Protestants listen up

[CWBetts]

Great job Hercules, Keep on fighting the Good fight of Faith. I see there many on here who have replied to your posts who don’t have a clue what they are saying. If you ask them to provide scripture to back up their statements they can’t. They either say some priest or council said it so it should be done. Even if the bible which is God’s Word says otherwise.

The only failt thet he is defending is some man-made monstosity. There is not a single Catholic doctrine that is in opposition to the Bible. Now, not everything is explicit in the Bible, which is why we were given the Church. I have said before (though I can’t remeber on which thread): Both Catholics and Protestants rely upon traditions. Catholics actually admit it.

 

[ppasa316]

Hello ppasa316,

Let’s turn the tables and see how it works, shall we? Where in the Bible is sola scriptura? Where in the Bible is “rapture”? Where in the Bible does it tell us to privately interpret scriptures for ourselves? Where in the Bible does it say Trinity?

I know you’ll be glad to show those scriptures to us, or as you say, God’s Word says otherwise and it would be safe to assume some preacher said it so it should be done…

For the first part of your question read Mark 7:8,13 regarding tradition. Then read II Timothy 3:15-17. Point #2 The word rapture in 1 Thess 4:17 comes from the Latin Vulgate, which translates the phrase “caught up” with rapturus, from which we get our English word rapture. Point #3 go to point #1 No where does God say to keep His Word to ourselves but is the basis for the Christian life. Not Tradition because of what some council or priest passes down. Point #4 The Trinity can be found all the way in Genesis 1:26. Hope this helps you to better understand God’s Word.

 

[ppasa316]

The only failt thet he is defending is some man-made monstosity. There is not a single Catholic doctrine that is in opposition to the Bible. Now, not everything is explicit in the Bible, which is why we were given the Church. I have said before (though I can’t remeber on which thread): Both Catholics and Protestants rely upon traditions. Catholics actually admit it.

What traditions do Protestants hold outside of God’s Word.

 

[CWBetts]

What traditions do Protestants hold outside of God’s Word.

1. The “rapture”
2. Altar calls
3. Bus ministries
4. Sunday School
5. Music Ministers
6. Order of Service/Liturgy
7. University Education for Ordination (Hey, there are a ton that aren’t Catholic)
8. Grape Juice at Communion
9. Criticism of Gambling (I challenge you to find a verse condemning responsible gambling!)
10. Baptism by immersion only (the Greek word can mean immersion or ritual washing)
11. Weddings and Funerals (Yeah, we do that to, but no mention of them in the Scriptures!)
12. Crosses
13. Tent revivals
14. Independant Bible studies

Do I really need to go on?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For the first part of your question read Mark 7:8,13 regarding tradition.

The verses you recommend do not say sola scriptura, nor do they say that scriptures are the sole authority. Also, if those verses mean ALL traditions, then the verses below appear to be a contradiction.

**1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

2Th 2:15 (2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

2Th 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.**

Christ, Himself, taught people to listen to the authority of the Church/Temple.

Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Then read II Timothy 3:15-17.

**2Ti 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: **

How did all those people know scriptures in those days? Because they heard them read to them at the Temple.

Now, for 3:16, please note it says “profitable”. The Greek word used was ōphelimos.

G5624
ὠφέλιμος
ōphelimos
o-fel’-ee-mos
From a form of G3786; helpful or serviceable, that is, advantageous: - profit (-able).

Please note that helpful, serviceable, useful or profitable is short of being sufficient, or all that is needed.

We both believe scriptures to be the inspired Word of God. Why would God inspire it be written that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures if scriptures are the sole authority?

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Why would God inspire it be written that the manifold wisdom of God made be made known to the principalities and powers through the Church, instead of scriptures?

**Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, **

Why would God inspire it be written that Faith comes by hearing instead of reading scriptures?

