No more use for the Apostles

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdcpensive1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hodos said:
Because you keep repeating the same thing after I have demonstrated that you are misrepresenting what we believe.
Click to expand...
Well, then, maybe consider that I keep pushing the point because you haven’t answered the points I’m making.
Hodos said:
straw man arguments
Click to expand...
I wish to reiterate again that I was once a devout Reformed Christian. These are questions I had as a Protestant. They aren’t coming strictly from being a Catholic conjuring ways to tear down a religion I don’t understand. Granted, that’s less clear now, but I don’t think you are even close to realizing just how much these challenges come from me thinking about my own beliefs. I have not, in any way, misrepresented your beliefs - beliefs I once defended. I’ve pointed out a hole, one you refuse to acknowledge even as you plummet down it.
 
mdcpensive1 said:
This is another problem with believing in the bible only
Click to expand...
For the fourth time, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not a “Bible only” doctrine. It is a Bible first doctrine.
mdcpensive1 said:
If we look at Ephesians 3:10 we find that it is the “Church” that will give knowledge to angels, not just scripture.
Click to expand...
If you read the entire passage, Paul is speaking of proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles and all creation, not making it up. The passage here is speaking of faithfully proclaiming what has been revealed to us by God. And again, Paul is speaking of proclaiming the message of the gospel which was enscripturated in his letters and in the gospel accounts and handed down faithfully, just as the old testament scriptures to which Paul constantly appealed in his day were handed down to him. We rely on those records because they are the faithfully preserved revelation of God. Anyway, your explanation of this passage is actually a great example of why we rely on sola scriptura rather than depart from it.
 
Last edited:
ZMystiCat said:
Well, then, maybe consider that I keep pushing the point because you haven’t answered the points I’m making.
Click to expand...
That would be because the points you are making are assuming a false version of what we believe and I keep addressing the fact that your view of sola scriptura represents a Catholic twisting of our doctrine, not the doctrine as we define it. That is the definition of straw man arguments.
 
Sure, I’m just misrepresenting what I believed. :roll_eyes: (FYI, my points aren’t from Catholic apologists. They’re from the questions I had as a Protestant)

It might actually help, though, if you point out where exactly I misrepresented Protestant thinking. To my knowledge, I’ve yet to deny that you believe what you claim, just pointed out perceived faults with the reasoning. But if you honestly view pointing out potential flaws in reasoning as strawmanning then I really don’t know what to say. :confused:
 
ZMystiCat said:
It might actually help, though, if you point out where exactly I misrepresented Protestant thinking.
Click to expand...
Just scroll up to my posts since I have addressed it multiple times very directly.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
Just scroll up to my posts since I have addressed it multiple times very directly.
Click to expand...
Link the exact one and explain. You can get the link with chainlink at the bottom of the post and provide a link like this. (Quote me to see the syntax.)

Obviously, I’m not aware of misrepresenting Protestantism. If you don’t link the post, point out what I said, and explain how it is a misrepresentation, how in the world do you expect me to realize what it is you’re talking about?

The best guess I can make is that you think I said Protestants don’t teach that the early church writings are authoritative. I’m aware of pointing out faults with the specifics of that teaching, but I am completely unaware of ever denying the teaching or claiming Protestants taught anything else.
 
deMontfort said:
Orthodox Lutheran doctrine is framed by the Book of Concord, which itself is framed by scripture. The Book of Concord in no way contradicts scripture.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me more about this. I always thought Lutherans especially the orthodox ones bought into the teachings of Martin Luther. If not then who was it or what group had the authority to define what is called “Lutheranism” today ???
 
The Book of Concord contains both the Large and Small Catechisms of Martin Luther, as well as other important Lutheran statements of faith such as the Augsburg Confessions.
 
mdcpensive1 said:
Can you tell me more about this. I always thought Lutherans especially the orthodox ones bought into the teachings of Martin Luther. If not then who was it or what group had the authority to define what is called “Lutheranism” today ???
Click to expand...
Despite the name given to them by Roman Catholics, “Lutherans” don’t follow Martin Luther the man. Nor do they necessarily follow all of his personal teachings. It would be better to think of Lutherans the same way the first ones thought of themselves: as Evangelical Catholics.

Luther was hardly alone, and most all of his views were held by those who came before him (just read about Duns Scotus and others). In fact, it may be better to think of the Reformation as a civil war or a divorce - both sides grounded their claims in their shared marriage certificate, but one side simply kept the house.

