If we are not justified in Baptism...Then Christ died in vain

[guanophore]

You might consider the Augsburg confession for a little light bedtime reading.

"Also they (Lutherans) teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will

This part of the “confessions” was intended to oppose the Calvinists, who are OSAS.

1st. That is a contradiction. First you say, “it is not universally true.” then you make a universal statement, “All SS accept the Virgin Birth.”

No, it is not a contradiction. You stated:

People who believe in Sola Scriptura, do not accept the Marian doctrines.

The Virgin Birth is one of the Marian doctrines that most SS accept.

2nd. The statement,*** All SS accept the Virgin Birth***, is false.

… Bultmann argued that the New Testament presents a mythological worldview that modern men and women simply cannot accept as real. The virgin birth is simply a part
of this mythological structure and Bultmann urged his program of
“demythologization” in order to construct a faith liberated from
miracles and all vestiges of the supernatural. Jesus was reduced to an
enlightened teacher and existentialist model.
albertmohler.com/2007/12/05/can-a-christian-deny-the-virgin-birth-3/

I can’t believe you are even pulling Bultman into this arguement. Cant you at least find a CHRISTIAN that supports your assertion? Can’t you pick someone that most evangelicals at least read or follow? This is a red herring.

It is obvious from the small summary of Bultman you have copied here that he is not even Christian. He cannot qualifiy in the category of separated brethren.
The truth is that most SS folks accept the Virgin Birth, and that ALL the Reformers, who built their religions on SS, accepted the perpetual virginity of the Blessed mother.

 

[AbideWithMe]

May our Lord bring balance to the Earth, giving us rain in due season, and days of sun to grow the plants and gladden our hearts. May the selfishness and greed of men who deface the earth be constrained, and may our planet sustain itself and us in accordance with HIs design.

And let all God’s people say Amen.

 

[guanophore]

Do Sola Scripturists accept those doctrines today?

No, but I think that is because the doctrine of SS tends to pull the adherants further and futher from the Apostolic faith as time goes by.

Are you one of them?

Yes.

According to you, they hold to Church authority. So, if that is true, why don’t they?

No, you misunderstood what I said. I said they still hold to the Apostolic principle of authority in the Church. They replaced what they thought was corrupt authority with themselves, and in modern days, people assume positions of authority over congregations because they believe such roles are divinely inspired.

But your claim is that they hold to Church authority.

No, De Maria. This is an example of you trying to force your concept of Church authority into what I am saying.

And that they keep most of the Apostolic Faith. Therefore, what part of the Apostolic Faith is this? Did not the Apostles celebrate the Mass?

Indeed they did celebrate the Mass, another aspect of Sacred Tradition that has been lost among our separated brethren. Nevertheless, they will support the authority of their pastor to preside at their services, and believe that he is divinely appointed to that task, because they accept the concept of church authority.

Define SS.  Let's see whether your beliefs about SS or mine are more accurate.

Oh, no thanks. I came to this thread to talk about baptism. I am not that interested in SS.

SS is not about your beliefs or mine anyway, but is about the people who claim to believe in it. My point is that most Protestants do not hold the view of this doctrine that you do.

When did I say I formed a definition of SS?  Please point that out because you continue to put words in my mouth and characterize me the way you want to, without any basis in reality.

You did not say when you formed your definition of SS. You said you came to your conclusions at some point when debating on an evangelical thread. You stated your ideas about how you understand SS in post # 210.

I created?

If the items in your list in # 210 are not of your own making, please be so kind as to cite a source for them.

Didn’t you harangue me in half of your posts because I make sure that the Protestants I speak to define precisely what they believe?

No, not a bit! I was haranging you about making them PROVE that what YOU THOUGHT they believe is not what they actually believe.

Is Salvation like a game of horseshoes? Is close, good enough? If so, how close is good enough and how far is too far?

No, but it is useful, when conversing with our separated brethren, to affirm the parts of the faith we do hold in common.

 

[De_Maria]

Ok, maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. Please correct me.

??? I have already. You claimed I said something that I didn’t. What more correction do you want?

Have you looked at the stats for this thread? There are 16 people reading for every one posting.

Stats don’t interest me. I don’t write to be popular or to please anyone.

It think you are addressing a lot more people than you realize.

I count on it.

