Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[passer_by]

No, but I’ve been raised Southern Baptist, and my family have not been attending church for over a year, but we’ve been thinking about trying out a non-denomination church near us, where we know a family we used to go to church with at my old church. I don’t consider myself in any denomination, because I haven’t looked at the different denominations I’m interested in individually & truly studied them. I have Protestant ideals, and I haven’t joined a certain Protestant Church. Just last week I decided that once I get older (I’m a teen) that I was going to attend a Catholic Church & hopefully eventually join it, because I started to believe the ideas of the Church, but I began researching more, and became to disagree with the teachings of the Church. Yes, I am confused on what denomination I am & agree with, and yes, I’m struggling with deciding on what to believe, because I don’t know what is actually true and what’s not. That’s why I want to just go to a CHRISTIAN church, so there is no label, and just to focus on the Lord, not to worry about the unimportant things. I just want peace with the Father.

If I may say my friend, I think you might be approaching the matter the wrong way.

If I may take a guess, you have so far followed the following pattern

1. Come to realize that God exists, Christ is real
2. Want to find the true church
3. Start analyzing teachings of each of the churches

Am I correct?

If that is the case, the (3) above is problematic. Because the question you should be asking as a Christian is that if Jesus were Real and he did rose from the dead, who do I listen to?

Now if you were alive during the time of Christ, is it not natural that you would listen to the Apostles to learn what Christ taught? For guidance on matters of faith and morals? So it is not a book that you follow but the Apostles. You follow the book that is the Bible for the very reason that it was the Apostles that put it together and taught that it is divinely inspired and contains divine revelation.

These Apostles also had apostolic succession. Which means that today, in the Catholic Church, all the Bishops are successors of these Apostles. So today, you should be listening to them.

So you should not be Catholic because Catholic doctrine sounds about right. Or you should not be Catholic because Catholics doctrine seems to make the most sense according to what you already know. You should be Catholic because after realizing that Christ is real, to listen to his Apostles is the most intuitive and logical thing to do.

If you refuse to listen to the Apostles, like the Protestants do, then you have nothing to believe in. This is why I challenged earlier that Protestants have no foundation for belief in the Bible, the Solas or any other Confessions they have.

 

[David]

More proof that the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.

If each individual Christian is supposed to go by the Bible alone, how could he or she even have a chance, until the 1500’s when the printing press was invented. Bibles were rare and way too expensive.

Many Christians were illiterate, so even after the printing press was invented they could not implement sola Scriptura.

Are we to believe God has imposed a doctrine on mankind that would prohibit most from any chance at heaven?

So it makes more sense that God would establish an infallible Church, that would be able to teach the complete Gospel, to the blind, illiterate and all people, till the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Peace
David
More here

 

[CopticChristian]

No, but I’ve been raised Southern Baptist, and my family have not been attending church for over a year, but we’ve been thinking about trying out a non-denomination church near us, where we know a family we used to go to church with at my old church. I don’t consider myself in any denomination, because I haven’t looked at the different denominations I’m interested in individually & truly studied them. I have Protestant ideals, and I haven’t joined a certain Protestant Church. Just last week I decided that once I get older (I’m a teen) that I was going to attend a Catholic Church & hopefully eventually join it, because I started to believe the ideas of the Church, but I began researching more, and became to disagree with the teachings of the Church. Yes, I am confused on what denomination I am & agree with, and yes, I’m struggling with deciding on what to believe, because I don’t know what is actually true and what’s not. That’s why I want to just go to a CHRISTIAN church, so there is no label, and just to focus on the Lord, not to worry about the unimportant things. I just want peace with the Father.

First,

I see that you believe that God calls you to Himself through the Church and that is what Paul says in the letter to the Romans. God is faithful.

You were raised Southern Baptist, want to attend a non-denominational church and have Protestant ideals. Lets just leave the Catholic thing alone.

These are facts. The Baptists sprang from the Anglican Church via a fellow named John Smythe. He is an English separatist. The Baptists are varied and many and you should be aware of all the Baptist types…found here…

thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_baptist.asp

there are many Baptist types and what you should take away from this is that they keep spltting and dividing…ask yourself over what and why?

Next look at the notion of non-denominational. This is a Protestant denomination. All Protestant thought flows from Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist or Baptist. There are Anabaptists, that became the Amish and Menonites. In my experience the Anabaptists did not spring forth any other thought types. The Anglicans begat the Methodists, the Methodists begat the Holiness movement that begat the Pentacostals that begat the AOG…and many more. I recently discovered that Lutherans begat the Evangelical Free Church and this is a dispensational eschatologic body.

