Is Protestantism a good thing? (Or “Why I Kissed Ecumenism Goodbye”)

[Hodos]

Don’t remake and insert made up names .

There is only ONE Catholic Church being talked about there. The only Church Jesus established on Peter and all those in perfect union with Peter.

I agree. I stay in union with St. Peter by proclaiming the same gospel (ευαγγέλιον) he did. This is the catholic faith.

 

[TC3033]

since when a Protestant no longer believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the Romish Anti-Christ, the Scarlet Woman, the Whore of Babylon (etc etc)

What about non-Catholics that never believed that. That’s an interesting statement to widely brush across all non-Catholic Christians.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Don’t remake and insert made up names .

There is only ONE Catholic Church being talked about there. The only Church Jesus established on Peter and all those in perfect union with Peter.

I agree. I stay in union with St. Peter by proclaiming the same gospel he did. This is the catholic faith.

That doesn’t fit your thinking. Just one example: HERE

 

[Hodos]

That doesn’t fit your thinking. Just one example: [HERE]In what ways can Protestants accept papal primacy today?

It is perfectly in harmony with my previous quote. You are just adding in your own presupposition.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That doesn’t fit your thinking. Just one example: [HERE]In what ways can Protestants accept papal primacy today?

It is perfectly in harmony with my previous quote. You are just adding in your own presupposition.

Try opening the link

You prove with your view, you aren’t in union with Peter.

 

[Hodos]

Try opening the link

You prove with your view, you aren’t in union with Peter.

I did. The only thing you have proven is that you don’t understand what polity means, and that you are reading your presupposition of papal infallibility into the text. So, again, your presupposition is interfering with your ability to understand what other people are saying.

 

[steve-b]

Some who hate ecumenism are extreme Protestants - since (as a mere Protest Movement) Protestantism has only survived because

• it has been hostile to Rome; and
• Rome has been hostile to Protestantism.

Hence, when St John XXIII said "let’s be kind to those Protestant so-and so’s !" Protestantism found itself standing only on one leg and has been ever since; hence is now tottering.

Thus a fanatical Scottish pastor called the Reverend Stone (he died a few years ago) constantly bought supplies of plaster busts of John XXIII, which he enjoyed destroying by hurling them down from a height. He say clearly that John XXIII and ecumenism are lethal enemies of Protestantism - since when a Protestant no longer believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the Romish Anti-Christ, the Scarlet Woman, the Whore of Babylon (etc etc) he or she no longer has a valid excuse for not being a Catholic !

Do you have a source for that quote? As written, I can’t find it.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Try opening the link

You prove with your view, you aren’t in union with Peter.

I did. The only thing you have proven is that you don’t understand what polity means, and that you are reading your presupposition of papal infallibility into the text. So, again, your presupposition is interfering with your ability to understand what other people are saying.

I quoted what YOU said.

 

[Hodos]

I quoted what YOU said.

No, you linked to a quote talking about forms of polity, in which I said that we don’t really have an issue with a specific form of polity, but with specific unscriptural doctrines which that specific manifestation of polity is holding up which there is no evidence that Peter believed in the first place. In other words, you are trying to twist my words out of context based on a presupposition you hold but cannot prove.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I quoted what YOU said.

No, you linked to a quote talking about forms of polity, in which I said that we don’t really have an issue with a specific form of polity, but with specific unscriptural doctrines which that specific manifestation of polity is holding up which there is no evidence that Peter believed in the first place. In other words, you are trying to twist my words out of context based on a presupposition you hold but cannot prove.

And I said, based on what you argue, you are NOT in union with Peter

Example:

You argue against papal infallibility being scriptural. That’s A Protestant position

Answers?

HERE

AND

“The phrase papal infallibility occurs in Scripture as often as the term Trinity : not once. However, it does not follow from this that biblical proof is lacking.”

HERE

AND

This as well,

HERE

 

[Hodos]

“The phrase papal infallibility occurs in Scripture as often as the term Trinity : not once . However , it does not follow from this that biblical proof is lacking.”

Apples to oranges. While I can find the component parts of the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture, I do not find anywhere that a man or an office held by a man is infallible other than Christ. What we see in scripture is actually the opposite. In other words, scripture isn’t silent on this issue and you are in opposition to what scripture actually says. And apparently you believe the Trinity isn’t a scriptural doctrine. Interesting.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“The phrase papal infallibility occurs in Scripture as often as the term Trinity : not once . However , it does not follow from this that biblical proof is lacking.”

Apples to oranges. While I can find the component parts of the doctrine of the Trinity in scripture, I do not find anywhere that a man or an office held by a man is infallible other than Christ. What we see in scripture is actually the opposite. In other words, scripture isn’t silent on this issue and you are in opposition to what scripture actually says. And apparently you believe the Trinity isn’t a scriptural doctrine. Interesting.

How about opening the links I gave. The scripture is there.

 

[Hodos]

Yeah, I have read those before. The hermeneutical principle in those articles is to read out of context and apply anachronisms, and they ignore scriptures that refute the principle they are asserting. Its kind of like a prosecuting attorney who ignores exculpatory evidence.

