Protestant here with Some Words

[Orionthehunter]

jpete79:

Here’s the issue…

Words will never win someone over. Debate will never win someone over. If the person is to become Christian its due to the softening of their heart and the moving of the Holy Spirit.

Now, I believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all present God. A God who knew all things before He created them. This being said I keep this in mind when reading Scripture.

I have read the Bible through and through (in more than one translation) and I do believe that when the word Scripture is used it is in sense the Old and New Testament were meant by God. I believe the Canon was intentional to say that “whoever adds or takes away from this book will…” at the end of Revelation. I don’t think its just some random coincidence.

So here’s the thing…as someone who has studied Islam (but is not close to being an expert), I know alot of the basics.

Mohommad is considered a high-prophet that the angel Gabriel revealed the true word of God to. Now in his revelation he twisted Scripture to become the Koran saying it was misinterpreted and corrupted through the years. The Koran is based on Scripture itself but has been changed from it.

Buddhists and Hindus I have not studied so I cannot give a basis for their beliefs.

I’m not following you here. A Muslim claims that the Koran is inspired by God. You and I believe that the Bible is inspired by God. How can I rely that the Bible is correct and the Muslim is incorrect? How do I know that my “faith” wasn’t inspired by Satan?

 

[hurst]

jpete79:

I am not only listening to myself. I am looking at history, I have other Christian friends (and even some Catholic), I have family to go to. I am a devout seeker of truth in the name of Jesus Christ.

Thanks be to God. Welcome!

jpete79:

I would like to know where infallibility is seen in the Bible? Even if Christ establishes a Church with Peter where does it say that his decisions will always be right?

True, it is not explictly stated as such. But consider that Jesus called Peter the “Rock” on which He would build His Church. It is his faith that resulted in the Father showing Peter the Truth about Jesus. And later, Jesus prayed that his faith would not fail.

jpete79:

Alot of you have said to me Sola Scriptura would be spoken about explicitly by Christ if it were true, I am asking to see where a line of successive Bishops/Popes is talked about by Jesus Christ?

You might accept the previous assessment as only valid for Peter himself back then. But that we know they were set up in specific roles because when Judas was gone, they drew lots to determine who would take his place. Why would they do that if the nature of their roles wasn’t something to be passed on and preserved? So infallibility can be seen as the preservation of that role of being the Rock. And bad Popes come and go, but the role of Peter remains.

Just as you conclude that the Bible is true because it has survived history, so could you conclude that the chair of Peter is true because it has survived history.

jpete79:

The difference between the two is the Pharisees are teaching Law which was given by God. I see a lot of tradition in Catholicism that is given by man (you see it too but you say that man is allowed to create that tradition because authority is given by God…I say that all men fall short of God including those who are given authority).

It is discipline which is created or changed. Tradition involves the Spirit of God acting in and through living people today. Our religion is not just from a dead tree. It is alive in the people with faith. And the authority of God is also alive therein!

jpete79:

I also would like to know when Christ gives Peter the keys to Heaven what do you think he’s talking about?

Good question. I think he is talking about power of authority, which implies the necessity of our obedience, for it is obedience which is the key to heaven. I believe the keys to heaven are given to us by our baptism in that it incorporates us into the Body of Christ and into His obedience. We have the blessed opportunity of obeying our way into heaven, for blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! By obeying Him, we do the Father’s Will and enter the Kingdom of God.

Without the Pope, how could any one be taken seriously? Look at the many denominations. Do they obey each other? No! They all claim to have some authority based on scripture, but they conflict to such an extent that they condemn each other on various points, the most notable one being the manner of proper baptism. Thus, without the Pope, they do not have the key to heaven: the imposition of obedience by someone other than themselves, without which it cannot be genuine and selfless.

(Some claim to obey only the Bible, but again, according to whose interpretation? Thus the sola scriptura approach leaves oneself open to self-deception and self-will.) But with a living, continuous Tradition embodied in the Pope and Bishops, we have a constant guide, a Shepherd in person, or a helper obedient to Him!

hurst

 

[hurst]

jpete79:

I believe the Canon was intentional to say that “whoever adds or takes away from this book will…” at the end of Revelation. I don’t think its just some random coincidence.

The Bible consists of many books, and that verse refers to the last book only, I would think.

