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

[PRmerger]

Isn’t it interesting that for 2,000 years, man has been trying to separate Christ from HIS Church and His Church from Her Sacred Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures, but has never been successful . No one, not Heretics, not kings, not rulers, not the protestant reformation, not sinful clergy, and not even those from within the Church that would like to ‘changer her’ to suite themselves can ever change the TRUTH of the One,Holy,Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit won’t allow it!!! The sooner the world recognizes that, the better off we will all be. I pray that those Catholics that have left their Catholic Faith, for whatever reason, will come back home and learn the faith properly and truly. God Bless, Memaw

Indeed.

What I find so contradictory about those who criticize the CC’s doctrines as “non-Biblical” is how many non-Biblical traditions each of them has as well!

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a funny thing you mention this, because I brought this up in a similar argument with him. The source however was different, I took my info from The Journal of American Psychiatry.

Yup.

And humble’s claim that secular nations are the happiest is interesting. I’m anxious to see his source and to see how one determines what makes a nation “happy”. How is happiness quantified?

Certainly, there can be no doubt that the greatest measure of despondency is the suicide rate. And, one cannot argue with the statistic that irreligious nations have the highest rate of suicide.

Our hearts are restless until they rest in God, as St. Augustine so astutely stated.

There is no peace in one’s heart until it is filled with the Spirit of God.

 

[1beleevr]

Just finished reading about Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, in the Jordan River(Luke 3:21-22). And, I thought to myself, now if baptism supposedly washes our sins away, and Jesus was the only sinless person ever to wear flesh, then why would He get baptized? Was it an act of obedience to His Father? Was it because He was fully human and fully God?

 

[PRmerger]

Just finished reading about Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist, in the Jordan River(Luke 3:21-22). And, I thought to myself, now if baptism supposedly washes our sins away, and Jesus was the only sinless person ever to wear flesh, then why would He get baptized? Was it an act of obedience to His Father? Was it because He was fully human and fully God?

John preached a baptism of repentance. When Jesus wants to be baptized and John hesitates, but Jesus insists because it demonstrates his “acceptance and inaugurates his mission as God’s suffering Servant. He allows himself to be numbered among sinners. **He is already “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”. **Already he is anticipating the “baptism” of his bloody death. Already he is coming to “fulfill all righteousness”, that is, he is submitting himself entirely to his Father’s will: out of love he consents to this baptism of death for the remission of our sins. The Father’s voice responds to the Son’s acceptance, proclaiming his entire delight in his Son. The Spirit whom Jesus possessed in fullness from his conception comes to “rest on him”. Jesus will be the source of the Spirit for all mankind. At his baptism “the heavens were opened” - the heavens that Adam’s sin had closed - and the waters were sanctified by the descent of Jesus and the Spirit, a prelude to the new creation.” CCC 536

 

[Memaw]

Indeed.

What I find so contradictory about those who criticize the CC’s doctrines as “non-Biblical” is how many non-Biblical traditions each of them has as well!

That’s why they are so confused as to what to believe and have to “church hop” to seek something that sorta resembles the truth or turn to denial altogether. If they would only leave all that behind and come into the fullness of the Faith found only in the Truths of the Catholic Church. God Bless, that’s my prayer for them. Memaw

 

[moondweller]

PRmerger:

However, even the existence of 3 different denominations should give you reason to doubt Sola Scriptura.

For me it casts no doubt on the absolute authority of the Scriptures, but it certainly causes me not to put my faith in men, even those who assert “infallibility.” As I said in a previous post, such an environment (the idea of certain men possessing infallibility) creates a breeding ground for unhindered error. After all, no one can rightfully challenge “infallibility.” It works well for forced religious conformity (not unity), but in reality offers absolutely no guarantee against doctrinal error. In fact, it’s a sure way to seal in error and pave the road to complete apostasy.

 

[moondweller]

guanophore:

And, in fact, there are not scriptures that identify which issues are “essential” and which are not.

I can understand you stating this since you fail to understand the difference between faith and works, grace and law. However, even Augustine understood that in the true faith there is a difference between the essentials and nonessentials:"In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; and in all things charity."What RCs hate to admit, and have seen first hand on this forum, is that many of the Protestant churches agree on the essential Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. An essential that all the works-based religions, which call themselves “Christian,” have abandoned.

It is amazing that you can be here all this time, and still not understand that for the believer, it is no longer oneself that lives, but Christ, who lives in us. The life we now live, we live to God.

