Protestantism just makes no sense to me.

[ApologiaSophia]

Some people, no doubt, go overboard. It’s inevitable. Are you OK with what the CC teaches regarding the appropriate level of veneration?

No. I understand their concept and teachings on it, but I don’t feel comfortable with it. I have no problem praying for the dead, but not to the dead. (The apologetic that the saints are alive in heaven not dead may, in a sense, be true but I find it unconvincing as a justification). I also find it to be a conflict of reason. Even if the Theotokos was aware in heaven of what happens in earth, God and God alone is omniscient and omnipresent. (Daniel 10. Even angels are not so). How then can a finite being, even the blessed mother of our lord, be aware of all prayers, from all over the world at all times? Regardless, though I know the RC would disagree, I believe prayer should be offered only to deity. If the saints intercede that is marvelous, yet they are still finite, even in the afterlife. The fact that over veneration has been such a problem in the Church, even the Early church, should be enough to show that it is a stumbling block and a distraction. I think we’re so going to have to agree to disagree on this one :-/

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia

1. The CHURCH is the interpreter of Scripture. Augustine was a wonderful interpreter of Scripture. He was Bishop, but not the bishop of Rome. He did not interpret Scripture by saying "Well this is what the Pope has interpreted Scripture to say). Augustine is a Doctor of the Faith. Read his writing “On Christian Doctrine.” There he explains how one is to interpret Scripture. Never does he say “Ask the Pope.” What he teaches is exegesis. The word Church/Ecclesia means group, or congregation. What the Church says about Scripture is what the congregation says about Scripture. We should not privately interpret but exegete Scripture and actively engage other exegetes, modern and ancient. Look to your Jewish roots from which the Church of Christ comes. They have no pope. They don’t even have bishops. They have rabbi’s. Rabbi’s actively engage in personal study, collective study, Talmudic study (tradition) and debate other rabbi’s. Jewish “laity” are advise to seek wisdom and counsel from the trained Rabbi’s, but no Rabbi demands their blind obedience or submission to their rabbinic teaching. Yet, despite all the debate and freedom of thought, the core of their Jewish belief and the essence of their Jewishness is retained. That is how an ASSEMBLY (Church) studies and interprets Scripture, in close community,

I think I understand your position. Exegesis should be left up to the authority of each respective church, regardless of denomination, as opposed to the individuals belonging to said churches?

 

[joe370]

No. I understand their concept and teachings on it, but I don’t feel comfortable with it. I have no problem praying for the dead, but not to the dead. (The apologetic that the saints are alive in heaven not dead may, in a sense, be true but I find it unconvincing as a justification). I also find it to be a conflict of reason. Even if the Theotokos was aware in heaven of what happens in earth, God and God alone is omniscient and omnipresent. (Daniel 10. Even angels are not so). How then can a finite being, even the blessed mother of our lord, be aware of all prayers, from all over the world at all times? Regardless, though I know the RC would disagree, I believe prayer should be offered only to deity. If the saints intercede that is marvelous, yet they are still finite, even in the afterlife. The fact that over veneration has been such a problem in the Church, even the Early church, should be enough to show that it is a stumbling block and a distraction. I think we’re so going to have to agree to disagree on this one :-/

You should start a thread about that particular topic. It, no doubt, would prove quite interesting; probably beyond the purview of this thread. Even though I don’t share your beliefs, I certainly respect your right to embrace them.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

You should start a thread about that particular topic. It, no doubt, would prove quite interesting; probably beyond the purview of this thread. Even though I don’t share your beliefs, I certainly respect your right to embrace them.

Lol, if I did start such a thread I’d have to be prepared for the ensuing responses. Maybe another day ^_^;

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I think I understand your position. Exegesis should be left up to the authority of each respective church, regardless of denomination, as opposed to the individuals belonging to said churches?