Getting back to non-denominational. Look at their statement of Faith. It will look like most of the denominational statements of Faith however usually brief. The non-denominational groups are denominations of Protestant thought intent on attracting those that like you are just looking and want to be “just chrisitian”…

I do not know what you mean by Protestant Ideals. What is that?

Last look at where Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Menonites, Amish came from. Who founded these Protestant bodies and why can they not agree.

I hope this helps your calling.

 

[tqualey]

Hoooooooooold on there a minute, Safia …

Are you telling us that Luther did not have the right to cherry-pick everything that lined up with his view, and just cast aside those items that did not match up? I mean, just think about it, if you were going to lead a revolt - would you say anything nice about the guys you were revolting from? Much less, would you say anything nice about the Early Church Fathers who agreed with the Church you were revolting from? There is precious little consistency in doctrine as it is - but, surely there can be consistency on who we agree with!

What I have always found amazing is that Christ proved He was God by preforming miracles, making statements that He was God and founding His Church on Peter so that the Holy Spirit would be working through humanity in a Sacramental manner throughout time. None of those leading the Revolt and none of those revolting from them claimed to have had a vision from Christ advising them that He had revoked the Promise that had been made to Peter. So, suddenly we find those in revolt creating new doctrine, removing books from the Bible and claiming that all those who believed what the Catholic Church taught for the previous 1500 years were wrong. In my opinion, these guys were not listening to the Spirit of God.

Yes, I think you have raised several valid criticism… and items that really seem to orbit around the area of SS - so that everyone can be their own ‘pope’.

God bless

Also, again, I ask:

(1) Why does Luther have the right to choose what early teachings to follow? He thinks Lutheranism is the “ancient church” of the apostles and fathers yet notes that the Fathers were often wrong (even en masse, not just in isolated cases) in their theology:

(2) Can you identify for me the very moment, under which influence, the sweeping corruption of the Catholic Church took place that detracts from your ability to be a part of it?

Here’s how I see it: “The mythical “case against Catholicism” weakens and starts to collapse in direct proportion to how specific it is, and with attempted content and substance. Lutheranism is the ancient Church, but at the same time it isn’t, because all those fathers were mere men and erred constantly, and we must follow Christ alone and the Bible, etc., etc. ad nauseum. This is the self-contradiction running through the whole Lutheran claim regarding its ancient pedigree. It is only “ancient” when it agrees with Catholic teachings. When it does not, it isn’t ancient; it is a novelty and corruption. It’s really as simple as that. (source)”

To be cont…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Safia,

You have really done some great work in these posts!

God bless

Again in 1538 Luther writes:

Luther’s self-contradictory thought can be seen in the remarks in the same context that were passed over by the ellipses above:

So the Catholic Church is or was the true Church but it wasn’t and isn’t (and/but it is, nonetheless, despite almost universal apostasy, else Lutheranism couldn’t have received all the truly Christian endowments from it). If Luther wasn’t given to such extreme rhetoric back and forth, perhaps his message could at least be self-consistent. But he can’t sit there in the face of massive contrary historical facts, and say that Lutheranism hasn’t changed anything that was orthodox and true and good from the previous 1500 years."

(4) How do you account for this:

I myself have documented that Luther took different views in no less than 50 areas, just in the three treatises of 1520 alone:

1. Separation of justification from sanctification.
2. Extrinsic, forensic, imputed notion of justification.
3. Fiduciary faith.
4. Private judgment over against ecclesial infallibility.
5. Tossing out seven books of the Bible.
6. Denial of venial sin.
7. Denial of merit.
8. The damned should be happy that they are damned and accept God’s will.
9. Jesus offered Himself for damnation and possible hellfire.
10. No good work can be done except by a justified man.
11. All baptized men are priests (denial of the sacrament of ordination).
12. All baptized men can give absolution.
13. Bishops do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
14. Popes do not truly hold that office; God has not instituted it.
15. Priests have no special, indelible character.
16. Temporal authorities have power over the Church; even bishops and popes; to assert the contrary was a mere presumptuous invention.
17. Vows of celibacy are wrong and should be abolished.
18. Denial of papal infallibility.
19. Belief that unrighteous priests or popes lose their authority (contrary to Augustine’s rationale against the Donatists).
20. The keys of the kingdom were not just given to Peter.
21. Private judgment of every individual to determine matters of faith.
22. Denial that the pope has the right to call or confirm a council.
23. Denial that the Church has the right to demand celibacy of certain callings.
24. There is no such vocation as a monk; God has not instituted it.
25. Feast days should be abolished, and all church celebrations confined to Sundays.
26. Fasts should be strictly optional.
27. Canonization of saints is thoroughly corrupt and should stop.
28. Confirmation is not a sacrament.
29. Indulgences should be abolished.
30. Dispensations should be abolished.
31. Philosophy (Aristotle as prime example) is an unsavory, detrimental influence on Christianity.
32. Transubstantiation is “a monstrous idea.”
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.
34. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a good work.
35. Denial of the “wicked” belief that the mass is a true sacrifice.
36. Denial of the sacramental notion of ex opere operato.
37. Denial that penance is a sacrament.
38. Assertion that the Catholic Church had “completely abolished” even the practice of penance.
39. Claim that the Church had abolished faith as an aspect of penance.
40. Denial of apostolic succession.
41. Any layman who can should call a general council.
42. Penitential works are worthless.
43. None of what Catholics believe to be the seven sacraments have any biblical proof.
44. Marriage is not a sacrament.
45. Annulments are a senseless concept and the Church has no right to determine or grant annulments.
46. Whether divorce is allowable is an open question.
47. Divorced persons should be allowed to remarry.
48. Jesus allowed divorce when one partner committed adultery.
49. The priest’s daily office is “vain repetition.”
50. Extreme unction is not a sacrament (there are only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist).