However, you seem to take it as a variable representing whatever would later be determined to consist of the OT+NT. Do you think that though the author of Revelations was writing only that book, that God made him write those words to refer to what would eventually become know as the Bible?

hurst

 

[southernCONVERT]

jpete79:

Now, I believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, all present God. A God who knew all things before He created them. This being said I keep this in mind when reading Scripture.

I have read the Bible through and through (in more than one translation) and I do believe that when the word Scripture is used it is in sense the Old and New Testament were meant by God. I believe the Canon was intentional to say that “whoever adds or takes away from this book will…” at the end of Revelation. I don’t think its just some random coincidence.

.

Hey jpete!

Just to let you know I am also a convert from reformed prespyterianism.

Thanks for all your questions! If we are never challenged than we become lazy. Your questions help us to understand out own faith!

I would like to comment on your comment on the all powerful, all knowing God. Because this point is one of the few that really made me HAVE to convert. I believe God is too powerful to let His church fall into the grave sin that people think the Church is in. When Jesus said “…and upon this rock** I ** will build MY Church” This was important for me bacause He sais He will build HIS church. Not YOU will build an OK church or I will build YOUR church, no…He said it was HIS church. Therefore it cannot fail, because it’s His bride and He will never let it out of His graces.

I also love your love for Sacred Scripture. I do believe it is the word of God. And for this reason Protestants MUST be wrong. (That seems really mean, but jpete, i love ya man…in HIM i do) They can’t be right because not only do they dissagree or differ, but they CONTRADICT. Even within one denomination (like in my case the many sects of presbys that dont agree) they dissagree and contradict. Now, they are all using THE SAME scripture, and if this scripture is the infallible word of GOD (it is) then how could basically every person who has a bible, have a different view of scripture. That would meen God can contradict Himself, which we all know is impossible.

Its like if the USA threw the constitution in a crowd and said “Do it yourselves” how many different ideas of what the country should be would we then have. No, it works WITH the gov. Now i would never say that the USA has anything on the divine will of God, it was just an example.

Also, keep in mind that in Mathew 23 Jesus also tells the people to follow these Pharisees, for they “hold the seat of Moses”, but dont be like them because their hearts are evil and corrupt. We all know there’s evil people in the Church (past and present), but praise God that He is bigger than sin and the gates of hell have not and shall never prevail against her (like Jesus said).
Keep studying, like you I think the Spirit leads. Thats why I love the Church that HE said He would never leave. Because like scripture sais, the Church is the foundation of Truth (2 Tim…can’t remeber). Truth cant contradict, because truth is not relative.

JC

 

[VociMike]

You ask how sinners can be infallible. You focus on grave sins, but do you really differentiate? Would you accept that only moderately sinful people can be infallible?

Peter, who wrote inerrant scripture, denied Christ, and was called “satan” by Christ. Paul persecuted Christians, even unto death. Do you reject then that God still used them to pass along His revelation without error?

If you accept that God could use Peter and Paul in spite of their sins, why do you reject that He could use other sinners?

And you need to get a more unbiased view of Catholic (and European) history too. The Crusades were a response to Muslim invasions of the Holy Land. The Popes didn’t command the crusaders to murder and pillage, but to liberate the Holy Land. The Inquisition caused the deaths, not of millions, but of 3000-5000, according to the latest scholarship. The Inquisition even saved lives during the witch craze, because of its higher standards of legal proof. And persecuting heretics was not by any means just a Catholic activity. And as to the pope “standing by” during the Holocaust, there’s really no excuse for such an ignorant and defamatory statement. Read “Hitler, the War and the Pope”. Read “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope”, written by a rabbi, no less. Read “Mit Brennender Sorge”.

 

[CollegeKid]

jpete79:

Scriptures according to Paul are God-breathed. That means perfect. Now everyone will tell me, well Scripture doesn’t imply New Testament, in which case if you read certain books like Timothy and Peter…they say Pauls letters and other Scripture (meaning there was indeed a Canon in the Biblical era because the Pauline epistles were directly associated with Scripture). I won’t put exact quotes from the Bible as I’m sure you’ve heard them all before and I will only hear back how I’m a close-minded Protestant who is illogical and that I cannot interpret the Bible which is why I am in need of the Magisterium…

But I want to ask this…if the Bible’s authors are under the inspiration of God, then why can’t Scripture be determined as OT and NT? Since God is not limited to our timeframe, why couldn’t He knowing that Scriptures would mean Bible in the future let Paul word it that way on purpose? The Words are supposed to be living and therefore you could assume that these words change with time purposefully…Just a question.

