Protestants & the Bible

[steve-b]

the Protestant concept of Sola Scriptura is that Sola Scriptura is addressing what one does when these things are in opposition to one another.

scripture says

"if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

What Church?

keep reading

Hodos:

The Protestant answer is that when papal authority or sacred tradition commands obedience to a doctrine that is contradicted by scripture, scripture is the rule of faith and norms that wins the dispute.

Protestantism is contradiction of scripture. The protestant religion(s) started in the 16th century

As Paul said when writing to the Church of Rome
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. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites,[b] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet

Which Church?

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

That’s the only Church Paul is in, and building, and writing to

Hodos:

The Protestant answer is that when papal authority or sacred tradition commands obedience to a doctrine that is contradicted by scripture, scripture is the rule of faith and norms that wins the dispute.

Protestantism began by dividing from the Catholic Church (the Church of Rome and Peter’s successor) in the 16th century. Paul said what dividers do comes from Satan, and doesn’t serve Our Lord. Paul says what those consequences are for divisions in the following

all links are operational

1. Heresy / divisiveness./ schism αἱρετικὸν, Titus 3:10-11 The consequences? That person is self condemned.”
2. Division / dissension διχοστασίαι, That same Greek word is used in the following passages

Rm 16:17-21 & Gal 5:19-21

the consequences? (Gal 5:21] “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “ IOW they go to hell when they die in that sin.

 

[TULIPed]

To be clear - you’re saying that Catholic doctrine is that all Protestants are going to hell? Or are you saying that the Bible says that all Protestants are going to hell? Or both?

If so - I’d be curious on your thoughts about Unitatis Redintegratio like:

"But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."

 

[steve-b]

To be clear - you’re saying that Catholic doctrine is that all Protestants are going to hell? Or are you saying that the Bible says that all Protestants are going to hell? Or both?

If so - I’d be curious on your thoughts about Unitatis Redintegratio like:

"But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ."

Once a person becomes knowledgeable of the truth … THEN

From Vat II paragraph 14, from Lumen Gentium
tucked in with all the ecumenical language is this paragraph
(all emphasis mine)
“14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)”

Note:
“Whosorever” applies to not just Catholics
Charity = responding in love, in thought , word , AND deed.

 

[Pattylt]

But aren’t you assuming that you understand the clear meaning of scripture? What happens when it isn’t clear or can have multiple meanings? Aren’t all the various denominations of Protestant over interpretations of certain passages a demonstration of the problem with scripture alone?

Ok, let’s expand on this a bit. You shall not murder. Most would take that to mean the deliberate taking of a human life but how did we reach that conclusion? Murder in self defense? Someone having a psychotic break and kills her child? War? While “You shall not murder” is a simple statement, how we interpret it is not. Does it specifically refer to only humans being murdered? These are the little gray areas that need to be defined and refined. Catholics have 2000 years of of scholarship and authority behind the interpretations and Protestants accept most of them yet veer off on a few via one mans opinion…Martin Luther. Perhaps you could argue that there has been a ton of Protestant scholarship on those that varied from Catholic authority but here is where the Protestants can not agree on what the correct interpretation should be. Now how do you decide? Which ever one agrees with yourself? That’s as subjective as you can get! Baptist’s have it right but Methodists do not? How can you know? You might consider the Bible to be inerrant but reading and interpreting it is subjective no matter how many rules you think you are applying to it. I’m not Christian but I will trust a 2000 year authority over 40,000 differing opinions with no agreeing authorities any day.

 

[TULIPed]

Forgive me - I’m still not clear. Are you saying that you believe that, pursuant to Catholic doctrine and the Bible, all Protestants are going to hell?

For the record, as a Protestant, I don’t believe that all Catholics are going to hell. Quite the contrary - I believe that I’ll see a great many of my Catholic brothers and sisters in heaven and rejoice in praising our Lord together forever.

 

[TULIPed]

Sorry - forgot to add this. The first sentence of paragraph 14 says, “This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful.”

I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure that means the part you highlighted is directed toward “the Catholic Faithful”, no?

 

[lanman87]

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. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites ,[b] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet

It’s interesting that I’ve seen those exact verses used in a way that claimed it was talking about Catholics. Because, over time, the Catholic church went beyond what was taught by the apostles. I’m not making that claim, but I’ve seen it before.