Now, would anyone in their right mind suggest that these 50 things changed nothing that was present in the “ancient Church”? Obviously, they can easily be traced back, with plenty of documentation. I’ve done much of this myself. I just showed in a paper, for example, that St. Augustine believed in all seven Catholic sacraments. But Luther retained only two (see above: #11, 12, 15, 28, 33, 37, 42, 43, 44, 50). So for 1500 years according to Luther, five of the sacraments were an aspect of the “church of Satan” and no part of Christian truth. That would come as strange news indeed to the Church fathers.

To be cont…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Telestia,

I do not think Safia’s 50 points were intended that way … only to show the multiple inconsistencies in Luther’s argument. That is the issue. Feel free to stay with whichever religion you think was founded by Christ, protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit and will remain the Faithful Bride of Christ.

Does St. Augustine have a fan club? If so, I really was unaware of it. But, as one of the Early Church Fathers he had a number of insights into the Catholic Faith and following Christ faithfully. And, none of this makes any of his writings infallible! The Catholic Church had to go over all of Augustine’s works to make sure there was no error - and, this would be error in a theological sense. And, none of this makes any of his actions or behaviors beyond reproach … abandoning his mistress and not paying child support were apparent problem areas.

And, you know, Jerome was not infallible, either! This is something to consider… at least the inconsistency part. There seems to be a denial of Peter’s infallibility when Christ gave him the Power to bind and lose and the Keys as a symbol of this unique Authority - yet, non-successors of Peter (in this case Augustine and Jerome seem to have some compelling reason to be believed like they had infallibility!

And, finally, how do you account for - and then dismiss - John 6 where Christ tells us in 8 separate areas that we are to eat His Flesh if we are to live? And, if you claim this was all just one big metaphor - please give an example where people just walked out on Christ for any of His other metaphors (vine/branches, Sheepgate/sheep, Good Shepherd/sheep, Bridegroom/foolish virgins, Bridegroom/man without wedding garment, etc.)

God bless

Safia, your 50 points give many reasons for me not to want to be Catholic.

I am no fan of Augustine, he proved that it was impossible for people to live on the opposite side of the earth, because they would fall down. He abandoned his wife and 17 year old son to become an abstinence servant of God. On sex, I believe it was a poor choice to have him make policy on sexual norms, as he swung from one extreme to the other extreme, and his disallowing priest to Marry along with Jerome I consider to be a grave mistake. The Council of Nicea voted that Priest may marry, and so did the Apostle Paul. Paul warned against those who would ban marriage.

Jerome BTW had serious doubts about the Apocrypha as being included in the Bible. And Augustine was not an early Church Father. The Church was already 400 years old when when he made his contribution to Catholic Theology, and was somewhat influenced by Platonic and Manichean ideas. The early Church would be the first 100 years from when Jesus was crucified. And Leo in the 5th Century was a big influence on founding the Papal succession by declaring that the papal succession consist of all Bishops of Rome were Popes, and he himself was a Bishop of Rome and he became Pope.

And based on the scriptures, I am convinced that salvation does not come from sacraments, but to all who accept the blood covering of Jesus blood shed on the cross will be saved, and that we are transformed to do the good God created us to do by the indwelling Holy Spirit whom dwells in all Christians.

So what say you?

Sincerely,

Telestia

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Komeeks18,

I think it would be a good idea to answer CopticChristian’s questions contained in Post #79. And, when you finish with that … here is one for me.

