Is it too good to be true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cemccorkle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CopticChristian,

And that is what your reading of history tells you, my reading indicates much similar with much (but not all) of Protestantism.

The quotes appear to be very, very detached from context. Do you ave the primary sources for them? I recommend some time looking at beggars all, to see the quotes looked at contextually, not polemically. - beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/

Regards

Links
Links,

Jesus was an asian Jew.

Christianity is an asian religion.

He formed the universe, led His people, founded a Church.

If you can believe her formed the universe, kept planets in check, led His people and founded a Church, His Bride…

the mystery hidden for all ages had to be restructured by a bunch of European men, by stealing the Bible, taking parts out, inventing Doctrine and then starting a Blog about beggars…

You want me to accept this as revealed truth?
 
Note I never denied an interpretation is “personal”. The language is unhelpful however, I simply posit that regardless of your creed, we are all active participants in the texts that we read. We bring to them our own worldview and thus true objectivity is a myth. No, Protestant denominations don’t all claim the same authority, most point to the word of God as the sole infallible authority. You make a sweeping claim about the early church, that simply isn’t true. I expect now the masses of out of context quotes that abound on google to appear…

Kind regards

Lincs
Firstly, Protestants do claim the same authority. They claim Scripture is the authority, but then proceed to interpret it individually or in small groups, leading to many, many different interpretations of their one authority, and then have no grounds to claim that their interpretation is more correct than another, because Scripture can be used to ‘prove’ a great deal of doctrine, and to absolutely declare another’s interpretation to be incorrect would necessarily involve authority outside of Scripture (because both interpreters came to their conclusions based on the same authority). Don’t believe me? Go to a traditional Lutheran church, then a Calvinist church, then an evangelical Baptist church, and then a non-denominational church with Universalist tendencies (try both a traditional and heterodox congregation for each when applicable). Ask them for interpretations of several passages and their overall dogmas. You will get many answers, all according to personal interpretation of Scripture. “A kingdom divided against itself will not stand…”

Secondly, I encourage you to read the ante-Nicene fathers. What I summarized I did not read from an isolated quotation. I actually delved into their work. Clement and Ignatius really do speak extensively of obedience to the bishop and presbyters. Ignatius also speaks heavily of having one altar where the bishop, or one appointed by him, offer the sacrifice. Justin speaks of many things, including the importance of baptism and the real presence in the Eucharist. Irenaeus truly does speak of the importance of authority of the apostolic Church and of its role in combating heresy and maintaining tradition. He says that the Church believes the same faith throughout the world, that oral teaching is vital and part of the apostolic faith (especially since most couldn’t read, and Scripture was only in Greek), and that the mark of a true apostolic congregation is one that is in communion with Rome (and he wasn’t Roman).

I encourage you to their works. Read them wholly, or at least in whole chapters or sections. After this, ask yourself how the faithful are to determine which fathers were right? How do we know Tertullian was wrong to eventually apostasize? How do we know Cyprian was wrong on re-baptism or heretic baptism? Then ask yourself the same question in regards to Scripture. Clement, Ignatius, and especially Irenaeus have the answer. I won’t quote anything, since you’ll accuse me of eisegesis. Instead, I’ll ask you to read them and sincerely question the notions of your faith. I did as much.
 
Links,

Jesus was an asian Jew.

Christianity is an asian religion.

He formed the universe, led His people, founded a Church.

If you can believe her formed the universe, kept planets in check, led His people and founded a Church, His Bride…

the mystery hidden for all ages had to be restructured by a bunch of European men, by stealing the Bible, taking parts out, inventing Doctrine and then starting a Blog about beggars…

You want me to accept this as revealed truth?
CopticChristian,

Indeed, The Lord founded a church.

I suppose if you won’t interact with my post but continue to just say you’re position is right, there isn’t really any way we can continue.

All I request is that you look at your quotes from Luther and check out the blog and see them in context.