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

Point #2 The word rapture in 1 Thess 4:17 comes from the Latin Vulgate, which translates the phrase “caught up” with rapturus, from which we get our English word rapture. Point #3 go to point #1 No where does God say to keep His Word to ourselves but is the basis for the Christian life. Not Tradition because of what some council or priest passes down. Point #4 The Trinity can be found all the way in Genesis 1:26. Hope this helps you to better understand God’s Word.

Just as you get rapture from caught up, does the following not say that Mary would be the Mother of God?

Luk 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
Luk 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

For point #3, as you reference it above, do I need to repeat the inspired Word of God telling us to keep the traditions, whether by word or epistle?

We believe in the Trinity as well, it was an example to show you that just because the specific words Mother of God is not in scriptures, the reference is definitely there in Luke 1:31 - 33. Or, do you doubt the deity of Jesus?

As you say, I hope this helps you understand God’s Word better.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What traditions do Protestants hold outside of God’s Word.

Sola scriptura is a man made tradition. Private interpretation of scriptures is a man made tradition.

There was an authority in the Old Testament required to make the people understand the scriptures.

Nehemiah 8

**1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**

It’s just like the Ethiopian enuch in Acts 8. He read scriptures but could not understand them until Philip preached Jesus to him.

Also, let’s not forget what Peter told us about private interpretation.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Louie1983]

:clapping:

Nice work prodigalson, this is the crux of the problem between catholics and protestants. The understaning (or misunderstanding here) of the fact that there needs to be an authority outside the bible to explain to us the true meanings of the scriptures.

 

[Walden]

:clapping:

Nice work prodigalson, this is the crux of the problem between catholics and protestants. The understaning (or misunderstanding here) of the fact that there needs to be an authority outside the bible to explain to us the true meanings of the scriptures.

Exactly! Every side issue in this whole thread, whether it be Mary, Communion of Saints, kneeling (in general but apparently in front of things specifically), or whatever else boils down to authority. In my opinion, that has to be the starting place. That’s how it was with my journey home.

 

[SyCarl]

Christ, Himself, taught people to listen to the authority of the Church/Temple.

Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

However Jesus also said this:

*Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’” (Matthew 15:1-9 NASB)

and:

And Jesus said to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “He said that because we did not bring any bread.” But Jesus, aware of this, said, "You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread? "Do you not yet understand or remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets full you picked up? "Or the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many large baskets full you picked up? “How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” **Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. **
(Matthew 16:6-12 NASB)

So while the scribes and the Pharisees may have had authority it was not to be accepted without question.

And who gave the scribes and Pharisees their authority? They had seated themselves on the seat of Moses. They took the authority to themselves. It was not always theirs. There had been the judges and the prophets before them. If the Pharisees could take authority unto themselves, why couldn’t the Reformers, especially when we see that there were changes of authority in Israel. the equivalent of the Church in the Old Testament.

 

[rinnie]

The verses you recommend do not say sola scriptura, nor do they say that scriptures are the sole authority. Also, if those verses mean ALL traditions, then the verses below appear to be a contradiction.

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.

Christ, Himself, taught people to listen to the authority of the Church/Temple.

Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

**2Ti 3:15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

How did all those people know scriptures in those days? Because they heard them read to them at the Temple.

Now, for 3:16, please note it says “profitable”. The Greek word used was ōphelimos.

G5624
ὠφέλιμος
ōphelimos
o-fel’-ee-mos
From a form of G3786; helpful or serviceable, that is, advantageous: - profit (-able).**

Please note that helpful, serviceable, useful or profitable is short of being sufficient, or all that is needed.

We both believe scriptures to be the inspired Word of God. Why would God inspire it be written that the Church was the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures if scriptures are the sole authority?

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Why would God inspire it be written that the manifold wisdom of God made be made known to the principalities and powers through the Church, instead of scriptures?

**Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, **

Why would God inspire it be written that Faith comes by hearing instead of reading scriptures?

Rom 10:17 Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.

