Protestants: Tackle This

[Smart30]

those verses are proof of the Biblical view of Sola Fide.

Works come with Faith, they’re a package deal. Most works are not even noticeable to people, it comes naturally to believers.

 

[larkin31]

You know, as a Catholic, I believe this.
Protestants don’t believe that truth can be known.

I don’t know how to show them from bible only that **truth can be known.
**

You might start with a grammatical sentence.

Your claim about Protestants is false. There is a lot of misrepresentation of Protestantism here.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You might start with a grammatical sentence.

Your claim about Protestants is false. There is a lot of misrepresentation of Protestantism here.

Then why not post the correct representation so it can be fully discussed?

 

[larkin31]

The irony is, alot of Protestant Churches are setting themselves up with a heirarchy, just like the one they condemn. Then you have the self starter Churches that are small and trying to follow the Bible. I have been a member of both of those kind, when I was a Protestant. Either way, it was based on someone’s private interpretation since the reformation.

And Catholicism isn’t rooted on a single person’s interpretations? You can’t fault us for multiple authorities and for individual authority at the same time. It is a specious argument.

For over a thousand years, there was only one interpretation.

False. Patently false. Which thousand years, first of all, do you mean? Do you know your religious history?

Then there was the great schism, but interpretations remained close and disagreements were few. When the Protestant reformation took place in the 1500s, private interpretation was the defense. It must have been a good defense as Luther’s followers left him, for their own private interpretation. Churches have been fragmenting since and new Churches are still being started, over interpretational differences.

But, in terms of our following the interpretation of Paul, that is ok, huh? Is his interpretation exempt from your criticism?

Does the Holy Spirit give out multiple truths? Can multiple conflicting truths be truth?

I see no reason why not. Many many different groups all use the Apostle’s Creed. How much else orthodoxy do you require? Why would you require more than agreement on the Creed?

 

[larkin31]

Then why not post the correct representation so it can be fully discussed?

See above. I won’t bother repeating myself. I give my reasoning every time.

 

[peary1]

Why is it Catholics are always wrong and Protestants are always right? Why can’t Catholics ever be right? Or, would that be too threatening to most Protestants? I mean… if Catholics are right it somehow shatters all of what they believe in, right?

Well, then there wouldn’t be any reason to be a ‘protestant’ against Christ’s Church now, would there?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And Catholicism isn’t rooted on a single person’s interpretations? You can’t fault us for multiple authorities and for individual authority at the same time. It is a specious argument.

See, you misunderstand the Catholic view. It’s not one person’s interpretation. It’s a Church’s interpretation, held for 2000+ years.

False. Patently false. Which thousand years, first of all, do you mean? Do you know your religious history?

Please enlighten me with other interpretations, from groups you’re willing to affiliate yourself with. I know my religious history fairly well. There was one Church until the Great schism around 1054, then there were two very close in doctrines. Then in the 1500s, Protestantism was born through the reformation, led by Martin Luther. Is there a particular period you wish to discuss?

But, in terms of our following the interpretation of Paul, that is ok, huh? Is his interpretation exempt from your criticism?

I don’t understand the point of your question? Paul wrote scriptures and all scriptures are God breathed, or inspired by God, if you prefer.

I see no reason why not. Many many different groups all use the Apostle’s Creed. How much else orthodoxy do you require? Why would you require more than agreement on the Creed?

How can multiple truths be one truth? The differences run all over and outside the Apostle’s Creed. Baptism, infant baptism, tongues, tongues required sign of salvation, abortion, divorce, Eucharist, ordination, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

I don’t require more than agreement on the Creed. Scriptures do.

**Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 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.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.**

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

See above. I won’t bother repeating myself. I give my reasoning every time.

I only saw your opinion through questions. What I was asking for, was supporting sources for your views; scriptures, writings of the early Church fathers, your own explanations, etc.

 

[XinMinny]

I heard what I thought was a very good explanation from the Scriptures about faith, grace, and works. It went something like this:

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NAB online) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;it is not from works, so no one may boast.

So, salvation is by grace. But, that grace does more than just save us:

Titus 2:11-13 (NAB online) For the grace of God has appeared, saving all and training us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live temperately, justly, and devoutly in this age, as we await the blessed hope, the appearance 3 of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,…

So, the grace of God saves us, and it also trains us that we should live in a godly way. If what we think of us grace does not teach us that, it is not the grace of God that saves us.

It is in that sense that faith without works is dead. It would not be real faith, and it would not be bringing us grace.

Has anyone else ever heard it explained like this?