I love Philosophy. I love studying it, though I have not had much formal training. There are people, say the atheist, who may have a Ph.D. in Philosophy. Now he has much more expertise in Philosophy then i do… but that does not mean I should have to agree with their opinion. When I say interpretation belongs to the Church, I do not mean a particular parish but that the entire assembly of saints work together to learn the Scriptures. I may agree with my Bishop on some interpretations, I may disagree with him on others, but I should always learn from him. Just because I think his interpretation is wrong does not mean I cannot gain insight or learn facts about Scripture of which I was previously ignorant. I do not think Church unity is about agreeing on EVERY single theological topic. I think there should be a level of grace in that area. Just because someone is a Bishop or a Biblical scholar does not mean their interpretation is infallible nor does it mean that they cant learn something from a lay member. Surely they have greater expertise in this area and the Bishop has the Pastoral charge to teach and care for his flock. But good teachers do not tell the students what to think and leave it that, but how to think as well. The Scriptures belong to the whole church, not just to the clergy. My position that scholars and students, clergy and laity, they should all work together in teaching and learning the Scriptures, seek truth in earnest and sincerity. This is how the clergy should equip the laity. The clergy should not belittle or underestimate the insights of the laity.

 

[joe370]

I love Philosophy. I love studying it, though I have not had much formal training. There are people, say the atheist, who may have a Ph.D. in Philosophy. Now he has much more expertise in Philosophy then i do… but that does not mean I should have to agree with their opinion. When I say interpretation belongs to the Church, I do not mean a particular parish but that the entire assembly of saints work together to learn the Scriptures. I may agree with my Bishop on some interpretations, I may disagree with him on others, but I should always learn from him. Just because I think his interpretation is wrong does not mean I cannot gain insight or learn facts about Scripture of which I was previously ignorant. I do not think Church unity is about agreeing on EVERY single theological topic. I think there should be a level of grace in that area. Just because someone is a Bishop or a Biblical scholar does not mean their interpretation is infallible nor does it mean that they cant learn something from a lay member. Surely they have greater expertise in this area and the Bishop has the Pastoral charge to teach and care for his flock. But good teachers do not tell the students what to think and leave it that, but how to think as well. The Scriptures belong to the whole church, not just to the clergy. My position that scholars and students, clergy and laity, they should all work together in teaching and learning the Scriptures, seek truth in earnest and sincerity. This is how the clergy should equip the laity. The clergy should not belittle or underestimate the insights of the laity.

I understand your position, even though I still don’t quite grasp the logic. Regarding protestantism making sense (trying to stay on topic) do you believe there is a way to know, definitively, the truth regarding the Eucharist? For example, if in fact doctrinal truth regarding things such as the Eucharist, are to be preserved until Jesus’ return, then how is this achieved in a world where Christendom is now, so fractured, regarding that particular teaching? Both camps cannot be right, so how can you and I know that we are right?

Is it symbolic…
Or
Is it what you and I believe the Eucharist to be…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ApologiaSophia, ,
"
Nicely done.

Just a few comments … … I think it was Luther, and not Calvin, who brought Sola Scriptura into the world home.inreach.com/bstanley/sorigin.htm

I, too, think Luther’s initial idea was revulsion for what he saw at the abuse going on in the Catholic Church of the time. And, I think his idea was truly to reform the Church from within. But, the stage was set for well in advance of Luther’s 95 Thesis for division. It isn’t so much understanding the history of the time - but, the politics and economics of England, Europe and Germany in particular. Money was leaving most of Europe and being sent to Rome. Additionally, valuable lands were not taxed because they belonged to the Church. Money was scarce - and this was causing problems for those in secular power. German princes llead the change with their actions to stop this on-going financial hemorrhage - and when the conflict between Luther and the Church leaders became public - this is all that was needed. But, Germany was not alone in this crisis.

Henry VIII initially started out condemning Luther’s heresy. While St. Thomas More may have actually written the document that was recognized by the Pope - Henry got the credit and the new title of Defender of the Faith (and that would be the Catholic Faith). After Henry broke with the Church the title was revoked - but, Henry was awarded a similar title for defending the church he founded - and that title is still held by the current Queen.

Where I ran into a real problem, however, lies with your last sentence. No doubt one must start with the the 16th Century revolt lead by Luther and Calvin and Henry - these men and those who followed ‘reformed’ nothing - they simply broke away. But, I do not think that such a knowledge would help much in looking at Protestantism today. For example, both Luther and Calvin (I really do not know about Henry or Zwingli) had genuine devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Both of these men believed she was conceive without sin and remained a virgin throughout her life. Such a belief would be unthinkable in many Lutheran and all Calvinistic based churches (Baptists and Presbtterian).

