Protestants & the Bible

[Hodos]

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

But is it really? Is the Church today teaching the same gospel that Paul taught? That was the central question of the Reformation.

 

[Hodos]

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.

And the Catholic Church is no less subject to this than any other body. Refer to the two examples I posted above for samples.

 

[MiserereMei]

Or, for the record, if you are an American Evangelical or some other Protestant, but came to a better understanding of John 6, you could stop in at your friendly neighborhood Lutheran Church, since Lutherans, in general, do not really care whether or not Roman Catholics believe they have valid orders, and confess multiple times in the confessional symbols that the Sacrament is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, given for us Christians to eat and drink.

If you are in communion with Rome or Constantinople, you should probably go to a church of your own communion. The issue of valid orders brought up here only makes sense from within a specifically Roman Catholoc framework, which is to be expected on this forum. An acknowledgement of the existence other perspectives, however, would be nice. Surely, it can be agreed that it is better for an American Evangelical to become Lutheran than it is for them to remain where they are, if they cannot for whatever reason make the jump to Rome.

 

[MT1926]

Surely, it can be agreed that it is better for an American Evangelical to become Lutheran than it is for them to remain where they are, if they cannot for whatever reason make the jump to Rome.

To be honest I’m not sure if this statement could be agreed upon?

Not saying becoming Lutheran is a bad thing, and they should become Catholic. I’m just curious why you believe everyone should agree that they are better off becoming Lutheran than staying Evangelical?

Because based on what you said here…

since Lutherans, in general, do not really care whether or not Roman Catholics believe they have valid orders, and confess multiple times in the confessional symbols that the Sacrament is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, given for us Christians to eat and drink.

In my mind I thought well if valid orders aren’t necessary then why would I become Lutheran when I could remain Evangelical and consecrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist on my own?

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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

But is it really? Is the Church today teaching the same gospel that Paul taught? That was the central question of the Reformation.

That “reformation” was a revolt. The Church always reforms herself. That’s why we’ve had 21 ecumenical councils, not to mention all the local councils. Those who leave the Church have / had Jesus to answer for that. That’s NOT from me, my name isn’t on any quote I’ve used. I’ve given all the scripture and Church references for my answers.

 

[steve-b]

Or, for the record, if you are an American Evangelical or some other Protestant, but came to a better understanding of John 6, you could stop in at your friendly neighborhood Lutheran Church, since Lutherans, in general, do not really care whether or not Roman Catholics believe they have valid orders, and confess multiple times in the confessional symbols that the Sacrament is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, given for us Christians to eat and drink.

If you are in communion with Rome or Constantinople, you should probably go to a church of your own communion. The issue of valid orders brought up here only makes sense from within a specifically Roman Catholoc framework, which is to be expected on this forum. An acknowledgement of the existence other perspectives, however, would be nice. Surely, it can be agreed that it is better for an American Evangelical to become Lutheran than it is for them to remain where they are, if they cannot for whatever reason make the jump to Rome.

Pope Pius IX wrote a piece called Syllabus of Errors

Example: #3 from the document

keep in mind all the numbers in the document are errors in thinking.

III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
2. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
3. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
4. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

Point being, there are consequences to these errors in thinking. Free isn’t really free as in license to do whatever without consequence to that choice

 

[Hodos]

That “reformation” was a revolt. The Church always reforms herself.

No, it wasn’t a revolt until the Papal Bullae was issued rather than reforming her doctrine (unless of course the Church considers debate as revolt - which apparently it did at the time). The Church then tried to have the secular authorities stomp out the Church by trying Luther and threatening to declare him an outlaw, then going to war with the Lutheran principalities, then threatening to kill them if they didn’t succumb to the authority of Rome and return to papal obedience rather than maintain their confession of faith. It was only then that we became “Protestants.”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

That “reformation” was a revolt. The Church always reforms herself.

No, it wasn’t a revolt until the Papal Bull was issued rather than reforming her doctrine (unless of course the Church considers debate as revolt - which it did at the time). The Church then tried to have the secular authorities stomp out the Church by trying Luther and threatening to declare him an outlaw, then going to war with the Lutheran principalities, then threatening to kill them if they didn’t succumb to the authority of Rome and return to papal obedience rather than maintain their confession of faith. It was only then that we became “Protestants.”

