If Protestantism Is True

[stewstew03]

And the times I have visited Mass, I have seen extreme focus on the Eucharist:thumbsup: but comparatively little focus on Scripture.

Isn’t that bit like saying, “extreme focus on prayer, but little focus on Jesus”? In other words, how can you split Eucharistic adoration from Scripture? Why make the distinction?

 

[benjohnson]

. The fact that recent Popes have been such eloquent proclaimers of the Gospel, 500 years after it seemed obvious to many devout and learned people that the Papacy had decisively abandoned the Gospel, is one of the most powerful confirmations for me.

Edwin

Isn’t that the truth - Now days, I find it hard to say anything other than “This pope is inspired by the Holy Sprit.” Their behavior does me take another look at Papal Infallibility, and not immediately reject it.

 

[Taestron]

Oh that was fast. I guess I would have to concede that the liturgy does come from Scripture… but there seems to be a difference between coming from Scripture and Scripture itself. I don’t even know if I could put my finger on what that difference actually is. Note: when I get the seemings I can’t really identify I have to spend a bit of time examining them to see if they really have substance, so I don’t put too much stock in these. Also, when I am not familiar with liturgy, it is difficult for me to participate well (which confuses the issue somewhat).

Initially, I would say that there seems to be a difference between immersion and ingestion. At the Masses I have attended, Scripture is performed (beautifully so). Scripture permeates and informs much, but it is like going swimming in water. You are surrounded by the water of Scripture, but the point is not to drink the water. The point is to consume Christ, and although Scripture informs and is a major part of this rite, we are feeding on Christ and not Scripture. When I hear descriptions of the worship of the early Church, it seems that Scripture is the nourishment that is being presented. You are at the well of Scripture and the point is to drink until you are satiated so you can have strength to do the work of God. I don’t know if this is correct, or even if it is correct, I believe that the current form of liturgy is good, proper, and valid. But every time the description of Justin Martyr, I can’t help but feel we have lost something which was also good proper, and valid.

 

[Nicea325]

Isn’t that the truth - Now days, I find it hard to say anything other than “This pope is inspired by the Holy Sprit.” Their behavior does me take another look at Papal Infallibility, and not immediately reject it.

Ben,

What many non-Catholics misunderstand is that papal infallibility deals with the office,not the person.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

So… which local church is the pillar and ground of truth? Does that church still exist? Or are you saying that ALL present-day “local churches” are pillars of truth?

Good afternoon. Thank you for your questions in your reply.I am saying each local church is the pillar of truth. Each is surposed to properly preach the teaching of Scripture. The question than would be if it is faithful to that task or not individually. I am by no means saying each and every church is true. As you and I would at the very least agree that Jehovah Wittnesses, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostalism would be an evident false church considering they reject and outright deny the Trinity. For those of our perspective the issue would be limited to the relationship between Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox as they relate to one another. For example, the present Pope considers Protestantism churches as not valid churches and refers to them as mere christian communities instead of a church and views Eastern Orthodox ( he views EO as having apostolic succession though ) as defective. Enjoy your day !

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Ben,

What many non-Catholics misunderstand is that papal infallibility deals with the office,not the person.

I would say it is common to Jack Chick types. Informed Protestants generally do not make that mistake.

 

[GaryTaylor]

For those of our perspective the issue would be limited to the relationship between Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox as they relate to one another. For example, the present Pope considers Protestantism churches as not valid churches and refers to them as mere christian communities instead of a church and views Eastern Orthodox ( he views EO as having apostolic succession though ) as defective.

Do you have this recent statement available by Pope Benedict? I probably missed it, I do have the 2010 interview where he comments on the Orthodox Church and Protestant which seems different than your above comment suggests. I’d be interested in reading this.

Thanks.

 

[JonNC]

Do you have this recent statement available by Pope Benedict? I probably missed it, I do have the 2010 interview where he comments on the Orthodox Church and Protestant which seems different than your above comment suggests. I’d be interested in reading this.

Thanks.

“The ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”

It might have been before he became pope, from *Dominus Iesus *

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Heres 2010…

"A Church in its proper sense, as we understand it, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacramental expression of apostolic succession is present, which also implies the existence of the Eucharist as a sacrament that is dispensed by the Bishop and by a Priest.

If this is not the case than we are dealing with the emergence of another model. a new way of understanding what a church is, which at V-II we designated by the term “ecclesial community” The word was intended to dictate that such communities embody a different mode of being a church, As they themselves insist." Pope Benedict XVI 2010

Non issue with the EO, point being with the Apostolic Churchs the need for all to be in Communion. This also becomes multi faceted with Protestantism, since steps have been taken in some areas to lead them father away, rather than closer. Others reject this and in essense are moving closer as with mainline Protestants.