In my view, Sola Scriptura is the root cause of the chaos we see today. With everyone able to expound on Scripture - and everyone getting different (as in contradictoany_meanings from what they read.) Chaos can be he only tecourse He has!!

So far no storms. … but it wll rain this afternoon.

God bless[/INDENT]

Call me lazy, but I did not feel like reading every single post. If any of what I say is a repeat, forgive me.

To understand Protestants, one has to look at history (just like protestants would need to look at history to understand Catholics). Protestantism begins in the Reformation. Martin Luther, who is hailed the father of the reformation, was actually a Roman Catholic monk/priest and New Testament scholar in Germany. What was Luther’s beef? Corruption in the RC. The selling of indulgences for examples. He argued that the Catholic use of relics were rooted more in superstition than faith, and argued (with good cause) that many of the relics that were claimed to be this or that were actually frauds. In short, the RC was selling hope to raise money for their own purposes during Luther’s time (I won’t go into anymore detail, but I encourage you to research this more in depth. I recommend Luther’s Ninety-Five Thesis.). Luther’s original intent was never to leave the Catholic church, but to reform it. Of course things got sticky and Luther and his supporters broke away/were excommunicated. Lutheranism was born. There were other men of other countries and other times who followed Luther’s lead, though in their own way. John Calvin believed that Church tradition was muddled and that many traditions that arose within the Church were unbiblical, superstitious, and corrupt The reason Calvin instituted Sola Scriptura is because many people were being misled and ripped off because they believed the teachings and traditions of the RC, at least at that time. Sola Scriptura is used as a defense to prevent the clergy or anyone else from preying on the piety of the laity. As history continues factions formed among protestants as they disagreed. (Again this is crash course reformation, i urge you to study it more in depth).

The Protestant today usually does of this inherited bias against Catholicism and the Papacy. Bias breeds hate and misconception. Because they knowingly or unknowingly inherited the belief of Sola Scriptura they are naturally inclined to despise Catholicism which is heavily influenced by Church history and apostolic tradition. However, since such things aren’t in the Bible Protestants see them as either superfluous or heretical depending on the issue. Veneration is a huge stumbling block, because in the eyes of a Protestant there is not practical difference between veneration and worship. In there eyes Catholicism is idolatrous. They also reject papal infallibility and authority, but this can also is traced back to the attitude of the Reformers towards the papacy given the times in which they lived. Today, unless the protestant is reformed or (relatively) well informed in history, many Protestants today have little to knowledge of the Reformation. Many Protestants don’t even know that Protestantism broke off from the RC.

In any case, regardless of ones beliefs about Protestantism or Catholicism, I do not think it would be too bold a statement to say if the RC had kept the first thing first the whole Reformation could have possibly been avoided. Even so, I the Reformation was for the ultimate good. Had it not, my own personal theological beliefs could be drastically different from what they are now. I think it also Promoted Biblical study among Protestant and Catholic laity alike.

In any case, if you want to understand Protestantism, you must look into the Reformation.

God bless

 

[acacia12]

Wow! It took me ages to read all of these posts. Very interesting, I’m learning loads. I will most likely forget it all. I’ve got the memory of a Goldfish

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ApologiaSophia, ,
"
Nicely done.

Just a few comments … … I think it was Luther, and not Calvin, who brought Sola Scriptura into the world home.inreach.com/bstanley/sorigin.htm

I, too, think Luther’s initial idea was revulsion for what he saw at the abuse going on in the Catholic Church of the time. And, I think his idea was truly to reform the Church from within. But, the stage was set for well in advance of Luther’s 95 Thesis for division. It isn’t so much understanding the history of the time - but, the politics and economics of England, Europe and Germany in particular. Money was leaving most of Europe and being sent to Rome. Additionally, valuable lands were not taxed because they belonged to the Church. Money was scarce - and this was causing problems for those in secular power. German princes llead the change with their actions to stop this on-going financial hemorrhage - and when the conflict between Luther and the Church leaders became public - this is all that was needed. But, Germany was not alone in this crisis.

