Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[Memaw]

Another falsehood, there are not thousands of Doctrines. Among them all there are core one from Scripture that all can agree to, the differences come in secondary doctrines. Just as you Catholics have a core but different secondary in Franciscan, Augustine, Benedictine. Does that brother you?

It is the same with us, so no it does not brother me

Don’t look now, but your ignorance is showing!!. Those are Religious Orders within the Catholic Church but they all believe the same Doctrine!, God Bless, Memaw

 

[historyb]

You responded:

Your church refuses to marry divorcees? Really. Something doesn’t make sense.

At your suggestion I referenced the Westminister Confession of Faith and found this:

The remarriage of divorced persons may be sanctioned by the church, in keeping with the redemptive gospel of Christ, when sufficient penitence for sin and failure is evidence, and a firm purpose of and endeavor after Christian marriage is manifested
epc.org/about-the-epc/beliefs/westminster-confession/#ch24

I’m confused.

Who should I believe? The reference you cited that says it allows remarriage (despite the words of Christ which prohibit it), or your words?

Did I say that was my church? No, I go to a SBC but at the moment belong to no Church

 

[historyb]

Don’t look now, but your ignorance is showing!!. Those are Religious Orders within the Catholic Church but they all believe the same Doctrine!, God Bless, Memaw

Caught your ignorance, the secondary elements are different while the core is the same. Clearly you have a reading problem because you did not read my post

 

[PRmerger]

Did I say that was my church? No, I go to a SBC but at the moment belong to no Church

LOL!!

So when I asked if your church will re-marry divorcees and you responded “yes”, what was that all about?? You belong to no church? Yet you answered my question in the affirmative??

 

[Memaw]

Caught your ignorance, the secondary elements are different while the core is the same. Clearly you have a reading problem because you did not read my post

I don’t think I have a reading problem just a problem making sense of what you wrote. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Christalone]

Don’t look now, but your ignorance is showing!!. Those are Religious Orders within the Catholic Church but they all believe the same Doctrine!, God Bless, Memaw

You complain about my language but yet you constantly call those who disagree with you ignorant. Look who’s calling the kettle black.

 

[PRmerger]

Another falsehood, there are not thousands of Doctrines.

Well, we haven’t even had 10 posts of dialogue between us and already there’s a disagreement between Protestant denominations on divorce.

Mathematically, if you take the list below and take all the different permutations of belief and acceptance of the issues below (not all issues are even listed) there’s thousands of doctrines. (list provided by another poster, ProdigalSon)

Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. unitarianism
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
themselves

 

[PRmerger]

Caught your ignorance, the secondary elements are different while the core is the same. Clearly you have a reading problem because you did not read my post

No, historyb. You stated:

Among them all there are core one from Scripture that all can agree to, the differences come in secondary doctrines. Just as you Catholics have a core but different secondary in Franciscan, Augustine, Benedictine. Does that brother you?

The Franciscans, Benedictines, etc all teach the same doctrine.

 

[historyb]

Not the secondary they don’t

 

[ScottishColleen]

MOST SBC’s have no problem remarrying divorced people. CERTAIN Presbyterian denominations REFUSE to remarry divorced people under any circumstance. Other Presbyterian churches will remarry depending upon the circumstance. The Westminster Confession permits divorce and remarriage (of the innocent party) under certain circumstances. The London Baptist Confession leaves out this entire section. If Historyb’s church rejects all remarriages, then his individual church is an oddity (and those that refuse to perform remarriages will still accept remarried couples as communing members at a later date). If he was merely referring to himself and his own personal belief, he should have said so…let’s not be disingenuous.

On the other hand, I have known many Catholics that have sought annulments from the Catholic church so that they may remarry (much along the same lines of the WCF, in cases of adultery and abandonment). As to whether they are valid annulments or not, would be under the same scrutiny as under the WCF. Some will agree and some will not…with both.