Luk 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
Luk 1:33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

For point #3, as you reference it above, do I need to repeat the inspired Word of God telling us to keep the traditions, whether by word or epistle?

We believe in the Trinity as well, it was an example to show you that just because the specific words Mother of God is not in scriptures, the reference is definitely there in Luke 1:31 - 33. Or, do you doubt the deity of Jesus?

As you say, I hope this helps you understand God’s Word better.

Isn’t if funny how they can say that Mary isn’t the Mother of God, Would that mean that if someone gives birth to a son, they are not their Mother. Wonder what I am to my son then if not his Mother? Then Elizabeth Mother says Mother of my lord, I guess Our Lord isn’t God either. Don’t understand, Even when there is WRITTEN SCRIPTURE it is doubted. No wonder Tradition is so hard.

Also if they will not believe our Teachers on Tradition why believe the bible at all, I mean it all came from the same place, same time, same teachers,

Then this is my favorite 1 Tim 12-17 It tells you point blank that we should be thankfull for Christian Apostleship, How Paul himself was a great persecutor of the Church until his conversion by intervention of divine mercy through the appearance of Jesus,

At the risk of derailing the thread for a moment I asked myself this all weekend. What would be the difference between Paul persecuting the CHurch back when, and persecuting the Church of Today? To say the the Pope, Bishops, do not have the authority to teach, what would be the difference between again today and yesterday?

Because to say that the Pope, etc teachers of our faith have no authority today, then how could they have had it yesterday then? And to deny the Apostles of yesterday and Pope etc today would that not in turn deny Jesus Christ himself authority AGAIN?

Like they did back then, Let me explain. Jesus said I am sending the advocate the Holy Spirit upon you. Okay now Jesus raised his hands and said ALL my Father has given me, I now give to you and the gates of Hades will not prevail. Now hades means death. So that means the death of the Apostles will not end the power that has been given to pass on. Jesus said so.

Now proof we need proof, certain teachers, where does the bible say that. Only certain People can teach. Easy again 1Tim 1-12 1-4 It tells you instruct certain people. Thats apostolic succession. As plain and clear as you can get.

Paul goes on to say that he was considered trustworthy Now in 1 Tim 2:8-15 tells the whole truth, It say tht the Prayer of the Community should be unmarred by internal dissension. Okay now why is it, The Catholic Church is the only Church on this earth that agree totally with the same interpretation and teachings. I can take you to any RCC in this world and the teachings are the same.

Now I can not take you to one protestant Church and then One other protestant church and the teachings are agreed exactly the same. Now why is that. Now does the RCC or does it not do EXACTLY as the bible states. Something to think about. But yet we are mocked by this!

 

[elvisman]

I never said they actually filled in the gaps, I only asked if it was a possibility. Actually, the traditional belief in her immediate ascension into heaven without death is not entirely true. Many early Christians attest to her natural death. Some say she was buried in Jerusalem such as Epiphanius of Salamis, Gregory of Tours, Isidore of Seville, Saint Modest, Sophronius of Jerusalem, German of Constantinople, Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus. Others such as 3rd century Book of John about the Dormition of Mary and 4th century Treatise about the passing of the Blessed Virgin Mary claim her tomb was in Gethsemane, just outside of Jerusalem with a church built by Patriarch Juvenal. Others state it was in Ephesus. Case point: she died a natural death.

If she truly ascended in Heaven without death as Catholics believe, then why did she have a tomb?

The only reason why they believed she was resurrected was because her tomb was supposedly empty on the third day just like Christ. Of course, everything is exactly like Christ. In fact, they even have a widely celebrated feast called the Dormition of Mary celebrated by Eastern Christians to this day stating that she died first and then resurrected.

*** St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus* formulates*** the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

*St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles **concluded ***that the body was taken up to heaven.

*** Catholic Encycolopedia

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that
"Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."