Does that confuse you? I don’t care about statistics but I count on many people reading my posts?

1. I don’t care how many people read my posts. I don’t tailor my responses in order to gain readership. If people like what I say, fine. If they don’t, that is fine too.
2. However, I post on the internet because I know that many people are reading these messages and I believe I have some valuable insights to pass on.

SS does NOT necessarily say that “we must do away with Tradition”.

SS does away with Tradition whether it says it or not.

But then, you haven’t defined SS yet. Show me one version of SS which still holds to Tradition? Just one.

All Protestants accept portions Tradition,

Portions of Tradition are not Tradition. Once one eliminates even one part of Tradition they cast aside the whole thing.

Have you not read in Scripture?
James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

You can’t cast aside the authority of the Church and justify yourself by saying, “But I believe in Purgatory.”

You can’t set aside the importance of the Mass and say, “But I believe the Pope is the Shepherd of Christ”.

Show me what part of Tradition is negotiable? Which part can be set aside?

some more than others. How much is rejected depends upon how SS is defined. There are many definitions of this doctrine, and they continually evolve.

You keep repeating that statement as though some versions of Sola Scriptura are acceptable. Define the acceptable version of Sola Scriptura as you see it.

Your assertion that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means we must do away with Tradition is NOT a Catholic doctrine.

Did I say it was?

Have you asserted any Catholic doctrine on this thread?

The necessity of Baptism. The efficacy of Baptism. The value of the Sacraments. The efficacy of faith and works towards salvation.

Your opening statement that thinking of baptism as a “sign” rather than a sacrament means Christ died in vain is not a Catholic Doctrine.

How do you define, “doctrine”? Because I believe the Catholic Church “explicitly” teaches that:

1. Christ established the Sacraments.
2. Christ released sanctifying grace upon the Cross.
3. That sanctifying grace is applied to us in the Sacraments.

Ipso, facto, the Catholic Church implicitly teaches that those who deny the efficacy of the Sacraments, have nullified the death of Christ on the Cross.

Neither is your assertion that SS means we must reject Tradition a Catholic doctrine.

I never said it was.

However, all adherents of SS of which I’m aware, have placed their understanding of Scripture above the Traditions of the Church and have thus set aside the Traditions of God and replaced their man made traditions.

It is also not a Catholic doctrine that you must assume your adversaries believe what you think they do, until they prove to you otherwise.

I never said it was. But it is a valuable technique in my arsenal.

Good. I look forward to seeing that.

I have shown you over and over.

Ok. Perhaps you can start with your opening line on this thread?

We’re already talking about that in another message.

I would be shocked to consider that as well. Certainly a better example is available somewhere!

No. What gave you that idea? I want you to consider that your opponents have accepted parts of Sacred Tradition (Catholic faith).

What part? A rejection of OSAS is a rejection of Protestant tradition. Not an acceptance of Catholic Tradition.

Ask Itwin what part of Catholic Tradition he has accepted. I’m interested in the response.

I

agree with everything in the OP after the word “Jesus”.

I would have never guessed.

However, I don’t like the forumlation “faith and works”.

Do you have a better one?

Perhaps you would like to join the Luther thread?

No thanks. I don’t like your oblique style of discussion. Theoretical discussions about what Luther and the other Reformers may or may not have intended are not for me. And judging from your comments on this thread, that is precisely what you like to serve up.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

You might consider the Augsburg confession for a little light bedtime reading.

I’ve read it several times.

"Also they (Lutherans) teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God, because of God’s will

Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you saying that “salvation brings forth good fruits”?

This part of the “confessions” was intended to oppose the Calvinists, who are OSAS.

But you are bringing up OSAS again? Why?

No, it is not a contradiction. You stated:

The Virgin Birth is one of the Marian doctrines that most SS accept.

2nd. The statement,*** All SS accept the Virgin Birth***, is false.

It is a contradiction and it is false as you have shown again.

First you said, “all” and now you say, “most”.

I can’t believe you are even pulling Bultman into this arguement. Cant you at least find a CHRISTIAN that supports your assertion? Can’t you pick someone that most evangelicals at least read or follow? This is a red herring.

He is simply one example of a person who believes in Sola Scriptura who also denies the Virgin Birth. Again, I’ve spoken to many. But you claim they don’t exist. Obviously, you want to paint yourself as an individual who knows everything that every Protestant ever believed.