If the Holy Bible is the sole authority, as you claim to believe, who makes the interpretation for what is being said? And, I am quite serious about this - no on argues that there is a Bible - but there are 30,000+ groups that are all claiming to have the ‘truth’ and none of them can agree on anything (except that the Catholic Church is wrong).

So, I am guessing that this Sunday (Feast of the Epiphany in the Catholic Church when we celebrate the three Magi honoring the Christ Child) you went to a service and listened to someone speak about some aspect of Scripture. What would happen if you disagreed with his interpretation of the scripture verse. Just for discussion purposes look at John 6:22-71 and you actually were to take Christ at His Word - you must eat the His Flesh and Drink His Blood to have life in you.

Virtually all of 30,000+ groups claim this is a metaphor or simply a remembrance service or anything OTHER than what Scripture says it is. My guess is that you have not heard anyone say that Christ Words were to be believed! What would happen if you were to say, “We should take these words literally, too!” What do you think would happen? While I do not know the answer to that, I do have a hunch.

What are your thoughts on this with Scripture being the sole authority?

God bless

I believe the Holy Bible is the sole authority. Why would the Lord not include everything in the Bible? The Bible says his Word is to be written down. If the Catholic Church was there before the Bible was put together, and the Catholics assembled the Bible, why wouldn’t their beliefs be in the Bible, if the Catholic Church was really Christ’s Church? I’m not attacking, but it doesn’t make logical sense to me. And these verses tell me why Sola Scriptura is true:
Mark 7:8: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
1 Corinthians 4:6: “Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.”

 

[David]

No, but I’ve been raised Southern Baptist, and my family have not been attending church for over a year, but we’ve been thinking about trying out a non-denomination church near us, where we know a family we used to go to church with at my old church. I don’t consider myself in any denomination, because I haven’t looked at the different denominations I’m interested in individually & truly studied them. I have Protestant ideals, and I haven’t joined a certain Protestant Church. Just last week I decided that once I get older (I’m a teen) that I was going to attend a Catholic Church & hopefully eventually join it, because I started to believe the ideas of the Church, but I began researching more, and became to disagree with the teachings of the Church. Yes, I am confused on what denomination I am & agree with, and yes, I’m struggling with deciding on what to believe, because I don’t know what is actually true and what’s not. That’s why I want to just go to a CHRISTIAN church, so there is no label, and just to focus on the Lord, not to worry about the unimportant things. I just want peace with the Father.

Thank you Komeeks,
This seems to the common Protestant perspective.

Find a church that agrees with me.

The doctrines that Protestants disagree about, are non essential.

My challenge to you would be, where does the Bible list essential vs non essentials. And how does that belief relate to, 1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Peace
David

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CopticChristian,

That was a very interesting link you provided - thanks!

God bless

First,

I see that you believe that God calls you to Himself through the Church and that is what Paul says in the letter to the Romans. God is faithful.

You were raised Southern Baptist, want to attend a non-denominational church and have Protestant ideals. Lets just leave the Catholic thing alone.

These are facts. The Baptists sprang from the Anglican Church via a fellow named John Smythe. He is an English separatist. The Baptists are varied and many and you should be aware of all the Baptist types…found here…

thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_baptist.asp

there are many Baptist types and what you should take away from this is that they keep spltting and dividing…ask yourself over what and why?

Next look at the notion of non-denominational. This is a Protestant denomination. All Protestant thought flows from Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist or Baptist. There are Anabaptists, that became the Amish and Menonites. In my experience the Anabaptists did not spring forth any other thought types. The Anglicans begat the Methodists, the Methodists begat the Holiness movement that begat the Pentacostals that begat the AOG…and many more. I recently discovered that Lutherans begat the Evangelical Free Church and this is a dispensational eschatologic body.

Getting back to non-denominational. Look at their statement of Faith. It will look like most of the denominational statements of Faith however usually brief. The non-denominational groups are denominations of Protestant thought intent on attracting those that like you are just looking and want to be “just chrisitian”…

I do not know what you mean by Protestant Ideals. What is that?

Last look at where Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Menonites, Amish came from. Who founded these Protestant bodies and why can they not agree.

I hope this helps your calling.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, David,

I am not sure about this: “The doctrines that Protestants disagree about, are non essential”

My understanding is that if it is a doctrine - they start disagreeing amongst themselves and then other groups. For example:

Baptism - some say it is necessary, some an option, some it is required - and most dispute that infants should be baptized but Calvin defended infant baptism (much to the horror of today Calvinists!)

Holy Eucharist - some say it was a metaphor and nothing more, some have it as a remembrance, some use grape juice.

Faith Alone - most claim this is their believe … but, some come up with saving acts (never ‘WORKS!’)

