Protestants, why?

[pablope]

Paul’s epistles contain quite a few protestations regarding bad teaching and bad conduct…and of course, Christ protested against the same sort of things. I am bound to follow their example.

Where did Jesus say to disobey?

Matthew 23… Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Protest is one thing…but to disobey and continue to split…thereby fostering the split and disunity…is furthering and abetting disobedience and disunity.

Do you think this is the wish of the Trinity?

Do you think furthering disobedience, disunity, is the work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[pablope]

scripture doesn’t need to teach it…the SOLA exists b/c all other sources are demonstrably error-ridden…if you could produce another source of equal quality, then I would regard that source as being equal with scripture…but you simply can’t produce such an equal source and as such, we have the SOLA.

You do not believe is Sacred Tradition…but you believe your own protestant tradition to be that source of equal quality…right?

Isn’t this Radical’s way…any thing that agrees with Radical’s interpretation of Scripture is correct, including denial of church authority…anything that does not…is not…so in essence…you are making yourself the source…aka…a Pope Radical…right?

 

[joe370]

Radical;9678946]why believe the early Church’s decisions “on an all or none” basis?..name a person or another institution (that puts forward a considerable body of unscientific, untestable and unverifiable teaching) that we approach on that basis. It seems that your approach is: “I want to believe these things (with certainty), so I won’t question anything”…that sure isn’t the type of approach that is used to find the truth in a courtroom

That is true radical but then again Jesus didn’t promise a courtroom that puts forward a considerable body of unscientific, untestable and unverifiable teaching) that they approach on that basis. It’s simple: Jesus promised to send the HS to guide His church into all truth regarding revealed truth (not some truth, regarding revealed truth). Either Jesus made good on His promise, or…

and? Paul didn’t mind being tested…he welcomed that approach by the Bereans

Good point. Moreover, Paul took it to the church when doctrinal differences were occurring, just as PRmerger pointed out. God get’s all the credit regarding the preservation of revealed truth.

…or you could choose not to misrepresent the logical results of the Protestant position…

Which is…? I have been given quite a few different positions by protestants, as a former non-catholic as well as a practising catholic. I am all ears my friend. Let’s see if we can resolve the matter?

you might also choose to actually question whether your understanding of that promise and of the “church” is correct, but be warned, that might result in some uncertainty for you.

Well, let’s look at those promises:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever…John 14

I say forever, is the entire life of the church…until Jesus returns

Some believe forever to mean until the last apostle dies. Which one to you hold to?

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14

Jesus is talking to His fledgling church leaders, as opposed to you, me or PRmerger - right? We were not there after all.

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. John 15

**But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. John 16
**
The target audience to which Jesus is addressing, is Jesus’ fledgling church leadership, born on Pentecost, consisting of the apostles and then their successors. That transfer doesn’t skip to folks like you, me and PRmerger?

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16

Guide Jesus’ fledgling church, (beginning on Pentecost) the day the HS descended upon the apostles, or guide me, you or PRmerger into all truth? Seems like a very straightforward thing…

The HS was not sent to joe370 to guide joe370 into all truth, that much is a fact. I wouldn’t want the hype and pressure. LOL…

 

[joe370]

scripture doesn’t need to teach it…the SOLA exists b/c all other sources are demonstrably error-ridden…if you could produce another source of equal quality, then I would regard that source as being equal with scripture…but you simply can’t produce such an equal source and as such, we have the SOLA.

Sola scripture means scripture alone - right? Nothing outside the holy pages of sacred scripture? To use your own words on the matter: “let’s not go beyond what is written in Acts 15 and claim that Sacred Tradition was involved in any way.”

In other words if you cannot find the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption in scripture alone, and you cannot, then it is not to be believed, as per the practice of sola scriptura - right?

I am just trying to keep things simple my friend.

 

[PRmerger]

and it says nothing about limiting the principle and the practice to that scripture which existed in Berea at the time

Indeed.

That’s what happens when we apply *your *Sola Scriptura tradition to that verse.

It ends up not working for you.

Or it ends up supporting a Sola Old Testament tradition, which, of course, you will not find to be very useful.

 

[PRmerger]

I trust that we are agreed that the canon of scripture is not a teaching that can be traced to the apostles…

Of course Catholics believe this.