Henry VIII initially started out condemning Luther’s heresy. While St. Thomas More may have actually written the document that was recognized by the Pope - Henry got the credit and the new title of Defender of the Faith (and that would be the Catholic Faith). After Henry broke with the Church the title was revoked - but, Henry was awarded a similar title for defending the church he founded - and that title is still held by the current Queen.

Where I ran into a real problem, however, lies with your last sentence. No doubt one must start with the the 16th Century revolt lead by Luther and Calvin and Henry - these men and those who followed ‘reformed’ nothing - they simply broke away. But, I do not think that such a knowledge would help much in looking at Protestantism today. For example, both Luther and Calvin (I really do not know about Henry or Zwingli) had genuine devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Both of these men believed she was conceive without sin and remained a virgin throughout her life. Such a belief would be unthinkable in many Lutheran and all Calvinistic based churches (Baptists and Presbtterian).

In my view, Sola Scriptura is the root cause of the chaos we see today. With everyone able to expound on Scripture - and everyone getting different (as in contradictoany_meanings from what they read.) Chaos can be he only tecourse He has!!

So far no storms. … but it wll rain this afternoon.

God bless[/INDENT]

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I understand your position, even though I still don’t quite grasps the logic. Regarding protestantism making sense (trying to stay on topic) do you believe there is a way to know, definitively, the truth regarding the Eucharist? For example, if in fact doctrinal truth regarding, things such as the Eucharist, are to be preserved until Jesus’ return, then how is this achieved in a world where Christendom is now, so fractured, regarding that particular teaching? Both camps cannot be right, so how can you and I know that we are right?

Is it symbolic…
Or
Is it what you and I believe the Eucharist to be…

Firstly, I firmly believe we are saved by faith. I also believe faith without works is dead and that true faith can be shown by works, but ultimately it is grace, through faith, that saves. Perhaps not everyone has a proper understanding of the Eucharist or its practice. Does this condemn them? Is it the Eucharist that saves souls? If the Eucharist is taken, apart from faith what use is it? If the Eucharist is taken without full knowledge of its purpose or power, but is taken with a sincere heart in strong faith, is this not better? Is God’s grace through faith not sufficient? Who can have total knowledge of God who in incomprehensible? Who wisdom and logic are not flawed and does not fail? Are we saved by right knowledge? If that is the case, perhaps only educated Christians make it to heaven and the ignorant condemned to hell? All theological matters are important to some degree, but some are more important than others and not all is necessary.

“And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony** of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men[c] but in the power of God.” I Cor. 2

And what is the power of God?

“16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith,[e] as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”” -Romans 1

The fracturing of the Church is heart breaking, but I believe that the invisible Church can still be unified if they can keep first things first. For I, being Protestant, in love call you, a Roman Catholic, brother with joy and happiness. Where we err may grace about, but seek ye first the kingdom of God. What must a man do to be saved? Told us we must be born again. To die to self, crucifying our flesh, and to be Resurrection with him through faith. The Eucharist is important and is a medium for God’s grace, but in itself has no pwer to save, but only those called by the Spirit who call on the name of the Lord can be saved.**

 

[mercytruth]

1. In other words, Sola Scriptura does not produce Liberalism. There are many conservative churches that teach Sola scriptura. Actually, as a matter of fact, often times Liberals object to Sola Scriptura. Examples, the Bible speaks on homosexual sin quite plainly. If a Liberal says the Bible is not totally authoritative, the homosexuality is no loner a problem. They don’t actually hold to the Bible, they hold to the feelings and pick the Scriptures they like. That is NOT Sola Scriptura. (As I said before, Sola Scriptura does not teach personal interpretation).
2. The CHURCH is the interpreter of Scripture. Augustine was a wonderful interpreter of Scripture. He was Bishop, but not the bishop of Rome. He did not interpret Scripture by saying "Well this is what the Pope has interpreted Scripture to say). Augustine is a Doctor of the Faith. Read his writing “On Christian Doctrine.” There he explains how one is to interpret Scripture. Never does he say “Ask the Pope.” What he teaches is exegesis. The word Church/Ecclesia means group, or congregation. What the Church says about Scripture is what the congregation says about Scripture. We should not privately interpret but exegete Scripture and actively engage other exegetes, modern and ancient. Look to your Jewish roots from which the Church of Christ comes. They have no pope. They don’t even have bishops. They have rabbi’s. Rabbi’s actively engage in personal study, collective study, Talmudic study (tradition) and debate other rabbi’s. Jewish “laity” are advise to seek wisdom and counsel from the trained Rabbi’s, but no Rabbi demands their blind obedience or submission to their rabbinic teaching. Yet, despite all the debate and freedom of thought, the core of their Jewish belief and the essence of their Jewishness is retained. That is how an ASSEMBLY (Church) studies and interprets Scripture, in close community,

