Protestant interpretations...

[LionHeart777]

an example of a discipline= a celibate clergy (w/ some exceptions, converts and Eastern Catholics who are already married may become priests.)

an example of Dogma= the perpetual virginity of Mary

 

[Luke65]

Paul warned against being under the law; Paul was not under the law; Saul was.

Again, you deny the Word of God, because you don’t understand what Paul, the Catholic, taught. Do I need to quote it for you again? Okay, one last try…

“To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.” (1 Corinthians 9:21)

 

[JohnnyBeth]

The “all” means everyone. Unfortunately, not all will accept Christ’s salvific grace.

That’s is where you error. Go back and look at the context. It cannot be every single person that ever lived much less every single person alive at the time. Look very closely and see who the “all” is.

 

[Luke65]

That’s is where you error. Go back and look at the context. It cannot be every single person that ever lived much less every single person alive at the time. Look very closely and see who the “all” is.

From a Protestant Bible study:

As by his rising in the east and shining out, he enlightens, successively, the whole world; so the Lord Jesus, who is called the Sun of righteousness, Malachi 4:2, arises on the whole human race with healing in his wings. And as the light and heat of the sun are denied to no nation nor individual, so the grace of the Lord Jesus, this also shines out upon all; and God designs that all mankind shall be as equally benefited by it in reference to their souls, as they are in respect to their bodies by the sun that shines in the firmament of heaven.

Love the truth.

P.S. Speaking of Malachi 4:2, here’s a great story.

 

[Des]

Paul had to rebuke him for teaching what amounted to another gospel. After the day of Pentecost.

PETER WAS NOT WILLFULLY TEACHING ANYTHING! We’ve already been over this. You’re intentionally trying to make this difficult. The HOLY SPIRIT WOULD NOT allow Peter or the rest of the Apostles to teach error. Its as simple as that. If they can under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then you had better have concern with their written work as well. Nobody here is saying that the Holy Spirit wasn’t working through the Apostles. And there is a huge difference in teaching error and making erroneous decisions with everyday experiences throughout one’s life.

 

[Des]

I want one simple yes or no answer from Johnny Beth.

Could the Apostles teach error when their intent alone at that time is to teach the Gospel?

 

[Ginger2]

“Whoever divorces his wife, unless it be for porneia, and marries another, commits moichaō.” It’s obvious that pornea in this context meant something explicitly unnatural or perverse happening and not merely because one is being unfaithful to their spouse.

The word porneia can mean many things. Bestiality…Incest …Male homosexual intercourse … as well as male and female homosexuality relationships …

Thank God for Sacred Tradition. It’s clear what the early Church fathers taught about divorce even if one is unfaithful to the other.

JEROME “Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher,… So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes he is her husband still and she may not take another” (Letters55:3 [A.D. 396]).

It seems Catholics are the ones who, “can’t decide on whether divorce is ok or not”

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

I found this comment quite interesting.

1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances;

The unbelieving husband abandons his wife and six kids, and the wife has no means of support (they didn’t have child welfare in those days to force dead-beat dads to pay) but she can’t remarry. What options does she have left…hmmmm… well? Do you know what women in those circumstance in those days had to do???

Matthew 19:7-8 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Jesus said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Ahhhhhh!!! You are really funny Ginger. Your veggie story was a horrible argument

• Michael

Let me see if I can explain it on a level you are able to understand.

1. If a man says he is a Christian and then begins to tell you that God is not a real being, but rather a picture word that helps humans understand their existence,

In your mind is he a Protestant Christian?

I expect your answer is “yes”.

By that reasoning,

1. If a man tells you he is a vegetarian, and them orders a beef steak dinner and consumed the whole steak right in front of your eyes,

In your mind is he a vegetarian?

I expect your answer is “no”

So, how are the two answers different in your mind?

Ginger

 

[teak421]

Let me see if I can explain it on a level you are able to understand.

1. If a man says he is a Christian and then begins to tell you that God is not a real being, but rather a picture word that helps humans understand their existence,

In your mind is he a Protestant Christian?

I expect your answer is “yes”.

By that reasoning,

1. If a man tells you he is a vegetarian, and them orders a beef steak dinner and consumed the whole steak right in front of your eyes,

In your mind is he a vegetarian?

I expect your answer is “no”

So, how are the two answers different in your mind?

Ginger

I understand one thing, you stated that all Protestants agree with “basic” (as defined by YOU and not Scripture) doctrines and I simply say that is a horrible argument given the evidence we have. Now, if you can provide other evidence to back your argument other than silly stories, than wonderful.

Did YOU or Scripture determine the list of “basic” doctrines that you laid out? Does Scripture (not YOU) say that being of one mind is important?

You are leaning on your own understanding… However, I’ll retract and have a high degree of respect (not as a person, I respect you there!) that statement if you show me:

1. That Scripture not YOU determine what Doctrines are “basic”
2. Once you have Scripture show me that, then demonstrate that Protestants all agree.
3. If you can not do #1 and #2, STOP WITH YOUR LINE OF REASONING. It is wholly without merit and should be rejected. Again, if you show me #1 and #2 are from Scripture, then we’re onto something. But if you simply tell me your opinion of what you think is “basic” doctrine, I have no time for that.