In sequence

Luther, Exsurge Domine, Bull of Leo X http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

then came

Decet Romanum Pontificem http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10decet.htm

Luther refused to meet with the pope.

ALSO

• Faith alone only validly appears once in scripture. NOT BY is in front of it. Jas 2:24
• Sola scriptura is NOT taught in scripture. Not to mention, Luther removed 7 books from the OT for his bible, and in extension all Preotestant bibles are scripture lite, all missing 7 books.

 

[Hodos]

Negative, Luther met with the Papal legate two years before the Bull was issued. And if Luther refused to travel to Rome then, it was because Rome had guaranteed Jan Hus free passage to and from the Council of Constance, then reneged and turned him over to the secular authorities whom they ordered to try for heresy which led to him being burned at the stake. Also, it was not Luther who refused to comply, but Frederick the Wise who saw the endgame and negotiated for a neutral site for Luther to meet with Cardinal Cajetan. Additionally, by the time the Papal Bull arrived to Luther, via John Eck, the 60 day period requiring him to renounce his writings and travel to Rome had already expired and was already put into effect. There was no refusal, the Pope used bad logistics, or didn’t offer a legitimate opportunity for reconciliation, or both. Either way, reconciliation would only have occurred if the Pope had opened the possibility for doctrine to be corrected, which he had refused to do since 1517.

Faith alone only validly appears once in scripture. NOT BY is in front of it. Jas 2:24

First, let’s see you exegete that passage because I am positive you can’t render an accurate explanation of it. Second, you are missing Romans 3 which says that we are justified by faith apart from works, which is exactly what Sola Fide addresses (sola fide says that we are justified by grace through faith, not faith and something else such as works as was being preached in the medieval church). I refer you to Galatians which makes a stinging example of that point.

Sola scriptura is NOT taught in scripture. Not to mention, Luther removed 7 books from the OT for his bible, and in extension all Protestant bibles are scripture lite, all missing 7 books.

This is arguable. Scripture is the God-breathed word of God to us. By its nature of being God’s revelation to us, it is infallible. Feel free to demonstrate a passage which says another authority is God-breathed, and I will be glad to demonstrate passages that say they aren’t. If you want to erect a new authority over God, you need to demonstrate it through scripture. Next, already discussed Luther’s Bible. First, Luther did not remove them, he translated them in the Bible and stated just as Jerome did that they were deuterocanonical works on a secondary level, useful for teaching, but not for creation of doctrine.

 

[steve-b]

Negative, Luther met with the Papal legate … [snip for space]

Luther being a Catholic priest, … Martin Luther | Catholic Answers

Faith alone only validly appears once in scripture. NOT BY is in front of it. Jas 2:24

Hodos:

First, let’s see you exegete that passage because I am positive you can’t render an accurate explanation of it. Second, you are missing Romans 3 which says that we are justified by faith apart from works, which is exactly what Sola Fide addresses (sola fide says that we are justified by grace through faith, not faith and something else works as was being preached in the medieval church). I refer you to Galatians which makes a stinging example of that point.

Paul and James don’t contradict each other. Works is differentiated by them between good works vs works of law. see Here

Sola scriptura is NOT taught in scripture. Not to mention, Luther removed 7 books from the OT for his bible, and in extension all Protestant bibles are scripture lite, all missing 7 books.

Hodos:

This is arguable. Scripture is the God-breathed word of God to us. By its nature of being God’s revelation to us, it is infallible.

Actually consider the following The Bible Is Not Infallible | Catholic Answers

Hodos:

Feel free to demonstrate a passage which says another authority is God-breathed, and I will be glad to demonstrate passages that say they aren’t. If you want to erect a new authority over God, you need to demonstrate it through scripture.

Example:
Jesus instituting the sacrament of reconciliation with His apostles He personally ordained. John 20:21-23 RSVCE - Jesus said to them again, “Peace be - Bible Gateway

Hodos:

First, Luther did not remove them, and stated just as Jerome did they were deuterocanonical works on a secondary level, useful for teaching, but not for creation of doctrine.

Luther did say

• "Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

he demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( i.e. ≠ scripture ) status. THAT is removing books from scripture.