Really?

Rudolf Karl Bultmann (August 20, 1884 – July 30, 1976) was a German Lutheran theologian and New Testament scholar who was one of the major figures of 20th century biblical studies and a prominent voice in liberal Christianity

He is a Sola Scriptura Christian. Whether you like it or not.

He cannot qualifiy in the category of separated brethren.

Then you need to define “separated brethren”.

The truth is that most SS folks accept the Virgin Birth, and that ALL the Reformers, who built their religions on SS, accepted the perpetual virginity of the Blessed mother.

What exactly is your point anyway? Are you justifying SS?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Here is a post that exemplifies what I am trying to explain to you. Lutherans of the Missouri Synod espouse the confessions which contain much of the Sacred Tradition, but not all.

If they don’t hold all of Sacred Tradition, then they don’t hold any of it. Sacred Tradition is not subject to individual approval.

 

[De_Maria]

Sorry De Maria. I am not as good at keeping up with the rabbit trails as you are. You create them faster than I can run! I am still back on this:

You brought up both of those subjects. You are the one who claimed I had defined SS. And you are the one who brought up separated brethren clinging to the Apostolic Faith. It is you who is creating the rabbit trails and you who can’t keep up with the rabbit trails you bring up.

You asked me to provide information on which mainline Protestants still adhere to Apostolic Tradition. I pointed out that they do not conceptualize it as a unity, as you do, but that all Protestants adhere to some Sacred Tradition, some more than others.

And I pointed out that they are in error. So? Why do you keep harping on the way that Protestants look at it, unless you are trying to justify it and prove them correct?

I have you a link to a post by an Anglican listing some Sacred Tradition her ecclesial community embraces.

And I asked you if they were Protestant and if they keep to Sola Scriptura?

1. Was the Anglican Church formed in the Reformation?
2. Do Anglicans believe in Sola Scriptura?

Which Anglicans are you talking about anyway, High or Low Anglicans?

The NT canon of scripture is the main one, and after that, the Trinity.

1. Some Protestants deny parts of the NT.
2. Some Protestants deny the Trinity.

Not at all in the way you have defined it, no.

Again with the defining thing. Will you show the definition which you claim I provided?

They would affirm that they do, but their definition of it is quite different than yours because it includes authority and reception of the creeds, councils and other Sacred Tradition, as is evidenced in the post I linked to above.

1. What they affirm that they do is not the question.
2. What is in question is whether they actually do what they affirm that they do.
3. The answer is no. They do not keep to Sacred Tradition.
4. Jesus Christ did not write Scripture. Jesus Christ established a Church and deposited in that Church His deposit of Faith. His Sacred Tradition, which all followers of Jesus Christ must obey.
5. You can’t keep the Sacred Traditions of Jesus Christ if you set aside the authority of the Church which He founded and authorized.

I am sure the definition you have forwarded is a valid one for some, especially those hostile anti-Catholic evangelicals you have been debating on that other forum. I would certainly stipulate that you have accurately represented their views on it.

Ok.

They retained the idea in principle of authority. In rejecting the corrupt officials of their time, they also rejected the offices they occupied, justifying this separation by claiming they wanted to purify the Church and bring it back to it’s foundation in the Word of God. Please note, I am not trying to “justify their separation”, just making the point that belief in SS does not mean those ecclesial communties reject pastoral authority, doctrinal authority, and other aspects of Sacred Tradition.

You certainly sound like you’re justifying their separation. You depict the Church as “corrupt officials” and you claim the wanted to purify the Church and bring it back to the Word of God. And even though they rejected the pastoral and doctrinal authority which Jesus established, you claim they did not.

Your representation of SS was not entirely accurate.

As you have accurately stated. It depends upon which definition of SS we are talking about. My representation is accurate for most definitions that I’ve heard. It is also accurate for the Augsburg Confession. The Augsburg Confession can be described as a justification for the setting aside of the authority of the Catholic Church.

I never disagreed with you. You assumed I disagreed because I disagreed with other statements you made, so you lumped me into a category, just like you did Itwin.

You keep saying you agree with me and you keep disputing everything I say.

The Reformers certainly thought so. They observed their corrupt clerics, and determined that they should be judged in the light of Scripture, and when their actions were inconsistent, they should be opposed.

