me and give me the Book, the chapter and the verse that supports these practices and I’ll concede!

Obviously if none of these are taught in Scripture and in fact contradict it, that is proof that what I believe is not a 16 century invention and is the reason you cannot give a truthful response!

In Christ Alone,
Mike

Mike please stop. There are many other threads that cover these topics - go read them if you want - but don’t drag them all up here at once. You seem just a little too full of yourself and the OBNOXIOUS BOLD RED PRINT is not helping. Read the Catholic Answers homepage Library on any subject. but don’t just come into the thread, not read it and start reintroducing things and expect us to all play along simply because you ask us to.

Phil