Then he said

• "We concede–as we must–that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures,Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” (Sermon on the Gospel of John, chaps. 14-16 (1537), in vol. 24 of Luther’s Works, [St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961], p. 304).”

One could ask, Will the real Luther please come forward.

 

[MiserereMei]

NB: I said Lutherans did not care whether or not Roman Catholics think they have valid orders; I do not recall saying valid ordination is not a requirement (cf. AC V and XIV).

 

[MiserereMei]

Ok. That’s nice. Tell me again why I should care what some Roman bishop in the 19th century thinks anymore than you care what some academic in the 16th century thinks?

 

[MT1926]

NB: I said Lutherans did not care whether or not Roman Catholics think they have valid orders; I do not recall saying valid ordination is not a requirement (cf. AC V and XIV).

OK I apologize if I read something into your statement.

However, I still don’t understand where you are going with your claim…

Surely, it can be agreed that it is better for an American Evangelical to become Lutheran than it is for them to remain where they are, if they cannot for whatever reason make the jump to Rome.

Maybe if you could explain why Evangelicals would be better off we could dialogue about it and come to a better understanding of where you are going with this.

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[MiserereMei]

Simply put, one cannot be Church alone. One needs a community. If an American Evangelical becomes convinced of the necessity of the Sacraments by means of such passages as Jn 6, the Words of Institution, Mk 16:15, 1 Pt 3:21, but nevertheless cannot find sufficient evidence to believe the doctrines of papal infalliability, of invocation of the saints, of the Marian dogmas, and the like, it is better by far, and I would hope a reasonable person would agree, that such a person is better off joining with the Lutherans, who are closer by far to Rome than the average American Evangelical church body, than to remain in a communion that finds such views odious.

What I am not saying is that a Roman Catholic should find such a position optimal (such would be hypocritical), but merely better than the alternative.

To be honest, classical Protestants (namely, Lutherans and Anglicans and a few others), the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, who hold seriously to patristic Christianity, do well to dialogue, learn, and work together as friends and family, even if we cannot share each other’s altar or bishops until Christ comes again. No one is aided in the slightest by triumphalism.

 

[steve-b]

Ok. That’s nice. Tell me again why I should care what some Roman bishop in the 19th century thinks anymore than you care what some academic in the 16th century thinks?

For clarity, It wasn’t from just “some Roman bishop in the 19th century”, it was from the pope.

 

[MiserereMei]

And? Perhaps I must apologize for a faulty understanding of your communion’s ecclesiology. I was under the impression that the Pope is the bishop of Rome, hence my reference to Pius IX being “some Roman bishop”. For such a grave misunderstanding, I am sorry. Perhaps also, I am merely a rude paganus who cares little for the cursus honorum or the status that it brings among men.

 

[William_Scott]

The easy answer to this is

We know where the Anglicans came from. Henry VIII. A heretic and murderer. Great start to a “Church”!

I have no disagreement on the loathsome character of Henry VIII. Of course, Anglicans don’t see him as founding the Church of England. Rather, they see the Church of England as a separate and pre-existing branch of the Church Catholic–but that’s a discussion for another day. All that said, while I’m traditional Anglican in my beliefs inasmuch as the Anglican Divines IMO generally did a better job of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater than the other reformers. That said, I’m in no way tied to or reliant on the Anglican Communion (which is a mess like most of the institutional Church throughout the earth) or any other particular ecclesiastical tradition or denomination.

I think very highly of my faithful brothers and sisters in Anglican Churches (not including the Episcopagan–Anti-Church, of course). However, I am a member of a non-Anglican Church where I am blessed by the life-giving feeding from Pastors who believe in the Blessed Trinity and in the full Humanity and Deity of the Incarnate Christ, as well as the inerrant, infallible, authoritative Scripture. I see no necessity that those in authority over me in the Church have a doctrine that agrees with mine on every jot and tittle. In fact, a state of perfect agreement on doctrine has never existed in the Church to my knowledge–it certainly doesn’t exist in Rome.

The Church Jesus established and He said He will build on Peter and those in union with Peter, is sitting at the table with Him. The beginning of the Catholic Church was there at the last supper. The same Church today, 2000 yrs later, with pope Francis, 266th successor to St Peter at the helm.

