T
tweetymom
Guest
I am glad that I am a Christian and believe in Jesus Christ who died for my sins and I am redeemed by His blood. The name on the door doesn’t mean a thing if Jesus isn’t in your heart.
- Status
R
ralphinal
Guest
I think that it matters to more than would admit. If it did not, you would not see things like the Trail of Blood stuff tied to various groups.
S
SSTeacher
Guest
I respectfully suggest that much depends upon one’s presuppositions. If it is presupposed that the Catholic Church is wayward and has fallen into error a different kind of logic might be engaged. Here’s a possible example:
The Catholic Church canonized the Bible as the Word of God and gave it to the world
The Catholic Church subsequently developed and taught extra–biblical doctrines
Therefore the Catholic Church is wayward and has fallen into error and should be avoided
Q.E.D.
Do you think it’s possible the Reformers saw themselves as attempting to preserve the ancient faith because they’d concluded that the Catholic Church was, through its fallible clerics, teaching innovative and false doctrines?
He was our eighth old man named Henry – not our seventh. But I think you’re correct to refer to doctrinal disputes as legitimate. If you can take your logic just one step further and conclude that some people may legitimately come to the view that the Catholic Church does not hold the fullness of truth because it has to some extent embraced error you’ll perhaps go some little way toward working your way free of your befuddlement.
Perhaps it isn’t crazy at all? Could it be that you are befuddled about this?
Sadly, it’s pretty much all bad news, just now, with yet another scandal to the forefront of people’s minds.
Ecumenically,
Mick
N
nhylan
Guest
This thread thus far has been a very clear concise telling of this issue. I would hope that others would read this to understand more about a lot of protestants views.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
For Mosacked
What do you do if its not all in the Bible JN21;25 what do you do if the bible is hard to understand and gets distored 2 Peter 3:16 and that guidance needed to interpret the bible Acts 8;31
N
nhylan
Guest
Firstly not every Protestant ( I would wager more than half) believes that the bible is the literal truth.
I’m sort of confused by your posting. Are you using the quote as an argument the literalism that Mosacked professed? If thats so then what I wrote above definitely applies.
A
adstrinity
Guest
The Bible, huh? You realize that the Catholic Church put the Bible together, right?
Why have you decided to accept the Bible? Why is this your rule of faith? There’s other religions out there.
S
SSTeacher
Guest
Are you sure about that? Ought not the Orthodox Church get at least a little credit?
Hopefully,
Mick
G
gtrenewed
Guest
A
AlaricTeudisson
Guest
I have just finished a Church History course (by reformed theologians) and it was fascinating. It was a wonderful exposition of the development of church doctrine and belief. How the early church had the trinity leaping out of the gospels and epistles and struggling with how to explain it theologically. The background on each church father and how the early church solidified this developed understanding in the councils was great.
It actually brought tears to my eyes to hear in detail (from the history course) about the persecutions from the jewish people and then later from the successive roman emporers. Man, the faith and courage evidenced by these Catholic believers was awesome. Would I have the courage to say three times that “I am a Christian” to a man ready to throw me to wild animals. Especially when I could walk away free and clear with a simple “no, I am not a Christian.” Makes me realize that I am not worthy to tie the sandal of any of those martyrs.
Not once during the whole 32 lecture course did the professor slam the RCC. If anything, he commended the Church for its fight against heresy and its survival from viscious persecution. It is truly and act of God that the Church survived those early centuries. I thank almighty God that the Catholic/Orthodox church was their to protect the faith. What we have is built on the blood of those martyrs.
For twenty years (and I am an entrenched evangelical) I have had both sets of the ante and post nicene fathers. I have read many but not all. I say this to give you an example that not all protestants ignore the early church history. It is incredibly valuable to study these writings.
My priest uses the Church Fathers often in Sunday school and in his sermons. The reformed systematic theology books that I have been studying often use the Church Fathers as illustrations as well.
Reformed theology, while I know you guys totally disagree with it, does not hate the early church or ignore it. The whole foundation is the early church. Like a previous poster said, reformed theology is predicated on the belief that the RCC added doctrine that was not supported by scripture. It does not throw away the baby with the bathwater to use an old phrase.
Anyway, not here to argue reformed vs catholic, but just wanted to state that I do not agree with some of the previous posts that all “Protestants” ignore the church fathers. That is patently not true.
Jeff
It actually brought tears to my eyes to hear in detail (from the history course) about the persecutions from the jewish people and then later from the successive roman emporers. Man, the faith and courage evidenced by these Catholic believers was awesome. Would I have the courage to say three times that “I am a Christian” to a man ready to throw me to wild animals. Especially when I could walk away free and clear with a simple “no, I am not a Christian.” Makes me realize that I am not worthy to tie the sandal of any of those martyrs.
