Protestant interpretations...

[whm]

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

Not all of the things you list are not dogma. Since you don’t seem to understand this concept, your list lacks credibility.

 

[pete_29]

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

1. On Earth, yes
2. I think the answer to that one is yes.
3. No
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No
7. Yes
8. See answer 7
9. Yes
10. No

 

[teak421]

No & Yes - in that order.

Thanks for the reply… SO:

You agree that Salvation is a “basic” doctrine. Perfect.

And, you believe that all Protestants are in agreement with the basic doctrine of Salvation. Right?

So, how can you explain:

The Southern Baptist Convention a mainline Protestant Sect in their statement of faith believe in OSAS. Here is the web site: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#v

Here’s the Assembly of God, another mainline Protestant Sect:

ag.org/top/beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm

You will see they believe in speaking on Tongues and also that you can fall way.

Here is the Presbyterian Web Site (PCA) which is another mainline Protestant Church. They teach pre-destination.

pcanet.org/general/beliefs.htm

Finally, because I have to work, here’s only one more… apolostic church of Christ organization, they teach that one MUST be baptized. info is here:

cacworldwide.net/info/about.asp?idm=351

Questions:

#1: Do you dispute that the above organizations are indeed Protestant?
#2: If you do not, how can you explain the differences that they have about the “basic” doctrine (which you agree) of salvation?

My conclusion, your argument that all Protestants agree on “basic” doctrines is wholly without merit and should be rejected.

If you could answer #1 and #2, I may re-think my conclusion.

• Michael

 

[Ginger2]

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

Which Church? Eastern or Latin? I was not talking about individual opinions but the differences between some of the Catholic churches.

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

Yes we do. The Holy Bible. I just showed you That you can use the Bible, in context, to see what is true.

It is only when verses are taken out of context or when people create a whole new story to explain things in a way that is possible for humans, that confusion spreads.

It is not a matter of misunderstanding what is written, but a deliberate denial of it.

You compare heretics who deliberately deny God’s Word to non-catholic Christians who trust God.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Thanks for the reply… SO:

So, how can you explain:

The Southern Baptist Convention a mainline Protestant Sect in their statement of faith believe in OSAS. Here is the web site: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#v

Here’s the Assembly of God, another mainline Protestant Sect:

• Michael

Well, I admit I only looked at the page that popped up with the link and didn’t search these site, but I agree with all of them.

They all seem to believe Baptism is necessary.

They did have different ways of explaining OSAS but all at a glance seemed to be consistent with Scriptures. They explained it differently but none of them stated what the RC claims it means.

And The AOG church didn’t say one’s salvation is dependent on speaking in tongues. It said it is a sign of the Holy Spirit re: Pentecost.

Nice try, but no banana for you! You’ll have to get your potassium elsewhere.

Ginger

 

[teak421]

Well, I admit I only looked at the page that popped up with the link and didn’t search these site, but I agree with all of them.

They all seem to believe Baptism is necessary.

They did have different ways of explaining OSAS but all at a glance seemed to be consistent with Scriptures. They explained it differently but none of them stated what the RC claims it means.

And The AOG church didn’t say one’s salvation is dependent on speaking in tongues. It said it is a sign of the Holy Spirit re: Pentecost.

Nice try, but no banana for you! You’ll have to get your potassium elsewhere.

Ginger

Not the AG. Read again… They do NOT require Baptism for Salvation… Its the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Strike one. They have about 2 million or so members. Are they Protestant?

What about our Presbs friends who believe we have no free will… Go read that one? Does that agree with the others. About 2.2 million members. Strike two.

Here’s the bottom line, you have failed to make a case that all Protestants agree on the basic doctrine of Salvation. I’ve clearly shown you with examples from the web sites of Protestant sects that they do not agree.

Therefore, for the final time. Your argument that *all *Protestant sects agree on “basic” doctrines is without merit and should be rejected in its entirety.

• Michael

 

[davidv]

Which Church? Eastern or Latin? I was not talking about individual opinions but the differences between some of the Catholic churches.

There is only one Catholic Church, so there can be no differences.

Yes we do. The Holy Bible. I just showed you That you can use the Bible, in context, to see what is true.

Sorry, there are plenty posts here on CAF that prove this to be false. Rarely can two n-C agree on what the Bible means.

