I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[Marybeloved]

By your rationale, sir, the Apostle Paul acted quite out of turn on several occasions. Care to correct him on where he went wrong? According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker who, also according to modern standards, should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches). Not only did he act out of turn to ordain ‘a pope’ ahead of the guy whom Peter later ordained as ‘pope’, he also openly and unashamedly and without recanting rebuked the ‘first pope’ - the Apostle Peter himself. Of course, not knowing the boundaries of appropriate protocol he went even further - calling the ‘pope’ a hypocrite, accusing him as having “stood condemned” and accusing him of leading others astray: “When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:11-16). I just cannot seem to figure out how to reconcile what has been taught here as certain persons being Christ’s chief representative on earth with what is recorded in Scripture. But, I am sure there will be good explanations for all of this, … Care to help me understand where the Apostle Paul totally misunderstood what Church was really all about?

So Paul rebuked Peter for bad behavior-so what? Saints have done that down the ages! A pope is a sinner like anyone else (that’s why they have to have confession like anyone else!)-when he goes wrong, he must be corrected because of his top position, he can cause grave scandal by bad example- Like Peter who made others follow him in bad conduct. What Peter never did though, was proclaim/teach errors-that’s infallibility. Paul was duty-bound to set him straight, as have many saints who have rebuked bad behavior of the popes in the past-What none of them including the Apostle Paul never did, though, was to purport to found another church other than the one built on Peter and call it the true church- That’s peculiarly Protestant. So the Apostle St. Paul was absolutely clear on his duties and his place in the Church- It’s you who has not yet understood the functions and meanings of the different organs of the Church.

And what you say about Paul ordaining a Pope ahead of the guy Peter appointed? Peter was the Pope- He was alive, no-one appointed any one to Peter’s seat when Peter still walked this Earth- The Bishop who succeeded Peter in his see became Bishop of Rome and holder of Peter’s keys, nothing else.

 

[pablope]

By your rationale, sir, the Apostle Paul acted quite out of turn on several occasions. Care to correct him on where he went wrong? According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker who, also according to modern standards, should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches).

Can you cite instances of what you are talking about here? Or is it because you are applying your 21st century understanding/perspective…to events that happened 2000 years ago…look and study the culture of that time…what may seem out of turn to you may not be according to the practice and culture at that time.

Not only did he act out of turn to ordain ‘a pope’ ahead of the guy whom Peter later ordained as ‘pope’,

 

[joe370]

By your rationale, sir, the Apostle Paul acted quite out of turn on several occasions. Care to correct him on where he went wrong?

All man, don’t call me sir; you make me feel old when you do that and I am only 44. Joe is finel! :thumbsupaul was personally selected by Jesus Himself, and just as the other apostles, he possessed the charism and via that charsim of the holy spirit, he and the other apostles passed doctrinal truth on to their successors.This of course is my belief; I am sure you probably feel differently and that’s cool.

According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker who, also according to modern standards, should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches…).

 

[louis91766]

The Bible was written by Catholics, for Catholics, for the Catholic Church…so how could it contradict the CC?

 

[PRmerger]

But there are some contradictions between Catholic teaching and what the Bible teaches:

1. Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

It would seem, then, that the Bible contradicts your point as well, louis.

Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel -1 Cor 4:15

Welcome to the CAFs, BTW.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, here is what the Formula of Concord says:

And Martin Chemnitz, second generation reformer:

Jon

I’m sorry Jon. I confess that I have enough on my plate trying to know and learn my own faith, that I simply cannot add more by trying to sift through your Lutheran theology.

Could you please simplify and help me understand how your theology.

Do you believe that Sacred Tradition is a channel of the Word of God?

If not (and I think you’re saying that), then how do you reconcile that with this statement of yours here:

Additionally, sola scriptura does not exclude tradition or Tradition.

 

[pablope]

pablope;8542380:

But there are some contradictions between Catholic teaching and what the Bible teaches:

Hi, Louis…forgive me for asking…but are you really catholic?