Not once during the whole 32 lecture course did the professor slam the RCC. If anything, he commended the Church for its fight against heresy and its survival from viscious persecution. It is truly and act of God that the Church survived those early centuries. I thank almighty God that the Catholic/Orthodox church was their to protect the faith. What we have is built on the blood of those martyrs.
For twenty years (and I am an entrenched evangelical) I have had both sets of the ante and post nicene fathers. I have read many but not all. I say this to give you an example that not all protestants ignore the early church history. It is incredibly valuable to study these writings.
My priest uses the Church Fathers often in Sunday school and in his sermons. The reformed systematic theology books that I have been studying often use the Church Fathers as illustrations as well.
Reformed theology, while I know you guys totally disagree with it, does not hate the early church or ignore it. The whole foundation is the early church. Like a previous poster said, reformed theology is predicated on the belief that the RCC added doctrine that was not supported by scripture. It does not throw away the baby with the bathwater to use an old phrase.
Anyway, not here to argue reformed vs catholic, but just wanted to state that I do not agree with some of the previous posts that all “Protestants” ignore the church fathers. That is patently not true.
Jeff
M
Mosacked
Guest
John 21:25 —
The Poison of Assumption again! Let me ask you. Do you believe that God created this world? If you do, may I ask you why didn’t God give you 2 noses instead of one so that you can breathe better? Do you think that perhaps he might have left it out because there’s not enough room on your face? No offence here. But it’s the same point I want to draw….Its because He decided it to be so. Same thing with the Bible. It is COMPLETE and SUFFICIENT.
Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
2 Peter 3:16 —
The distortion comes from within ignorant & unstable persons. Are you claiming that because you suffer the same you are given the right to take your dosages through your selected external interpreter? You must recall what Satan told Adam after God gave the warning “You shalt surely die”…and Satan enters the scene to convince Adam/Eve that they had actually ‘mis-understood’ what God said and that what God actually meant to say is…‘You shalt not surely die”.
2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. – (These are ACTS of GOD. Not the works of any man, and certainly not the work of an establishment).
Acts 8:31 —
1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
The Bible is very clear on this. That the understanding of scripture comes from the Spirit of God. NOT through any man.
James 1:5 Now if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without criticizing, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith without doubting. For the doubter is like the surging sea, driven and tossed by the wind.
- God has been standing at the Opened Gate with Opened arms and there you are going around in circles and asking those on the streets if they know how to enter the kingdom. For once, to just God Himself (not through any man or system)…JUST ASK GOD !
Which Protestants are you speaking about?
Well, ok, if that’s what you want to do, but don’t speak for me. And please don’t call it sola scriptura.
Then you believe in the real presence…:
Matt 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
… and the salvific nature of Baptism:
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
I believe that to ignore the teachings of the early councils, the Creeds and ECF’s doesn’t increase our understanding of the Gospel, but instead limits it.
Jon
G
guanophore
Guest
This might come as a shock to you, Mo, but the Bible is a collection of historical books. Like all historical documents it is best understood within the historical context in which it was written.
What you are saying is that your beliefs are based upon your perceptions.
You read the Scripture, apparently in isolation from the history and culture in which it was written ,and attempt to extrapolate the meaning while you are in separation from the succession of the Apostles who wrote it.
Such statements bear out your lack of knowledge of the history of your own faith. In fact, the NT demonstrates that Peter did, indeed, officiate teh postiion, and also passed it down to his successor.
It is likely that you must continue in your denial of the facts because accepting them would jeapardize your belief system.
Indeed this is true. This is also the reason Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority to preserve the proper understanding of the Scripture. Without that, we are left with everyone’s individual opinion.
I agree. One of the most dangerous assumptions is that the Faith of the Apostles can be extrapolated from the pages of the writings 2000 years after the fact.
The truth is that the human mind functions on assumption. We cannot “refrain” from assuming, because it is in our nature to do so. What we can do is be aware of our assumptions, and check them for accuracy.
What you are saying is that you have to rely on your own perceptions. There fore, if you cannot perceive that Peter officiates as Pope in Scripture, then it must not be there. You are doing the very thing you warn against. You have your preconceived assumptions about what is in the Bible, and what is not, and you read it with those fixed boundaries and beliefs in mind. This prevents you from seeing the evidence that exists. It is a form of researcher bias.