It is only when verses are taken out of context or when people create a whole new story to explain things in a way that is possible for humans, that confusion spreads.

It is not a matter of misunderstanding what is written, but a deliberate denial of it.

You compare heretics who deliberately deny God’s Word to non-catholic Christians who trust God.

Ginger

Really? How did I do so?

 

[LionHeart777]

All,

IMO, to compare Protestantism w/ Catholicism is like comparing an apple to an orange.
in that:

Protestantism= a movement started about 500 years ago which now contains many denominations each, generally speaking, not being of one mind on faith and morals

Catholicism=Although in the Catholic view (which I agree w/), the CC is not** a denomination; however for the sake of proper analogy I am probably treating it as a “denomination” for the purpose of this post and/or analogy.

Therefore, a particular denomination can only be compared w/ the Catholic Church in order to properly compare IMO.

Therefore Ginger, While I agree that “cafeteria Catholics” exist-- I disagree that that is the same situation of Protestantism today. For a proper analogy, I would compare a “cafeteria Catholic” (whose Church has a set teaching) to a “cafeteria Lutheran (Missouri Synod)” (whose church also has a set teaching.)

Does that make sense?

One would have to pick a specific group of Protestants to compare w/ the CC, as official Protestant teaching on faith and morals is not the same all across the board like it is w/ the Catholic Church.

 

[Ginger2]

Not the AG. Read again… They do NOT require Baptism for Salvation…

• Michael

You read again.

Baptism in Water

The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures. All who repent and believe on Christ as Saviour and Lord are to be baptized. Thus they declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life.

YES. AOG are Christian based on what I know of them.

Ginger

 

[teak421]

You read again.

YES. AOG are Christian based on what I know of them.

Ginger

Ginger, I was an AG!!! I served on the Board at our Church. I know its doctrine. But, because you will not believe me, see below.

Here’s what is says: *WE BELIEVE…and practice two ordinances—(1) Water Baptism by Immersion after repenting of one’s sins and receiving Christ’s gift of salvation, and (2) Holy Communion (the Lord’s Supper) as a symbolic remembrance of Christ’s suffering and death for our salvation. *

If you notice, it says AFTER repenting and receiving Christ’s gift of salvation… Therefore, you are left with two choices… One, the AG are not true Protestants in Ginger’s mind or two, you are wrong about your assertion that all Protestants believe in the same “basic” doctrines… like salvation. (I of course, believe the latter)

• Michael

 

[rinnie]

“Seventy times seven”…LOL

I would love to hear each of you just answer it once

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I [SIGN]am only a broken record because you have not answered my two simple questions. [/SIGN]
#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

She does it to everyone. Just read the thread. ITs history repeating itself

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

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

Ginger

Easy Ginger the same reason you do. We do not have the Power of the HS to define scripture. At least we admit it. So we misunderstand teaching all the time. But we can simply go to Church on Sunday ask Father and he sets us straight.

And we can go to ANY RCC. THere are thousands. and we will get the same answer!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good try to assume we agreed Peter is the head of the church; Peter was acknowledged as being put into a leadership rule among the apostles and a foundation layer of the church. Much different that Peter usurping the headship of Christ as you utter and are apparently convinced of dispite what the God has said. Perhaps it was later than you thought last night…LOL

Forgive me…I said that Peter has usurped the headship of the Church??? Which post?

Let’s turn our attention to Apostolic Succession. I think of it this way:

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the successors of Peter and the Apostles had Apostolic Authority because they believe that the idea of “Apostolic Succession” is not found in the Bible. Is this really true?

To the contrary, the Bible contains clear evidence that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the Letter to the Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Clement wrote his own Letter to the Corinthians, and in that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had 1) witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and 2) received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles down to the present day.

 

[Randy_Carson]

God does not respect “ranks” as you suppose; He is not a respector of persons regardless of “rank”, gender, rich, poor etc.

This is a non sequitur. The question is not one of whether God is a “respecter of persons”; God established the priesthood, and He may do so as He sees fit.

In fact it is a “desire” of the overseerer to shepherd, not sacrafice on behalf of" God’s flock. Christ ushered in the New Covenant by one single and final sacrifice. End of story. You do not know this concerning Gods character or just choose to ignore it to fit a theology?