Correct, Catholic teaching does not contradict the Bible…it is our private interpretation without taking into account the context, intent, proper guidance of the passages being read.

1. Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Well, I’ll be darned…Jesus must be contradicting Himself…but do you really believe Jesus can contradict Himself?

For in later in this chapter…He says this…Matthew 23:29-31
[Jesus speaking in same chapter as the "Don’t call men ‘fathers’ verse] Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of **your fathers. **

Or in Luke 6…23 Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to [l]treat the prophets.

And contradictions of contradictions…within earshot…He does not condemn those calling David…“Father”…on Palm sunday to boot…here in Mark 11…

9 Those who went in front and those who followed were shouting:
“Hosanna!
BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD;
10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David;
Hosanna in the highest!”

So…is it really catholic teaching that is contradictory…or your understanding of the verse/passage…based on what someone told you?

 

[joe370]

louis91766;8542406]
But there are some contradictions between Catholic teaching and what the Bible teaches:

1. Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

Paul and Abraham are both called Father, so perhaps you are missing something, or are Paul and Abraham the exception to the rule?

1. 1 Peter 2:18 You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters with all respect. Do what they tell you–not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are cruel.

That’s a contradiction between Catholic teaching and what the Bible teaches

1. 1 Corinthians 14:34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

1. 1 Corinthians 11:10 For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.

If these are contradictions between Catholic teaching and what the Bible teaches, then they are contradictions between Protestant teaching and what the Bible teaches.

 

[gerhardc]

All man, don’t call me sir; you make me feel old when you do that and I am only 44. Joe is finel! :thumbsupaul was personally selected by Jesus Himself, and just as the other apostles, he possessed the charism and via that charsim of the holy spirit, he and the other apostles passed doctrinal truth on to their successors.This of course is my belief; I am sure you probably feel differently and that’s cool.

 

[gerhardc]

(Galatians 2:11-16) - So Paul rebuked Peter for bad behavior-so what? Saints have done that down the ages! A pope is a sinner like anyone else (that’s why they have to have confession like anyone else!)-when he goes wrong, he must be corrected because of his top position, he can cause grave scandal by bad example

Not sure the person noted below appreciated being corrected about the *ongoing *policy of ***indulgences ***which he sanctioned? In fact, we are sure his response whas much unlike that of Peter in Galatians 2. Successor of Peter?

I had a hunch that things may not be as they seem but the more I look into this the more amazed I am. Really. Note, the assertions below are not mine. The question, I guess, is whether or not we should believe Wikipedia’s sources? Then, if their testimony checks out, the next questions are how a ‘holy organization’ can be led by *conscious ungodliness *and whether or not it is possible for any doctrine of succession to still stand?: Wikipedia: “Several modern historians have concluded that Leo was homosexual. Contemporary tracts and accounts such as that of Francesco Guicciardini have been found to allude to active same-sex relations – alleging Count Ludovico Rangone and Galeotto Malatesta among his lovers.
Cesare Falconi has examined in particular Leo’s infatuation with the Venetian noble Marcantonio Flaminio, with Leo arranging the best education that could be offered for the time. Von Pastor has argued, however, against the credibility of these testimonies, and rejected accusations of immorality as anti-papal polemic. Gucciardini was not resident at the papal court during Leo’s pontificate, while other contemporaries such as Matteo Herculano took pains to praise his chastity. Paul Strathern, a British writer and academic, argues that Leo while homosexual, was not sexually active as pope, despite identifying notable members of that family as such.”

Peter was the Pope- He was alive, no-one appointed any one to Peter’s seat when Peter still walked this Earth- The Bishop who succeeded Peter in his see became Bishop of Rome and holder of Peter’s keys, nothing else.

And who supposedly is this person he ordained as pope? While there is a pope occupying the seat…no othere person can be pope.

I’m with you man! Where there is no agreement as to what the lineage was – who succeeded whom - how can there be a doctrine of succession. Right? Then, I guess there is no doctrine of succession because there is no real clarity as to who succeeded whom?