Been following your posts on this thread, and you are reflecting much of where i am at.
Thanks for your contributions.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[ApologiaSophia]

tqualey:
You’re right, I stand corrected. My misconception came from Calvin’s Five Solae of which Sola Scriptura is one.

 

[GKC]

…While St. Thomas More may have actually written the document that was recognized by the Pope…

No one knows precisely which portions of the Assertio were written by whom. Henry almost certainly wrote the first chapter, maybe more (drafts in his handwriting are known). And More is likely the best bet for the major contributor to the rest. But full details are not known.

I don’t recall Henry having a devotion to the BVM.

GKC

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Hi, ApologiaSophia, ,
"

I, too, think Luther’s initial idea was revulsion for what he saw at the abuse going on in the Catholic Church of the time. And, I think his idea was truly to reform the Church from within. But, the stage was set for well in advance of Luther’s 95 Thesis for division. It isn’t so much understanding the history of the time - but, the politics and economics of England, Europe and Germany in particular. Money was leaving most of Europe and being sent to Rome. Additionally, valuable lands were not taxed because they belonged to the Church. Money was scarce - and this was causing problems for those in secular power. German princes llead the change with their actions to stop this on-going financial hemorrhage - and when the conflict between Luther and the Church leaders became public - this is all that was needed. But, Germany was not alone in this crisis.

Henry VIII initially started out condemning Luther’s heresy. While St. Thomas More may have actually written the document that was recognized by the Pope - Henry got the credit and the new title of Defender of the Faith (and that would be the Catholic Faith). After Henry broke with the Church the title was revoked - but, Henry was awarded a similar title for defending the church he founded - and that title is still held by the current Queen.

Where I ran into a real problem, however, lies with your last sentence. No doubt one must start with the the 16th Century revolt lead by Luther and Calvin and Henry - these men and those who followed ‘reformed’ nothing - they simply broke away. But, I do not think that such a knowledge would help much in looking at Protestantism today. For example, both Luther and Calvin (I really do not know about Henry or Zwingli) had genuine devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Both of these men believed she was conceive without sin and remained a virgin throughout her life. Such a belief would be unthinkable in many Lutheran and all Calvinistic based churches (Baptists and Presbtterian).

In my view, Sola Scriptura is the root cause of the chaos we see today. With everyone able to expound on Scripture - and everyone getting different (as in contradictoany_meanings from what they read.) Chaos can be he only tecourse He has!!

s[/INDENT]

Well, I think this may depend on how we define devotion. I knew of Luther’s devotion, but even he was devoted in a different since. Soli Deo Gloria says that Glory is due to God and God alone. This is why Protestants do not venerate saints (at least the way RC/EO churches do) and feel so uncomfortable with the practice. I would imagine whatever Calvin’s devotion was it fell short of veneration as defined by the Catholic church. Protestants usually disagree with the perpetual virginity of Mary, but they also view that aspect as a very besides the point fact and is of little to no consequence to their theology. The Immaculate conception would be problematic for sure.