On both sides, there are people that are members of their church/denomination/confession and yet do not adhere to them in their everyday lives (yep, I’ve seen it of Catholics and Reformed alike). And there are those that hold firmly. Shall we condemn all Catholics for those that have strayed? Shall we condemn all Reformed for those that have strayed? Because there are those that have strayed, does that mean that the doctrines are wrong? There are small Reformed groups that claim they are small because no one wants right doctrine. There is the large Catholic church that claim (some insinuate ) they are large because people are finding right doctrine. Shall we determine doctrine based on numbers? Seriously, this mudslinging doesn’t get us anywhere. I would have no problem accepting the challenge of RCIA…is there a Catholic that is willing to accept the Challenge of reading the Westminster Confession and Calvin’s Institutes while sitting in a study under a Conservative Presbyterian minister?

BTW, my husband has sat with a Catholic seminary student. It was interesting. Found we tend to talk past each other much of the time. Some of what we had been told about Catholicism was way off. Some of what he had been told about Calvinism was way off (as in, it didn’t even resemble Calvinism). It was good educationally for both of them.

One area that I found Catholics might be split on, unless we are missing each other symantics, is that some believe in election and some do not. Yay, nay, floor open

 

[Peter_J]

I never once took RCIA, when I converted to Catholicism I was the only one so my priest taught me himself. I read great tomes about the Catholic Faith and he taught me well. When I was a Catholic for ten years after that I saw a great disparity between the written and the practices of the people in the pew. It was than I knew that 1) either the Vatican was out of touch with the people, 2) didn’t care, 3) didn’t discipline, or 4) the people were not being taught right. I came to realize that it was number 3 and 4 in my list.

Most Catholics here are arm chair theologians and will deny that people practice are different from written or and this is a good one just because people do that does not mean the Church believes it. The Church should make sure the people are taught properly. The biggest problem as I saw was that internally the Catholic Church has several camps and is just as divided as the Protestant camp, being divided is not just a Protestant distinctive

With Liberals, Traditionalist, Ultra-Traditionalist, Orthodox followers and those who don’t care how can a Church that does not discipline expect it’s people to follow what it says. (Lest someone says that is not true in the USA we have many Catholic Politicians who support baby murder and yet no discipline has come down with the exception of lip service). I wanted more consistency so I began to study once again and unconverted, so I know the Catholic doctrine and that the practices are not the same. If the Church want people to look at it as the true Church than what is doctrine and what is practice should be the same and the Church should make sure it is.

No they haven’t for instances let’s use Sola Scriptura as an example, while the average poster here has the definition done pat they have no idea the concept behind it and yet you except us to play fair when Catholics here won’t even try. Most Catholics and Protestants have no idea behind the concept of these phrases and it shows in the debates that go down here.

Same goes both ways and to be consistent you should be rankled at both

Yes it has a lot of the doctrine, a rich resource even, but it does not have not the practices of the laity in the pew which can differ greatly from the doctrine

Than you should get to know the proper Protestant theology and the meaning behind the terms before you attack something you all really don’t know. Your last sentence goes both ways.

Good post, historyb. I completely agree with you that a lot of this stuff applies to both sides. I think all of us tend to forget what Christ said, “take the plank out of your own eye …” (accepting, of course, when we want to say to the other side, “Hey, why don’t you guys take the plank out of your eye, like Christ told you to?”)

But I also think that PerryJ made a very good point. Look at it this way: There’s over a billion Catholics in the world. There’s maybe 70 million Anglicans, about the same number of Lutherans, about the same number of Methodists, etc. Realistically, you can’t have the same level of expectations for Catholics understanding Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. as for Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, etc. understanding Catholics. (Would you expect Americans to understand Portuguese, to the same extent that you would expect the Portuguese to understand English?)

 

[PRmerger]

Not the secondary they don’t

What** doctrines** do they teach differently? Please be specific and make sure that it’s a doctrine that you’re proposing, historyb.