Once Saved Always Saved - many think this is the way to go - to have this assurance of Salvation by making an Altar Call, while others are not sure about this. I think the only one Calvin thought was saved was himself - everyone else… well… they may have ‘reprobate’ all along.

To get to 30,000+ one must have a lot of disagreements. You are right, there is no list of major and minor items - it is just as soon as someone disagrees, they splinter off and found their own church. Maybe this is just the legacy of Protestantism - when in doubt, split.

God bless

Thank you Komeeks,
This seems to the common Protestant perspective.

Find a church that agrees with me.

The doctrines that Protestants disagree about, are non essential.

My challenge to you would be, where does the Bible list essential vs non essentials. And how does that belief relate to, 1 Cor 1:10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

Peace
David

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PasserBy,

This was a excellent presentation!

I had never heard this information put quite like this - and really, I plan to adopt this (OK… I’m ‘stealing’ the whole thing! ) for my ministry!

God bless

If I may say my friend, I think you might be approaching the matter the wrong way.

If I may take a guess, you have so far followed the following pattern

1. Come to realize that God exists, Christ is real
2. Want to find the true church
3. Start analyzing teachings of each of the churches

Am I correct?

If that is the case, the (3) above is problematic. Because the question you should be asking as a Christian is that if Jesus were Real and he did rose from the dead, who do I listen to?

Now if you were alive during the time of Christ, is it not natural that you would listen to the Apostles to learn what Christ taught? For guidance on matters of faith and morals? So it is not a book that you follow but the Apostles. You follow the book that is the Bible for the very reason that it was the Apostles that put it together and taught that it is divinely inspired and contains divine revelation.

These Apostles also had apostolic succession. Which means that today, in the Catholic Church, all the Bishops are successors of these Apostles. So today, you should be listening to them.

So you should not be Catholic because Catholic doctrine sounds about right. Or you should not be Catholic because Catholics doctrine seems to make the most sense according to what you already know. You should be Catholic because after realizing that Christ is real, to listen to his Apostles is the most intuitive and logical thing to do.

If you refuse to listen to the Apostles, like the Protestants do, then you have nothing to believe in. This is why I challenged earlier that Protestants have no foundation for belief in the Bible, the Solas or any other Confessions they have.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Every time I hear someone say:

“We have the apostolic succession and because of that we are right”…

All I am really hearing is:

[bibledrb]Matthew 3:7-10[/bibledrb]

The biggest misconception of most Protestants is that ALL Catholics are Roman. When in fact they are not.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Protestantism was born out of the Great Schism. The East and the West already divided and the East (Rome) continued on its division.

In its origin, most Protestants were in fact Catholics. IMHO, Protestans are the offspring from the East and West divorce. Rebellious offspring from stubborn and unyielding parents.

Let me add that I do not agree with Sola Scriptura. The concept itself cancels itself…

However, I can understand the need at the time to put a fence around what was acceptable outside of Tradition and tradition. Since both are subject to manipulation without the proper knowledge of history.

The irony of all is that by Sola Scriptura and the practically total ignorance of Scripture, things went from bad to worse! At least on first view.

There is nothing that troubles me more than to fight a fellow believer of Christ on doctrinal issues. Like Paul said, be of one mind and one body. But please don’t use Paul’s quote, when the house separated before the children left the house. Those who are free of sin throw the first stone!

I don’t struggle to find a Church that fills my needs alone. I struggle to find the absent True Church and I am positive that our Lord is leading me to a journey. And please don’t assume by my forum “non-denomination” label that I am ignorant of Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition. I’ve spent half my life in the Roman Rite, I seriously doubt that it is the same Church that Peter belonged to. It is the same Office (See) but not the same Church.

Where is the same Church? With Christ of course. Where or who exactly? I don’t know, and it destroys my soul not knowing since I don’t seek personal satisfaction but Christ’s body.

In Him,

Jose

 

[CopticChristian]

Safia, your 50 points give many reasons for me not to want to be Catholic.

I am no fan of Augustine, he proved that it was impossible for people to live on the opposite side of the earth, because they would fall down. He abandoned his wife and 17 year old son to become an abstinence servant of God. On sex, I believe it was a poor choice to have him make policy on sexual norms, as he swung from one extreme to the other extreme, and his disallowing priest to Marry along with Jerome I consider to be a grave mistake. The Council of Nicea voted that Priest may marry, and so did the Apostle Paul. Paul warned against those who would ban marriage.