 

[GaryTaylor]

It might have been before he became pope, from *Dominus Iesus *

Jon

Ah I crossed posts with ya. Dominus Iesus also become of issue in dialogue with the EO in 2010 as this was the work Pope Benedict mentioned he wanted to re-evaluate. Haven’t heard anything on this as of yet. Right, he wrote this when Cardinal.

 

[PRmerger]

Initially, I would say that there seems to be a difference between immersion and ingestion. At the Masses I have attended, Scripture is performed (beautifully so). Scripture permeates and informs much, but it is like going swimming in water. You are surrounded by the water of Scripture, but the point is not to drink the water. The point is to consume Christ, and although Scripture informs and is a major part of this rite, we are feeding on Christ and not Scripture.

'zactly!

To put Scripture over Christ is to commit the sin, I believe, of bibliolatry.

So it seems that the Catholic liturgy gets it right. We are immersed in the Scripture; Scripture permeates the Divine Liturgy, but Scripture is not the focus of our worship. Christ is whom we worship.

 

[Nicea325]

'zactly!

To put Scripture over Christ is to commit the sin, I believe, of bibliolatry.

So it seems that the Catholic liturgy gets it right. We are immersed in the Scripture; Scripture permeates the Divine Liturgy, but Scripture is not the focus of our worship. Christ is whom we worship.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

'zactly!

To put Scripture over Christ is to commit the sin, I believe, of bibliolatry.

So it seems that the Catholic liturgy gets it right. We are immersed in the Scripture; Scripture permeates the Divine Liturgy, but Scripture is not the focus of our worship. Christ is whom we worship.

You are correct PR, and not only that but it is in the Bible as well!

[bibledrb]John 5:39-40[/bibledrb]

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Do you have this recent statement available by Pope Benedict? I probably missed it, I do have the 2010 interview where he comments on the Orthodox Church and Protestant which seems different than your above comment suggests. I’d be interested in reading this.

Thanks.

It was a new article on Fox news web site. I had saved it and Fox took it off. I will see if I can locate the same one again from somewhere else.

 

[PRmerger]

It was a new article on Fox news web site. I had saved it and Fox took it off. I will see if I can locate the same one again from somewhere else.

Oh, good. You’re online now I see.

So could you please answer the question I posed earlier about what internal evidence you used to discern that Hebrews is inspired and what external evidence you used to discern that Hebrews is inspired?

And if you are indeed claiming that you use this for each and every book of the NT to discern whether these books are inspired or not?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Oh, good. You’re online now I see.

Hi and yes I am on.

So could you please answer the question I posed earlier about what internal evidence you used to discern that Hebrews is inspired and what external evidence you used to discern that Hebrews is inspired?

External historical evidence being received through the wittness account from men such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Alexandaria and Theophilus and others who attested for it.

External evidence showing it existed and written while Jewish temple was still around before 67ad consist in Hebrews 8:4, 13:9; 9:4-9; 10:1-10; 13:10-11 which has the present tense. Showing the author is historical familiar with the issues relating to the sacrifical system of Israel and his showing it in contrast to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ in his work in which it pointed to and find it’s fulfillment in. This shows it’s link to the apostolic area.

Internal evidence is the spiritual quality of it’s nature in the person of the work and person of Jesus Christ. It contains no contradictions with the rest of Scripture. It contains no errors in any of it’s contents within itself doctrinally or historically. It is considered a general exposition of the law of Moses system. The list could go on much more .

And if you are indeed claiming that you use this for each and every book of the NT to discern whether these books are inspired or not?

I have not personally done it for each and every book but which books I have done it matched up. But to me this is a red herring since Roman Catholic already affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture and has the Epistle of Hebrews as part of it’s NT Canon listing. I am remain unmoved by your objections to the inspiration of Scripture by God and on the OT and NT Canon.

The RCC position on the inspiration of Scripture

Catechism of the Catholic Church

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”69

“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72 (702)

I have several questions for you so that we may see how you answer this instead of you trying to have a one way discussion with me.