Not good enough. Or you just collapsed your own argument.

I’ll just say,

Prove what I posted is wrong.

 

[steve-b]

Yeah, I have read those before. The hermeneutical principle in those articles is to read out of context and apply anachronisms.

Not good enough. Or you just collapsed your own argument.

I’ll just say,

Prove what I posted is wrong.

 

[Hodos]

Not good enough. Or you just collapsed your own argument.

I’ll just say,

Prove what I posted is wrong.

Well, for one, no where in scripture does God say that man is infallible. You are trying to insinuate that he is, but since you are the one presenting the positive case, it is on you to demonstrate that the verses you would appeal to are being used validly for the purpose you purport to use them for.

But besides that, we both agree that God commanded the Church to teach his commands (the Great Commission is an example for this), and that to do so he has provided for the appointment of preachers, teachers, etc (1 Timothy and Titus demonstrate this). Would you concede this point so that we can move to the point of contention? Let me know if you are with me thus far.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Not good enough. Or you just collapsed your own argument.

I’ll just say,

Prove what I posted is wrong.

Well, for one, no where in scripture does God say that man is infallible.

scripture was 100% written by men. Those writings and books we call scripture, didn’t fall from the sky

Hodos:

You are trying to insinuate that he is, but since you are the one presenting the positive case, it is on you to demonstrate that the verses you would appeal to are being used validly for the purpose you purport to use them for.

But besides that, we both agree that God commanded the Church to teach his commands (the Great Commission is an example for this), and that to do so he has provided for the appointment of preachers, teachers, etc (1 Timothy and Titus demonstrate this). Would you concede this point so that we can move to the point of contention? Let me know if you are with me thus far.

Again,

This is not addressing the links I gave.

ALSO

Who told you 73 books we call scripture are scripture?

 

[Hodos]

scripture was 100% written by men. Those writings and books we call scripture, didn’t fall from the sky

100%? Really? You sure buddy? That is not what the authors themselves say about the nature of scripture.

But then again, your ideas about the inspiration of scripture isn’t subject to what scripture actually says about it, is it?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

scripture was 100% written by men. Those writings and books we call scripture, didn’t fall from the sky

100%? Really? You sure buddy? That is not what the authors themselves say about the nature of scripture.

But then again, your ideas about the inspiration of scripture isn’t subject to what scripture actually says about it, is it?

I was addressing your comment

" no where in scripture does God say that man is infallible."

My point is,

Scripture is 100% written by men.

So let’s see, for example

Moses wrote the 1st 5 books of the OT. Since he is 100% man, why would you believe Moses wrote or could even write, “scripture”?

&​

My other point(s),

how do you even know there are 73 books in scripture? And why do you believe that?

Oh wait a minute,

You’re a Protestant. You have 66 books in your bibles. How does THAT happen? Oh yeah, the heretic Luther reclassified 7 scriptural books and demoted them to apocrypha status.

 

[TNMan]

Luther (and others before him, Jerome being one) questioned the books that are considered apocrypha. Luther wasn’t the only one of his time, or before him, to think this.

However, Luther did say the 7 books are beneficial and should be read.

 

[Hodos]

You’re a Protestant. You have 66 books in your bibles. How does THAT happen? Oh yeah, the heretic Luther reclassified 7 scriptural books and demoted them to apocrypha status.

Yeah, per the original view of the Church as Jerome stated. WHAT??? That would mean that the re-classification to something other than deuterocanonical works was the actual innovation! Which was also by the way what Cardinal Cajetan and Cardinal Jimenez believed…so the designation that this is a heretical view didn’t come till after Luther died during the Council of Trent. Its kinda hard to take you seriously when you disregard other apocryphal works in the Septuagint as non-canonical and proclaim the position that these works are deuterocanonical as heretical in an ex post factor manner, but don’t apply that evenly across the board.

Speaking of innovations…

My point is,

Scripture is 100% written by men.

Exodus 24:3 - Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances…
1 Samuel 15:10 - Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel saying…
Isaiah 1:10 Hear the word of the Lord …
Jeremiah 1:4 - Now the word of the Lord came to me saying…
Ezekiel 1:3 The word of the Lord came expressly to Ezekiel the priest…
Hosea 1:1 - The word of the Lord which came to Hosea the son of Beeri…
Joel 1:1 - The word of the Lord came to Joel, the son of Pethuel…
Amos 3:1 Hear this word which the Lord has spoken against you…
Jonah 1:1 The word of the Lord came to Johan the son of Amittai saying…
Micah 1:1 The word of the Lord which came to Micah of Moresheth…
Zephaniah 1:1 The word of the Lord which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi…
Haggai 1:1 - The word of the Lord came by the prophet Haggai…
Zechariah 1:1 The word of the Lord came to Zechariah the prophet…
Malachi 1:1: The oracle of the word of the Lord to Israel through Malachi…
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God (God breathed)…
2 Peter 1:21 For no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God…