**Jerome BTW had serious doubts **about the Apocrypha as being included in the Bible. And Augustine was not an early Church Father. The Church was already 400 years old when when he made his contribution to Catholic Theology, and was somewhat influenced by Platonic and Manichean ideas. The early Church would be the first 100 years from when Jesus was crucified. And Leo in the 5th Century was a big influence on founding the Papal succession by declaring that the papal succession consist of all Bishops of Rome were Popes, and he himself was a Bishop of Rome and he became Pope.

And based on the scriptures, I am convinced that salvation does not come from sacraments, but to **all who accept the blood covering of Jesus blood shed on the cross will be saved, and that we are transformed to do the good God created us to do by the indwelling Holy Spirit whom dwells in all Christians.**So what say you?

Sincerely,

Telestia

Wow Telestia,

You have a real problem here. Augustine was a dead beat dad. Now Judge Judy, formerly a family law judge, would have a few words about that. Since you are no fan and you point out why this creates more of a problem. I don’t know if you are aware but the so called Reformers based their theology, yup, Protestant theology is based on the retrospectosopic view of Augustine and that is what produced Protestant thinking that you accept…

So you are in a quandry. You cannot be Catholic because you are no fan of Augustine as you say and yet you know the Protestant paradigm that you are part of is based on Augustine. You just can’t go right or left here. What is a Christian to do? All your Christian theology is either the Catholic Church with Augustine as part of it or Protestant Thought with what is said to be the proper understanding of Agustine that produces the Protestant thought you embrace. Whoa nelly…now what?

Jerome has doubts. Who doesn’t have doubts and concerning his Platonic and Manichean ways that is something.

What you are saying here is that there are just a bunch of sinners here. Have you looked at the Geneology of Jesus…filled with sinners…and then after that if we look at Calvin he was a murderer, Zwingli was an admitted fornicator before leaving the Church and since then we have had Ted Haagard, Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swagart and who knows what else…

What are you to do…you sure got me wondering how one person can solve any of this…

By the way show me how it is you came to understand this blood of Jesus and how one gets in on the action. What do you tell somebody they need to do to be transformed and to get the indwelling…I sure want to know.

Also I don’t know if anyone told you that there are no original Scriptures around and all you have is a translation. How can you be sure that you have a proper translation? How can you be sure that what you read is truly Scripture? Where is the authority as we all know Scripture does not say it is Scripture and after all many of the books have no author. How do you know that what you have is truly the word of God?

 

[CopticChristian]

Every time I hear someone say:

“We have the apostolic succession and because of that we are right”…

All I am really hearing is:

[bibledrb]Matthew 3:7-10[/bibledrb]

The biggest misconception of most Protestants is that ALL Catholics are Roman. When in fact they are not.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Protestantism was born out of the Great Schism. The East and the West already divided and the East (Rome) continued on its division.

In its origin, most Protestants were in fact Catholics. IMHO, Protestans are the offspring from the East and West divorce. Rebellious offspring from stubborn and unyielding parents.

Let me add that I do not agree with Sola Scriptura. The concept itself cancels itself…

However, I can understand the need at the time to put a fence around what was acceptable outside of Tradition and tradition. Since both are subject to manipulation without the proper knowledge of history.

The irony of all is that by Sola Scriptura and the practically total ignorance of Scripture, things went from bad to worse! At least on first view.

There is nothing that troubles me more than to fight a fellow believer of Christ on doctrinal issues. Like Paul said, be of one mind and one body. But please don’t use Paul’s quote, when the house separated before the children left the house. Those who are free of sin throw the first stone!

I don’t struggle to find a Church that fills my needs alone. I struggle to find the absent True Church and I am positive that our Lord is leading me to a journey. And please don’t assume by my forum “non-denomination” label that I am ignorant of Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition. I’ve spent half my life in the Roman Rite, I seriously doubt that it is the same Church that Peter belonged to. It is the same Office (See) but not the same Church.

Where is the same Church? With Christ of course. Where or who exactly? I don’t know, and it destroys my soul not knowing since I don’t seek personal satisfaction but Christ’s body.

In Him,

Jose

Explain for me your understanding of the Pharisees and Saducees as it concerns Abraham. Then explain how you see this as relevant to Apostolic Tradition. I cannot see the parallel. Explain this to me in simple terms.

 

[passer_by]

Hi, PasserBy,

This was a excellent presentation!

I had never heard this information put quite like this - and really, I plan to adopt this (OK… I’m ‘stealing’ the whole thing! ) for my ministry!

God bless

I am glad you found it useful!

