Protestantism just makes no sense to me.

[JonNC]

Hi, ApologiaSophia, ,
"
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).
God bless[/INDENT]

It isn’t unthinkable in Lutheran circles. Lutherans are free to hold these marian positions, but are not required to do so. The are adiaphora, and pious opinions in Lutheran circles.
For example Walther maintained that sempre virgo was beyond question or doubt.

Jon

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9635405]If that was the result of Sola Scriptura, then what resulted in indulgences and relic superstition? Vain/false traditions?

Well, it occurred to me, as a former protestant, that Jesus founded one church and for me, much to my dismay, it turned out that that church was the catholic church. Regarding indulgences, sure, there were abuses, but why would I leave Jesus’ church because of the sins of man, I had thought; scripture even supports this notion; after all we are dealing sinful creatures as heads of His church. I would never do leave; makes no sense! I had thought to myself, I could either follow the example of folks like Francis of Assisi, when corruption e.g. indulgences rears its ugly head or Martin Luther. If in fact the CC is the church of Matthew 16 (I will build my church), then the answer was a no brainer.

I am not aware of the CC supporting any relic superstitions, at least not in their formal teachings; same goes with vain and false traditions. To be fair there are some strange things going on in the Anglican church, but I digress. If I had come to believe that the Anglican church was the church of Matthew 16, then nothing could have kept me from belong to it.

And as I said before, The Catholic church has split into factions longer before the Reformation…

East - west schism? I know, and I know there are differences between the two. My long journey eventually led me to the EOC, the AC and the CC. In the end I chose the CC

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 don’t think the difference between most protestant denominations are as steep as you think.

As a former protestant I would have to amiably, but strongly disagree.

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.

And yet sadly, new protestant churches (self-appointed ministers) keep popping up all of the time, basing their teachings on their unique interpretation of sacred scripture and newfangled traditions, all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. I simply could not be a part of that man-made system anymore. The apostles, after everything they taught established and passed on, would have been utterly shocked to see such goings-on. My sister has belonged to about 20 in her life. She shops around until she finds one that pleases her, and then moves on as soon as something unpleasant arises. Corruption and abuses I can handle, just as long as they occur in Jesus’ church, which happens to be the CC for me and the AC for you. Even Jesus predicted that there would be wolves in sheep’s clothing in His church and that scandals in His church would be unavoidable. Yes, there were isolated abuse of indulgences in certain parts of the church, but they came and went; they never became a part of the deposit of faith. If I was going to reject the CC I can think of a far better reason, but, then I would be merely exchanging Jesus’ church for a man-made church, and I am in no way implying that the AC is a man-made church. If someone belongs to a church, other than the CC, and truly feels home, in the house of the living God, then they are truly home, as far as I am concerned:

“…and he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come.”

“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.”

He also promise to guide His church into all truth:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth…”

I don’t believe that Jesus would stop guiding His church into all truth…

 

[ApologiaSophia]

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

I never said the Catholic church has ever taught that Mary was a goddess. I am pretty familiar with Catholic Mariology and veneration. My only discrepancy is that I do not think the Catholic philosophy of veneration matches the Catholic practice or expression of veneration. Needless to say I do not think something must be a god for it to be worshipped and become idolatry (money for example). I support veneration… I just think the way veneration is practiced is not veneration but more.

I agree, but how one defines devotion is important. Calvin strictly forbade veneration as practiced in the RC. It is also argued that Calvin’s belief in the immaculate conception was not Marian since he believed that the doctrine of original sin was transferred through male headship. This is one reason why Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not Joseph.

What is the RC definition of grace? For the Protestant, grace is defined as unmerited favor with God. I do not see how Mary, being full of grace, implies her sinlessness or the absence of her original sin. That seems like a jump to me. Like Elizabeth, I too believe Mary was the mother of my Lord. Immaculate conception is still a jump. I also think Mary being immaculate cause other theological problems and inconsistencies. I do not even see why the doctrine is necessary or relevant. It begs the question of why God did not wipe out everyone’s original sin as He did with Mary’s. Mary can be the new Eve, as described in the early church, and not be immaculate. For without the shedding of blood there is no forgives senses of sin. The Assumption is also a total jump. I love Mary. In no way would I try to bash or dishonor her. That does not mean I have to consent to doctrines about her that I simply find untrue or superfluous.

Many Protestant splits have been over many other issues that differences of interpretation. To be sure Protestant can cover I wide range of church denomination and sub denominations. What you fail to seem to realize is, despite differences of polity and minor theological issues of secondary importance, most Protestants will fellowship with each other. I was born Pentecostal. I am now Anglican. I regularly attend all sorts of Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterion, Reformed, non-denominational, etc. churches. I may disagree with the, on a number of theological issues, we may belong to different governing bodies, but we still consider ourselves to be One Church ultimately and find are unity in Christ. I strongly disagree with certain Catholic doctrines, yet here I am at CAF fellow shipping, teaching and learning. That is true unity, being uniform is nice, but don’t get overly wrapped up in it.