Sola Scriptura is not the problem, rather it is a lack of exegesis. What I find very interesting is that Martin Luther was a New Testament scholar trained in the Catholic church, taught at a Catholic University, and found some of the teachings of the RC unbiblical. He was trained by Catholic scholars, so he wasn’t just some hillbilly who toted a Bible, he knew what he was talking about. The people were being duped by their blind devotion. If the Clerical hierarchy is in charge of interpreting Scripture and teaching it, but then corrupts it for their own devices, what defense have the people? Moreover, ordination is for the administering of sacraments and charging the ordinate with pastoral care. Reading the Bible is not a sacrament nor is interpreting it but has been given as a benefit to all the saint. If the Pope declares how Scripture is to properly be interpreted, and he declares a false interpretation as the right one, how are the sheep to examine the shepard? This is exactly why the Reformation took place.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9635126]Firstly, I firmly believe we are saved by faith. I also believe faith

without works is dead and that true faith can be shown by works, but ultimately it is grace, through faith, that saves. Perhaps not everyone has a proper understanding of the Eucharist or its practice. Does this condemn them?

I agree, and heck no regarding the condemnation. My fiancée, at the time, passed away a little over 10 years ago, and she had no concept of what the Eucharist was, and I know she must be in heaven.

Is it the Eucharist that saves souls?

We are saved, like you said, by Jesus via faith and grace. Of course, Jesus did say, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” That can’t be a hard and fast rule for obvious reasons.

If the Eucharist is taken, apart from faith what use is it?

Probably zilch.

If the Eucharist is taken without full knowledge of its purpose or power, but is taken with a sincere heart in strong faith, is this not better?

Is God’s grace through faith not sufficient?

However, I have come to believe that God provides abundant graces via the Eucharist, and that only happened gradually.

Who can have total knowledge of God who in incomprehensible?

Just me. LOL…Of course, no one.

Who wisdom and logic are not flawed and does not fail? Are we saved by right knowledge? If that is the case, perhaps only educated Christians make it to heaven and the ignorant condemned to hell?

Hmmm…

All theological matters are important to some degree, but some are more important than others and not all is necessary.

And who or what decides…was the 64000 dollar question I could not answer as a former protestant…

The fracturing of the Church is heart breaking, but I believe that the invisible Church can still be unified if they can keep first things first. For I, being Protestant, in love call you, a Roman Catholic, brother with joy and happiness.

Where we err may grace about, but seek ye first the kingdom of God. What must a man do to be saved? Told us we must be born again. To die to self, crucifying our flesh, and to be Resurrection with him through faith.

The Eucharist is important and is a medium for God’s grace,

…but in itself has no pwer to save, but only those called by the Spirit who call on the name of the Lord can be saved.

Everything you have said makes good sense and is taught and believed by the catholic church.

I was just wondering how a sola scriptura advocate can know, definitively, the truth regarding important teachings such as the Eucharist, which provides a medium for God’s grace, thereby drawing people closer to Jesus. As a former sola scriptura proponent, if I had to answer that question, the answer would be a resounding: there is no.way to know definitively. That bothered me…It didn’t seem to mesh with verses such as John 14:16 and John 16:13 etc…

 

[joe370]

tqualey:
Even Martin Luther was devastated by the results of sola scriptura:

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; . . . There is not an individual, however clownish he may be who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams” - Martin Luther

"Let nobody suppose that he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years. Therefore there is something wonderful, first, about John the Baptist; second, about Christ; third, about the apostles…“We are beggars. That is true.” - Martin Luther

“This one,” he says, “will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.”

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I agree, and heck no regarding the condemnation. My fiancée, at the time, passed away a little over 10 years ago, and she had no concept of what the Eucharist was, and I know she must be in heaven.

Amen

We are saved, like you said, by Jesus via faith and grace. Of course, Jesus did say, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” That can’t be a hard and fast rule for obvious reasons.

As I said I do believe in the real presence (though I reject transubstantiation). Jesus is using hyperbole here, as is not uncommon with him, but you are right he is saying something important. “You have no life in you.” Spiritual life? Are all protestants spiritual dead? Well, check their fruit. Not even a good tree can produce fruit if its dead. If you, as a Catholic, were persecuted… snatched up and taken to a prison where you could not obtain the Eucharist, do you become void of “life?” This can’t refer to the after life, for the thief on the cross was never able to receive the Eucharist… then again he also was not Baptized. I believe Jesus is teaching the Real Presence here, but what he means by “you have no life in you.” I cannot pretend to know, only because I know many Protestants who hold symbolic beliefs of “communion” and partake once a month, twice tops. Yet these Protestants are some of the most Spiritually alive people I know. :-/ That being said, all Protestants do take communion. Must one believe in the Real Presence for there to be Real Presence?