 

[Hodos]

Protestantism is contradiction of scripture. The protestant religion(s) started in the 16th century

No, the Protestant religion began in the First Century AD when the high priest commanded the apostles to stop preaching the gospel and they refused because they were bound first to honor God, not men. We continue in the tradition of Paul who stated that if anyone preaches a different gospel whether it be angels or even Paul himself, that person should be anathema. You see, according to Paul, it was adherence to the gospel that made one part of the Church, not adherence to a supposed lineage. We hold to that gospel by preaching, teaching, and proclaiming the gospel as it was taught by the apostles and handed down to us in the scriptures that they themselves wrote.

 

[steve-b]

Sorry - forgot to add this. The first sentence of paragraph 14 says, “This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful.”

I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure that means the part you highlighted is directed toward “the Catholic Faithful”, no?

AND

it goes on to say

WHOSOEVER

That takes it out of Catholic alone and globalizes it.

 

[steve-b]

Forgive me - I’m still not clear. Are you saying that you believe that, pursuant to Catholic doctrine and the Bible, all Protestants are going to hell?

For the record, as a Protestant, I don’t believe that all Catholics are going to hell. Quite the contrary - I believe that I’ll see a great many of my Catholic brothers and sisters in heaven and rejoice in praising our Lord together forever.

As the simple phrase that John Henry Newman made famous while he was still a Protestant AND searching,

“to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”

It’s a simple and accurate statement.

AND

As Lumen Gentium stated, Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Where in scripture does that come from? HERE

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Protestantism is contradiction of scripture. The protestant religion(s) started in the 16th century

No, the Protestant religion began in the First Century AD when the high priest commanded the apostles to stop preaching the gospel and they refused because they were bound first to honor God, not men. We continue in the tradition of Paul who stated that if anyone preaches a different gospel whether it be angels or even Paul himself, that person should be anathema. You see, according to Paul, it was adherence to the gospel that made one part of the Church, not adherence to a supposed lineage. We hold to that gospel by preaching, teaching, and proclaiming the gospel as it was taught by the apostles and handed down to us in the scriptures that they themselves wrote.

This is why private interpretation has caused so many Protestant divisions since their invention from the 16th century

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites ,[b] and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19 For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20 then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet

It’s interesting that I’ve seen those exact verses used in a way that claimed it was talking about Catholics. Because, over time, the Catholic church went beyond what was taught by the apostles. I’m not making that claim, but I’ve seen it before.

Usually used by those who divided from the Catholic Church

 

[Hodos]

The original reformers all believed in the Real Presence, regenerative baptism, the communion of saints, veneration of the Blessed Mother, etc. so they most likely wouldn’t even categorize many modern denominations as Christian.

First of all, this is a false assumption. Just as the Roman Catholic church discussed what was going on in the Eucharist with regard to transubstantiation, consubstantiation, etc. up through the late Middle Ages, the reformers also dealt with the same questions. Some accepted the Real Presence (Luther and even Zwingli’s understanding was closer to a Real Presence than a symbolic presence) while others said it was symbolic (Calvin). Again, this reflects the Roman Catholic discussions that had previously gone on for centuries (and they were still Christian, how about that?!?). With regard to the communion of saints, you would need to define what you mean by communion of saints. I assume you are speaking to the practice of praying to saints, which had come into practice by the mid to late middle ages. The reformers would agree in the honoring of saints for their examples, but would disagree with the worship practices which eventually came into existence. Refer to the Augsburg confession as an example. With regard to veneration of Mary, this would also fall under the communion of saints. If you mean acceptance of all of the Marian dogmas, some of which were not defined until as late as 1950 that is a pretty tall order. And even given that the early reformers accepted some of these things they didn’t make these into de fide declarations of dogma and declare those who would question these doctrines as heretical. You can thank Trent for that.

 

[Hodos]

This is why private interpretation has caused so many Protestant divisions since their invention from the 16th century

Interesting view of history. Seems the Catholic Church had plenty of divisions within it well before the 16th Century. I guess we will just whitewash out the first 1500 years of the Church, huh? Anyway, I would submit that the issue with private interpretation is not a result of Sola Scriptura, but the result of not believing in Sola Scriptura. When you can invent any doctrine that seems pleasing to the grass roots and don’t have to justify it via scripture but can refer to a nebulous body of “tradition” which may or may not be able to be connected to the apostles, new doctrines can easily crop up. One example of this would be distribution of the Eucharist in one kind, or perhaps a more recent example would be saying that the death penalty is impermissible. Both of which are teachings that are demonstrably refuted by scripture but sustained by claims to “sacred tradition.”