I fully understand this. It’s taken straight from Paul’s Epistle and in reference to himself as a personal example for those Galatians who desired to be saved by works. He presents, in contrast, the divine revelation of the true believer’s co-crucifixion with Christ upon faith in Him.Gal 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the {life} which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."Paul is stating here the work of God in salvation. Not works for salvation, but the work of God in the one who has been saved by grace through faith. Every true believer has been crucified with Christ (i.e, the “old self,” all who he was in Adam), co-buried with Him and now raised to new in Him (Eph. 2: 4-7; Col. 3:1-4). This essential doctrine is addressed to faith, not experience. It’s divinely revealed via Holy Writ. We know it because God has preserved this truth for all generations of believers in the Scriptures. IOW, the Scriptures reveal that the true believer’s salvation is as eternal as the risen Christ Himself, in whom he is now and forever identified, and through whom he was once and for all saved.

The works we do are those that have been prepared from the foundation of the world, that we should walk in them. They are based on grace, through faith.

No, you distort the Scriptures to fit your own religious doctrine.Eph 2:10 “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.The “we” in this verse pertains to those in the previous two verses who “have been saved” by grace through faith…a gift of God, not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9). Paul, in Eph. 2:10, now identifies these saved by grace through faith as “created in Christ Jesus” not BY good works, but FOR good works which God prepared beforehand that they should walk in them. They’re not being created (nor saved or justified) in Christ Jesus by good works, but were newly “created” (past tense) “in Christ” FOR those works. “Good works” are identified with the “saved,” but never identified as the means of salvation itself, which is divinely revealed to be “by grace through faith” in Christ alone.

You distort the Scriptures to conform them to your own preconceived idea of a works salvation. This is not a testimony against Sola Scriptura, but against those men who distort what the inerrant, theopneustos Scriptures teach us and divinely reveal to us regarding faith and salvation in and through the Person and work of Jesus Christ alone.

Well, this is the root of the error, moon. The Scriptures adre not the source of the doctrine of salvation. Jesus is the Source of the doctrine, and He committed it to the Apostles, and they to the Church. The Church then produced the NT, which reflects what she believes and teaches.

Actually, the N.T. Gospel accounts (Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn.) are historical accounts of the life and teachings of Christ. The Epistles were written TO (not by) the churches. They reveal and have divinely preserved in Holy Writ the doctrines of the FAITH for all generation subsequent to the Apostolic age. They are our only divine source for the doctrines of salvation. It’s the way God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses. As revealed to the ancient prophet Jeremiah:Jer 1:12 "Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over My word to perform it.”

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: what makes you think that I am church shopping, rather than sharing and debating? I was just curious why humbl in doubt left, just as I would be curious about anyone leaving any church When someone leaves our church body, we pray with them for guidance, and success, and that God would open doors for them to grow in His Word. What do you guys do, or how does it make you feel, when someone leaves the church, such as humble or others in this forum have?

 

[zigzeigler]

As a protestant (although my church steadfastly disagrees that we are “protesting” anything) I unfortunately have to agree with you. The lack of original thought or scholarship among Protestants is appalling. We say that Catholics are hide-bound by tradition but let me tell you, hearing vitually the same 5 songs, 3 specials and then sermon for years on end is really starting to get on my nerves. The only thing that changes is the flower arrangement on the alter.
I recently started doing some serious Bible study and research into church history (Catholic and Protestant) and I am learning a lot of very discouraging and disappointing things.

That is exactly what brought me to RCIA in 2001. I’d been a Methodist all my life and when i became serious about studying my faith i quickly came to the bottom of Methodism and punched out on the other side—deeper and deeper and deeper. John Henry Cardinal Newman on the “Development of Christian Doctrine” stopped me dead in my tracks with the observation that if St Athanasius or any of the Church Fathers were to come back to life there was no doubt whatsoever what church they would align themselves with–the Catholic. – deacon zig

 

[Memaw]

For me it casts no doubt on the absolute authority of the Scriptures, but it certainly causes me not to put my faith in men, even those who assert “infallibility.” As I said in a previous post, such an environment (the idea of certain men possessing infallibility) creates a breeding ground for unhindered error. After all, no one can rightfully challenge “infallibility.” It works well for forced religious conformity (not unity), but in reality offers absolutely no guarantee against doctrinal error. In fact, it’s a sure way to seal in error and pave the road to complete apostasy.

It all depends on whether or not you believe and trust Jesus Christ when he said His Church would never teach error and that the “gates of Hell” would never prevail against HIS Church. When HE promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide HIS Church. Your giving the “power” of Infallibility to the wrong person. It belongs to the PERSON of the HOLY SPIRIT, the Pope is simply protected by the Power of the Holy Spirit!!! We have never claimed the Pope has this power on his own. It is the protection by the Holy Spirit working here. When you challenge the Infallibility of the Catholic Church, you are challenging Jesus Christ.
I want you to show me any doctrine of the Catholic Church that has gone against what Jesus taught and what the Apostles and early Church Fathers taught. Put your money where your mouth is!!!