Also, Sola Scriptural is not intended to mean a rejection of Church tradition. It is, however, supposed to be a measuring tool by which we judge. No Catholic would deny that Scripture is inspired. Now there may be some traditions that are inspired, such as the creeds, but there may be some that aren’t (relics). How then can we judge tradition as being inspired or not lest we judge it by what we know, or at least believe, to be inspired? Scripture itself is tradition. The teachings of any man, clergy or laity, should be matched and judge by the teachings of the Apostles themselves since they have original and ultimate authority in Christian teaching. Therefore, no Apostolic Tradition can contradict what the Apostles themselves have recorded in Scripture. That just seems like common sense to me.

To make a point, the RC has had a history of teaching untrue doctrines and performing unCheistian practices. (this is not intended to be a bash, all Christian traditions have their dirt). If the RC has taught invalid, untrue doctrines in the past, as you have admitted in another post concerning indulgences, how do you know their are not corrupt or untrue doctrines in the RC church NOW? Wouldn’t that be naive to think otherwise? Just because the Catholic Church has preserved Scripture and given us the Bible as we know it does not mean that the hierarchy of the church cannot be guilty of twisting, misquoting, or ignoring Scripture. They are every bit as fallible as your are. Office does not determine interpretation. Exegesis does.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

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

I would never commend Schism. That being said, sometimes because of the fallibility of men it is necessary. This would likely never happen, but let me give you an example. The EO split because the felt like they were being treated as second-class, they believed the Bishop of Rome was going well beyond his position of primacy, there came to be theological disagreement, and they were not being consulted on major decisions. Why would they stay? Even if they had stayed, if they held their ground they probably would have been excommunicated eventually anyway.

christian-history.org/martin-luther.html I think you should read this concerning Luther. I don’t know how much you have read on the issue from a Reformed perspective. It is interesting, I have never been very vocal of Reformed theology. Among Protestant circles I feel like I’m about as low on the Reform scale as they come. Being on a Catholic forum debating for Protestantism I almost feel like a 5 point Calvinist x_X. Interesting how perspective can change things. lol.

religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm

Compares RC, EO, and most major Protestant denominations. There are some empty boxes that should be filled out, but this should be sufficient in getting my point across.

 

[JonNC]

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.

Calvinist TULIP, symbolic presence, denial of auricular confession, the effects of baptism, and infant baptism. These are major, major issues!!! They can’t be glossed over. Neither can the improper use of sola scriptura by many American evangelical Christians that reject the early councils and the creeds. So major a difference are these to me, that I would much sooner be Catholic than virtually any other protestant group.

Jon

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Well, it occurred to me, as a former protestant, that Jesus founded one church and for me, much to my dismay, it turned out that that church was the catholic church. Regarding indulgences, sure, there were abuses, but why would I leave Jesus’ church because of the sins of man, I had thought; scripture even supports this notion; after all we are dealing sinful creatures as heads of His church. I would never do leave; makes no sense! I had thought to myself, I could either follow the example of folks like Francis of Assisi, when corruption e.g. indulgences rears its ugly head or Martin Luther. If in fact the CC is the church of Matthew 16 (I will build my church), then the answer was a no brainer.

I am not aware of the CC supporting any relic superstitions, at least not in their formal teachings; same goes with vain and false traditions. To be fair there are some strange things going on in the Anglican church, but I digress. If I had come to believe that the Anglican church was the church of Matthew 16, then nothing could have kept me from belong to it.

East - west schism? I know, and I know there are differences between the two. My long journey eventually led me to the EOC, the AC and the CC. In the end I chose the CC

As a former protestant I would have to amiably, but strongly disagree.

And yet sadly, new protestant churches (self-appointed ministers) keep popping up all of the time, basing their teachings on their unique interpretation of sacred scripture and newfangled traditions, all claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. I simply could not be a part of that man-made system anymore. The apostles, after everything they taught established and passed on, would have been utterly shocked to see such goings-on. My sister has belonged to about 20 in her life. She shops around until she finds one that pleases her, and then moves on as soon as something unpleasant arises. Corruption and abuses I can handle, just as long as they occur in Jesus’ church, which happens to be the CC for me and the AC for you. Even Jesus predicted that there would be wolves in sheep’s clothing in His church and that scandals in His church would be unavoidable. Yes, there were isolated abuse of indulgences in certain parts of the church, but they came and went; they never became a part of the deposit of faith. If I was going to reject the CC I can think of a far better reason, but, then I would be merely exchanging Jesus’ church for a man-made church, and I am in no way implying that the AC is a man-made church. If someone belongs to a church, other than the CC, and truly feels home, in the house of the living God, then they are truly home, as far as I am concerned:

“…and he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come.”

“Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.”

He also promise to guide His church into all truth:

“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth…”

I don’t believe that Jesus would stop guiding His church into all truth…

Yes, there are some strange things going on in Anglican churches. Many of those teachers and believers of strange things reject Sola Scriptura as well.

I know we have different beliefs. However, to make a point, I want you to grant me a premise. Grant me that veneration, as Practiced by the RCC, is borderline idolatry. If this is true, tell me what is more important. Is it to be physically joined to the Church that can trace its history back to the Apostles, or to the Church that is able to trace its theology back to the original Apostles. Most Protestants believe the Apostolic succession is not the physical laying on of hands or and unbroken lineage, but to preserve the Apostolic teachings. I, personally, believe Apostolic succession is both, as the RCC does. However, I believe that “physical” Apostolic succession was made with the intention of preserving Apostolic teaching. Looking at the differences between the EO and the RCC we can tell that, though both can claim historical succession, someone somehow has been able to alter their teachings to some extent. This is why, when being forced to choose between historical succession and theological succession, I would choose theological succession every time. That being said, I believe Anglicans do lay claim to Historical succession, but I understand that is debatable.

Would it be safe to say that those who believe in/follow Jesus and declare him lord, being filled with the Holy Spirit, are a part of the true Church? If the Spirit guides them in all truth, and they truly have the Spirit, then they are in the Spirits hands. This, however, puts Protestants and Catholics in a similar boat. As many Protestants are led to Rome, Many Catholics are led to Westminster.

Joe, if the Protestant church ceased to exist, do you think random preachers would stop popping up churches? Church history if full of those. Perhaps not so much in the Medieval error… but that’s because heretics were… well, they weren’t dealt with kindly. Gnostics, Nestorians, Marcions… and these people are legitimate heretics, preaching doctrines contrary to the very Gospel and essential truths of salvation.

15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. -Philippians 1. I would like to put an emphasis on verse 18. Regardless of any RC beliefs about the Protestant church, it cannot deny how efficiently it has evangelized the Gospel around the world. For this, even the Protestant church, formed from schism, should make you rejoice. This is because souls are being saved which, for the purpose and glory of God, should be the first thing. To seek His kingdom and His glory and that His will be done.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Calvinist TULIP, symbolic presence, denial of auricular confession, the effects of baptism, and infant baptism. These are major, major issues!!! They can’t be glossed over. Neither can the improper use of sola scriptura by many American evangelical Christians that reject the early councils and the creeds. So major a difference are these to me, that I would much sooner be Catholic than virtually any other protestant group.

Jon

Why I disagree with TULIP, nothing about TULIP would forfeit one’s salvation. While I understand the importance of baptism and its existence as a sacrament, I personally deny certian teachings the RCC has concerning Baptism, so this is not as big a stumbling block for me as it is for you I suppose. It is true that many Protestants do not believe or practice infant Baptism, which I support. That being said, many Protestants do believe in “dedication,” which, in my mind, is rather confusing. I agree the improper use of sola scriptura is a calamity. More so it is the improper use and interpretation of Scripture. MY rebuttal is that the RCC has taught different things at different times which were blatant twists and misuses of Scripture. I keep bringing this term up, and I wonder if it is just being ignored. EXEGESIS, EXEGESIS, EXEGESIS. Denomination is irrelevant, EVERYONE should be doing exegesis.

What’s interesting is you will find Protestant denominations, like Baptists, who reject the councils and the creeds, yet their theology will fully agree with them (at least concerning the Early church councils). This is because the decisions of the Early Church councils were Biblical and therefore, through proper exegesis, one who does not follow those councils can still hold all of the doctrinal beliefs of those councils. This is why Baptists hold a strict view of Sola Scriptura, but still old to Doctrines such as the Trinity, homoousios, etc.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I would also just like to make a point that there are many prominent Protestant scholars of Church history who study the fathers and the councils. Even among the Baptists and the most Reformed. Sola Scriptura does not inherently reject Church history or tradition, it just places priority on Scripture over any other source and judges other sources by it. I actually think its odd you all disagree with that so whole-heartedly.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia;9637838]Yes, there are some strange things going on in Anglican churches. Many of those teachers and believers of strange things reject Sola Scriptura as well

.

And they shouldn’t bother you if you believe the Anglican church to be the church of Pentecost, and you do.