 

[komeeks18]

Sorry for the delay in the reply. Now, I do not have all of the answers to your questions. The main reason I seem to not be able to agree with the Catholic Church is, because I haven’t seen evidence of Sola Scriptura going against what the Bible says. I want Bible verses as evidence, not what people think is logical. I also have a hard time believing that the Popes really are descendants of the Apostles. Is there any historical evidence? It’s not that I don’t believe God wouldn’t be capable of keeping his Church together, but it’s hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church is truly Christ’s Church, because how do I know if the Church has really kept true to the Apostles’ teachings? How do I know these things are true if goes against what I’ve always been taught, and there’s no evidence for it from the Word of God? I need evidence to believe. I believe in God, because there is evidence. If I believed in the Catholic Church, I would need evidence of it being Christ’s Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

Sorry for the delay in the reply. Now, I do not have all of the answers to your questions. The main reason I seem to not be able to agree with the Catholic Church is, because I haven’t seen evidence of Sola Scriptura going against what the Bible says. I want Bible verses as evidence, not what people think is logical. I also have a hard time believing that the Popes really are descendants of the Apostles. Is there any historical evidence? It’s not that I don’t believe God wouldn’t be capable of keeping his Church together, but it’s hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church is truly Christ’s Church, because how do I know if the Church has really kept true to the Apostles’ teachings? How do I know these things are true if goes against what I’ve always been taught, and there’s no evidence for it from the Word of God? I need evidence to believe. I believe in God, because there is evidence. If I believed in the Catholic Church, I would need evidence of it being Christ’s Church.

I do not know who you are addressing here however I suggest you do one thing. I see you discussing many things and that makes things difficult.

Explain this statement…

“I have not seen evidence of Sola Scriptura going against anything the Bible says”

What is it you mean when you say “Sola Scriptura”? Usually I hear Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final authority…if so then explain this.

" I have not seen evidence that the Bible as the final authority goes against anything the Bible says"…does this make sense to you?

You do not believe that the Catholic Church has kept Apostolic teaching…you must have some notion as to what Apostolic teaching is…

Where is the Apostolic teaching of Sola Scriptura?

Dilineate what elements you believe to be Apostolic teaching as you may understand them…list them for me.

 

[Safia]

The main reason I seem to not be able to agree with the Catholic Church is, because I haven’t seen evidence of Sola Scriptura going against what the Bible says.

The first evidence is that the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura.

I would reach this entire page and this entire page, which together proves my above assertion to be true, and come back to us with any questions.

I want Bible verses as evidence, not what people think is logical.

See above.

I also have a hard time believing that the Popes really are descendants of the Apostles.

They’re descendants not by blood (which I don’t think is what you meant, but just making sure).

I would start here, which outlines the Scriptural and more theoretical proof for the Church, from which apostolic succession stems.

Is there any historical evidence?

Of what? That there’s an unbroken line of Popes, linked to Peter? Oh, yes. Bunches.

This gives an overall history. Here is the list of Popes, for your reference.

Let me know whether you have more specific questions.

It’s not that I don’t believe God wouldn’t be capable of keeping his Church together, but it’s hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church is truly Christ’s Church, because how do I know if the Church has really kept true to the Apostles’ teachings?

Why do you believe that Scripture is the Word of God? The only way we could know for sure is if God came from Heaven to tell us. You believe in Scripture on two levels – a) the Catholic Church’s compilation, and b) faith. The same goes for the Church. We believe in the infallibility and succession of the Church in part due to faith, but then also because you can track all of the writings of the apostles, and the Church Fathers’ understanding of Jesus’ teaching. The Church is the only institution to claim infallibility under the Holy Spirit that has its links to Jesus’ earliest apostles.

While certain doctrines weren’t put into place until later, every single Church teaching on faith and salvation, etc., has a Scriptural and historical (early Fathers) foundation.

How do I know these things are true if goes against what I’ve always been taught, and there’s no evidence for it from the Word of God?

There’s evidence for everything the CC teaches in Scripture. Give me one example of something that isn’t. You haven’t shown me why the CC isn’t God’s chosen Church.

Also: I highly, highly, highly recommend you read the Catechism. It has lots and lots and lots and lots of juicy footnotes, to Scripture and to the writings of the Fathers and councils, etc.

Cheers!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Isaiah45_9,

You have covered a lot of ground in this post… Let me just address a couple of the items you mentioned.

Notwithstanding your dismissal of the Catholic Church, like a previous poster mentioned - if Christ had made come to Earth during our generation - we would be listening to the Apostles. Christ gave Power to the Apostles and they in turn passed it on to their successors. Proximity to Christ today is proximity to Apostolic Succession - and this is all contained in the Church Christ founded on Peter.