 

[deMontfort]

perhaps a more recent example would be saying that the death penalty is impermissible. Both of which are teachings that are demonstrably refuted by scripture but sustained by claims to “sacred tradition.”

Not just refuted by Scripture, refuted by the writings of prior Popes. These kind of contradictions that have been happening a lot lately are part of the reason I’m now a former Catholic.

 

[lanman87]

Usually used by those who divided from the Catholic Church

Because they believe the Catholic church didn’t hold to the truth of the Gospel.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

This is why private interpretation has caused so many Protestant divisions since their invention from the 16th century

Interesting view of history. Seems the Catholic Church had plenty of divisions within it well before the 16th Century.

Not even close.

How many divisions are there in Protestantism?

10’s of thousands?

Hodos:

I guess we will just whitewash out the first 1500 years of the Church, huh?

No white washing.

The Catholic Church is still here to day, 2000 yrs after Jesus established it on Peter and those in union with him.

Hodos:

Anyway, I would submit that the issue with private interpretation is not a result of Sola Scriptura, but the result of not believing in Sola Scriptura.

You wouldn’t have the scriptures if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has NEVER taught sola scriptura. Protestants invented that

Hodos:

When you can invent any doctrine that seems pleasing to the grass roots and don’t have to justify it via scripture but can refer to a nebulous body of “tradition” which may or may not be able to be connected to the apostles, new doctrines can easily crop up. One example of this would be distribution of the Eucharist in one kind, or perhaps a more recent example would be saying that the death penalty is impermissible. Both of which are teachings that are demonstrably refuted by scripture but sustained by claims to “sacred tradition.”

1. The Catholic Church was sitting at the last supper table.
2. as far as the death penalty / capital punishment, the Church has always been opposed to it. the Lateran Council in 1215 , pronouncement on the “extermination” of heretics, Internet History Sourcebooks Project canon 3, (exterminate) comes from the Latin exterminare, William Whitaker's Words which means to “drive out” (ex- out of + terminous- boundary). In Latin it does nor mean to destroy or kill, but to drive out of the territory. The official language of the Church is Latin . The Church does not and did not change her position on this issue of capital punishment and has been consistent on the issue… Even pope Francis today is speaking out against capital punishment and there being no good reason for it…

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Usually used by those who divided from the Catholic Church

Because they believe the Catholic church didn’t hold to the truth of the Gospel.

No, … because they had a different view than the Church Jesus established. As for the Gospel, those who left the Catholic Church are condemned by the very scriptures they claim is their sole source of truth

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Calvin is actually considered a “second generation reformer” as he was only a child when Luther’s reformation first started. It’s no different than today really…once the church is first messed with and changed, more people come along who believe yet another thing and change things again. That still happens today, seems like the reformation has never ended. It’s amazing that starting with Jesus and the Apostles and for the following 1500 years everyone believed in the Real Presence and then once the church divided a second generation reformer decided he didn’t believe it and due to that now millions of people are taught to not believe it . WRT to Mary, the original reformers acknowledged her as the Theotokos and they venerated her and knew she held a special place in Heaven.

 

[steve-b]

Obviously one has to be careful using analogies as wooden literal meanings.

You mean like the RC Interpretation of “Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood”–sorry, I couldn’t help it. [Actually, I agree that the Scriptures teach that feeding on Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist is “generally necessary for Salvation” (as the 1604 Anglican Book of Common Prayer Catechism teaches)–though not absolutely necessary, as you no doubt agree–I just don’t believe that transubstantiation is logically necessitated by this truth].

[Bible believing Protestants than there is between the conservative and liberal factions of the Roman Catholic Church (btw, I like the conservative faction of the Roman Catholic Church better–and as you know, we line up with you more than your liberal Roman Catholic brethren do).

I would just add this to one of my previous posts

• Anglicans don’t have valid orders, ergo no valid Eucharist. That goes for all Protestants regardless of stripe
• Jesus put a HUGE condition on the Eucharist

Jn 6: 53 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Just thinking out loud, if I wasn’t Catholic, and saw that, I would make a bee line for the nearest Catholic Church to see how fast I could become Catholic and remain Catholic.