God Bless, Memaw

 

[moondweller]

That is exactly what brought me to RCIA in 2001. I’d been a Methodist all my life and when i became serious about studying my faith i quickly came to the bottom of Methodism and punched out on the other side—deeper and deeper and deeper. John Henry Cardinal Newman on the “Development of Christian Doctrine” stopped me dead in my tracks with the observation that if St Athanasius or any of the Church Fathers were to come back to life there was no doubt whatsoever what church they would align themselves with–the Catholic. – deacon zig

So while in a “serious” study of your “faith,” what stopped you in your tracks is what Newman said on behalf of a dead man he never knew.

You do realize that Newman has no authority to speak on behalf of Athanasius, don’t you? And what brought you to RCIA was only the personal opinion of one man’s claim would be the thought and action of another man - one, in fact, he never knew. Interesting, indeed.

 

[SteveGC]

So while in a “serious” study of your “faith,” what stopped you in your tracks is what Newman said on behalf of a dead man he never knew.

You do realize that Newman has no authority to speak on behalf of Athanasius, don’t you? And what brought you to RCIA was only the personal opinion of one man’s claim would be the thought and action of another man - one, in fact, he never knew. Interesting, indeed.

Petty response, md. Petty. I see now where I am lately absorbing all this sarcasm from.

We don’t need authority to speak on another’s behalf to make an educated, thoughtful supposition of their likely point-of-view based on the veracity of their documented lives.

Furthermore, if you go back, this was actually the comment from another poster that zig was referring to when stating what brought him to RCIA: “I recently started doing some serious Bible study and research into church history (Catholic and Protestant) and I am learning a lot of very discouraging and disappointing things.”

Perhaps even you might benefit greatly if you reflect on that statement for some time. That, and perhaps another of Cardinal Newmans statements:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[PRmerger]

For me it casts no doubt on the absolute authority of the Scriptures, but it certainly causes me not to put my faith in men, even those who assert “infallibility.”

The CC does not put its faith in fallible men, nor in infallible men, but in the Word of God.

 

[Worthy5]

So while in a “serious” study of your “faith,” what stopped you in your tracks is what Newman said on behalf of a dead man he never knew.

You do realize that Newman has no authority to speak on behalf of Athanasius, don’t you? And what brought you to RCIA was only the personal opinion of one man’s claim would be the thought and action of another man - one, in fact, he never knew. Interesting, indeed.

Well Moondweller you still have not provided any basis for your authority or to otherwise justify how you know what you know about the Bible or that the Bible is what you say it is. So why are you talking about the concept of authority now?

 

[PRmerger]

IWhat RCs hate to admit, and have seen first hand on this forum, is that many of the Protestant churches agree on the essential Biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Do you have a Scripture verse that identifies this as an essential doctrine? I don’t need to see the verse that says salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone, for that is Catholic teaching.

Please show us the verse that says this is an essential doctrine. And, as a corollary, please cite what verses identify what are secondary doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

prmerger: what makes you think that I am church shopping, rather than sharing and debating?

I dunno. Maybe it’s because you understand that these men who lead the churches are all fallible, so how do you know that they’re leading you to truth? I know that I would certainly be church shopping if I followed someone’s fallible, man-made, non-authoritative interpretations.

I was just curious why humbl in doubt left, just as I would be curious about anyone leaving any church When someone leaves our church body, we pray with them for guidance, and success, and that God would open doors for them to grow in His Word.

What verses in Scripture tell you to pray for someone who leaves the church? What if the person doesn’t tell you he’s leaving? What if he doesn’t want your prayers?

What do you guys do, or how does it make you feel, when someone leaves the church, such as humble or others in this forum have?

It depends upon the person. If it’s a family member, I talk to them. If it’s an acquaintance I may ask what their disagreement was. If it’s a stranger I wouldn’t do a thing. Except pray.

 

[PRmerger]

You do realize that Newman has no authority to speak on behalf of Athanasius, don’t you? And what brought you to RCIA was only the personal opinion of one man’s claim would be the thought and action of another man - one, in fact, he never knew. Interesting, indeed.

I suppose we could say to you, moondweller, a parallel statement about your pastor.

Here goes: You do realize that Pastor Jones has no authority to speak of behalf of (fill in the blank: Christ, St. Paul, St. Peter, etc etc), don’t you? And what brought you to Bible Christian Church was only the personal opinion of one man’s claim would be the thought and action of another man–one, in fact, he never knew. Interesting, indeed.