 

[larkin31]

See, you misunderstand the Catholic view. It’s not one person’s interpretation. It’s a Church’s interpretation, held for 2000+ years.

I understand it completely. This is a dishonest claim. No such thing as the “Church” has ever made a decision in Catholic history. A “Church” can’t have meetings, elect leaders, compose letters or edicts or bulls.

Please enlighten me with other interpretations, from groups you’re willing to affiliate yourself with.

Why do I have to agree with them? History is full of Christian splinter groups. I am agnostic. I do not agree with ANY of them. Does the Catholic church deny the existence of the Essenes?

I don’t understand the point of your question? Paul wrote scriptures and all scriptures are God breathed, or inspired by God, if you prefer.

Paul did not have a thinking mind in the matter? None of what he wrote or did was colored by his character or limitations or point of view? Was he human, or not? I do not challenge his “inspiration.” But as far as I can tell from scriptures, he was not being fed revelation from God (eg Muhammad).

How can multiple truths be one truth?

2 + 2 = 11

Ideas can be complex, don’t you know?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I understand it completely. This is a dishonest claim. No such thing as the “Church” has ever made a decision in Catholic history. A “Church” can’t have meetings, elect leaders, compose letters or edicts or bulls.

Please try to refrain from veiled attempts to call someone a liar. I do not lie, especially about things discussed on these forums.

A Church with a hierarchy of Bishops can have meetings, elect leaders and compose edicts or bulls.

You said Catholic interpretation was subject to a single person and that’s not true, but I attribute it to you being mistaken and not a case of you being dishonest.

Why do I have to agree with them? History is full of Christian splinter groups. I am agnostic. I do not agree with ANY of them. Does the Catholic church deny the existence of the Essenes?

The Catholic Church does not deny the existence of the Essenes. But what does a Jewish sect have to do with Christianity, which was born through the new and everlasting covenant through Christ?

Paul did not have a thinking mind in the matter? None of what he wrote or did was colored by his character or limitations or point of view? Was he human, or not? I do not challenge his “inspiration.” But as far as I can tell from scriptures, he was not being fed revelation from God (eg Muhammad).

Well, you see, Christians believe the Bible to be God breathed, or inspired by God. We do not believe God inspired mistakes written concerning faith and morals.

Yes Saul was a man, who persecuted Christians until God knocked him off his high horse. Saul became a believer named Paul.

2 + 2 = 11

Ideas can be complex, don’t you know?

God is one truth and more complex than any mortal mind can fully comprehend, especially for one who questions the existence of God.

In the future, I’d like to recommend you lose the attitude, try not to be condescending, carefully word your posts that they do not appear to be veiled attempts to call someone dishonest and try to be charitable.

As for being agnostic, your religion shows as Protestant and the title of this thread is ‘Protestants: Tackle This’. It appears to be a misrepresentation of beliefs, that can be from reasons other than deliberate. Maybe you didn’t know how to fill out the profile information, I don’t know.

Now, let’s try to start over and be as charitable as possible.

 

[larkin31]

Please try to refrain from veiled attempts to call someone a liar. I do not lie, especially about things discussed on these forums.

A Church with a hierarchy of Bishops can have meetings, elect leaders and compose edicts or bulls.

You said Catholic interpretation was subject to a single person and that’s not true, but I attribute it to you being mistaken and not a case of you being dishonest.

The Catholic Church does not deny the existence of the Essenes. But what does a Jewish sect have to do with Christianity, which was born through the new and everlasting covenant through Christ?

Well, you see, Christians believe the Bible to be God breathed, or inspired by God. We do not believe God inspired mistakes written concerning faith and morals.

Yes Saul was a man, who persecuted Christians until God knocked him off his high horse. Saul became a believer named Paul.

God is one truth and more complex than any mortal mind can fully comprehend, especially for one who questions the existence of God.

In the future, I’d like to recommend you lose the attitude, try not to be condescending, carefully word your posts that they do not appear to be veiled attempts to call someone dishonest and try to be charitable.

As for being agnostic, your religion shows as Protestant and the title of this thread is ‘Protestants: Tackle This’. It appears to be a misrepresentation of beliefs, that can be from reasons other than deliberate. Maybe you didn’t know how to fill out the profile information, I don’t know.

Now, let’s try to start over and be as charitable as possible.

Someone has to defend the misrepresentations of Protestants here. Might as well be I, one who was raised by a Protestant minister and who was a staunch Protestant believer for 30 years. I am quite familiar with their beliefs. One does not have to be an African, say, to write accurately about Africa.