Kind regards

Lincs
 
Lincoln, here is the link to their works. At least read Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus in their entirety. They are literally the earliest Christian writers we have outside of the NT. The only other faith I can possibly imagine these writings coinciding with is Orthodoxy (barring their utmost respect towards Rome and Irenaeus’ insistence on communion with Rome for the true mark of apostolic congregations):

newadvent.org/fathers/
 
PeaceInChrist,
Firstly, Protestants do claim the same authority. They claim Scripture is the authority, but then proceed to interpret it individually or in small groups, leading to many, many different interpretations of their one authority, and then have no grounds to claim that their interpretation is more correct than another, because Scripture can be used to ‘prove’ a great deal of doctrine, and to absolutely declare another’s interpretation to be incorrect would necessarily involve authority outside of Scripture (because both interpreters came to their conclusions based on the same authority). Don’t believe me? Go to a traditional Lutheran church, then a Calvinist church, then an evangelical Baptist church, and then a non-denominational church with Universalist tendencies (try both a traditional and heterodox congregation for each when applicable). Ask them for interpretations of several passages and their overall dogmas. You will get many answers, all according to personal interpretation of Scripture. “A kingdom divided against itself will not stand…”
How have you solved the apparent dilemma you portray above? By recourse to the infallible church? How did you arrive at the position of knowing you had the right infallible church? Why not Orthodox, or Jehovas Witness, or Mormon? All calim to be the one true church… Appeals to infallible church authorities as the solution to any disagreement only push the issue back a step.
Secondly, I encourage you to read the ante-Nicene fathers. What I summarized I did not read from an isolated quotation. I actually delved into their work. Clement and Ignatius really do speak extensively of obedience to the bishop and presbyters. Ignatius also speaks heavily of having one altar where the bishop, or one appointed by him, offer the sacrifice. Justin speaks of many things, including the importance of baptism and the real presence in the Eucharist. Irenaeus truly does speak of the importance of authority of the apostolic Church and of its role in combating heresy and maintaining tradition. He says that the Church believes the same faith throughout the world, that oral teaching is vital and part of the apostolic faith (especially since most couldn’t read, and Scripture was only in Greek), and that the mark of a true apostolic congregation is one that is in communion with Rome (and he wasn’t Roman).
I’m quote comfortable reading them, I know of no serious Protestant who isn’t…
I’m aware of the usual proof texts and have read rather plausible and rather excellent voices which paint a very different picture to what modern Roman Catholic apologists paint. Appeals to “the fathers” doesn’t cut it, as they are quite variegated.
I encourage you to their works. Read them wholly, or at least in whole chapters or sections. After this, ask yourself how the faithful are to determine which fathers were right? How do we know Tertullian was wrong to eventually apostasize? How do we know Cyprian was wrong on re-baptism or heretic baptism? Then ask yourself the same question in regards to Scripture. Clement, Ignatius, and especially Irenaeus have the answer. I won’t quote anything, since you’ll accuse me of eisegesis. Instead, I’ll ask you to read them and sincerely question the notions of your faith. I did as much.
I wouldn’t accuse you of eisegisis; I simply wish to avoid the often seen situation on CAF where too many quotes from too many fathers are thrown about in one thread, all copy and pasted from another thread with no primary source listed for anyone to have either the time or the space to actually discuss them all and analyse them all fully! 😃

But I’d ask you the same question I asked above, how do you know you chose right with Rome?

Kind regards

Lincs
 
Lincoln, here is the link to their works. At least read Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus in their entirety. They are literally the earliest Christian writers we have outside of the NT. The only other faith I can possibly imagine these writings coinciding with is Orthodoxy (barring their utmost respect towards Rome and Irenaeus’ insistence on communion with Rome for the true mark of apostolic congregations):

newadvent.org/fathers/
Thanks for the link, I generally go to ccel for most of them, but new advent is generally easier on ipad!
 
Hello,

I’m currenlty a non-Catholic Christian. 2 months ago I would have described myself as a Protestant, but after some study I feel as if I’m in limbo. I can not honestly agree with Prostestantism any more (for example I’ve seen how Sola-Scriptura is self-refuting and therefore it can not be true). At the same time, I’m feeling drawn to the Catholic Church. While I’m not ready to start the process of joining the Church, I have been reading some great books by Catholics and have been awestruck by the clear love for Christ and humbled by the spiritual depth. My problem is that I feels like “The Catholic Church” might be too good to be true", and that I may be missing seeing some error or falsehood.

Has anyone experienced this that has converted? If so how did you work through it? My biggest concern is that I do NOT want to lead my family away from God and into spiritual danger.

I would also love some reccomendations on reading materials to assit me in this time of discerment.