I know we have different beliefs. However, to make a point, I want you to grant me a premise. Grant me that veneration, as Practiced by the RCC, is borderline idolatry.

If I did I would be lying. :shrug:I have thouroughly investigated the teachngs of the CC before rendering my allegiance. If you are talking about our blessed mother Mary, well, that’s just silly. If you are talking about certain canonized saints, well, they played a huge part in my conversion. I try to live my life according to these simple, sinful creatures that lived such humble, holy and virtuous lives in accordance with our Savior, and the list is endless: Catherine of Siena, Padre Pio, Mary Faustina, Bernadette Soubirous, Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Genoa, Anna Maria Taigi…the list goes on and on. Jesus, and His mother visited many simple folks at times when the church was in serious need, due to corruption, and Jesus was always successful at pulling in the reins via these individuals who made such mind-boggling sacrifices for sinners. Talk about picking up your cross and following Jesus. Phew

What are your thoughts on the miracle of Fatima witnessed by thousands? That event was critical to releasing me from my days as an agnostic. Atheists merely reduce it to mass delusion.

If this is true, tell me what is more important. Is it to be physically joined to the Church that can trace its history back to the Apostles, or to the Church that is** able to trace its theology back to the original Apostles.**

Both.

Most Protestants believe the Apostolic succession is not the physical laying on of hands or and unbroken lineage, but to preserve the Apostolic teachings.

Perhaps they should read the NT and the works of the early church fathers. Of course, if they want to embrace that idea, that’s cool.

I, personally, believe Apostolic succession is both, as the RCC does. However, I believe that “physical” Apostolic succession was made with the intention of preserving Apostolic teaching.

Looking at the differences between the EO and the RCC we can tell that, though both can claim historical succession, someone somehow has been able to alter their teachings to some extent.

Couldn’t agree more.

This is why, when being forced to choose between historical succession and theological succession, I would choose theological succession every time.

That’s cool. I need both.

That being said, I believe Anglicans do lay claim to Historical succession, but I understand that is debatable.

I couldn’t draw that conclusion in my search for the church of Pentecost.

Would it be safe to say that those who believe in/follow Jesus and declare him lord, being filled with the Holy Spirit, are a part of the true Church?

Well, I hope the true church is invisible for the sake of all those folks who keep popping up and starting new churches in the name of Jesus. Perhaps church affiliation is irrelevant to Jesus, but I seriously doubt it, and I am not talking about folks who don’t know any better. We all have to make our own choices, in the end.

If the Spirit guides them in all truth, and they truly have the Spirit, then they are in the Spirits hands.

People belonging to different churches, having polar opposite beliefs, regarding certain doctrines, all guided by the spirit of truth, into all truth? That’s like believing that the universe created itself. It makes no sense, to me anyway.

For example, the holy spirit doesn’t guide the CC to believe in the true presence and a protestant church to believe the exact opposite.

This, however, puts Protestants and Catholics in a similar boat. As many Protestants are led to Rome, Many Catholics are led to Westminster.

To each there own I suppose. Most of those folks do not care about church history, let alone finding the historical church founded by Jesus. I guess I am weird that way.

Joe, if the Protestant church ceased to exist, do you think random preachers would stop popping up churches?

Exactly.

Church history if full of those. Perhaps not so much in the Medieval error… but that’s because heretics were… well, they weren’t dealt with kindly. Gnostics, Nestorians, Marcions… and these people are legitimate heretics, preaching doctrines contrary to the very Gospel and essential truths of salvation.

Question: Historically speaking, was it the Anglican church or the Catholic church that quashed those heresies, that could have, if left unchecked, survived to this day?

 

[joe370]

Calvinist TULIP, symbolic presence, denial of auricular confession, the effects of baptism, and infant baptism. These are major, major issues!!! They can’t be glossed over. Neither can the improper use of sola scriptura by many American evangelical Christians that reject the early councils and the creeds. So major a difference are these to me, that I would much sooner be Catholic than virtually any other protestant group.

Jon

That was my line of thinking as a former non-catholic.

 

[JonNC]

Why I disagree with TULIP, nothing about TULIP would forfeit one’s salvation. While I understand the importance of baptism and its existence as a sacrament,

I pray not, for the sake of my Reformed brothers and sisters, but the LCMS makes clear that believing in heterodox positions such as the ULIP of the TULIP has its dangers.

I personally deny certian teachings the RCC has concerning Baptism, so this is not as big a stumbling block for me as it is for you I suppose.

Such as?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

That was my line of thinking as a former non-catholic.