I called your claim “dishonest” because it is a deliberate veiling through language of the reality of how decisions are made in the Catholic hierarchy, when one man, indeed, makes many decisions for the Church. This is especially egregious, when your claim (and that made by others) was that Protestantism is at fault because it allows individual leaders to make interpretations, when EXACTLY the same thing is done in the Catholic hierarchy of leadership. I grant that CHANGE is less frequent, but THAT has been no one’s point here.

So, I am very careful with my words, thank you. And my attitude is quite good as well. I am in quest for truth and honesty. Nothing wrong with that.

Even Paul describes the teachings of splinter interpretations (groups, individuals). My point is to correct your claim that for 1000 years there were never any alternative interpretations. Of course there were! It’s just that the Church rejected them, even persecuted them! But that does not mean that they did not exist.

edit: PS: I changed my religious status on my profile. I was under the impression that I had to pick a religion (only examples given). I have now described myself more accurately.

 

[larkin31]

oh, and to simply claim that God is more complex than any human truth does not address my point: that there are many “truths” frequently, including the fact that 2 + 2 can equal 11. Your reply seems to agree with me, actually, and add only the claim that God is most complex of all. Well, fine. I don’t deny that. But it makes my point.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Okay Protestants, here’s something for you to tackle:

Several years ago I showed a Baptist co-worker of mine James 2:20 (“faith without works is dead”) and Revelation 20:12 (“And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds”). She looked at me and said, “You’re right Jean. They DO say that!” She was so disturbed by the Bible verses and that she wasn’t doing any good deeds/works that she just had to go to her Pastor about it. And she did.

In fact, she came back to work that Monday and told me that after she showed her Pastor those 2 verses, he looked directly at her and told her, “Yeah, they’re there, but they don’t mean anything.” He also added not to worry about them so she didn’t. She was actually quite relieved to know those Biblical verses did not mean anything.

As a Catholic and like most, if not all, I take the whole Bible into consideration.

It seems that if something in the Bible does not jive with Protestant beliefs it is either there and does not mean anything OR it is there and we Catholics just are not interpreting it right.

As a Catholic, it bothers me and offends me even that it always comes down to is either there and does not mean anything OR it is there and we Catholics just are not interpreting it right. In some ways, it is even insulting to me.

Why is it Catholics are always wrong and Protestants are always right? Why can’t Catholics ever be right? Or, would that be too threatening to most Protestants? I mean… if Catholics are right it somehow shatters all of what they believe in, righht?

I am sorry, but either the entire Bible means something or it means nothing. You cannot say 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 means something and is important YET disregard James 2:20 or Revelation 20:12 like it does not exist.

Jean, I,m Cathloicbut I have never read the book of Revelation it gets me to confuse.
At a party at my house long time ago we played a game and I was with 4 protestant and I pick out 3 verse from REv and gave then a week to read them and then ask for their interpretation,I got 4 diff interpretation all wrong,me and the prost.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Someone has to defend the misrepresentations of Protestants here. Might as well be I, one who was raised by a Protestant minister and who was a staunch Protestant believer for 30 years. I am quite familiar with their beliefs. One does not have to be an African, say, to write accurately about Africa.

I called your claim “dishonest” because it is a deliberate veiling through language of the reality of how decisions are made in the Catholic hierarchy, when one man, indeed, makes many decisions for the Church. This is especially egregious, when your claim (and that made by others) was that Protestantism is at fault because it allows individual leaders to make interpretations, when EXACTLY the same thing is done in the Catholic hierarchy of leadership. I grant that CHANGE is less frequent, but THAT has been no one’s point here.

See, it seems you’re still trying to say there is only one to make decisions in the Catholic Church. Just as Paul counseled Peter, any good Pope has the counsel of his bishops. When an infallible decision is ‘decreed’, it is spoken by the one, but I assure you he doesn’t come up with a decision alone.

The point about Protestantism is the thousands of denominations that have been born through it. Martin Luther used the defense of his own private interpretation was all that mattered. It must have been a good defense as some of Luther’s followers separated from him using the defense of private interpretation. Now, if you’ll read through these threads, you’ll see lots of Protestants that claim their interpretation correct over any other because of Holy Spirit guidance, even though they disagree with each other. That makes Catholics question how the Holy Spirit guides different people through different interpretations.

As for my own personal understanding of Protestantism, I was raised Protestant and attended Protestant Churches until I was 30 years old. I attended Pentecostal Churches (several different denominations), Baptist and Methodist Churches through those years. In 1985 I started searching for the one that was the true Church because of the different doctrines. Through prayer, research and reflection, I feel the Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church.