Like I mentioned earlier, there were no eyewitnesses of her assumption and it was based on speculation and not direct observation.
In other cases, both Jesus and Elijah who were taken into heaven certainly had numerous eyewitnesses.
With that in mind, how does one know all the details that upon Mary’s ascension she was glorious crowned and all the angels were rejoicing? Also, please site any official Catholic documents stating that her ascension (without death) was apostolic tradition. I would love to know your (name removed by moderator)ut with sources.

Ummm . . . this would be fascinating except for one thing:
The Church doesn’t teach that Mary didn’t die.

The Church teaches that she was assumed into heaven - not on her own power but by God’s. In other words - she didn’t ascend on her own like Jesus.
As usual, Herc - you didn’t finish your homework.

There ends the lesson.

 

[elvisman]

However Jesus also said this:

and:

So while the scribes and the Pharisees may have had authority it was not to be accepted without question.

And who gave the scribes and Pharisees their authority? They had seated themselves on the seat of Moses. They took the authority to themselves. It was not always theirs. There had been the judges and the prophets before them. If the Pharisees could take authority unto themselves, why couldn’t the Reformers, especially when we see that there were changes of authority in Israel. the equivalent of the Church in the Old Testament.

One thing you missed Carl -
The “Seat of Moses” itself is an otral tradition that is not written anywhere until Jesus used those words in Matt. 23:2.
Jesus wasn’t speaking against tradition. He was speaking against the traditions of man that the Pharisees placed above the Word of God. The Church doesn’t do this.

 

[elvisman]

What traditions do Protestants hold outside of God’s Word.

Sola fide is a man made tradition.

Nowhere in ALL of Scripture is this prased even used - EXCEPT where James speaks against it:
James 2:24
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

However Jesus also said this:

and:

So while the scribes and the Pharisees may have had authority it was not to be accepted without question.

And who gave the scribes and Pharisees their authority? They had seated themselves on the seat of Moses. They took the authority to themselves. It was not always theirs. There had been the judges and the prophets before them. If the Pharisees could take authority unto themselves, why couldn’t the Reformers, especially when we see that there were changes of authority in Israel. the equivalent of the Church in the Old Testament.

The problem is, a lot of people read scriptures as if they are speaking directly to them. There are stories in the Bible where Christ was specifically speaking to the Apostles. Below is an example of when He spoke to the Apostles and not a multitude.

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Christ chose them and appointed them. I’ve checked two KJVs and see the word “ordained” instead of appointed. Reformers appointed themselves, to improve or protect His Church because they felt as if, much less than the gates of hell, men had prevailed against His Church. Christ told the Apostles, His Church, He would be with them until the consummation of the world.

Now, let’s look at the passage you’ve provided.

Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’” (Matthew 15:1-9 NASB)

You seem to be overlooking, with your emphasis, that Christ was reprimanding them for not honoring their mothers and fathers. Note in verse 5 He states that they say, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God.” As opposed to honoring their mothers and fathers, they used the excuse that they had given what would have assisted them to God, yet we know that in honoring their mothers and fathers, they honored God. This tradition was calculated by the Pharisees to enrich themselves, by exempting children from giving assistance to their parents.

Now, your last emphasis was noted and appears to be unfounded. The traditions of the Catholic Church were 1500 years old when the reformers decided to leave the Church. Here in the present day, some Protestants will speak about the traditions of men within the Catholic Church. The traditions of the Catholic Church come from scriptures and oral tradition. This is unlike the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. It wasn’t from oral tradition or scriptures. It was calculated to justify the actions of the reformers.

Where in scriptures does Christ tell anyone that if they don’t agree with His Church, they should leave the Church to “reform” it?

Please understand, I can agree with Martin Luther that a reform was needed, but you cannot reform what you leave. There were others within the Church that agreed with Martin Luther, but they chose to stay within the Church and work for changes. What Martin Luther did, was throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[rinnie]

The problem is, a lot of people read scriptures as if they are speaking directly to them. There are stories in the Bible where Christ was specifically speaking to the Apostles. Below is an example of when He spoke to the Apostles and not a multitude.

Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Christ chose them and appointed them. I’ve checked two KJVs and see the word “ordained” instead of appointed. Reformers appointed themselves, to improve or protect His Church because they felt as if, much less than the gates of hell, men had prevailed against His Church. Christ told the Apostles, His Church, He would be with them until the consummation of the world.

Now, let’s look at the passage you’ve provided.

You seem to be overlooking, with your emphasis, that Christ was reprimanding them for not honoring their mothers and fathers. Note in verse 5 He states that they say, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God.” As opposed to honoring their mothers and fathers, they used the excuse that they had given what would have assisted them to God, yet we know that in honoring their mothers and fathers, they honored God. This tradition was calculated by the Pharisees to enrich themselves, by exempting children from giving assistance to their parents.

Now, your last emphasis was noted and appears to be unfounded. The traditions of the Catholic Church were 1500 years old when the reformers decided to leave the Church. Here in the present day, some Protestants will speak about the traditions of men within the Catholic Church. The traditions of the Catholic Church come from scriptures and oral tradition. This is unlike the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. It wasn’t from oral tradition or scriptures. It was calculated to justify the actions of the reformers.

Where in scriptures does Christ tell anyone that if they don’t agree with His Church, they should leave the Church to “reform” it?

Please understand, I can agree with Martin Luther that a reform was needed, but you cannot reform what you leave. There were others within the Church that agreed with Martin Luther, but they chose to stay within the Church and work for changes. What Martin Luther did, was throw the baby out with the bathwater.

On the subject of Luther I think it went way beyond him trying to reform the Church, Personally I think the devil got to him. Think about it how he was hearing all of the voices etc. I think that he was either possesed in the end or had a breakdown of some sort. I saw a movie on him once, and it seems that he was thrown into the Church instead of really going on his own. I think alot of him even going there was because of his home life, and having no where to go. It is a shame because he was very smart, but I still think that he had a breakdown of some sort. He seemed to find alot of fault in the Church, which while I agree mistakes have been made. Humans do that you know. But the teaching of the Church could not have been a mistake. Jesus promised us that. But look at the life Luther lived. He sure was not a good example for his faith either. I think there were alot of misunderstanding’s on the way church’s were run, and I am not saying they were perfect. But you just don’t go off and try to make your own Church and start your own teaching’s which is what Luther did. The bible says we should not be separated and Luther did just that. The Catholic church promises that the teachings are perfect not the people. Just because the Popes and Bishops have the Power of the Holy Spirit when it comes to the word of God, does not mean they are not human like us, and can sin. But people think that if they make a mistake on a human level speaking their opinion that it means they can make a mistake on the teaching’s of Christ. That is not possible. Again Jesus promised us that when he told his Apostles I will give you the words. But Luther did not just go against the Church on the human level, he tried to change the teachings to fit his plan for salvation. Then it just grew from that. Then once he did it, many people did it. They figured if Luther could have his opinion why cant we. And thats what happened. I could start a Church today on what I think. But it would not be what God says. It would be his words and my ideas on how to live by them. And again the bible says NO. Thats distorting the truth.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

1. The “rapture”
2. Altar calls
3. Bus ministries
4. Sunday School
5. Music Ministers
6. Order of Service/Liturgy
7. University Education for Ordination (Hey, there are a ton that aren’t Catholic)
8. Grape Juice at Communion
9. Criticism of Gambling (I challenge you to find a verse condemning responsible gambling!)
10. Baptism by immersion only (the Greek word can mean immersion or ritual washing)
11. Weddings and Funerals (Yeah, we do that to, but no mention of them in the Scriptures!)
12. Crosses
13. Tent revivals
14. Independant Bible studies

Do I really need to go on?