One need only read the Lutheran confessions to get a sense of where I am coming from regarding the reformed, Baptists, anabaptists, etc. Luther’s quote, “Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss, I will drink blood with the pope” is specific regarding the Eucharist, but for me it can metaphorically be applied to a number of things.

Jon

 

[tqualey]

Hi, ApologiaSophia,

You have made a number of statements and have not supported any. So, let me point out a couple of obvious inconsistencies. Sorry I could not manage this in one post …
This is 1 of 2

Needless to say I do not think something must be a god for it to be worshipped and become idolatry (money for example). I support veneration… I just think the way veneration is practiced is not veneration but more.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. The issue, however, goes beyond opinion. The Catholic Church has never taught that Mary is anything more then a creature of God. There are those who take their own opinon to the extreme - but, that is not the issue. The focus must be on official teachings of the Catholic Church. Like Luther official taught Sola Scriptura and Calivin (by the way he never renounced his Baptism as a baby…) with Predestinationism.

What is the RC definition of grace? For the Protestant, grace is defined as unmerited favor with God. I do not see how Mary, being full of grace, implies her sinlessness or the absence of her original sin. That seems like a jump to me. Like Elizabeth, I too believe Mary was the mother of my Lord. Immaculate conception is still a jump. I also think Mary being immaculate cause other theological problems and inconsistencies. I do not even see why the doctrine is necessary or relevant. It begs the question of why God did not wipe out everyone’s original sin as He did with Mary’s. Mary can be the new Eve, as described in the early church, and not be immaculate. For without the shedding of blood there is no forgives senses of sin. The Assumption is also a total jump. I love Mary. In no way would I try to bash or dishonor her. That does not mean I have to consent to doctrines about her that I simply find untrue or superfluous.

The Catholic Church’s teachings on Grace are compatible with your brief statement. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm. Let me remind you about something else the Angel Gabriel said to Mary: “Nothing is impossible with God.” Your claim to about any Catholic Church teaching concerning Mary being a ‘jump’ rests strictly with you - and not with God.

One of the more interesting contradictions of the Sola Scriptura position is that it is highly selective - even clearly identified statements are made to conform to heretical positions. For example, in Matthew 16 we have Christ giving Peter the equavalent of a signed blank check with the statement, “WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound…” The Immaculate Conception and Assumption have been declared matters of faith for Catholics - and that would mean that heaven and earth are so bound. Yet, Protestants dispute this statement claiming anything other then what the words say.

Many Protestant splits have been over many other issues that differences of interpretation. To be sure Protestant can cover I wide range of church denomination and sub denominations. What you fail to seem to realize is, despite differences of polity and minor theological issues of secondary importance, most Protestants will fellowship with each other.

Here is a true fantasy: that there are, ‘…minor theological issues of secondary importance…’ First of all, just who made that determination - who really determined that "Brand 'X’s view of Protestantism has a minor issue that needs to give way to 'Brand 'Y’s view which someome else has determined is more important. Just who is out there determining major and minor points of theology? Since Protestants do not recognize any type of authority (outside of SS) these issues continue to spin around and around. Note that Luther had a very difficult time with the theology of Zwingli - and condemned him! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huldrych_Zwingli

Secondly, we are not talking about a civic club or country club atmosphere where ‘fellowship’ is the criteria for success. This is a discussion on the truths of faith - and I submit that people can be in agreement with the Truth and be in fellowship and others can be in agreement with heresy and be in fellowship. Such fellowship is not and can never be the deciding factor on what is true.

I regularly attend all sorts of Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, Presbyterion, Reformed, non-denominational, etc. churches. I may disagree with the, on a number of theological issues, we may belong to different governing bodies, but we still consider ourselves to be One Church ultimately and find are unity in Christ. I strongly disagree with certain Catholic doctrines, yet here I am at CAF fellow shipping, teaching and learning. That is true unity, being uniform is nice, but don’t get overly wrapped up in it.

Without being uncharitable, what you have told me that no one’s doctrine means anything to you. The unit you think you have in Christ must come at the expense of everyone’s conflicting and conflicted opinions - you must disregard them all and embrace your vision of Christ. The snag with that approach is that it simply creates another fantasy. Christ was very specific about a number of issues that various Protestant groups renounce. Here are just eight of them:

1- The Church Christ founded on Peter is the Catholic Church
2- Christ is True God and True Man
3- There are Three Persons in One God
4- Mary remained a virgin all of her life
5- Christ told us that Baptism is necessary for salvation
6- Christ told us we must eat His Flesh if we are to live
7- Christ told us that there really is a Hell were the damned are punished forever
8- Christ gave His Apostles - the First Bishops - the delegated power to forgive sin

The groups you freely associate believe some of these truths - but not all. None of these groups, to my knowledge, would be willing to accept those items that they reject for the unity of Protestantism. Each group is fully determined to exert its individuality - and essentially either condemns that do not agree or ingnores them. Such a position is a club and not a church. Clubs are disbanded - but each of us has an immortal soul. By not getting ‘…overly wrapped up in…’ these doctrinal issues you make a mockery of what Christ told you He wanted. Christ wants His followers to be quite wrapped up in the Truths He provided to us. Disregarding these Truths to gain acceptance or have fellowship is not what Christ taught.