So, I am very careful with my words, thank you. And my attitude is quite good as well. I am in quest for truth and honesty. Nothing wrong with that.

That’s good. As I explained, that’s what led me to where I am today.

Even Paul describes the teachings of splinter interpretations (groups, individuals). My point is to correct your claim that for 1000 years there were never any alternative interpretations. Of course there were! It’s just that the Church rejected them, even persecuted them! But that does not mean that they did not exist.

Yes, I’m aware of Paul’s letters of correction and the heresies he addressed. This is the reason Paul taught for people to be of the same mind and judgement.

**1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved may be made manifest among you. **

**Eph 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

1Co 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.

Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

Rom 15:5 May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus,
Rom 15:6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Rom 12:4 For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function,
Rom 12:5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,

Col 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.**

It was Jesus’ prayer that His Apostles/disciples be one.

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
Joh 17:18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
Joh 17:20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
Joh 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
Joh 17:23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jean, I,m Cathloicbut I have never read the book of Revelation it gets me to confuse.
At a party at my house long time ago we played a game and I was with 4 protestant and I pick out 3 verse from REv and gave then a week to read them and then ask for their interpretation,I got 4 diff interpretation all wrong,me and the prost.

Hey Bill,

Here’s a link to a free online course, The Lamb’s Supper: The Bible and the Mass. I actually read the book before I took the course, but it helped me understand parts of Revelations a lot better.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Even Paul describes the teachings of splinter interpretations (groups, individuals). My point is to correct your claim that for 1000 years there were never any alternative interpretations. Of course there were! It’s just that the Church rejected them, even persecuted them! But that does not mean that they did not exist.

Another point about Paul speaking about ‘splinter’ groups, please provide any writings where he states it was acceptable to belong to any of those groups.

The Catholic Church has rejected heretics through the ages. I often hear this argument and the quickest way to end it seems to be, ask for the accuser to produce writings from those splinter groups from the first thousand years that have beliefs they are willing to affliate themselves with. There were Adelphians, Adoptionists, Antidicomarianites, Apollinarianists, Arianists, Bogomili, Docetism, Donatists, Dositheans, Ebionites, Enthusiasts, Euchites, Gnosticism, Montanists, Nestorianism, and I assure you, many many more. Just provide any writings from any of those sects, or others, that you would feel comfortable affliating your beliefs with.

 

[larkin31]

See, it seems you’re still trying to say there is only one to make decisions in the Catholic Church. Just as Paul counseled Peter, any good Pope has the counsel of his bishops. When an infallible decision is ‘decreed’, it is spoken by the one, but I assure you he doesn’t come up with a decision alone.

The point about Protestantism is the thousands of denominations that have been born through it. Martin Luther used the defense of his own private interpretation was all that mattered. It must have been a good defense as some of Luther’s followers separated from him using the defense of private interpretation. Now, if you’ll read through these threads, you’ll see lots of Protestants that claim their interpretation correct over any other because of Holy Spirit guidance, even though they disagree with each other. That makes Catholics question how the Holy Spirit guides different people through different interpretations.

Same way it guides Catholics, just with more change and less orthodoxy. There is no fundamental difference. All groups have only the wisdom of a religious leader in conjunction with the wisdom of a larger leading group–all based off their interpretations of scripture–to guide them. Same texts, same quotes, different results. Catholics have even more recently called their leader infallible (not always so). That is an interesting change. But, hey, each group gets to decide their own values.

 

[larkin31]

Another point about Paul speaking about ‘splinter’ groups, please provide any writings where he states it was acceptable to belong to any of those groups.

The Catholic Church has rejected heretics through the ages. I often hear this argument and the quickest way to end it seems to be, ask for the accuser to produce writings from those splinter groups from the first thousand years that have beliefs they are willing to affliate themselves with. There were Adelphians, Adoptionists, Antidicomarianites, Apollinarianists, Arianists, Bogomili, Docetism, Donatists, Dositheans, Ebionites, Enthusiasts, Euchites, Gnosticism, Montanists, Nestorianism, and I assure you, many many more. Just provide any writings from any of those sects, or others, that you would feel comfortable affliating your beliefs with.

I don’t see how this is relevant. You did not claim heresy. You said that for a 1000 years there were no other interpretations.

I am agnostic. I do not accept any of the interpretations.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I see you are from North Chicago. Go visit Pastor Frank Senn and the good folks at Immanuel Lutheran in Evanston and your experience and perspectives on “protestants” will change.

ilcevanston.org/index.php?page=pastor

What does this have to with do living in NC,This guy is in Illinois and he is a luthern preacher,do not understand very confused