If we were to discard anything not found in the Bible, we would not HAVE a Bible.
Does that mean that you think God wants to you discard anything not in the Bible? If this is God’s perspective then why don’t we find THAT in the Bible?
At least we are in agreement that God never intended all of His revelation of Himself to be confined to scripture.
This humanly impossible.
The Catholic Church most certainly has the right to add to Scripture. The Church added the entire New Testament.
G
guanophore
Guest
Perhaps. On the other hand, it is the best place to come. There are more Catholics here that know their faith, and are committed, Therefore, their efforts will be met with a good defense of the faith. This is also very important for the lurkers, who often have heard or may even share these objections. An informed an appropriate response can be made, and that is why CAF is here!I think some people have come to wrong website to convince Catholics that the Church’s teachings are wrong, no matter what.
M
Mosacked
Guest
Do you know you’re not the only ones calling yourself the true church?This might come as a shock to you, Mo, but the Bible is a collection of historical books. Like all historical documents it is best understood within the historical context in which it was written.
What you are saying is that your beliefs are based upon your perceptions.
You read the Scripture, apparently in isolation from the history and culture in which it was written ,and attempt to extrapolate the meaning while you are in separation from the succession of the Apostles who wrote it.
Such statements bear out your lack of knowledge of the history of your own faith. In fact, the NT demonstrates that Peter did, indeed, officiate teh postiion, and also passed it down to his successor.
It is likely that you must continue in your denial of the facts because accepting them would jeapardize your belief system.
Indeed this is true. This is also the reason Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority to preserve the proper understanding of the Scripture. Without that, we are left with everyone’s individual opinion.
I agree. One of the most dangerous assumptions is that the Faith of the Apostles can be extrapolated from the pages of the writings 2000 years after the fact.
The truth is that the human mind functions on assumption. We cannot “refrain” from assuming, because it is in our nature to do so. What we can do is be aware of our assumptions, and check them for accuracy.
What you are saying is that you have to rely on your own perceptions. There fore, if you cannot perceive that Peter officiates as Pope in Scripture, then it must not be there. You are doing the very thing you warn against. You have your preconceived assumptions about what is in the Bible, and what is not, and you read it with those fixed boundaries and beliefs in mind. This prevents you from seeing the evidence that exists. It is a form of researcher bias.
If we were to discard anything not found in the Bible, we would not HAVE a Bible.
Does that mean that you think God wants to you discard anything not in the Bible? If this is God’s perspective then why don’t we find THAT in the Bible?
At least we are in agreement that God never intended all of His revelation of Himself to be confined to scripture.
This humanly impossible.
The Catholic Church most certainly has the right to add to Scripture. The Church added the entire New Testament.
Can someone can go to your house and says he is your true father during the absence of your real father (who had left you a manual for reference) and make changes to your family structure?
And how are you going to stop him? By believing his claims that your grandfather had passed the baton to him using his historical claims and that he is therefore your true father? Is the manual which your father left for you in his absence now made almost defunct and subjected to your new ‘father’s’ ‘additions’???
What did the Holy Bible say? - Revelation 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.
A
adstrinity
Guest
We would know our true Father the same way we know the true Eucharist. We test the blood.
M
Mosacked
Guest
Christians have only 1 Father - God. It is the SPIRIT that bears witness to this within us that calls out ‘Abba, Father’.
Do YOU have the Spirit?
**John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
John 14:17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
Romans 8:15 For you did not receive a Spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of Sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
.**
G
guanophore
Guest
It is hard to look at things objectively when one has been indoctrinated against a certain point of view.
Certainly Catholics have plenty of responsibility, as there was rampant corruption among the European clergy at the time. The Reformers had many valid complaints. People are always in need of reform. The problem was the idea that the doctrine of Christ needed
“reform”.
When those persons departed from the Apostolic Teaching, they made the choice to embrace heretical beliefs. At that point they separated themselves from the Church. It is the duty of the Church to distinguish between Truth, as committed by Christ through the Apostles, and departures from it. The views that represented departures from the Apostolic faith were clearly stated to be heresies, to protect both those who embraced them, and those who might follow the ones who had embraced error.
The Catholic Church had no part in forming these heretical protestant ecclesial communities.
Certainly not! All those who departed from the One, Holy, and Aposotlic faith were Catholics at one time. It is very possible the corruption they experienced prevented them from hearing the gospel.
Why are you here on CAF, Doki?
G
guanophore
Guest
You know, I think this is true! Can you elaborate more on this point?
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree with you entirely on this point, Tweety. However our “theological distinctives” are much more htan just a name on the door.
- Status