JPete,

I think what Mosher meant was this: How do you know Paul was right when he said that the scriptures were God-breathed. I could write a book and say it was God-breathed, that wouldn’t necessarily make it true.

 

[CollegeKid]

The Catholic would tell you that you accept the scriptures as truth primarily because of the Tradition of the Catholic Church. What I mean is, because the Catholic Church (and since the reformation, protestant churches) has always taught that the Bible is inspired by God, this is primarily why we accept it as God’s Word. Technically, the Bible is part of Tradition is itself, it’s the written part.
As for your objections to seeing great sins committed by the Church while at the same time the Church teaches that it is infallible, these are understandable. It’s only a natural reaction. But guess what? The Catholic Church isn’t the only organization that has carried out great crimes in the history of the world. Protesants have persecuted Catholics too. Muslims have persecuted both. And I don’t think its accurate to assume that the Church did nothing for the Jews and others during the Holocaust. The then-reigning Pope (believe it was Pious IX but I could be wrong) actually provided safe haven for many of those being persecuted by the Nazis, groups of people that included Catholics.
As for the whole infallibility thing, I get the impression that you realize the Church doesn’t teach that the Pope and the rest of the Magisterium are sinless, just that they won’t make mistakes when teaching on matters of faith and morals. However if I’m not mistaken though you think it would only make sense if they, in turn, practiced what they preached. In a perfect world. Don’t forget that even Jesus said of the Pharisees to his people, “Do as they say, not as they do” (will try to find the book, chapter, and verse if you want, if you don’t already have it). Many of the Bible’s heroes committed grave sins during their lifetimes, such as King David committing acts of adultery and murder. I think its fair to say that the Catholic Church is reprised more often and more harshly by the world when its leaders err because it is highly centralized and highly visible. The same cannot be said of the structures of, for example, Protestantism and Islam.

 

[TobyLue]

jPete79

Are you going to tell me that the Church had nothing to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition? Many Jews also feel that the Church could have weilded power to assist them during the Holocaust instead of sitting idly by (granted there were many stories of Christians who assisted personally in those times).

and

I admit I was blunt but did not know how else to make the argument.

I don’t have much to add since many have added many good responses but twice you mentioned about the millions that were killed and the popes just stood by and you say you admit you were blunt. I don’t think anybody here has any problem with bluntness, however it stirs the ire of Catholics when such falsities like these are made as if they were gospel truth. If you are going to make these statements, please cite your sources, uh, , make that “credible” sources.

I didn’t didn’t read about babes being baptized but about people who believed and then were baptized (now granted there was no household but I firmly attest that anyone who is saved must go through a conversion of some sort; no matter where they grew up), I didn’t see Peter tell any man to come to him but saw him directly tell the person to speak to God and not himself (Acts 10).

Guess what? In the first couple of centuries, people didn’t “read” about infants being baptized because they didn’t have the bible to go by. Besides, very, very few people knew how to read. However, we know that the early fathers taught infant baptism; such as

Irenaeus
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

or

Hippolytus
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

and then it was St. Augustine who said

“What the universal Church holds,** not **as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been **handed down by apostolic authority. **Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

noticed the part I put in bold. Who taught the apostles?

You also said

“whoever adds or takes away from this book will…” at the end of Revelation. I don’t think its just some random coincidence.

You quoted revelations about adding to “scripture”. Notice it says “this book” not “these books”. BUT if you want to adhere to your translation, guess who “removed” books from the Bible?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

jpete79:

To All:

I joined this forum about a week ago and in that time I have learned a bit about Catholicism but unfortunately many posts became a he said/she said battle of Protestantism vs. Catholicism. I have been asked a million questions on beliefs only to be answered by some (but not all) with sarcastic responses and occassional snips (although I myself snipped back). When I answer something with Scripture references I have been told that it is not properly interpretated by me and that is why I need the Magisterium.

Now first and foremost, I believe that the authority of God has been written down in the Bible. Whether it was the Catholics who canonized it or the protestants (Wycliffe and Tyndale) who first tried publishing it into different languages is irrelevant to me. The Catechism even talks about the divinity behind Scripture and that it is indeed perfect.

But it is not the Bible itself that brings us to God but it is God himself.