However, I have come to believe that God provides abundant graces via the Eucharist, and that only happened gradually.

Agreed

And who or what decides…was the 64000 dollar question I could not answer as a former protestant…

So I suppose the Pope decides? The Cardinal college? The Biblical scholars? The Theologians?

I was just wondering how a sola scriptura advocate can know, definitively, the truth regarding important teachings such as the Eucharist, which provides a medium for God’s grace, thereby drawing people closer to Jesus. As a former sola scriptura proponent, if I had to answer that question, the answer would be a resounding: there is no.way to know definitively. That bothered me…It didn’t seem to mesh with verses such as John 14:16 and John 16:13 etc…

But you just quoted a verse that shows the importance of the Eucharist doesn’t that verse show that the Eucharist contains the Real Presence? I will say this though, it frustrates me when Protestant churches read “Do this in remembrance of me” yet 3 or 2 out of the 4 Lord’s days of every month… they do not practice it. But that is not a result of Sola Scriptura, that is a result of vain tradition which is rooted in the shortage of sacramental administrators in early America that just happened to stick. Anyway, I clarify one more time, I do not believe that Scripture is the only source by which we have knowledge. I believe it is the only infallible authority on all things Doctrinal and related to salvation. Scripture is referred to as the canon. This means an object by which we measure. Scripture has always been intended to be the tool by which we discern sound doctrine from false doctrine. Even the Early church, before the NT writings, judged the NT writings and the teachings of the Apostles by the Hebrew Scriptures (as found in the Septuagint).

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Even Martin Luther was devastated by the results of sola scriptura:

“There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; . . . There is not an individual, however clownish he may be who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams” - Martin Luther

"Let nobody suppose that he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years. Therefore there is something wonderful, first, about John the Baptist; second, about Christ; third, about the apostles…“We are beggars. That is true.” - Martin Luther

“This one,” he says, “will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet.”

If that was the result of Sola Scriptura, then what resulted in indulgences and relic superstition? Vain/false traditions? And as I said before, The Catholic church has split into factions longer before the Reformation.The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church even have the Book of Enoch canonized. The EO teaches Abrahams bosom as our resting place before the resurrection (which i agree with, just as a fun fact). They also reject transubstantiation. The EO and the RC used to be one church, yet there are certain doctrines that are different. Some are subtle, some not as much. How did these differences arise if, at some point, they must have taught the same doctrines? Lastly, I really dont think the difference between most protestant denominations are as steep as you think. They adhere to Sola Scriptura, agree on most major issues, and most disagreements are usually on things like free will and (double) predestination. I really do not think Sola Scriptura has the tendency to be as subjective as you suggest.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ApologiaSophia,

You certinly have been busy… There are a couple of items that I think need to be addressed in a bit more detail.

The Catholic Church has always taught that Mary was created, and Mary is not a god or goddess. Mary does have a unique role in the Salvation Plan of God. Luther really did have a devotion to BVM (netplaces.com/virgin-mary/toppling-mary-the-reformation/martin-luther-and-mary.htm )

Calvin (and a couple others who were involved in the original revolt) also had a devotion to Mary and had no problem with the immaculate conception: religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3156.

So, we have the angel Gabriel announcing to Mary she is, “… full of Grace…” and a little later we have Elizabeth announcing that Mary is, “…the mother of my Lord…” yet, the Immaculate Conception is ‘problematic’? Here is a link that addresses this concern: cantuar.blogspot.com/2010/03/arguments-for-immaculate-conception-of.html

But, in my opinion, the biggest concern I have from your post was the statement that “Sola Scriptura is not a problem”. I think it is the biggest problem in the Christian community - and bears the majority of responsibility for all of the splintering of Protestantism (30,000+ groups all claiming that their interpretation of scripture is right - and still splintering). But, what to me is the most ironic is that SS is the most UN-BIBLICAL statement that could ever be made! Here are a couple of links that simply show SS for the error it is:

philvaz.com/apologetics/num6.htm

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html

philvaz.com/apologetics/a12.htm

Since so much of today’s Protestantism is founded on SS, I would recommend that these links be looked at carefully. They contain real information that honestly addresses the heresy of SS.