Thanks and God bless!
For me it was a question of authority–who did Jesus give his authority to? The answer is Peter and the Apostles. What promise did Jesus make to them? It was two-fold: that the Church would prevail against the gates of hell, and that they, the Apostles, would be guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit. We cannot go wrong if we abide by these promises and trust the successors to the Apostles, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church sections: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=apostolic+succession&s=SS.

Also, you might want to watch EWTN’s “The Journey Home” program which features converts telling why they became Catholic.
 
I joined the Catholic Church last year. I had previously been Pentecostal, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran LCMS. I was looking for Truth. I knew that truth could not be relative, that it was not inside me. I even wondered that, when I did hear truth, would I even recognize it to be truth. I had so often before thought I knew truth and turned out to be wrong. I knew Truth had to exist, that it could not exist in all the different Protestant denominations. The Catholic Church states in their Catechism that they have the fullness of truth. I recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the early Church fathers, and Edward Sri’s A Biblical Walk Through The Mass: Understanding What We Say and Do in the Liturgy, a very good book. Of course, I run into “Catholics” who disagree with the Church’s doctrines. There will be many. But recall: Jesus is the Head of the Church; the Church is His Body; He will not deceive His Body. Regardless of what others are doing, listen to the Catholic Church, trust it, and you will find the happiness that surpasses all.
Nice. makes me wanna force the issue of joining again. I had officially given up.
Nice post.
 
But I’d ask you the same question I asked above, how do you know you chose right with Rome?
Long post:

Again, it all comes back to unity. God is One. If God made a Church, would He be so shortsighted to allow theological disagreements completely fragment His Church? In the first few centuries of Christianity, they certainly didn’t seem to think so. As I mentioned in previous posts, Ignatius and Clement put heavy emphasis on maintaining loyalty to the bishop. Irenaeus, in Chapter 4 of Book 3 in “Against Heresies” further elaborates upon this, stating that if there is indeed a dispute that arises, how else would it be resolved but by going to the Church? He declares that this is the only recourse. He also decries the distorted use of Scripture by the Gnostics throughout the work, as this was their sole authority. In Chapter 20 of Book 5, he states that the bishops are of an older origin than the heretics. In Chapter 10 of Book 1, he speaks of the unity of the Church regardless of the language or location throughout the world. The Church of the ancient Christians seemed quite resolute in keeping heresy out of its midst, and they used apostolic Tradition to give their interpretations weight over the heretics. The heretics also fractured and splintered into many, many different sects of Gnosticism, without any sure leadership.

Now, in Scripture, I looked at how the Apostles resolved disputes. They did the same thing the Church did to determine the Canon of Scripture and the Creeds: they held counsel and debated, and came out with a solution. They did not split and go their own ways. They spoke as one voice. Just as the angels in heaven acclaim in one voice “Holy Holy Holy!”, so, too, does the Church on earth acclaim the same. “Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.” It strikes me as odd that the will of God should be perfect unity in Heaven, but complete and utter division on Earth would be just fine with Him. Further, again going to the seeming shortsightedness of God in keeping His Church alive, why would He give authority to the Apostles, and then end any and all authority among men?

If Irenaeus and Clement and Ignatius are wrong about obedience and unity, then how could God possibly expect His Church to continue onward in any meaningful sense? He is, after all, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. How could Christians live the Way, know the Truth, and have Life, if they were told a thousand and one things about which the various intricacies of the Way, Truth, and Life, and that those intricacies didn’t matter? If God intended this, then why did He give us so many specific commandments and tell His apostles to preach with authority? Why did Paul write to Timothy and Titus and tell them to appoint other trusted men to teach? Why couldn’t we just trust Scripture, even if the vast majority of people couldn’t read?

Looking at current Protestantism, I see all these questions made manifest yet again. I see so many different interpretations that lead to factions and splintering, just as with the Gnostics. I see so many claiming that authority doesn’t matter, just like the Gnostics. I see so many using only Scripture to assert anything and everything one could imagine as doctrine, just as the Gnostics. Yet, among it all, I see one Church that not only claims to be One in a superficial way. She claim to be one in the way Irenaeus claimed the Church was one: that She teaches with the voice of the Apostles and that the faithful must acclaim their faith with one voice. This Church is the Catholic Church under the Roman Vicar.