Exactly​

There are other ways of coming to the Lord than through the Bible. The Church is one, divine revelation

Agreed​

(though I feel this is extremely rare); I have even heard of people starting to put faith in an almighty Creator by seeing His creation itself. Many scientists and astronomers realize that the world is not merely a coincidence. To unknown people groups, Missionaries walk and live a Godly life to show others Christ in them.

I am going to be blunt and be honest right now. Can a Catholic be Christian and know Christ? Without a doubt. But it is the premise of infallibility in the Magisterium and the Pope that I cannot acknowledge.

Don’t worry - the Church got by without defining it until 1870.​

I cannot acknowledge that a person with a title or position gets authority to be 100% accurate in morals and faith. Especially when you look at people that have held this position. The Popes who stood at the forefront of the Crusades and the Inquisition. The Popes who stood by while the Holocaust went on and the Popes who cover-up sexual abuse scandals.

That is a lot of issues - they need to be discussed individually, otherwise one ends by making unhelpful & unfair generalisations.​

So which do you want to look at first ? ##

Again, I don’t say that people can’t be Catholic and Christian but to have people that have stood by while millions were killed in different periods of time and say they are infallible in matters of morals and faith I just can’t understand.

I do believe tradition itself is important to know. I believe learning about what people like Origen and Augustine did and said are vital in understanding faith. However, though studying it, I will not always agree with it as they just like every man, woman and child are not infallible or impeccable.

Can you please answer this idea of infallibility passed down the generations and how these atrocities could be committed if a man were infallible (if he were perfect in his moral decisions then it would be assumed that he would live the same moral life)?

It’s hard to do so briefly​

 

[Montie_Claunch]

moans ya’ll did all this without me. I feel so left out.

jpete79:

Thank you first for not criticizing me about my words. I admit I was blunt but did not know how else to make the argument.

No problem. I am used to it.

Now, on the discussion of the Pope. Christ ripped the Pharisees apart for being hypocrites. He said they looked like Holy men on the outside but on the inside they were vile. Its the idea of practicing what you preach. Christ’s commands were to love your enemy and turn the other cheek. Paul said to love your enemies to save them from burning coals upon their heads. The Pope during those times watched and even authored in some cases the genocide of millions of people. Morals and lifestyle are linked, especially if you are teaching to others about morals.

exactly, they were hypocrites and that was wrong but, that does not negate anything they said thouh. Moses screwed up a few times, as documented in the bible but, are we to say, wait just a second, is that really Gods law or just something he made up. And consedering that the human authors of the gospels were four out of four sinners would that mean that the Gospels arn’t worth anything? Of coarse not. I am not in anyway excusing what some popes have done in the past but,…you should get what I am saying by now.

I’m not saying all Popes are evil or wrong on everything. John Paul II was a great man who was very Holy and indeed wanted to bring the world closer to God. But to say that he couldn’t be wrong on moral ideals would be wrong if he doesn’t practice what he preaches (or at least attempt to)

I don’t see how not practing what you preach makes you wrong though. Would you please explain to me in more detail how that works? 'Cause we are seeing two diffrent things (or at least I think we are), I see hypcrite where you see liar (or at least this is what I am getting) which are two diffrent things.

If you had a teacher that told you sleeping around was wrong and then found out that he had various lovers would you trust him? Or if he said that you should give money to charities and then found that he takes money off the top of his company?

If that were the case I would try to get him to stop sleeping around or taking money off the top but, not that because he does these things it is by default alright.

 

[Sherlock]

jpete79:

To All:
Whether it was the Catholics who canonized it or the protestants (Wycliffe and Tyndale) who first tried publishing it into different languages is irrelevant to me.

That you think it was Protestants who first translated the Bible into other languages is not irrelevant to me, as it tells me that you are unfamiliar with the history of Scripture. The Catholic Church began translating the Bible into other languages long before Protestants.
You also mention something about popes being silent during the Holocaust—another example of a lack of historical knowledge. The charges simply aren’t true.

 

[Sherlock]

jpete79:

Ask a person that is not Catholic (or even some that are) what they think of the Church…I have done it numerous times, I hear people tell about the Crusades, the Inquisition, financial issues, anti-semitism, etc.
Sorry I just went on a rant

I don’t have time to answer this in any length, but here goes:

What about the Crusades? What do you know about them? Have you studied them in any depth (I’d recommend the historian Thomas Madden), or are you basing your opinion on TV and movies? I’m a fan of the Crusades----they were fought for a noble cause. And frankly, I’d be bowing in the direction of Mecca and reading the Koran—or dead—if it weren’t for the Crusades. Sure, some unforeseen, bad things happened during the Crusades, but unforeseen bad things happen in every conflict.