People don’t change. Protestants still call our clergy corrupt. Do you agree with them?

This is an example of you making an erroneous assumption.

No, I am not. I am telling you that this is how THEY justified their separation.

To what end? Why do YOU assume that I don’t know how they justified their separation?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

No, but I think that is because the doctrine of SS tends to pull the adherants further and futher from the Apostolic faith as time goes by.

Yes.

There’s quite a bit in Scripture about Purgatory. Yet not enough for you? Is there any Catholic doctrine which is described in Scripture to your satisfaction?

No, you misunderstood what I said. I said they still hold to the Apostolic principle of authority in the Church. They replaced what they thought was corrupt authority with themselves, and in modern days, people assume positions of authority over congregations because they believe such roles are divinely inspired.

That is not the Apostolic Principle. The Apostolic Principle is that the Church is the Pillar of Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that the Church decides what is right (Matt 18:17).

No, De Maria. This is an example of you trying to force your concept of Church authority into what I am saying.

My concept of Church authority is taught by the Catholic Church. Why does anyone have to force it upon you?

Indeed they did celebrate the Mass, another aspect of Sacred Tradition that has been lost among our separated brethren. Nevertheless, they will support the authority of their pastor to preside at their services, and believe that he is divinely appointed to that task, because they accept the concept of church authority.

Oh, no thanks. I came to this thread to talk about baptism. I am not that interested in SS.

What!? You haven’t stopped talking about SS.

SS is not about your beliefs or mine anyway, but is about the people who claim to believe in it. My point is that most Protestants do not hold the view of this doctrine that you do.

The one’s that I’ve spoken to, do. That includes Itwin and the other Pentecostals.

URL=“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10032178&postcount=210”]You did not say when you formed your definition of SS. You said you came to your conclusions at some point when debating on an evangelical thread.

I didn’t say that either. I simply mentioned CARM as a place where I debated with EVANGELICALS who believed in OSAS because Itwin denied the Evangelicals taught OSAS.

YOU and Itwin made a big old deal out of that as though I was born and raised on CARM and had never been anywhere else in my life.

You stated your ideas about how you understand SS in post # 210.

Read it again. Obviously, you are not very careful when you read. The statements are about what people who hold SS, believe. Not about how I understand SS.

If the items in your list in # 210 are not of your own making, please be so kind as to cite a source for them.

They are my statements.

No, not a bit! I was haranging you about making them PROVE that what YOU THOUGHT they believe is not what they actually believe.

You were haranguing about many things. And continue to do so.

[qjuote]No, but it is useful, when conversing with our separated brethren, to affirm the parts of the faith we do hold in common.When they convince me that they hold part of the Catholic faith, I will affirm their belief. Until that time, I will question what I feel I should question.

This is Apologetics section of a Catholic debate forum and I assume that the Protestants who come to this Catholic debate forum are here to challenge the Catholic Faith. I reserve the right to challenge theirs.

Is that ok with you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

 You are the one who claimed I had defined SS.

No, De Maria, I did not. I said “it depends on how you define SS”. Then when you took it personally, I revised the statement to make it neutral by saying “It depends on how ONE defines SS”. What SS means to a person who espouses it depends upon how they define it. Many Protestants who adhere to SS do not reject all the things you believe they reject.

And you are the one who brought up separated brethren clinging to the Apostolic Faith.

De Maria, you may not realize this, but you were engaged in debate with a couple of our separated brethren. I did not “bring them up”, they came to your thread to engage in discussion. You proceeded to insist that they believed things they do not.

And I pointed out that they are in error.  So?  Why do you keep harping on the way that Protestants look at it, unless you are trying to justify it and prove them correct?

Because I am here to have discussion with them, so it is important for me to understand their point of view. Unlike yourself, I am not motivated by a need to “justify and prove” that they are in error.

And I asked you if they were Protestant and if they keep to Sola Scriptura?

1. Was the Anglican Church formed in the Reformation?
2. Do Anglicans believe in Sola Scriptura?

Yes and yes. Actually you did not ask me those things. You asked me for examples of mainline Protestants that accept Sacred Tradition, so I gave you examples.

Which Anglicans are you talking about anyway, High or Low Anglicans?