Referring to an Paul’s travels to Jerusalem in Galatians 1 - 2:

But here is where we also see a fascinating and somewhat refreshing portrait of what true respect for authority includes. It is clear, from what we have seen, that Paul respected the authority of Peter and had both conferred with him early on and later set forth the gospel that he preached. However, there is also a description of Paul offering fraternal correction to Peter… It understands that having authority does not mean one is above reproof…But here Paul stands face to face (κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην) with Peter and accuses him of a moral fault.

That’s where you and your chosen ‘expert’ is missing it. In fact, concerning the verses 11 – 14 of Galatians 2, Paul was saying ‘Peter was missing the very reason why Christ came by acting as if He had not come’. That’s not “moral fault”. That is grave error – a denial of the Christian faith (for which he “stood condemned”), albeit in this example only. Refer verse 14: “When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel”. As is the case with our friend Marybeloved above, please do not confuse “moral fault” or “bad behaviour” with grave error worthy of condemnation. Clearly, it is not the same thing. The seriousness of Paul’s point was the very notion that Peter should have known better. And the reason for it was this: ”My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1). Please refrain from watering down Paul’s admonition of Peter. Importantly, with Paul there is no disrespect for Peter, nor is there any degree of over-submission to him either. We should do the same.

 

[joe370]

gerhardc

Just a friendly greeting, sir.

We’re in agreement about what you said about Paul above. The point that was made was that Paul did not see “Church” in the same way as you and others have claimed on this site.

It’s OK for us to agree to disagree, which we do! Of course the concept of “the church” certainly developed and transformed from the first days of the apostles’ ministry to the days when Christianity was finally legalized in the 4th century. Wouldn’t you agree? By the way, do we both agree that the concept of sola scriptura, from the first days of the apostles’ ministry to the days when Christianity was finally legalized in the 4th century, was non-existent?

Yes, he went to Jerusalem to see Peter (refer Galatians 1:18-20).

You seem to gloss over that fact rather quickly, as insignificant. Of course no one has a clue who Paul saw directly, or what Paul was doing for those three years. How do you know, for sure, that Paul did not seek guidance from Peter when he visited him for those 15 days? You and I cannot possibly confirm that as fact.

You cannot claim that ‘Paul went to see Peter, that’s why he submitted to his authority’. Looking for it in Scripture, it is just not there. Reason being that Paul’s understanding of what “Church” constitutes and who it is led by differs from that which is continually being taught here. Paul’s understanding of what Church constitutes is confirmed by John in 1 John 2:3 - ‘the Holy Spirit will teach you’. But, Paul goes back to Jerusalem, 14 years later. This time in response to a revelation for which he sought confirmation of (note, not permission of) from Cephas, James and John - not any one of them specifically, but all three together (refer Galatians 2:1-11).

Like you said, “Yes, he went to Jerusalem to see Peter (refer Galatians 1:18-20).”

If the HS was Paul’s exclusive teacher then why the need to seek confirmation from Cephas, James and John for anything, even if it was not doctrinal guidance, if his teacher is the Holy Spirit?

Interestingly, directly following his account about seeking confirmation of his revelation (specifically concerning circumcision) he notes his exchange with Peter where he calls him a “hypocrite” who “stood condemned” and who ‘led others astray’.

You accuse me of attacking Paul by saying, “According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker who, also according to modern standards, should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches…” which I absolutely did not say, and would NEVER say, and then attack poor Peter for his human weakness and hypocrisy, inherit in us all by saying, “he notes his exchange with Peter where he calls him a “hypocrite” who “stood condemned” and who 'led others astray.”

Isn’t that a tad hypocritical? Peter was weak and a hypocrite, but he led no one astray. Let’s just assume both Paul and Peter made there share of mistakes and both, at times, needed to be rebuked, but both taught and wrote infallibly, and leave it at that; what you say?

 

[gerhardc]

It’s OK for us to agree to disagree, which we do! Of course the concept of “the church” certainly developed and transformed from the first days of the apostles’ ministry to the days when Christianity was finally legalized in the 4th century. Wouldn’t you agree?