You ought to know by now, Radical, that Catholicism proclaims that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever put to writ.

We proclaim it was given once for all to the saints.

And thus anything that we proclaim today, (including the canon of Scripture to which you give tacit though unacknowledged submission to the authority of the CC), came from the Apostles.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dave Noonan,

There is www.calledtocommunion.com and the latest article is about the primacy of Peter and the eastern Orthodox church. They have scholarly reads but if you start studying them, you will see there are no gaps…as there are really no such things as accidents.

I am working 60 hours plus weekly for an old woman…and so I can’t be involved on this thread as I would like but enjoy reading the many comments.

God Bless!

 

[stewstew03]

…the SOLA exists b/c all other sources are demonstrably error-ridden…if you could produce another source of equal quality, then I would regard that source as being equal with scripture…but you simply can’t produce such an equal source and as such, we have the SOLA.

The apostles did not clearly teach Trinitarian doctrine. Yes, we can piece together the Trinity because, as you say:

[scripture] flat out names Jesus as God, flat out names the Father as God, it flat out gives the Holy Spirit divine qualities and it flat out states that God is one….the concept of the Trinity is an effort to reconcile these flat out statements.

But can you “flat out” say that the apostles taught a fully-developed Trinitarian doctrine? What do you say to the Jehovah Witness who asks: “If the Trinity is an essential doctrine, should it not be ***clearly and consistently ***presented in the Bible? After all, Scripture is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. Why would God withhold this doctrine and leave us to figure out this great puzzle of One God, but Three Persons…?”

Honest Christians must admit that they did not figure out the Trinity on their own by reading their bibles – this is a doctrine that has been passed down from generation to generation. Most, if not all, Christians today believe the Trinity because someone told them to believe it; someone (a pastor, a parent, a priest, a website, a bible commentary, etc.) taught them (read: told them) where to find the right scripture verses so that the “babes in Christ” could “confirm” for themselves that, “ah yes, of course” the Trinitarian doctrine is supported by scripture!!

:bible1:

Post Script: the same argument holds for the canon. Christians today know which books belong in the bible because someone (or some Council) told them which books were inspired and which books were not.

 

[SteveVH]

of course not…but remember the question was: What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of the apostles?

yes they said other things…they undoubtedly talked about the weather…but you need to show WHAT exactly they taught that isn’t in scripture. Try again!

No, I don’t need to show “WHAT exactly” they taught that isn’t in scripture. Observing Sunday rather than Saturday is not in scripture, but even you practice this part of Tradition. The doctrine concerning Purgatory is part of Tradition. Even though it can be supported by scripture it is not definitively stated there. The doctrine of the Trinity, again, while certainly supported by scripture is not defined specifically in scripture. The various Creeds, beginning with the Apostles Creed, are not found in scripture, but are certainly supported by it. Shall I go on?

Here is the problem you face. Imagine that you are a new employee of a company. You receive your employee manual and written instructions on how to perform your job. Is that everything there is to know about the company? Those who have been there since the inception of the company are going to know things that are not specifically stated, such as: “For this particular client we always include copies of the documents. For all others, we dont.” “George likes to talk a lot so when you schedule meetings with him allow an extra 15-30 minutes.” It is not in the employee manual or your instruction book but is very important and necessary information to know in order to perform your job.

Your ecclesial community is a “Johnny come lately”. How dare you hold yourself above the Church that has been there since it all started and claim that you posses truth that it does not. Please.

In the Catholic Church we have everything that was given to us by the Apostles, not just the part that was written down. We were there in the beginning. Our Church guarded and kept everything handed down to it. The fact that your ecclesial community is not privy to these things does not in any way mean they don’t exist. If you argued with the boss of our hypothetical company that you didn’t need to do these things that are not found in your instruction book you would probably find yourself looking for a new job. They are real and important whether or not they are written down.

yet again, those two books are scripture.

How do we know they are scripture? Who decided that and on what did they base their decision? Where did Mark and Luke get their information? The cannon of Scritpure was chosen based upon how the text matched up against Sacred Tradition. That was the measuring stick. The early Church knew what they had received and they made sure that anything that was included in the canon of scripture did not conflict with the truth handed down to them orally. As I have demonstrated, most of the Apostles wrote nothing.

I think it is you that had better “Try again”.