I posted a link, but I see now that it is really immaterial, because they apparently need to be “proved wrong” no matter what kind of Anglicans they are.

1. Some Protestants deny parts of the NT.
2. Some Protestants deny the Trinity.

I think it is not that they “deny” parts of the NT, they just understand them differently than Catholics do. Anyone who denies the Trinity does not meet the criteria for being Christian, and as such, cannot possibly be a Protestant, because they are non-Catholic Christians (believe in the Trinity). Belief in the Trinity is one of the Catholic Sacred Traditions that all Protestants embrace.

Again with the defining thing.  Will you show the definition which you claim I provided?

Post # 210

1.  What they affirm that they do is not the question.

1. What is in question is whether they actually do what they affirm that they do.

I think this can be said about Catholics as well as Protestants.

3.  The answer is no. They do not keep to Sacred Tradition.

Not as a whole undivided garment as Catholics do, no. They have rended the garment, and kept only parts. But they parts they have kept are right, because they are part of the infallible divine deposit of faith, and are Catholic.

4.  Jesus Christ did not write Scripture.  Jesus Christ established a Church and deposited in that Church His deposit of Faith.  His Sacred Tradition, which all followers of Jesus Christ must obey.

I think the idea that all followers of Christ must obey Sacred Tradition is one of the parts that got rended.

 

[guanophore]

5.  You can't keep the Sacred Traditions of Jesus Christ if you set aside the authority of the Church which He founded and authorized.

And yet, they do continue to keep many of them. That is why the Catechism states that there are elements of Truth in Protestant ecclesial communities, and that the HS works through these communities to draw people to Himself. Truth is still True wherever it is found. Even among those who have rejected the authority of the successor of St. Peter continue to espouse some of the Truths of the teaching of Jesus Christ found in the Catholic Sacred Tradition. It will not compromise your position as a Catholic apologist to acknowledge what is already acknowedge in the Catechism.

You certainly sound like you're justifying their separation.  You depict the Church as "corrupt officials".

It seems like it is difficult for you to engage in a discussion without making judgements about the motives of the opponent. I have said nothing to justify their separation. I am simply bringing forth their point of view. You have already admitted that you cannot separate a person from the position they espouse, so I understand that you cannot wrap your mind around the idea that I can represent a position I do not hold.

I never depicted the Church as “corrupt officials”. The Church is the pure and Holy Bride of Christ, who is spotless:

Eph 5:25-28
Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind — yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.

Some of the people attached to her, however have been very corrupt. After reading some of the lives of the Popes, I have to wonder if all of them were actually Christians. This was the biggest mistake of the Reformers, that they were unable to distinguish the Holy Bride of Christ from the fallible humans who are members of her. Had they realized that the Church is infallible becuase of her divine elements, not her human, they might not have fallen into the sin of separation. The Church has as her Head Christ the King, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. The Church, like Jesus, is incarnational, with divine elements, and human elements. It is the human elements that can become corrupt, not the divine.
As you have accurately stated. It depends upon which definition of SS we are talking about. My representation is accurate for most definitions that I’ve heard. It is also accurate for the Augsburg Confession. The Augsburg Confession can be described as a justification for the setting aside of the authority of the Catholic Church.

and you claim the wanted to purify the Church and bring it back to the Word of God. And even though they rejected the pastoral and doctrinal authority which Jesus established, you claim they did not.

They did want to purify the Church, and they believed they were doing so. They did want the officials of the church, and the corrupt practices of the day to be brought back under the Truth of the Word of God. They retained the ideas of pastoral and doctoral authority because they believed these were divinely instituted. They also believed that God had left the Catholic Church (she became the whore of Babylon) and His Spirit was with them because they were the believing remnant.

You keep saying you agree with me and you keep disputing everything I say.

It is very difficult to impossible for black and white thinkers to see any gray. It is also difficult for them to understand that someone can agree with some of what they say, and disagree with other things they say. The concept of “both/and” (both things are true) may be too much for you to grasp.

People don’t change.

This statement is a flat out denial of the Christian faith. It is a good thing it is a false statement!

Protestants still call our clergy corrupt.  Do you agree with them?