Continued -

 

[tqualey]

Part 2 of 2

Also, Sola Scriptural is not intended to mean a rejection of Church tradition. It is, however, supposed to be a measuring tool by which we judge. .

This is truly a profound contradiction. Sacred Tradition IS NOT written down in Scripture. the Sola in Sola Scriptura means that ONLY Scripture is accepted - and anything that is not specifically included (that has not been reshaped to conform to heresy) in Scripture - that has the mark of personal interpretation - may be interesting at best but of no consequence. And, seriously, was it Luther or Calvin or someone else in revolt that gave you the power to judge Scripture? Who are these guys? What I think should be a major tip off is that none of them claimed Christ appeared to them, told them He revoked the authority He gave to the Catholic Church and appointed ________ to lead the ‘New Church’. The fact that there is so much division (and God is One) should be another tip off that these are man-made religions based strictly on human traditions that have made a ‘Christ’ in their own image. The Christ of the Gospel demands obedience.

No Catholic would deny that Scripture is inspired. Now there may be some traditions that are inspired, such as the creeds, but there may be some that aren’t (relics). How then can we judge tradition as being inspired or not lest we judge it by what we know, or at least believe, to be inspired? Scripture itself is tradition. The teachings of any man, clergy or laity, should be matched and judge by the teachings of the Apostles themselves since they have original and ultimate authority in Christian teaching. Therefore, no Apostolic Tradition can contradict what the Apostles themselves have recorded in Scripture. That just seems like common sense to me.

Again, you are setting yourself up to judge God’s Works - and that is like the pot judging the Potter. Claiming to follow the teachings of the Apostles - and then coming up with all of these Protestant heresies - is simply a contradiction. Christ founded One Church on Peter, gave Peter the Keys and told him WHATEVER he bound on earth was bound in heaven. Somehow, all of Protestantism has managed to dismiss this as not being what Christ intended. This dismissal based on personal interpretation is right in line with the dismissal Protestantism gives to the Real Presence - and that would be transubstantiation and not the ‘consubstantiation’ that Luther dreamed up. The First Bishops were in total accord with Christ - they did not break apart by forming 12 different religions. We must wait for the 16th Century to witness this revolt from the Body of Christ.

What may seem like ‘common sense’ to you (how to resolve apparent conflict between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture) is another fantasy. St. John repeatedly tells us that not everthing Christ did or said has been written down. So, to claim that Scripture has it all (from which everything is to be judged) is to be playing with only a partial deck of cards. The full deck is required and anything short of that will be a disasterous loss.

To make a point, the RC has had a history of teaching untrue doctrines and performing unCheistian practices. (this is not intended to be a bash, all Christian traditions have their dirt). If the RC has taught invalid, untrue doctrines in the past, as you have admitted in another post concerning indulgences, how do you know their are not corrupt or untrue doctrines in the RC church NOW?

So, let me challenge you to produce some documentation on this ‘…history of teaching untrue doctrines…’. You won’t find any. Shame. You have misquoted me. The Catholic Church has NEVER TAUGHT that indulgences could be sold. There were individuals who on their own and devoid of the Grace of God and motivated by greed attempted to sell indulgences - but, this is in violation of Church teaching. There have been leaders of the Catholic Church who have given public scandal based on greed or sex - but, despite these major failings - never taught heresy. And, that is an important point to remember.

You do not have go far back into hisotry - take the last 100 years as a good starting point. In 1912 all Protestant churches (to the best of my knowledge) condemned contraception, abortion, homosexual behavior and euthansia. (The Catholic Church with its 2,000 year history has always condemned these behaviors.) A the 1930 Lambeth Conference, contraceptiion was approved - and shortly thereafter we see some of the other Protestants all changing their teachings - on everything. All approve of contraception, most approve or tolerate abortion, many have joined in reversing God’s command against homosexual behavior (and that would include the ordination of actively practicing homosexuals as bishops) and there are a few today who approve of eithansia - but at the moment there are not many. Tell me the Apostles - the First Bishops- approved of an active homosexual as a bishop - especially after reading St. Paul’s criteria in 1Tim 3 (Here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/1_Timothy_3 )

Look at the teachings of the those in revolt - from the 16th Century to today. There is nothing but chaos and contradiction based on SS and the personal interpretation that goes along with it. Luther became quite aggrevate at peasants making their own personal interpretation blackstudies.ucsb.edu/antillians/reformation2.html Now, take a look at the teachings of the Catholic Church. (Here is an excellent link to just what the Catholic Church teaches: scborromeo.org/ )

Just because the Catholic Church has preserved Scripture and given us the Bible as we know it does not mean that the hierarchy of the church cannot be guilty of twisting, misquoting, or ignoring Scripture. They are every bit as fallible as your are. Office does not determine interpretation. Exegesis does.