I am highly suspicious of what happened to the Church when Constantine I (a pagan till, supposedly his deathbed when he was baptised), effectively, took over the (running of the) freedom of affiliation which was the Church of Christ. What had been a loose affiliation of committed believers (even under persecution) turned into a geo-political/religious machine where influence, personal assets and political connection (within the Roman Empire) increasingly meant something good for the religious leaders of the day. But that is for another discussion on another day.

By the way, do we both agree that the concept of sola scriptura, from the first days of the apostles’ ministry to the days when Christianity was finally legalized in the 4th century, was non-existent?

We know little about that period except some writings that suggest that the the letters of the Apostles had been circulating and that, amongst some, they had been seen as Scripture. How these letter eventually came to be bound into one book, we know, is another story.

You seem to gloss over that fact rather quickly, as insignificant. Of course no one has a clue who Paul saw directly, or what Paul was doing for those three years. How do you know, for sure, that Paul did not seek guidance from Peter when he visited him for those 15 days? You and I cannot possibly confirm that as fact.

By the same token can no-one affirm that he sought the approval of Peter per se when he went to Jerusalem after his conversion. Thus, there is no connection between Peter’s supposed authority and Paul’s submission to it.

Like you said, “Yes, he went to Jerusalem to see Peter (refer Galatians 1:18-20).” If the HS was Paul’s exclusive teacher then why the need to seek confirmation from Cephas, James and John for anything, even if it was not doctrinal guidance, if his teacher is the Holy Spirit?

In the period directly after Paul’s conversion he writes that he did not immediately “confer with flesh and blood”. Okay, perhaps its just me, but that means that Paul conferred with God whilst in a desolate place - Arabia. Does that mean he would never not be sure of himself? Of course not. He says so much in Romans 7:14 to Romans 8:14.

You accuse me of attacking Paul by saying, “According to your beliefs the Apostle Paul was a real trouble maker who, also according to modern standards, should really have been excommunicated (much like others have been for lesser breaches…” which I absolutely did not say, and would NEVER say, and then attack poor Peter for his human weakness and hypocrisy, inherit in us all by saying, “he notes his exchange with Peter where he calls him a “hypocrite” who “stood condemned” and who 'led others astray.”

No, I wasn’t actually quoting you. I was simply making the point that if Paul was really submitting to Peter as today’s bishops submit to the pope, then his actions (calling the pope a “hypocrite”, saying he “stood condemned” and accusing him a ‘leading people astray’) would have meant that without recanting, Paul would have been met with the harshest of responses - probably excommunication. And that goes to show that Paul was not in the same relationship with Peter as modern-day bishops are with the pope. Thus, Paul did not see church in the same light as bishops in the Catholic movement do.

Isn’t that a tad hypocritical? Peter was weak and a hypocrite, but he led no one astray. Let’s just assume both Paul and Peter made there share of mistakes and both, at times, needed to be rebuked, but both taught and wrote infallibly, and leave it at that; what you say?

Refer Galatians 2:14 - “The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray” Hope that helps.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m with you man! Where there is no agreement as to what the lineage was – who succeeded whom - how can there be a doctrine of succession. Right? Then, I guess there is no doctrine of succession because there is no real clarity as to who succeeded whom?

We may have no real clarity on who succeeded whom in the earliest days of the Church, but that does not mean that the Church had no clarity on this. It’s just that there are no extant records which confirm for us the names of the successors. There was, however, a successor. One successor after each pope.

 

[louis91766]

Correct, Catholic teaching does not contradict the Bible…

The Bible says that women are to remain silent in Church in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible says that women are to remain silent in Church in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

Women* are* to remain silent in church. I just shushed one yesterday, as a matter of fact. She kept chatting with her neighbor while some of us were trying to pray.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible says that women are to remain silent in Church in contradiction to Catholic teaching.

Ok, now to the serious answer: we must interpret the Scriptures in light of the lens of the Church which provided us with the Scriptures.