Maybe you’ll surprise me with documentation from some fever-swamp revivalist, but I haven’t heard any Protestant church teach that belief in altar calls, music ministers, study groups, etc., etc., were essential to salvation or a binding practice/devotion on their flocks. If they did, Protestants everywhere would consider them marginally Christian, if Christian at all. You do understand that distinction, then, between these popular practices and certain historically Catholic local practices?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Maybe you’ll surprise me with documentation from some fever-swamp revivalist, but I haven’t heard any Protestant church teach that belief in altar calls, music ministers, study groups, etc., etc., were essential to salvation or a binding practice/devotion on their flocks. If they did, Protestants everywhere would consider them marginally Christian, if Christian at all. You do understand that distinction, then, between these popular practices and certain historically Catholic local practices?

I believe CWBetts was listing traditions of the Protestant Churches.

I frequent a Pentecostal Protestant forum and have witnessed them argue over the Trinity, the inerrancy of scriptures, and salvation without the initial evidence (tongues), which appears to me to be differences in “essentials”. That is one denomination that argues among themselves. They even go so far as to call each other heretics. Now let’s throw that into a mix of thousands of denominations and there will certainly be chaos.

Christ started ONE Church and He did not tell us anywhere in scriptures that if someone didn’t agree with His Church, they should go and start another Church to improve what He built.

Please take the time to provide scriptures that tell us that doctrinal differences do not matter according to essentials and non-essentials?

 

[CWBetts]

Maybe you’ll surprise me with documentation from some fever-swamp revivalist, but I haven’t heard any Protestant church teach that belief in altar calls, music ministers, study groups, etc., etc., were essential to salvation or a binding practice/devotion on their flocks. If they did, Protestants everywhere would consider them marginally Christian, if Christian at all. You do understand that distinction, then, between these popular practices and certain historically Catholic local practices?

These are practices not found in the Bible practiced by Protestants, the are traditions. And the simple fact is there is no Tradition in the Catholic Church that runs counter to the Bible.

 

[ppasa316]

The only failt thet he is defending is some man-made monstosity. There is not a single Catholic doctrine that is in opposition to the Bible. Now, not everything is explicit in the Bible, which is why we were given the Church. I have said before (though I can’t remeber on which thread): Both Catholics and Protestants rely upon traditions. Catholics actually admit it.

What traditions do protestants have. So you are telling me that purgatory is in the Bible. If so where is it. Please back up what you are saying with scripture. God’s Word is the only thing that we need to live the Christian life.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I believe CWBetts was listing traditions of the Protestant Churches.

I frequent a Pentecostal Protestant forum and have witnessed them argue over the Trinity, the inerrancy of scriptures, and salvation without the initial evidence (tongues), which appears to me to be differences in “essentials”. That is one denomination that argues among themselves. They even go so far as to call each other heretics. Now let’s throw that into a mix of thousands of denominations and there will certainly be chaos.

Fair enough, on the “tradition” front. Still, a tradition that’s taken to distinguish Christians from non-Christians seems to me ontologically different from one that isn’t. In the former case, you’re trifling with the Faith, and I grant you, some of these Pentecostals might just be doing so. (Still, would it be an improvement if they developed an ecclesiology and assumed the power to declare "tongues=salvation’ a binding dogma upon the faithful?)

Christ started ONE Church and He did not tell us anywhere in scriptures that if someone didn’t agree with His Church, they should go and start another Church to improve what He built.

Please take the time to provide scriptures that tell us that doctrinal differences do not matter according to essentials and non-essentials?

Well, the precise nature of the one Church Christ founded, and the senses in which the RCC is its legitimate, uninterrupted, unchallengeable descendant, have been mauled over by better polemicists than I. Still, simply the formulation of the early Christian creeds suggests that some scriptural ideas and doctrines are more central to the faith than others–whether Mary was a virgin and whether a man ought to wear his hair long are controversies of a different order, surely?