I believe the Mystical Bride and Body of Christ (the immense communion of baptized, Blood bought, Spirit indwelt individuals throughout the earth and in heaven above–past, present and future) is the same Church that it was 2000 years ago. As you know, the RC Catechism confesses that separated brethren are members of Christ’s Body through the indwelling of His Spirit by faith and Holy Baptism (without granting that we have the fullness of communion therein). "838…Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church…’”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

btw you probably won’t win too many points by citing to Pope Francis as Christ’s Vicar on Earth with a backwards, Bible-thumper like me

 

[William_Scott]

That wasn’t schism.

Jesus was not going to stop good actions by others just because it wasn’t done by James and John etc.

It was certainly a schism in the eyes of James and John. However, Christ noted that despite outward separation, if this outward “schismatic” was performing miracles in His Name he was on the same team. We know (as St. Aquinas notes) the greatest miracle that occurs through Christ’s Name is the resurrection of an eternal soul that is dead in sins through faith in Christ, sealed in Holy Baptism. The Catholic Catechism explicitly teaches that this greatest of all miracles in Christ’s Name occurs among separated brethren as they teach the Word and Baptize in the Name of the Blessed Trinity:

"819 Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines 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, as well as visible elements.“274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church…”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Let’s not wade into indifferentism or into latitudinarianism

It’s sad that so many in the Roman Catholic Church (including at the highest levels) are doing their best to copy the absurd indifferentism, latitudinarianism, apostasy from any semblance of Biblical morality, etc practiced by the spiritually bankrupt bodies of the Anglican Communion in the Western World (e.g. the monstrosity of the Episcopalian Church, which believes genocide of the unborn is a beautiful thing…).

 

[William_Scott]

Steve said:

"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"

Thanks Steve. Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, and countless Liberal Christians of all stripes (RC, Protestant, etc.) share your opinion on a sacrament devoid of supernatural grace in Protestant churches. Unfortunately, these same individuals (along with many Eastern Orthodox) think the same thing about your sacrament. I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it.

• 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.

The RC teaches that separated brethren, despite their alleged lack of a valid Eucharist, are still incorporated savingly into Christ through faith and Baptism (provided they are not walking in mortal sin–and I would agree as did the early reformers on the mortal sin part btw). Your apparent interpretation/application of Christ’s Words (as essentially excluding Protestants from salvation) is directly at odds with your own Catechism.

818 " . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

I’m probably out for the next week or more, so have a great rest of your weekend.

 

[steve-b]

William_Scott:

I have no disagreement on the loathsome character of Henry VIII. Of course, Anglicans don’t see him as founding the Church of England. Rather, they see the Church of England as a separate and pre-existing branch of the Church Catholic–but that’s a discussion for another day. All that said, while I’m traditional Anglican in my beliefs inasmuch as the Anglican Divines IMO generally did a better job of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater than the other reformers. That said, I’m in no way tied to or reliant on the Anglican Communion (which is a mess like most of the institutional Church throughout the earth) or any other particular ecclesiastical tradition or denomination.
I think very highly of my faithful brothers and sisters in Anglican Churches (not including the Episcopagan–Anti-Church, of course). However, I am a member of a non-Anglican Church where I am blessed by the life-giving feeding from Pastors who believe in the Blessed Trinity and in the full Humanity and Deity of the Incarnate Christ, as well as the inerrant, infallible, authoritative Scripture. I see no necessity that those in authority over me in the Church have a doctrine that agrees with mine on every jot and tittle. In fact, a state of perfect agreement on doctrine has never existed in the Church to my knowledge–it certainly doesn’t exist in Rome.

There is no branch theory.

If you are interested check out Fr Longenecker

He writes

• Here
• Here

William_Scott:

I believe….
[snip for space]
”838…Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church…’” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Keep reading

Re: Outside the Church there is no salvation

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. 336

William_Scott:

btw you probably won’t win too many points by citing to Pope Francis as Christ’s Vicar on Earth with a backwards, Bible-thumper like me

I would just say, for a bible only guy like yourself

Note: What #846 above appeals to? “Basing itself on scripture and Tradition”