They don’t do it on CAF as much as that hostile evangelical forum you visit. That is because this forum has stricter rules on charity. In order for Protestants to post here, they have to respect our faith and our clergy. They don’t have to agree with us, but there is no clergy bashing allowed. I went to that forum and looked at some of your threads. There is a demonic degree of hostility and anti-catholicism over there. I think it may be affecting you. You might want to consider staying away from there. You have brought the contentious and adversarial style that you use there into this forum where it is not needed. I understand that you have to be that way over there because of the way people act, but if they do that here, they will be banned so you can lighten up a bit.

To what end?  Why do YOU assume that I don't know how they justified their separation?

When I read your posts, it seems that way. You assign them motives and beliefs that they don’t have, then condemn them based on your assumptions of what they believe. Modern day Protestants, by and large, cannot be charged with the sin of separation. It is not likely that you will get very far convincing them to give up their Protestant views by saying “Let me show you where you are wrong”. Especiallly given the fact that so many of your ideas of what they believe miss the mark.

 

[LEMAITRE]

Now, with that statement, I agree.

1. I don’t consider my approach the “Crusaders’ approach”.
2. However, that is a statement of opinion. I’m not aware any studies have been done on the matter.
3. As for my approach, it is tailored to the individual.

And with you.

As for me, I prefer not to debate with Catholics. I do so only when I feel pressed to do so. I’ve tried at least three times to end the discussion with Guanophore. But then he continues to press the issue, and I feel it necessary to respond.

Sincerely,

De Maria

If your approach is an effective conversion tool, go for it, don’t feel pressured to change or justify it.

I’m enjoying the exchanges between the two of you.

 

[De_Maria]

No, De Maria, I did not. I said “it depends on how you define SS”.

Guanaphore, Itwin and I had been discussing SS. I had mentioned that SS and Tradition were not compatible. And you came into the conversation saying,

“It depends on how you define SS…”

I don’t see how that could possibly mean anything besides,

“You have defined SS in a manner that is inconsistent with Tradition…”

Since that time, you have been trying to persuade me that Protestants keep Tradition. But I disagree. I don’t know how many times its been, but its like you think I’m your infant and you going to spoon feed me all your opinions until I like 'em.

But, I don’t see Sacred Tradition as a buffet table, as you seem to. If one sets aside the Authority of the Church, they no longer keep the Sacred Deposit of Faith passed down by Jesus Christ. It is no longer Sacred Tradition they keep, but traditions of men. Some may be traceable to the Sacred Deposit, but they are reasonable facsimile’s thereof. They are not the Sacred Deposit set forth by Jesus Christ.

Then when you took it personally,

No. I understood what you wrote even if you didn’t.

I revised the statement to make it neutral by saying “It depends on how ONE defines SS”. What SS means to a person who espouses it depends upon how they define it.

It doesn’t matter how neutral you try to make it. It means the same thing. You are insinuating that only in my definition of SS is Tradition incompatible. You have confirmed that sentiment several times in many places.

Do you take each sentence that is written as an entity in itself? We are writing entire paragraphs in context one of the other.

If you say to me, “It is because of how you define it, you see Tradition as a seamless garment, they don’t see it as you do…” It all leads to the conclusion that you are putting the blame upon ME.

Why are you objecting then, when I see clearly what you are doing? Why are you now sidestepping the issue?

Many Protestants who adhere to SS do not reject all the things you believe they reject.

What are you talking about now?

1. I never claimed to know everything which Protestants reject.
2. You are the one who entered this discussion speaking on behalf of Protestants and thus putting yourself in the position of expert, knowing what they reject and what they don’t. A position which has clearly been proven wrong, since I have provided an example of something you had no idea that some SS Protestants believe.

De Maria, you may not realize this, but you were engaged in debate with a couple of our separated brethren.

Really? You believe that I did not realize that Pentecostals are “separated brethren”?

I did not “bring them up”,

In response to a statement I made about SS, you brought up the term “separated brethren” in an effort to change the subject from those who hold to SS and those who don’t.

You then focused upon the Anglicans, which is a particular group which is in limbo, some believing in SS, some not. They are not Protestant, but fall out from King Henry’s debacle. And many are so close to Catholicism that we have a branch in the Catholic Church called, “Anglican use.”

It was a very slippery way for you to try to justify your claims. It didn’t work.

they came to your thread to engage in discussion.