Has your pastor ever met St. Paul? Should his sermon be limited only to the teachings of men he’s actually met?

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, and moon, I’m going to circumvent your “my comment must have flown over your head” stock response to which you resort when you’re at a loss…yep, remember, I’m only 4 ft 11 so it’s entirely probable that it flew over my head.

 

[SHW]

For me it casts no doubt on the absolute authority of the Scriptures, but it certainly causes me not to put my faith in men, even those who assert “infallibility.” As I said in a previous post, such an environment (the idea of certain men possessing infallibility) creates a breeding ground for unhindered error. After all, no one can rightfully challenge “infallibility.” It works well for forced religious conformity (not unity), but in reality offers absolutely no guarantee against doctrinal error. In fact, it’s a sure way to seal in error and pave the road to complete apostasy.

Hey MD,

The Scriptures have no “authority.” Only intelligent beings can have and wield authority. The Scriptures are words in a book. They have no “meaning” until meaning is given to them by a living being. This is plain common sense. Of course, common sense is not really common these days.
**
Infallibility means that no error is allowed.** The Holy Spirit prevents Jesus’ Church from teaching error. If you adhere to the teachings of Jesus’ one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, then you are guaranteed truth by God Himself.

Luke 10:16 "He who hears you (Catholic Church) hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

It is sad that you refuse to believe the obvious; Jesus did not abandon His Church when He ascended into heaven. His Church is still going strong because He personally promised Peter, the only person to whom He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, that the gates of Hades would never prevail against His one Church.

Matthew 16:18-19 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus gives Peter and his successors His authority on earth just as God gave His authority on earth to Moses, and later to the scribes and Pharisees who are the successors of Moses and to whom Jesus said that the Jews must obey. He told them they needed to obey them because God gave them His authority (they sit in Moses’ seat). [Matthew 23:1-3] He told them to obey what they said to do, but not to imitate their personal actions because they were hypocrites; they did not practice what they preached. And there are hypocrites in the Church hierarchy today, but this does not diminish their God-given authority. [Hebrews 13:17]

The problem is not with Jesus’ Catholic Church, it is with you, MD. You refuse to believe Jesus’ own words. Jesus is God and the Catholic Church is His Church and He will prevent His Church from teaching error because Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, so His Church cannot possibly teach error. And, because His Church has His protection against all errors regarding faith and morals, then His Church is infallible in her teachings.

This is not rocket science (the kind that makes moondwelling possible), but this is salvation truth!

 

[moondweller]

Memaw:

It all depends on whether or not you believe and trust Jesus Christ when he said His Church would never teach error

I don’t read where Jesus said His church would never teach error. In fact God the Holy Spirit said in the Scriptures He inspired that just as false prophets rose up among the people of Israel, so there WILL BE false teachers that rise up within the church (2 Pet. 2:1). What makes a false teacher? Teaching false doctrines.

and that the “gates of Hell” would never prevail against HIS Church.

Actually Jesus said about the church He was about to build on the confession of Peter that the gates HADES (not Hell, “gehenna”) will not overpower it (Matt. 16:18). The gates of Hades to the Jew designated death (equivalent to sheol in Hebrew). Therefore Christ was simply stating that the the believing church, founded on the truth of Christ’s Person and sacrificial work, would not be held captive by death (physical or spiritual). Jesus Himself was the “first fruits” of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20-23). His church, which He was about to build on the truth of His Messiahship, will then follow in like manner at His coming for her (Jn. 14:1-3; 1Thess. 4:15-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-58).

When HE promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide HIS Church.

Actually Jesus said, speaking to His Apostles, that He had much more to say to them but they could not bear them now. But when the Holy Spirit comes, He would guide them into all truth (read Jn. 16:12-15). He (the H.S.) did just that, and what truths He disclosed to them was subsequently written and preserved in Holy Spirit, God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures.

Your giving the “power” of Infallibility to the wrong person. It belongs to the PERSON of the HOLY SPIRIT, the Pope is simply protected by the Power of the Holy Spirit!!!

Yes, that’s what you’re told and that’s what you believe. It’s, quintessentially, what makes you RC.

We have never claimed the Pope has this power on his own. It is the protection by the Holy Spirit working here. When you challenge the Infallibility of the Catholic Church, you are challenging Jesus Christ.

Yes, that’s what you’re told and that’s what you believe. It’s what makes you RC.

I want you to show me any doctrine of the Catholic Church that has gone against what Jesus taught and what the Apostles and early Church Fathers taught.

Don’t you think that’s a rather futile request by someone who believes the hierarchy of the RCC is equivalent to Christ Himself?