Individuals are sinful. Individual leaders of the Catholic Church are sinful. Pope Benedict XVI goes to confession. But, let’s not forget the very First Pope, ran away in the Garden and then denied Christ 3x - I really can not think of anything more serious then the sins of Peter! And, while the Bishop of Rome and every other bishop, make personal mistakes - the Pope is infallible when he teaches doctrine on faith or morals from the Chair of Peter. Notice, infallible does not mean something was condemned as a heresy and then later retracted and called doctrine. The Catholic Church, for example, has always taught that Christ has two Natures (human and divine) unified in One Person (Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Seriously, Protestant groups are all over the place when it comes to doctrine. I only gave a few examples.

God bless

 

[joe370]

One need only read the Lutheran confessions to get a sense of where I am coming from regarding the reformed, Baptists, anabaptists, etc. Luther’s quote, “Before I drink mere wine with the Swiss, I will drink blood with the pope” is specific regarding the Eucharist, but for me it can metaphorically be applied to a number of things.

Jon

Hey Jon, you are the one that shared that quote with me awhile back because certain members of my family (Lutheran) didn’t (still don’t) believe what you believe regarding the Holy Eucharist, even after I shared with them, that quote from Martin Luther. I welcomed them to CAF to talk to you but they declined.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

In all fairness, you have not one shred of proof for what you said here.

Saint Peter being the first Pope is definitely proof. It’s found historically as well as in Scriptures. Or did your protestant bible conveniently tear that out among countless other things as well?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

.

And they shouldn’t bother you if you believe the Anglican church to be the church of Pentecost, and you do.

My problem is not with the Anglican church. It is with those specific factions of the Anglican church that preach heresy. Just as the Early church, as can be found in the Bible, had Judaizers in their own churches, so does any Church, even the RCC, have factions that preach heresy and error.

.If I did I would be lying. :shrug:I have thouroughly investigated the teachngs of the CC before rendering my allegiance. If you are talking about our blessed mother Mary, well, that’s just silly. If you are talking about certain canonized saints, well, they played a huge part in my conversion. I try to live my life according to these simple, sinful creatures that lived such humble, holy and virtuous lives in accordance with our Savior, and the list is endless: Catherine of Siena, Padre Pio, Mary Faustina, Bernadette Soubirous, Teresa of Ávila, Catherine of Genoa, Anna Maria Taigi…the list goes on and on. Jesus, and His mother visited many simple folks at times when the church was in serious need, due to corruption, and Jesus was always successful at pulling in the reins via these individuals who made such mind-boggling sacrifices for sinners. Talk about picking up your cross and following Jesus. Phew

-_- I think you have misunderstood what it means to grant someone a premise. I wasn’t asking you to lie, I was asking you to look at an argument from a particular perspective so you could put yourself in the shoes of those who sincerely believe such things.

Also, I would be curious to do an experiment. I would love to interview people of other denominations and other religions to see what they think of the RC practice of veneration. I mean I suppose I already know what the Protestant/Muslim/JEW would say, but I’m actually curious as to what other religions think. I wonder if Pagan polytheists would view the practice as worship. This does not say anything about the practice being inherently wrong, but I think if pagans look at veneration and conceive of it as worship… well that has to say SOMETHING, whatever that may be.

.What are your thoughts on the miracle of Fatima witnessed by thousands? That event was critical to releasing me from my days as an agnostic. Atheists merely reduce it to mass delusion.

I actually have little to no opinion on Fatima. I’m glad it as worked so well for the kingdom. I still don’t think we should use that as means to construct a theology. Pentecostalism is full of visions and experiences like that, but you would not use their visions and supernatural experiences to construct your theology… even if it did build the faith and save the souls of many.

. Both.

That wasn’t the question. I think everybody would want both. I suppose you believe you can have both, but that was not the scenario I gave to you.

.
Perhaps they should read the NT and the works of the early church fathers. Of course, if they want to embrace that idea, that’s cool.