Please stay clear and focused on the argument at hand. I know you have a tactic of moving the ball, but above is very simple.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

How do you know the Pope has the Holy Spirit? That would be equivalent to saying you know he is saved without ever meeting or talking to the person. Are you God?

Have you read any of Benedict XVI works… For example, his latest Encyclical, Charity in Truth? Why not read it and come back with your opinion of it.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

If I am labeled with “Calvinist”; it does not bother me. OSAS for sure; you cannot loose which you don’t have; if you got it, then it was wholly the work of God and no one can be snatched away or separated from His love and a true believer would never want to.

Is it reasonable that not a single early Church Father agreed with OSAS or Calvinism? Should that concern you? Or, 1500 years later suddenly Calvin figured it all out! Sounds like Mr. Smith from LDS to me.

• Michael

PS: I’ve not read EVERY early Church Father, so please… educate me. Please provide ANY Church Father that agrees with your position. If you can not, and it was made up in the 1500’s, then I would say its the “other” Gospel you so much like to talk about.

 

[Ginger2]

…show me:

1. That Scripture not YOU determine what Doctrines are “basic”
2. Once you have Scripture show me that, then demonstrate that Protestants all agree.
3. If you can not do #1 and #2, STOP WITH YOUR LINE OF REASONING. It is wholly without merit and should be rejected. Again, if you show me #1 and #2 are from Scripture, then we’re onto something. But if you simply tell me your opinion of what you think is “basic” doctrine, I have no time for that.

Please stay clear and focused on the argument at hand. I know you have a tactic of moving the ball, but above is very simple.

• Michael

You do realize you are asking what requires a Bible study to demonstrate thoroughly, don’t you?

I can’t do a Bible study in a forum format such as this. But I can point out a few things and show Scriptures to support my claims. Of course, it will make no difference to you whatsoever.

1. The term “christian” is a word to identify those who follow Jesus and believe he is the Christ (Acts 11:26)
2. Jesus’ purpose is plainly stated in Scriptures, Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and y…he will save his people from their sins."

Jesus stated plainly his purpose, Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The Apostles who were followers of Jesus plainly stated his purpose, 1Ti 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1. Likewise the means by which we are saved is clearly written in the Scriptures, too.

So, to be a Christian, one must follow Jesus as that is what being a Christian means. (John 1:12)
And to follow Jesus, one must believe and adhere to these basic fundamental doctrines (Romans 10:9)
which Jesus himself taught and are indeed spelled out clearly in Scriptures.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

This is all crystal clear, yet I have no doubt you will focus on the idea that the words “basic doctrines” is not found in Scriptures followed by a list of thing to believe.

Ginger

 

[teak421]

You do realize you are asking what requires a Bible study to demonstrate thoroughly, don’t you?

I can’t do a Bible study in a forum format such as this. But I can point out a few things and show Scriptures to support my claims. Of course, it will make no difference to you whatsoever.

1. The term “christian” is a word to identify those who follow Jesus and believe he is the Christ (Acts 11:26)
2. Jesus’ purpose is plainly stated in Scriptures, Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and y…he will save his people from their sins."

Jesus stated plainly his purpose, Jhn 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The Apostles who were followers of Jesus plainly stated his purpose, 1Ti 1:15 This [is] a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

1. Likewise the means by which we are saved is clearly written in the Scriptures, too.

So, to be a Christian, one must follow Jesus as that is what being a Christian means. (John 1:12)
And to follow Jesus, one must believe and adhere to these basic fundamental doctrines (Romans 10:9)
which Jesus himself taught and are indeed spelled out clearly in Scriptures.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16

This is all crystal clear, yet I have no doubt you will focus on the idea that the words “basic doctrines” is not found in Scriptures followed by a list of thing to believe.

Ginger

Yep, Ginger you are right. because you have determined what Protestants is considered basic.

I offer this evidence that Protestants do not agree on the “basics” as you put it…

1. Must speak in tongues to be saved.
2. Must be baptized in Jesus name ONLY.
3. Must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
4. Calvin
5. OSAS
6. Can lose your salvation

Do you believe doctrines concerning salvation are “basic”? In my opinion, yeah, salvation is as basic as it gets. How does one get justified before the Father. Yeah, that’s VERY BASIC.

#1 do you dispute my assertion that salvation is a basic doctrine?
#2 if you do agree that salvation is “basic” can you then say that Protestant either agree or disagree.

Thanks.

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

Yep, Ginger you are right. because you have determined what Protestants is considered basic.

I offer this evidence that Protestants do not agree on the “basics” as you put it…

1. Must speak in tongues to be saved.
2. Must be baptized in Jesus name ONLY.
3. Must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
4. Calvin
5. OSAS
6. Can lose your salvation

Do you believe doctrines concerning salvation are “basic”? In my opinion, yeah, salvation is as basic as it gets. How does one get justified before the Father. Yeah, that’s VERY BASIC.

#1 do you dispute my assertion that salvation is a basic doctrine?
#2 if you do agree that salvation is “basic” can you then say that Protestant either agree or disagree.