Yes, I agree, St. Peter would take a couple of days to recognize the Church that Christ founded on him. Pete’s current successor has a cell phone, e-mail address and is knowledgeable about the internet. Considering that Peter just had a pen and scroll to get his message out - I would say the First Pope would be truly amazed… but, then would look for what he knows to be the core of Catholic belief. Peter would quickly see that the Seven Sacraments are very present in the life of the Church, that the Mass is still the central and unifying Sacrifice that unites us to God, and that the Church is very much guarding the Deposit of Faith from the Gates of Hell. So, when it comes to the essence - I do not think there would be any recognition problems.

I really do not think that the 16th Century revolt has much if anything in common with the Great Schism. There was never a rejection of the Sacraments, and never a rejection of the Mass. Protestantism in all of its various and still on-going iterations, rejected the Power of God to work through sinful men - and determined that sinful men would just work out their salvation on their own without the Church Christ founded on Peter.

Since you do not hold with SS because it is self-cancelling, how do you address interpreting what Scripture says about the necessity of Baptism and that Christ gave men the Power to consecrate bread and wine into His Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity?

God bless

Every time I hear someone say:

“We have the apostolic succession and because of that we are right”…

All I am really hearing is:

[bibledrb]Matthew 3:7-10[/bibledrb]

The biggest misconception of most Protestants is that ALL Catholics are Roman. When in fact they are not.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Protestantism was born out of the Great Schism. The East and the West already divided and the East (Rome) continued on its division.

In its origin, most Protestants were in fact Catholics. IMHO, Protestans are the offspring from the East and West divorce. Rebellious offspring from stubborn and unyielding parents.

Let me add that I do not agree with Sola Scriptura. The concept itself cancels itself…

However, I can understand the need at the time to put a fence around what was acceptable outside of Tradition and tradition. Since both are subject to manipulation without the proper knowledge of history.

The irony of all is that by Sola Scriptura and the practically total ignorance of Scripture, things went from bad to worse! At least on first view.

There is nothing that troubles me more than to fight a fellow believer of Christ on doctrinal issues. Like Paul said, be of one mind and one body. But please don’t use Paul’s quote, when the house separated before the children left the house. Those who are free of sin throw the first stone!

I don’t struggle to find a Church that fills my needs alone. I struggle to find the absent True Church and I am positive that our Lord is leading me to a journey. And please don’t assume by my forum “non-denomination” label that I am ignorant of Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition. I’ve spent half my life in the Roman Rite, I seriously doubt that it is the same Church that Peter belonged to. It is the same Office (See) but not the same Church.

Where is the same Church? With Christ of course. Where or who exactly? I don’t know, and it destroys my soul not knowing since I don’t seek personal satisfaction but Christ’s body.

In Him,

Jose

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Komeeks18,

Sounds like you have been going to Protestant sites to find out about Catholic doctrine. Here are two sites that will give you what you are looking for:

scborromeo.org/

newadvent.org/cathen/

Now, when it comes to groups of people that have gone against and contradicted Scripture - how does 30,000+ Protestant groups sound? That is the number that all claim SS, all think THEIR interpretation of Scripture is correct and all differ with one another on what Scripture means. Just look at how the various Protestant groups deal with Baptism and the Eucharist.

Christ clearly tells Nicodemus that Baptism is necessary - yet Protestants are all over the field on this: not necessary, an ordinance, an option, a symbol and some even say it is necessary but then refuse to use the formula given by Christ.

Christ clearly tells His listeners that eating His Flesh is necessary - yet Protestant are in total disagreement with this, too: a metaphor, a remembrance, a sign of unity, use grape juice, etc.

In my opinion, the hidden but truly fatal flaw of SS is that it allows for personal interpretation of Scripture - and this is clearly condemned by Peter (2Pet1:20) in Scripture.

And, if you want Bible verses as evidence - does this give you the authority to ‘over-ride’ them? Go back to Baptism and the Eucharist as examples where Protestants have put their will and interpretation ahead of the clearly written Word of God

God bless

Sorry for the delay in the reply. Now, I do not have all of the answers to your questions. The main reason I seem to not be able to agree with the Catholic Church is, because I haven’t seen evidence of Sola Scriptura going against what the Bible says. I want Bible verses as evidence, not what people think is logical. I also have a hard time believing that the Popes really are descendants of the Apostles. Is there any historical evidence? It’s not that I don’t believe God wouldn’t be capable of keeping his Church together, but it’s hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church is truly Christ’s Church, because how do I know if the Church has really kept true to the Apostles’ teachings? How do I know these things are true if goes against what I’ve always been taught, and there’s no evidence for it from the Word of God? I need evidence to believe. I believe in God, because there is evidence. If I believed in the Catholic Church, I would need evidence of it being Christ’s Church.