Yes, yes, the Holy See of Peter. Many Protestants do reject that, but that is besides the point. I as a Protestant fully accept that. My problem is not what Christ established but how it has changed through history to become what it is now. I would love to be in fellowship with the see of Peter, but unless things drastically change, either in me or in the RCC, I cannot go against my convictions.

.That’s cool. I need both.

I would say youre missing my point… but I don’t think you are. I understand you believe you can have both and that you do have both. I don’t. Because I don’t, I believe I must choose one or the other. I think I’ve chosen correctly.

.I couldn’t draw that conclusion in my search for the church of Pentecost.

Your church is the church of Pentecost in lineage alone. Or did Peter always live in a palace wearing crowns, sitting on thrones, speaking Latin, praying to Mary?

.Well, I hope the true church is invisible for the sake of all those folks who keep popping up and starting new churches in the name of Jesus. Perhaps church affiliation is irrelevant to Jesus, but I seriously doubt it, and I am not talking about folks who don’t know any better. We all have to make our own choices, in the end.

“And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.” Replace Abraham with Peter. The Reformers did not leave a healthy church. It left the RCC at a time when there was corruption galore. Crusades, Inquisitions, “witch” burnings, indulgences, etc. I would have left to. If Jesus is unhappy with Luther because he tried to Reform the Catholic church and left due to its persistent resistance, then may God have mercy on his soul.

.People belonging to different churches, having polar opposite beliefs, regarding certain doctrines, all guided by the spirit of truth, into all truth? That’s like believing that the universe created itself. It makes no sense, to me anyway.

So the EO are not guided by the Spirit? I suppose the Early church father were not guided by the Spirit when they disagreed on various doctrines? On various canons?

For example, the holy spirit doesn’t guide the CC to believe in the true presence and a protestant church to believe the exact opposite.

You’re absolutely right. So what have the Church councils? When one contradicts the previous, did the Spirit guide the one council and not the other? Why is this any different? Just like when Protestants went from being “anathema” to “separated brethren” in Vatican II.

.To each there own I suppose. Most of those folks do not care about church history, let alone finding the historical church founded by Jesus. I guess I am weird that way.

Assumption, especially, as I said before, many Protestants are Prominent Church historians. Chris Hall was recognized by the Pope for his work on Church history. Chris Hall attends and teaches at a conservative, low church Episcopalian Parish. Go figure?

.Exactly.

So when Luther, a Catholic monk, priest, and scholar left the RCC and “popped up” a church… that isn’t different? Don’t say the Church he popped up was “Protestant” because that would make it an issue of semantics and fail to address my point.

.Question: Historically speaking, was it the Anglican church or the Catholic church that quashed those heresies, that could have, if left unchecked, survived to this day?

It was absolutely the Catholic Church. I think you misunderstand the Protestant view of the Catholic Church. We agree you are historical in the sense of claiming direct lineage. However, wee do not believe the RCC of today has changed considerably in its theology and practice. The first several Popes were nothing like the modern papacy. This is not just a Protestant belief EO agree. Examine EO doctrine against RC doctrine where they disagree. I think, with adequate Research, it will be enough to show that not everything the RCC has always coincided with the original church. (Abraham’s Bosom for example).

The Pope told Thomas Aquinas, when showing him around the Vatican,“We cannot say with Peter of old, silver and gold have I none” Thomas replies: "Nor can we say, “Such as I give to thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.”

I think the RCC has preserved the original church. I also believe it has corrupted it to a certain degree within various areas.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Wow, so there’s a lot of posts piling up which I have every intention of addressing, but I need to go to sleep. Just don’t want anyone to think I’m ignoring them.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia

I said: For example, the holy spirit doesn’t guide the CC to believe in the true presence and a protestant church to believe the exact opposite.

You’re absolutely right. So what have the Church councils? When one contradicts the previous, did the Spirit guide the one council and not the other? Why is this any different?

Identify these catholic ecumenical councils that are contradicting one other regarding doctrine? Of course people within the council might disagree but in the end, it becomes unanimous as was the case with theotokos or the trinity. I am really not following you here. Well, I must sleep; talk to you tomorrow; always enjoy talking to you.

 

[joe370]

ApologiaSophia

So when Luther, a Catholic monk, priest, and scholar left the RCC and “popped up” a church… that isn’t different? Don’t say the Church he popped up was “Protestant” because that would make it an issue of semantics and fail to address my point.

If I would have been Luther I would have tried to weather the storm and trust Jesus’ church, knowing full well that Jesus is the Divine rudder of His church, guiding her, especially in the tumultuous of storms, which represent the the devil and its minions. In the end, all of his legitimate complaints against the CC faded away anyway. God prevailed. But it’s real easy for me to Monday-morning quarterback. lol…

Sleep time; have a great night Sophia…