Thanks.

• Michael

:banghead:

You sound like a broken record. I could use the same ridiculous reasoning on Catholics:

1. the pope is the highest authority
2. all bishops are equal in authority
3. priests may marry
4. priest cannot marry
5. Eucharist is made of unleavened bread
6. Eucharist is made of leavened bread
7. purgatory is real
8. purgatory does not exist
9. Mary was conceived free from original sin
10. Original sin was removed when the angel announced she would conceive of the Holy Spirit

But I’ll humor you one last time:
everyone who is non-catholic is not protestant. Protestants are Bible Christians.

1. Must speak in tongues to be saved.
   This man-made doctrine is not found in Scriptures
   therefor it is not a biblical doctrine if not a biblical doctrine, then not a Protestant doctrine, either
2. Must be baptized in Jesus name ONLY.
3. Must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
   Either way is appropriate as the BIBLE SAYS SO!!!
4. Calvin
   I am not familiar with Calvin, but since Protestants follow the Bible and not human beings, it is irrelevant. We can listen to learned men, but we must obey the Word of God.
5. OSAS
   This depends on what the individual thinks it means. If he thinks it means something that contradicts Scriptures - he is wrong. If he thinks it means something that is consistent with Scriptures then I guess he is correct!!!
6. Can lose your salvation
   ditto

Let me put #'s 5 & 6 in a content a Catholic can understand: If a Catholic thinks an RC doctrine means something contrary to RC teaching, he is wrong. If the Catholic thinks it means something that is consistent with RC teaching, then he is right.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Now let me ask you a similar question.

You have asserted that Protestant have different understandings because we rely on the Bible and misunderstand what it says, but Catholics don’t have this problem because they rely on the authority of the church and can turn to the CCC for correct understanding…

Then why do some Catholics misunderstand RC teaching - even after the quote from the church fathers and the CCC to defend their belief?

Ginger

 

[teak421]

:banghead:

You sound like a broken record. I could use the same ridiculous reasoning on Catholics:

1. the pope is the highest authority
2. all bishops are equal in authority
3. priests may marry
4. priest cannot marry
5. Eucharist is made of unleavened bread
6. Eucharist is made of leavened bread
7. purgatory is real
8. purgatory does not exist

But I’ll humor you one last time:
everyone who is non-catholic is not protestant. Protestants are Bible Christians.

1. Must speak in tongues to be saved.
   This man-made doctrine is not found in Scriptures
   therefor it is not a biblical doctrine if not a biblical doctrine, then not a Protestant doctrine, either
2. Must be baptized in Jesus name ONLY.
3. Must be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
   Either way is appropriate as the BIBLE SAYS SO!!!
4. Calvin
   I am not familiar with Calvin, but since Protestants follow the Bible and not human beings, it is irrelevant. We can listen to learned men, but we must obey the Word of God.
5. OSAS
   This depends on what the individual thinks it means. If he thinks it means something that contradicts Scriptures - he is wrong. If he thinks it means something that is consistent with Scriptures then I guess he is correct!!!
6. Can lose your salvation
   ditto

Let me put #'s 5 & 6 in a content a Catholic can understand: If a Catholic thinks an RC doctrine means something contrary to RC teaching, he is wrong. If the Catholic thinks it means something that is consistent with RC teaching, then he is right.

Ginger

I am only a broken record because you have not answered my two simple questions.

#1 do you dispute my assertion that salvation is a basic doctrine?
#2 if you do agree that salvation is “basic” can you then say that Protestant either agree or disagree.

Why do you deflect? I know you are versed in debate, and that’s fine and dandy, but aren’t we here to sharpen each others sword? To learn? To discover truth? How can we do that when you will not answer directly my questions concerning your assertion? You made the claim that Protestants agree on “basic” doctrines… I called you on it and now, you either say you were mistaken, or defend your position. You defend your position not by diversion, but by answering my questions directly.

Could you answer #1 and #2? Thanks.

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

#1 do you dispute my assertion that salvation is a basic doctrine?
#2 if you do agree that salvation is “basic” can you then say that Protestant either agree or disagree.

• Michael

No & Yes - in that order.

 

[Ginger2]

have you no response to this:

Catholics do not agree on dogma

1. the pope is the highest authority
2. all bishops are equal in authority
3. priests may marry
4. priest cannot marry
5. Eucharist is made of unleavened bread
6. Eucharist is made of leavened bread
7. purgatory is real
8. purgatory does not exist
9. Mary was conceived free from original sin
10. Original sin was removed when the angel announced she would conceive of the Holy Spirit

 

[davidv]

have you no response to this:

Catholics do not agree on dogma

1. the pope is the highest authority
2. all bishops are equal in authority
3. priests may marry
4. priest cannot marry
5. Eucharist is made of unleavened bread
6. Eucharist is made of leavened bread
7. purgatory is real
8. purgatory does not exist
9. Mary was conceived free from original sin
10. Original sin was removed when the angel announced she would conceive of the Holy Spirit

Individual Catholics may disagree on these. However, we can learn which ones are correct by going to the Church.

When two or more n-C disagree they have no way of knowing which one is correct.