And the Church understands which of the professions in Scripture are binding on the faithful today, and which are not. As maintained by the Church, the guardian and interpreter of Scripture, the verse which declares women are to be silent in Church is a disciplinary admonition, not a doctrinal one.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sorry Jon. I confess that I have enough on my plate trying to know and learn my own faith, that I simply cannot add more by trying to sift through your Lutheran theology.

Could you please simplify and help me understand how your theology.

Do you believe that Sacred Tradition is a channel of the Word of God?

If not (and I think you’re saying that), then how do you reconcile that with this statement of yours here:

Simply this: Tradition is subject, accountable to the word of God. Tradition cannot contradict the word of God. So, while scripture is the final norm, that does not exclude, necessarily Traditon.

I confess, in return, to you the same limitations you express about Lutheran theology that I have regarding Catholic theology. Perhaps it might help if you explain/define the meaning of the phrase, “a **channel **of the word of God”.

Jon

 

[gerhardc]

Ok, now to the serious answer: we must interpret the Scriptures in light of the lens of the Church which provided us with the Scriptures.

And the Church understands which of the professions in Scripture are binding on the faithful today, and which are not. As maintained by the Church, the guardian and interpreter of Scripture, the verse which declares women are to be silent in Church is a disciplinary admonition, not a doctrinal one.

The Catholic movement’s insistence to interpret Scripture on behalf of the believer, … for many, this will be the difference between godliness and ungodluness: 1) denying the ** reason ** why the Helper was sent to every born again follower of Jesus, and 2) denying the ** work of** the Holy Spirit in the lives of every believer (refer 1 John 2:27: ‘you need not that anyone teach you, but the Anointing will teach you all things and is true’). Scripture itself says who should interpret it, and it is not a religious movement. There you have it, obedience or disobedience to the Scriptures? It appears your movement insists that it is a better teacher than the Spirit of God. Wait, what about the 30,000 non-Catholic churches thing? **Really simple , as is the case with the Catholic movement, those are not churches either. However, like in the Catholic movement, one can find born again believers (refer John 3:3-5, it is a must-have not a nice-to-have) who are led by the Spirit of God (refer Romans 8:14, must-have) and who are obedient to Him (refer 1 John 2:3, must-have), in these groupings as well. God is not concerned over the external, He is concerned over the heart (refer Matthew 15, ‘they worship me with their lips but their hearts are far from met’, ‘clean the inside of the cup then the outside will be clean also’). Still, there are those who are so in love with the culture through which they view God **that they cannot be born of the Spirit, choosing to believe the doctrines of men instead and denying the Kingdom of God.

“If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17)

 

[jmcrae]

… That is the criteria that I use for not accepting Mormon teachings either … or Buddhist … or Scientologist … or Unitarian … or Muslim … or Secular Humanism … or …

God said that nothing will stand that contradicts his word.

“Heaven and earth will pass away … but my word will not.”

God exalts his word above his own name.

The Word being referred to here is the Person of Jesus Christ - not a book made of paper and ink.

There is much more to God’s Word (the Person of Jesus Christ) than has ever been written down. (John 21:25)

It is Jesus who gave to the Apostles the Sacrament of Baptism, and it does not stand to reason that He would have given it to them without ensuring they understood to whom it pertains - therefore, since the Apostles baptized infants who were eight days old (as we know from the records of the later controversy in the Church, whether parents had to wait the eight days as the Apostles did, or could they baptize their babies at birth) - we know that Jesus told them that it pertains to the children of Christian parents, as well as to adult converts.

 

[gerhardc]

We may have no real clarity on who succeeded whom in the earliest days of the Church, but that does not mean that the Church had no clarity on this. It’s just that there are no extant records which confirm for us the names of the successors. There was, however, a successor. One successor after each pope.

Oh really? And you base your whole life and religious devotion on what, effectively, you describe as hear-say. So now, we not only have the disputeable interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (‘I want you to always follow Peter and whoever succeeds him’), we also have hear-say in the practical outliving of it (no clarity as to who followed whom as Peter’s successors). Hang on, there’s also a cult ure to hold on to. That should do it, right? … how about just reading the Bible and believing it? No flimsy interpretations, no hear-say, no adoration by culture.