I have listened to folks such as yourself make the same tired points far more than you can imagine. It’s the downside of being an amateur apologist, I’m afraid. And yes, I do choose to ignore a false theology that fails to understand the sacrificial nature of the Catholic mass.

Priest, hiereus: (Why would you use a Greek word for overseer to be the same as a separate and distinct word for priest? To make you theology fit?)

1. a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
   referring to priests of Gentiles or the Jews, (OT)
2. metaph. of Christians, because, purified by the blood of Christ and brought into close intercourse with God, they devote their life to him alone and to Christ (NT)

If you want to continue to distort the Word of God that is your business, but I don’t really want any part of it.

Elder: presbyteros

1. elder, of age, the elder of two people advanced in life, an elder, a senior a) forefathers
2. among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) ***The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably ***

Notice the lack of sacraficial duties

Jesus said, “Do this in memory of me.” At that moment, the Apostles were ordained as priests of the New Covenant in order to be able to offer the sacrifice that we know as the Eucharist. Perhaps reading some good Catholic books will help, because thus far your comments reflect a profound ignorance of what Catholics believe.

All man-made things/teachings have a tendency to evolve over time; whereas God does not change.

Yeah, so? Doctrine develops and this is not a problem if you think it through.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You may have it backwards by affirming the Roman Catholic Church is head and rule over the church of God on earth, which is in essence usurping the authority of the Trinity, which is impossible in reality. What part about adding to Scripture does God approve? The immaculate conception of Mary, the papacy, the co-medatrix of Mary, levitical-self-styled priesthood, praying to saints that ain’t, Peterine Primacy, or a confessional booth? Which did He approve and how do you know?

This is empty rhetoric. Do you think your argument is somehow bolstered by rattling off half a dozen doctrines which you do not fully understand and merely claiming that these things “add to scripture”?

You don’t even know the basics of what the church is; if you did you would stick to the Biblical definition wouldn’t you?

Could you point to those verses which tell us that the Bible Alone is the sole source of teaching about the nature of the Church, JohnnyBeth?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will lead you or you can start a thread on the topic. I would start by looking at the saints that were removed from the Catholic calendar in the 1960’s. I would also look at how long they were on the calendar. Then I would begin to look at the stories behind the ones removed and see what their principal “protection” was, then look at the greek and roman gods and look for similar matches.

The I would ask myself, how did they get there in the first place? I would ask wht they have not had their sainthood declared annulled? What would be the implication of declaring them annulled? I would also want to know why my church is making profit off of these products? If you send me a PM or start another thread; I will send you a very clear example of this.

What on earth does any of this have to do with the “alleged forgeries”?

Nothing. Just another anti-Catholic rant based on ignorance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are you declaring I am a tare? Unity in faith has not been revealed has it? What does the Bible teach on that? Do you know? You have a false sense of unity because you believe it can be seen, but the true unity of faith, the true church of God, also known as the Bride of Christ has yet to be revealed; or have you seen it? You have set your eyes on the carnal and not the spiritual; yet believing you are part of that unity of faith…how is that?

Heh…right.

My friend, it is you who has the false sense of unity because you are “one” with a “church” that conveniently cannot be seen or heard.

Isn’t that lovely?

No one to hold you accountable, no one to correct you, no one to whom you must submit. You can believe whatever you want in this invisible church because conflicting and contradictory doctrines are completely acceptable - if doctrine even matters at all.

Yep…you have “unity” with a bunch of people whom you do not even know.

Impressive.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where does the Bible say that all the teachings of Jesus and the apsostles are not written in Scripture? There is a verse that say if all the things Jesus DID, key word “DID” were written that all the books in the world could not contain them and I am sure that is true since Jesus virtually banished all disease from Palestine. Attention to detail is most important; every jot and tiddle as Jesus put it.

Since speaking and teaching are things that Jesus DID, I think we can be confident that John’s words cover both. Like the Pharisees, you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Can you show the traditions Paul spoke of that are not contained in the Biblical record? The traditions already existed as we can clearly see by looking at the “details”; which are very important in discerning the Bible.

Did public revelation end with the death of the last Apostle? Yes or no, and where is that taught in the Bible, JB?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I could delete all of my last few posts, I would.

At some point, we need to recognize when someone has “lost it”, and many of the posts I have read and responded to suggest that it would be more charitable at this point to simply end this discussion.

I’m out.