Lutherans draw from the history of the church catholic and the early fathers more than they draw from Luther, frankly. They only follow Luther insofar as he correctly interpreted Scripture and tradition. They determine this according to the Book of Concord which, while containing some of Luther’s works, was written by dozens of others (remember, “Lutheranism” was a movement that Luther was born in the middle of, not his creation). It contains:
  • The Apostles Creed (formed by the early church)
  • The Nicene Creed (formed by the Council of Nicea 325)
  • The Athanasian Creed (formed by the early church)
  • The Augsburg Confession (written by Philipp Melanchthon and signed by many others. Contains the teachings that make Lutheranism distinct from Rome)
  • The Defense of the Augsburg Confession (Again, chiefly by Melanchthon, and defends the Augusburg Confession against the few points where Rome disagreed)
  • The Small Catechism (written by Luther)
  • The Large Catechism (written by Luther)
  • The Smalcald Articles (written by Luther, with help from others)
  • The Formula of Concord (written by Jakob Andrea, Martin Chemnitz, Nikolus Selnecker and others - it clearly re-states Lutheran teaching and practice)
More information about it can be found here: http://bookofconcord.org/intro.php
 
mdcpensive1 said:
Can you tell me more about this. I always thought Lutherans especially the orthodox ones bought into the teachings of Martin Luther. If not then who was it or what group had the authority to define what is called “Lutheranism” today ???
Click to expand...
To answer your question, Luther himself never claimed to be teaching a new gospel. Luther took great pains to demonstrate from scripture and the early Church writings that the faith he proclaimed was the apostolic faith that had always been taught in the church and that he was merely correcting error. That said, the augsburg confession was written to provide a confession of the faith that was being taught in the Lutheran churches. Additional documents written by Luther and his cohorts were consolidated in the book of concord and provide a summation of the Christian faith taught in the Lutheran churches. If you are interested I would encourage you to read through the Augsburg confession as a starting point.
 
ZMystiCat said:
I wish to reiterate again that I was once a devout Reformed Christian. These are questions I had as a Protestant . They aren’t coming strictly from being a Catholic conjuring ways to tear down a religion I don’t understand. Granted, that’s less clear now, but I don’t think you are even close to realizing just how much these challenges come from me thinking about my own beliefs.
Click to expand...
As a side note.

My wife was Catholic, raised in very Catholic Poland by parents who attend daily mass when possible. Today she also have so many questions that would be answered here with…
  1. You do not understand. (The favourate one, I always wonder how much you can study before you do understand… or if for Catholics that means you would convert because finally then you understand)
  2. You should learn the history (she has a PhD in history, maybe not this specifically but she understands the importance of history)
    And so on…
So to make my point. Stating one was a previous of whatever doesn’t give you extra marks. The other camp would rather have more questions or assumptions (as ridiculous as they may be… this forum proves that).

So maybe I should ask did you understand your Reformed Christianity in the first place?

Regards
 
Last edited:
MichaelP3 said:
So to make my point. Stating one was a previous of whatever doesn’t give you extra marks. The other camp would rather have more questions.
Click to expand...
Meh, I try. If I’m going to be accused of strawmanning, especially when I was the first to acknowledge that Protestants respect tradition, I’ll at least point out my background. Granted, it’s hard to show how my thought developed in time, since all that shows on the forum is where I ended up.

That said, when I was Protestant, I never was told I was building a strawman. I didn’t get satisfactory answers (obviously), but they at least took it seriously. @Hodos is the first to accuse me of it. :confused:
 
Strawmen get built everyday on this forum and then even accused of being such when one side is trying to make a point. That’s what happens when someone has an answer before they even heard the question.

And then accusations gets tossed around and so on.

Basically, any person will respond “in a different way” when they are in a way told they
  1. Are not understanding (even though they really tried)
  2. They are ignorant (even though they did research)
  3. They (and also a favourate one) have been told by someone what to believe and that’s why they believe it.
If one actually look at the above objectively you would notice both sides can use the very same arguments. And accuse both sides if the very same things.

(Yes even the last one. And any Catholic reading this should understand that non-Catholics think the very same thing about you if you decide to bring it up somewhere. )

Point is. People strawman in here all the time and also gets accused of it all the time (even when they are sincere).

Regards
 
Last edited:
MichaelP3 said:
Strawmen get built everyday on this forum and then even accused of being such when one side is trying to make a point. That’s what happens when someone has an answer before they even heard the question.

And then accusations gets tossed around and so on.

Basically, any person will respond “in a different way” when they are in a way told they
  1. Are not understanding (even though they really tried)
  2. They are ignorant (even though they did research)
  3. They (and also a favourate one) have been told by someone what to believe and that’s why they believe it.
If one actually look at the above objectively you would notice both sides can use the very same arguments. And accuse both sides if the very same things.

Point is. People strawman in here all the time and also gets accused of it all the time (even when they are sincere).

Regards
Click to expand...
As someone who went the opposite way (Catholic to Lutheran):
  1. I understood VERY well (I’m not stupid).
  2. Having studied Catholicism from the inside like I was cramming for finals for 20 years, I’m far from ignorant.
  3. I made up my own mind.
  4. I’m very deep in history and Newman was flat out wrong.
The pat answers really don’t apply to me.
 
Last edited:
deMontfort said:
Having studied Catholicism from the inside like I was cramming for finals for 20 years, I’m far from ignorant.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly with you here.

The default “answer” is sadly most of the time that you do not understand (on any subject) ,and all its derivatives, Because " if you did, you would be Catholic".
 
Last edited:
Start said:
What lead to the change?
Click to expand...
Can’t say. Around here even the slightest criticisms of the Magisterium and the Holy See results in posts being removed and the poster suspended.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top