God bless

Well, I think this may depend on how we define devotion. I knew of Luther’s devotion, but even he was devoted in a different since. Soli Deo Gloria says that Glory is due to God and God alone. This is why Protestants do not venerate saints (at least the way RC/EO churches do) and feel so uncomfortable with the practice. I would imagine whatever Calvin’s devotion was it fell short of veneration as defined by the Catholic church. Protestants usually disagree with the perpetual virginity of Mary, but they also view that aspect as a very besides the point fact and is of little to no consequence to their theology. The Immaculate conception would be problematic for sure.

Sola Scriptura is not the problem, rather it is a lack of exegesis. What I find very interesting is that Martin Luther was a New Testament scholar trained in the Catholic church, taught at a Catholic University, and found some of the teachings of the RC unbiblical. He was trained by Catholic scholars, so he wasn’t just some hillbilly who toted a Bible, he knew what he was talking about. The people were being duped by their blind devotion. If the Clerical hierarchy is in charge of interpreting Scripture and teaching it, but then corrupts it for their own devices, what defense have the people? Moreover, ordination is for the administering of sacraments and charging the ordinate with pastoral care. Reading the Bible is not a sacrament nor is interpreting it but has been given as a benefit to all the saint. If the Pope declares how Scripture is to properly be interpreted, and he declares a false interpretation as the right one, how are the sheep to examine the shepard? This is exactly why the Reformation took place.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ApologiaSophia,

The Great Schism dividing West from East was and is a major scandal of Christianity - and, it was hundreds of years before Luther nailed his 95 Thesis to the church door. But, may I humbly suggest that the arguments you have presented seem to be more of a smoke screen. The summary may be: ‘Since there was already division in the Catholic Church, let there be even more division!’ I do not think this makes much sense.

Yes, there were abuses and public scandals that Luther clearly and correctly identified with the sale of indulgences and other items. But, please note, this was never the teaching of the Catholic Church - there were abuses causes by vain and greedy men, devoid of the Grace of God. But, note - Luther did not stop with indulgences - he stopped trying to reform and went right into revolt and founded his own religion. Now, Henry VIII (founder of the Anglicans) correctly countered Luther’s errors - and SS was one of them!

But, I think the biggest mistaken opinion you have presented is:

Lastly, I really dont think the difference between most protestant denominations are as steep as you think. They adhere to Sola Scriptura, agree on most major issues, and most disagreements are usually on things like free will and (double) predestination. I really do not think Sola Scriptura has the tendency to be as subjective as you suggest.

So, here is the challenge: please provide a link that clearly identifies the agreement that Protestants have on ‘…most major issues…’. Protestantism has been confounded for hundreds of years on why they can not be unified - and the heart of the matter lies with SS. There are more Protestant groups, sects, cults, tabernacles, worship centers, assemblies and organizations - all trying to be a church - then there were just 100 years ago. Seriously, in the Houston area alone it seemed like there was one store front denomination group setting up shop in a strip mall every month. In truth, there is one unifying item that all 30,000+ Protestant groups do believe in: that the Catholic Church - the one founded by Christ (Matthew 16) - is wrong! Unfortunately, this is not exactly the doctrine they can rally around.

God bless

If that was the result of Sola Scriptura, then what resulted in indulgences and relic superstition? Vain/false traditions? And as I said before, The Catholic church has split into factions longer before the Reformation.The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church even have the Book of Enoch canonized. The EO teaches Abrahams bosom as our resting place before the resurrection (which i agree with, just as a fun fact). They also reject transubstantiation. The EO and the RC used to be one church, yet there are certain doctrines that are different. Some are subtle, some not as much. How did these differences arise if, at some point, they must have taught the same doctrines? Lastly, I really dont think the difference between most protestant denominations are as steep as you think. They adhere to Sola Scriptura, agree on most major issues, and most disagreements are usually on things like free will and (double) predestination. I really do not think Sola Scriptura has the tendency to be as subjective as you suggest.