1. Do you as a professing Roman Catholic hold to the doctrine of inspiration of Scripture as specified in The Catechism Of The Catholic Church ?
2. Do you as a professing Roman Catholic affirm all the NT Canon book listing as stated in the NAB which is a Roman Catholic Bible ?
3. Do you believe in the very same NT Canon book listing as affirmed in Protestant translations of the Bible ?
4. On what basis do you believe in the equal authority of sacred tradition after the apostolic area with Scripture ?
5. On what basis do you accept Roman Catholicism rather than Eastern Orthodox since both claim to be apostolic in lineage ?
6. On what basis do you accept the OT and NT Canon that was proclaimed by the RCC ?
7. What are the standards that the RCC used to determine what the OT and NT are and why was it correct ?
8. When you decided that the RCC was the only true church did you use private judgement based on evidence as your basis for accepting Roman Catholicism ? If so, is this using a fallible basis on something ?
9. Is it possible for you to error on your personal fallible judgement regarding Roman Catholicism as being true ?
10. Do you have 100% certain knowledge that all the claims of Roman Catholicism regarding it’s history and doctrinal positions are true ?
11. Do you believe that Protestantism departs from what is stated in The Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Chalcedonian Creed and The Athansian Creed ?

 

[PRmerger]

External historical evidence being received through the wittness account from men such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Alexandaria and Theophilus and others who attested for it.

So you are going by the proclamations of men, in order to discern whether a book is inspired.

That is not SOLA SCRIPTURA.

You are basing something about what God has revealed on something OTHER THAN Scripture.

External evidence showing it existed and written while Jewish temple was still around before 67ad consist in Hebrews 8:4, 13:9; 9:4-9; 10:1-10; 13:10-11 which has the present tense. Showing the author is historical familiar with the issues relating to the sacrifical system of Israel and his showing it in contrast to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ in his work in which it pointed to and find it’s fulfillment in. This shows it’s link to the apostolic area.

The Shepherd of Hermas also meets this criterion.

So why don’t you consider it inspired?

Internal evidence is the spiritual quality of it’s nature in the person of the work and person of Jesus Christ. It contains no contradictions with the rest of Scripture. It contains no errors in any of it’s contents within itself doctrinally or historically. It is considered a general exposition of the law of Moses system. The list could go on much more

This, again, is a testament to Sacred Tradition.

Also, the Shepherd of Hermas fits this criterion.

And yet you don’t consider it inspired. Why?

 

[Conqueror]

Has anyone else read this book? (“If Protestantism Is True” by Devin Rose) I’m currently reading it and it has raised some very convincing points for me to really want to join the Catholic church. Granted, I started reading it because I was already interested and was looking for more information on the subject. Any suggestions of other books I should read while continuing my current plans of joining an RCIA class in September? I would also like to lead my husband this direction through use of good logic. He’s a math guy and less inclined to follow his heart and feelings over logical points. Any book suggestions that you think would be good for him would also be appreciated.

An excellent book is the bible, since faith comes by hearing. This book tells you to turn to Jesus and seek His Kingdom and His righteousness first.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

So you are going by the proclamations of men, in order to discern whether a book is inspired.

That is not SOLA SCRIPTURA.

You are basing something about what God has revealed on something OTHER THAN Scripture.

Misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. It does not deny the use of external information on things. That does not reflect what I believe regarding Sola Scriptura. You made a mistake in your comment.

The Shepherd of Hermas also meets this criterion.So why don’t you consider it inspired?

No it does not. It was written after the apostolic area and contains doctrinal errors in it.

This, again, is a testament to Sacred Tradition.

Also, the Shepherd of Hermas fits this criterion. And yet you don’t consider it inspired. Why?

No not exactly. It contains errors within it. It appears to have a slightly defective view on the Trinity if I remember correctly. Something that you would agree with me on. It is not apostolic. Hemas is not directly connected to the apostles or a delegate of an apostle. My main concern is it’s errors and it being outside the time of the apostles.

When will you answer the questions that I had asked you ?

 

[Nicea325]

Misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura. It does not deny the use of external information on things. That does not reflect what I believe regarding Sola Scriptura. You made a mistake in your comment.

No it does not. It was written after the apostolic area and contains doctrinal errors in it.

No not exactly. It contains errors within it. It appears to have a slightly defective view on the Trinity if I remember correctly. Something that you would agree with me on. It is not apostolic. Hemas is not directly connected to the apostles or a delegate of an apostle. My main concern is it’s errors and it being outside the time of the apostles.

When will you answer the questions that I had asked you ?

Misrepretation of SS? Tell me…which denomination out of thousands properly represents SS and its definition? Many have said SS is NOT a doctrine but only a principle while others say it is a doctrine.

And when will you answer my question? Show me the chapter and verse where the Bible explicitly states it is SUPREME over the church? Here…let me use your own criteria:

My main concern is it’s errors and it being outside the time of the apostles.

Therefore it must be Apostolic in origin-right? Chapter and verse…please