The Inquisition? Once again, what do you know about it? Did you know, for instance, that relative to the civil courts of the time, the Inquisition courts were models of fairness and mercy? That people accused of civil crimes were known to blaspheme in order to be tried before Inquisitional courts? That the whole whopping death total of the Spanish Inquisition was about 3,000 to 4,500 people over a period of 350 years? That Protestant countries killed more witches, because there were no Inquisitional courts that would have kept the Witch Hunt craze under control? Of course unforeseen bad stuff happened----but unforeseen bad stuff happens under our own system.

Anti-Semitism? You think that’s a Catholic-only problem? You haven’t read Martin Luther, then—quite the inspiration to Hitler, you know.

Financial issues? What do you mean, financial issues?

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

jpete79:

Are you going to tell me that the Church had nothing to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition? Many Jews also feel that the Church could have weilded power to assist them during the Holocaust instead of sitting idly by (granted there were many stories of Christians who assisted personally in those times).

If you say these things did happen; then would you say that the Catholic Church is headed by a loving body?

If you say they didn’t happen; are you going to say that the historians throughout time are mistaken?

Peace be with you!

As a history major, I can tell you truthfully that your accusations against the popes are not true. I’m not going to tell you that the Church had nothing to do with the crusades–the Church had *everything *to do with the crusades. *What *the Church did, however, is another question. I just finished taking a class this term entitled “Holy War in the Middle Ages: Christian and Islamic Perspectives” and it was one of the best classes I’ve taken. For my final paper, I just turned in a critical book review of The Invention of the Crusades by Christopher Tyermann (a review, not a book report on its contents). There’s one historian that I can tell you is mistaken. Believe me, I know this subject quite well. If it wasn’t for the Church calling for crusade, Europe may very well have fallen to the Muslims. Were autrocities committed? Yes, certainly; it was war, after all. But was the Church behind them? No.

As for the Inquisition, it was the secular courts that burned people at the stake, not religious ones.

And any Jew that criticizes the Church about the Holocaust had better read the autobiography of Rabbi Zolli, who was their head Rabbi of Rome during that time. After the war, he converted to Catholicism and took Eugenio as his baptismal name in honor of Pope Pius XII. So don’t give me that stuff about the Church not helping the Jews. It is estimated that the Church saved the lives of anywhere between 750,000-800,000 Jews during WWII. Albert Einstein himself said that no one did more to help the Jews than the Catholic Church. You need to get your facts straight before you start making these accusations.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[I_Leatherman]

“But I want to ask this…if the Bible’s authors are under the inspiration of God…” - jpete79

Similar to Papal infallibility, you believe that God can inspire and guide the authors of Sacred Scripture infallibly - but that now He cannot inspire and guide His Church infallibly.
You doubt God now - you must also doubt God in Apostolic times.

:getholy:

 

[Tim_Hayes]

In relation to the bible we must understadn one thing. When the Church sat down and decided what they would definitely consider scripture it was a requirement that it hold to the TRADITIONS of the Church, both in terms of who did or did not write it and also in relation to what it taught.

So when the catholic Church decided that the writings of Paul were in, part of their decision was based on their interpretation of what the scripture was, in other words when they interpreted the scripture supposedly written by Paul it had to confirm what was always held to be the teaching at the very least.

Now if you use your reasoning then you must realise that scripture only got into the NEW TESTAMENT if it confirmed what the Church at that time taught and what it had always taught.

If you in various cases use a different interpetation to that of the Church then you have actually done away with one of the reasons why it was considered scripture, therefor its reliability as scripture is now in jeopardy.

In Christ

Tim

 

[BOBKAT]

"The Pope during those times watched and even authored in some cases the genocide of millions of people" quote

**jpete79 **Can you tell me where you got this information? Are you very versed on that part of history or are you listening to others. You should read Della’s answer I think it not only answered your question, but did so in a non-confrontational manner in which you seemed to have ignored. My question to you is this are you coming here for just what you accuse us of or what? When I want to understand something I try to gey all the facts my self using many methods which include asking and reading. The Pope himself isn’t infallable it comes with the seat he sits on which if you studied would make sense. Also the Crusades were well intended and many people and their families died for a wonderful cause “Christianity” however bad did spill out and now they are totally misunderstood. I have no problem answering question, however when the person has other motives behind them this is what happens. Open your heart and listen to it if you truely seek Christ you will find Him.