 

[joe370]

How do we know they are scripture? Who decided that and on what did they base their decision? Where did Mark and Luke get their information? The cannon of Scritpure was chosen based upon how the text matched up against Sacred Tradition. That was the measuring stick. The early Church knew what they had received and they made sure that anything that was included in the canon of scripture did not conflict with the truth handed down to them orally. As I have demonstrated, most of the Apostles wrote nothing.

I think it is you that had better “Try again”.

The Catholic Church is responsible for collecting, selecting and codifying sacred scripture; that cannot be denied.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;9679056]Sola scripture means scripture alone - right? Nothing outside the holy pages of sacred scripture? To use your own words on the matter: “let’s not go beyond what is written in Acts 15 and claim that Sacred Tradition was involved in any way.”

Hi Joe,
No, it doesn’t.

In other words if you cannot find the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption in scripture alone, and you cannot, then it is not to be believed, as per the practice of sola scriptura - right?

then it is not to be doctrine. It can certainly be believed. In a general way, I do.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
No, it doesn’t.

then it is not to be doctrine. It can certainly be believed. In a general way, I do.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:Radical
b) the church believed in salvation through the grace of Jesus (a thing recorded in scripture) and not by obedience to a hierarchy (such a requirement for salvation is not mentioned in scripture).

The founding root of Protestanism: disobedience and rebellion to authority. Who ever said a hiearchal structure is required for salvation? I got news for you, Jesus preached the Kingdom of Heaven,not the Democracy of Heaven. Evidently if God is King logically a hiearchal order exists. Angels have ranks-thus a hiearchy. If you have a boss at work,then you are below him/her,a hiearchy exists.

 

[SteveVH]

Radical,

Just one question for you. Do you believe that the Bible is necessary for salvation?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Radical
Now let’s say that we used that as a precedent to answer this question: should the Protestants be required to obey the magisterium of the CC including the Pope?

we would refer to evidence;

a) God has shown that he accepted the Protestants by providing the HS to them ;

And whoever said God cannot provide the HS to non-Catholic Christians? God accepts Protestants by sending the HS,but I seriously He accepts the massive divisions and flavors of Protestanism.

 

[Nicea325]

Radical:

nope…they probably didn’t have a compilation that matched exactly what we have now in the OT…they referenced whatever scripture that they possessed

Which would be-what books? Then evidently this is destructive to SS because SS adheres to only what has been approved as canonical. So if they referenced to Tobit or Judith,then obviously SS is bogus because SS advocates do not accept the 7 deutorcanonical texts.

 

[PRmerger]

**Originally posted by PRmerger **Paul’s preaching simply could not be contained in the Scriptures—too much to write if he spoke for 3 months!

The typical response is that eventually, everything taught by the apostles was committed to the Holy Writ,

That idea seems ludicrous to me.

Imagine listening to NPR for 3 months and trying to document everything that was said on that show.

The volume of words would be insurmountable to record in a text.

 

[PRmerger]

it doesn’t matter if those words were ever Sacred tradition b/c they have now been reduced to scripture and that is how we have our knowledge of them.

But the point is that it demonstrates that not everything Jesus proclaimed was written in the Gospels.

You are willing to concede this point, yes?

And then that prompts the question: how did the inspired writer know about these words of Jesus, and why did he assume that his readers knew about these words of Jesus?

The answer is…

wait for it…

drum roll, please!

Sacred Tradition!

Remember the question was: What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of the apostles

Yes, and one answer is the canon of Scripture.

Another is the Divine Liturgy.

but if you would like, tell me what we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of Christ?

First you’ll have to say how you know that what St. Mark wrote was actually a teaching of Christ.

The answer is…

wait for it…

Because you have given tacit approval and faith in the authority of the Catholic Church to declare for you that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos.

You would not know the teachings of Christ–that he really, truly said, for example, “I am the Bread of Life”–except for the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

hmmm indeed, Hebrews is part of scripture

And you know this, how?

Because it was written by an apostle? :nope:

Because it mentions Christ? :nope:

Because it’s “self-authenticating”? :nope:

The ONLY way you know is because…

the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

 

[SteveVH]

That idea seems ludicrous to me.

Imagine listening to NPR for 3 months and trying to document everything that was said on that show.

The volume of words would be insurmountable to record in a text.

Plus it would be very hard to stay awake. Where do they get those voices?