As familiar as the Church looks compared to the bishop-lead, council-holding, authority-claiming Church of the early Christians, I still sought to reconcile Orthodoxy with Catholicism. Using both history, Scripture, and reason, I came to the conclusion that, if Christ’s Church is His Body, and He is the Head, and He is in Heaven and is glorified, then there must necessarily be some way we can truly hear Him today. He said He wouldn’t leave us orphans, and said He is the Truth. Thus, there must be ONE Truth, and He must guide us to it. Besides the utmost respect that the world gave the Roman Church, and even Irenaeus’ claim that all Apostolic Churches must be in communion with Rome (Chapter 3, Book 3), and that Christ gave Peter the Keys and authority, it made logical sense that the Body of Christ on Earth must be unified (for no kingdom divided will stand, the kingdom of Heaven is unified, and God’s will is the same on Earth as in Heaven), and must also have a Mouth to instruct us.

Scripture obviously hasn’t done the job alone, as there are so incredibly many Protestant denominations, and they are ever fracturing further away from the original faith (Oneness Pentecostals, Universalists, easy-believism, Jesus Seminar style people, and even New Age and Buddhist style Christians). This completely ruled out Protestantism for me, forever. Excuses abound from Protestants, but you will know them by their fruits. God’s fruit is not that His faithful be divided. It is that His faithful stand unified against the evils of the world.

(continued…)
 
(…continued)

As much respect as I have for Orthodoxy, it still didn’t add up, seeing that different Orthodox Churches were unable to agree with Rome on certain matters, and that doesn’t make sense since their is one Truth. Now why isn’t Orthodoxy correct and Catholicism wrong? Again, you will know them by their fruit. Orthodoxy often refuses to define or delve deeper into certain theological aspects when a heresy demands it (the Eucharist comes to mind), and doesn’t teach definitively on vital issues concerning everyday holiness that the faithful struggle with (such as contraception: the Orthodox Churches are divided on this matter). There are many Orthodox Churches, and they don’t all agree with one another. They are a good sign of the authority of the bishopric, but the faith must truly speak out in one voice. The Catholic Church succeeds at this most totally. If you oppose dogma, you are wrong, regardless of your position. If you accept dogma, you are in communion. That’s all their is to it.

Ultimately it came down to which church looked the most like the early Church? Which Church adhered most completely to Scripture and to the Fathers? Which Church has applied the methods of the Fathers to the fullest, coming to terms with disputes and remaining one, even if it had to cut others off? Which Church holds a Vicar, a speaker, that must necessarily exist (where he is from doesn’t matter, the pope is elected from among the entire Church, but the early Church placed emphasis on Rome, and so Traditionally Rome is the Vicar’s home)? Which Church continues to thrive and remain united against all kinds of heresy and persecution?

The Catholic Church. The Orthodox are close, and I hope to see them come into communion. Regardless, Christ is Truth. There is one Truth. There is one Church. This is why I am confident in the Catholic Church under the Roman Vicar. If I stand before God one day, and I am accused of practicing a false faith, I will be able to say that I used my reason, my faith, and my desire to their utmost to seek Him, and I trusted that He would not leave us orphans. And this is why I am so confident I will not be accused in this way.
 
Thank you all, I appreciate your responses. Still praying and trying to discern…
 
When I started looking at the faith it soon became clear that if I were to convert, I would have to belong to one of the apostolic churches.

Why didn’t I even consider being a protestant?

Well, it turns out that I am a musician with classical background (composer, actually) and I know the importance of tradition when it comes to interpret music the way masters wanted it to sound like.

Like the fathers of the church, the fathers of music had no way to record precisely what they believed, so they wrote their music on paper and passed on to their students the instructions on how to interpret it properly. Serious musicians use nothing but “URTEXT” (original copies from manuscripts) plus authentic tradition to make music sound like it was intended. That’s why classical musicians insist in a master/disciple relationship with their teachers, pretty much like the apostles had with Jesus, because we know that certain things can only be properly absorbed by exposure and example.

In other words, classical musicians know, by the nature of their profession, that you have to trust tradition in some degree to keep the music authentic, due to obvious limitations of written instructions. Music, when interpreted outside tradition, actually sounds very weird and loses lots of its artistic value.

To think that someone would try to understand what Jesus meant just by reverse-engineering the text of the bible seems completely absurd to me. It would be like trying to understand the beauty of Mozart’s symphonies just by reading the notes on a score over and over again, without never actually hearing it. It makes no sense at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top