God Bless
Kathleen

 

[jpete79]

hurst:

Thanks be to God. Welcome!

True, it is not explictly stated as such. But consider that Jesus called Peter the “Rock” on which He would build His Church. It is his faith that resulted in the Father showing Peter the Truth about Jesus. And later, Jesus prayed that his faith would not fail.

Now, already it is not explicit. I am not going to debate this point but was Peter not the first person in the Bible who brought the Gospel to a Gentile? (and even then Peter argued about doing it if you remember because he still thought that Christ was there for the Jews only). That is why Protestants and Catholics both agree that he was the foundational piece of the Church though. Because of the fact that he was the first to spread the word outside of the Jewish Faith.

hurst:

You might accept the previous assessment as only valid for Peter himself back then. But that we know they were set up in specific roles because when Judas was gone, they drew lots to determine who would take his place. Why would they do that if the nature of their roles wasn’t something to be passed on and preserved? So infallibility can be seen as the preservation of that role of being the Rock. And bad Popes come and go, but the role of Peter remains…

Now I agree that roles did come and go. I think a visible Church is needed. Is it the Catholic Church? You will say yes, I will say no and leave it up to God to decide. Now I think an invisible Church is also there; and the visible Church is for local purposes and edification.

It’s not that I didn’t see roles being replaced its that I don’t see the authority given to Peter as authority over his people but authority to preach his name. (I will get into that later).

hurst:

Just as you conclude that the Bible is true because it has survived history, so could you conclude that the chair of Peter is true because it has survived history.

Fair enough

hurst:

It is discipline which is created or changed. Tradition involves the Spirit of God acting in and through living people today. Our religion is not just from a dead tree. It is alive in the people with faith. And the authority of God is also alive therein! .

I agree in the Spirit of God acting in and around people today. I never said I don’t agree in the Spirit. But the difference is in Tradition it has not stayed the same throughout the years. Maybe for many generations it has but many of the Traditions were not established from the Apostles.

Cont.

 

[jpete79]

hurst:

Good question. I think he is talking about power of authority, which implies the necessity of our obedience, for it is obedience which is the key to heaven. I believe the keys to heaven are given to us by our baptism in that it incorporates us into the Body of Christ and into His obedience. We have the blessed opportunity of obeying our way into heaven, for blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! By obeying Him, we do the Father’s Will and enter the Kingdom of God. .

This is the important question that I really wanted to ask…what is the key to Heaven, what is the one way to get to Heaven? Jesus Christ. He was there before the Church and is the way into the Church. The key to Heaven is the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. It is not authority given to people to absolve others of sins or start making Traditions, it is the authority of Jesus Christ as the head of the Church and the great High Priest whom died for us and we have access to day and night

hurst:

Without the Pope, how could any one be taken seriously? Look at the many denominations. Do they obey each other? No! They all claim to have some authority based on scripture, but they conflict to such an extent that they condemn each other on various points, the most notable one being the manner of proper baptism. Thus, without the Pope, they do not have the key to heaven: the imposition of obedience by someone other than themselves, without which it cannot be genuine and selfless.

First off, I will never condemn anyone on that point (I may debate like I do here) but I will say that if any person believes that Jesus Christ is Savior and tries to live a life according to His Will that he is my brother or she is my sister.

This is why I asked about the key to Heaven. The key to Heaven is Jesus Christ and it is accessible through whatever means you meet him. Reading about him, going to Church, hearing about him; as long as you accept you are a sinner in need of a Savior and no that life is nothing without HIM, you have found the key to Heaven. To bind and loose us from our bondage to sin and the world and bring us under righteousness.

I have many brothers and sisters who are Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal (I go to a non-denom Church). The similar belief that brings us together is Jesus Christ.

(Some claim to obey only the Bible, but again, according to whose interpretation? Thus the sola scriptura approach leaves oneself open to self-deception and self-will.) But with a living, continuous Tradition embodied in the Pope and Bishops, we have a constant guide, a Shepherd in person, or a helper obedient to Him!