 

[Worthy5]

In Matt 16:18 this is what Christ said:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Did Christ establish a church? No what He said was He would build a Church on this rock. Now what rock? Verse 16 gives the answer and here is the whole thing:

15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter replied, “You are the Son of the living God.” the Christ,17And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It can clearly be seen that the intention was not to build upon Peter, but upon his faith

Well thanks history6 for YOUR interpretation. Now, I trust that you have read this passage in its entirety along with the entire gospel of Matthew in the ORIGINAL Greek. Have you done that? If have not are you not just reading an interpretation of the translator. Why do you think you can play scripture hardball? And who gave you the authority that YOUR interpretation is definitive? And what was Christ referring to when he said “this” Peter’s faith (your interpretation) or is He referring to the revelation that Peter received from His Father above which could lend support to the notion that Peter and his successors will be the channels of a continual teaching authority and divine revelation. I mean you can believe what you want and interpret it that way (free country) but do not claim that is conclusive to disprove the Catholic Church. God Bless

 

[Memaw]

You complain about my language but yet you constantly call those who disagree with you ignorant. Look who’s calling the kettle black.

You need to look up the meaning of ignorant! (lack of knowledge) That’s not a bad word. And they do have a ‘lack of knowledge’ of the Catholic Faith.

 

[ScottishColleen]

Well thanks history6 for YOUR interpretation. Now, I trust that you have read this passage in its entirety along with the entire gospel of Matthew in the ORIGINAL Greek. Have you done that? If have not are you not just reading an interpretation of the translator. Why do you think you can play scripture hardball? And who gave you the authority that YOUR interpretation is definitive? And what was Christ referring to when he said “this” Peter’s faith (your interpretation) or is He referring to the revelation that Peter received from His Father above which could lend support to the notion that Peter and his successors will be the channels of a continual teaching authority and divine revelation. I mean you can believe what you want and interpret it that way (free country) but do not claim that is conclusive to disprove the Catholic Church.

uhm, this is how all Protestants read this passage…even those that know Greek (I know many that have studied Greek). And it is read that what Christ was telling Peter is what the Church will be built on, not Peter himself as a person.

 

[JFT]

Well thanks history6 for YOUR interpretation. Now, I trust that you have read this passage in its entirety along with the entire gospel of Matthew in the ORIGINAL Greek. Have you done that? If have not are you not just reading an interpretation of the translator. Why do you think you can play scripture hardball? And who gave you the authority that YOUR interpretation is definitive? And what was Christ referring to when he said “this” Peter’s faith (your interpretation) or is He referring to the revelation that Peter received from His Father above which could lend support to the notion that Peter and his successors will be the channels of a continual teaching authority and divine revelation. I mean you can believe what you want and interpret it that way (free country) but do not claim that is conclusive to disprove the Catholic Church.

Question for you, Worthy5: in the "ORIGINAL’ Greek version that you you for St. Mt. 16/18, when Jesus addresses Peter, was Jesus using a REFLEXIVE “you”, or a DIRECT OBJECT PRONOUN “you”?

 

[PRmerger]

uhm, this is how all Protestants read this passage…even those that know Greek (I know many that have studied Greek). And it is read that what Christ was telling Peter is what the Church will be built on, not Peter himself as a person.

Is this the way all Christians read the passage prior to the Reformation?

 

[Christalone]

You need to look up the meaning of ignorant! (lack of knowledge) That’s not a bad word. And they do have a ‘lack of knowledge’ of the Catholic Faith.

neither is a pile of dung.

 

[PRmerger]

uhm, this is how all Protestants read this passage…even those that know Greek (I know many that have studied Greek). And it is read that what Christ was telling Peter is what the Church will be built on, not Peter himself as a person.

Not true, Colleen.

See here:

D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) –

“Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (‘you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” (Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) –

“The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)…It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

 

[ScottishColleen]

Is this the way all Christians read the passage prior to the Reformation?

I didn’t live before the Reformation (okay, I’m just being lighthearted here) Seriously though, I do not know. I do know that there were variances in interpretations amoungst Christians within the Roman Catholic Church (not as familiar with EO) and thus cannot say for certain. Both of us agree with Augustine and other Church Fathers, but I doubt any of us agree with all of them on everything (Augustine is an excellent example…Reformed agree with him on one area and not another, it is flipped for the Catholics, and I think many of us agree that he had issues where male/female relationship is concerned).