Personally, I think they were trying to stroke AnneElizabeth’s doubts about the Catholic Church. That is where I first encountered Itwin. He was telling AnneElizabeth that he objected to my saying that they blasphemed who denied the grace of Jesus Christ working in the Sacraments. But he didn’t initially say that to me, he said that to AnneElizabeth.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

You proceeded to insist that they believed things they do not.

I proceeded to question them. True.

Because I am here to have discussion with them, so it is important for me to understand their point of view.

So, that’s it. You want me out of the way so you can have the Protestants to yourself. Got it.

Unlike yourself, I am not motivated by a need to “justify and prove” that they are in error.

I am.

You seem to see Protestants as an innocent and angelic group who exist only to serve God. Whereas, like you, they have other agendas.

Itwin introduced himself in this thread in a manner that looked suspiciously like he was proselityzing one of our weaker sisters. I engaged him accordingly. And I sought to show all the errors in his theology.

Yes and yes. Actually you did not ask me those things. You asked me for examples of mainline Protestants that accept Sacred Tradition, so I gave you examples.

I have yet to see them. Every example you gave is of a group which set aside Sacred Tradition.

I posted a link, but I see now that it is really immaterial, because they apparently need to be “proved wrong” no matter what kind of Anglicans they are.

Anglicans who oppose the Catholic Church, are wrong.
Anglicans who have accepted the Teachings of the Catholic Church and submit to the Pope are absolutely correct.

I think it is not that they “deny” parts of the NT, they just understand them differently than Catholics do. Anyone who denies the Trinity does not meet the criteria for being Christian, and as such, cannot possibly be a Protestant, because they are non-Catholic Christians (believe in the Trinity). Belief in the Trinity is one of the Catholic Sacred Traditions that all Protestants embrace.

That would be a surprise to Unitarians and Jehovahs and other groups who deny the Trinity and yet consider themselves Christian:

Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are We?

We come from hundreds of ethnic and language backgrounds, yet we are united by common goals. Above all, we want to honor Jehovah, the God of the Bible and the Creator of all things. **We do our best to imitate Jesus Christ and are proud to be called Christians. **Each of us regularly spends time helping people learn about the Bible and God’s Kingdom. Because we witness, or talk, about Jehovah God and his Kingdom, we are known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

That quote is from the official Jehovah website.
jw.org/en/

Who made you the authority over who is Christian and who isn’t? Do you have a sort of favorite group of “separated brethren” which you defend and others which you condemn?

I think this can be said about Catholics as well as Protestants.

Not as a whole undivided garment as Catholics do, no. They have rended the garment, and kept only parts. But they parts they have kept are right, because they are part of the infallible divine deposit of faith, and are Catholic.

I think the idea that all followers of Christ must obey Sacred Tradition is one of the parts that got rended.

No kidding.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

If your approach is an effective conversion tool,

Whether it is or isn’t, God knows.

go for it, don’t feel pressured to change or justify it.

Glad to hear it. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

By the way, I see you’re from Australia. I’ve heard a great deal about it. My son was up there with the Net Ministries, Australia group for about two years. He loved it.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

I realize that some of us are on this thread for entertainment purposes, but if anyone wants to discuss teh topic of batpismal regeneration, another thread has started where this is being discussed without rabbit trails.
[

And for De Maria, here is a post from a Lutheran in that thread who believes in Baptimsal Regeneration. He belongs to an ecclesial community that has retained this Truth from the Catholic Sacred Tradition.](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10034683&postcount=74)

Our Reformed OP in that thread has also retained some of the Truths from the Catholic Sacred Tradition, though baptismal regeneration is not one of them. She has accepted that John the Baptist was regenerated while still in the womb.

 

[AbideWithMe]

So, that’s it. You want me out of the way so you can have the Protestants to yourself. Got it.

No kidding.

Sincerely,

De Maria

OH NO!! Guanophore, what, are you planning to fatten us up on gingerbread and bake us??? Please let us go…I’m too tough and stringy…I’m not worth the firewood it would take to cook me; Itwin might be young and tender, but I’ll bet he’d put up a terrible fight.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I realize that some of us are on this thread for entertainment purposes, but if anyone wants to discuss teh topic of batpismal regeneration, another thread has started where this is being discussed without rabbit trails.
[

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10034683&postcount=74)

I’ll check out that thread.