Yes, the Sola Scriptura approach does leave a lot of issues. But God once walked with man in the Garden, after sin He was in Heaven and years later He represented Himself as man in Jesus Christ who died for us and represented Himself after the ascension in the Spirit. If the representative of God is the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost depending on wording) why do we need another representative in human form? Also, Christ died to fulfill the law and now Tradition seems to make all new laws (on baptism, confession, eucharist, confirmation, etc). God wanted us free from everything except Him. He didn’t want any rules for us to follow, He wanted us closer to Him because of Jesus Christ. Last, I think Christ somewhere in the Gospel would have been more explicit of the role of Peter. When he told the Pharisees about titles of rabbi, father and teacher; he was talking about these positions and said there is no father but He who is in Heaven…this means that there is no representative on Earth. I think Christ would have said that when I ascend to Heaven I will leave an earthly vessel as a representative. He did not say that anywhere. He said Peter would be a foundation for His Church not a representative whose power will continue for generations…

 

[jpete79]

“The Pope during those times watched and even authored in some cases the genocide of millions of people” quote

**jpete79 **Can you tell me where you got this information? Are you very versed on that part of history or are you listening to others. You should read Della’s answer I think it not only answered your question, but did so in a non-confrontational manner in which you seemed to have ignored. My question to you is this are you coming here for just what you accuse us of or what? When I want to understand something I try to gey all the facts my self using many methods which include asking and reading. The Pope himself isn’t infallable it comes with the seat he sits on which if you studied would make sense. Also the Crusades were well intended and many people and their families died for a wonderful cause “Christianity” however bad did spill out and now they are totally misunderstood. I have no problem answering question, however when the person has other motives behind them this is what happens. Open your heart and listen to it if you truely seek Christ you will find Him.

God Bless
Kathleen

Kathleen:

I admit that I have not read Della’s answer but have not ignored it either. I am not able to get to all answers and respond to everyone in a timely fashion because I try to type at work. Because people post rather quickly I don’t get to everyone’s comments. Can you tell me what number post it was so I can look back at it?

I want to know personal reasons that people would follow an institution such as the Church with Tradition rather than why they wouldn’t follow Scripture which does give us a distinct way to Heaven (Jesus Christ)?

I admit I don’t understand fallibility because morals and actions are linked and to say you can be perfect in doctrine would mean that you would try and act out those morals in action (true you would not always succeed).

As far as history goes, I have been an avid studier of history (and not just Christian) as I feel history is a great tool for learning about mistakes and not letting them occur again.

 

[rbrooks]

southernCONVERT:

Hey jpete!

Just to let you know I am also a convert from reformed prespyterianism.

Thanks for all your questions! If we are never challenged than we become lazy. Your questions help us to understand out own faith!

I would like to comment on your comment on the all powerful, all knowing God. Because this point is one of the few that really made me HAVE to convert. I believe God is too powerful to let His church fall into the grave sin that people think the Church is in. When Jesus said “…and upon this rock** I **will build MY Church” This was important for me bacause He sais He will build HIS church. Not YOU will build an OK church or I will build YOUR church, no…He said it was HIS church. Therefore it cannot fail, because it’s His bride and He will never let it out of His graces.

I also love your love for Sacred Scripture. I do believe it is the word of God. And for this reason Protestants MUST be wrong. (That seems really mean, but jpete, i love ya man…in HIM i do) They can’t be right because not only do they dissagree or differ, but they CONTRADICT. Even within one denomination (like in my case the many sects of presbys that dont agree) they dissagree and contradict. Now, they are all using THE SAME scripture, and if this scripture is the infallible word of GOD (it is) then how could basically every person who has a bible, have a different view of scripture. That would meen God can contradict Himself, which we all know is impossible.

Its like if the USA threw the constitution in a crowd and said “Do it yourselves” how many different ideas of what the country should be would we then have. No, it works WITH the gov. Now i would never say that the USA has anything on the divine will of God, it was just an example.

Also, keep in mind that in Mathew 23 Jesus also tells the people to follow these Pharisees, for they “hold the seat of Moses”, but dont be like them because their hearts are evil and corrupt. We all know there’s evil people in the Church (past and present), but praise God that He is bigger than sin and the gates of hell have not and shall never prevail against her (like Jesus said).
Keep studying, like you I think the Spirit leads. Thats why I love the Church that HE said He would never leave. Because like scripture sais, the Church is the foundation of Truth (2 Tim…can’t remeber). Truth cant contradict, because truth is not relative.

JC

Southern,

Well done!! Impressive for a southerner! jk brother
Very articulate and loving!

Rich