Protestants, why?

[pablope]

so you want to suggest that the principle established by the Bereans (to test even apostolic teachings against scripture) only works with respect to the scripture in existence on that day? ….and now we are to abandon that approach altogether? From over here it only seems that more scripture would enable better testing. In contrast to Paul, anyone/anything that doesn’t welcome the testing of his/its teachings against scripture is suspect…very, very suspect.

The Bereans received oral instructions and guidance…Sacred Tradition…prior to searching and testing with Scripture…whatever they used.

In essence, they had inherited the Tradition with which to view Scripture…whatever they used.

Protestants view Scripture with the lens they were given…same as what you do…but the question…why do you accept your tradition and not the 2000 year tradition?

and at the same time it proclaims at lot of developments to that supposedly whole and entire faith….it can’t be both….you are talking out of both sides of your mouth

 

[XianThinker]

What beliefs related to salvation do you think are important that are not taught in the Bible?
CopticChristian;9683771:

Xian,

The belief that salvation is found in a book.

What I meant to say was, “Is there anything required for salvation that is not taught in the Bible?”

If I repent of my sins, get baptized, believe in Jesus, and continue to believe and love God and express my love for God by obeying His commandments will I go to Heaven? Or did I miss something that is not found in the Bible that will result in God sending me to Hell?

 

[XianThinker]

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?

I was taught that sola scriptura means the Bible tells us everything we need to do to get to heaven. “from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (1Tim 3:15, NIV)”

Of course there are many beliefs not in the Bible that are important. However, does a person really need to worship on Sunday and believe in purgatory or the Trinity to be a Christian and get to Heaven? I don’t believe in purgatory and I was taught modalism which is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manifestations, instead of distinct persons of the one true God. I’ve read posts from Catholics and Protestants explain the Trinity in ways that are modalist. Are they going to Hell because their beliefs are slightly off?

Under the thread “Can you help me better explain the Trinity?” a Catholic responded:

In a most simplified and crude explanation it would be like how I try to explain it to my children.

I am a man.
I am a son to my parents.
I am a husband to my wife.
I am a father to my children.
I am an uncle to my nieces and nephews… etc…

I am still the same person but have many roles… hence

Father, Son, Holy Spirit… 3 persons… 1 God.

Hope that kinda makes sense on a very basic and not a very theological basis.

This person thinks he believes in the Trinity but he really has a modalist view of God without knowing it. Is this person going to Hell because he doesn’t fully understand the Trinity and has a modalist view of God? I don’t think it’s essential to have everything right and I would not condemn this person as a heretic and tell him he’s going to Hell for not understanding the Trinity correctly.

 

[stewstew03]

This person thinks he believes in the Trinity but he really has a modalist view of God without knowing it…

XT, this is a great reminder of why Sacred Tradition is important.

 

[JonNC]

In my non-catholic days so long ago, I was really surprised to find out that the bound, codified bible did not exist for the first 400 years of Christianity. Sola scriptura would have been impossible for those Christians, if it had been promulgated by Jesus and His apostles.

Codified or not, they were there, Joe. But more importantly, not only would it have been impossible, but also unnecessary.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

PRmerger;9683254:

It has been suggested by some Catholic apologists that all of the heresies in the history of Christendom have stemmed from this “it can’t be both” mentality.

The Protestant reformers claim “it can’t be both” Scripture and Tradition.

That’s not what the Lutheran reformers taught or believed.

Jon

 

[MatthewMark]

This question is for my Catholic brethren. And I apologize if it has been covered recently.
In Matthew 16:18 it says: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
I have heard Catholics say this is the what the Church bases its authority on. Jesus tells Peter he shall be the rock upon which the Church is built. Protestants, however, believe that Jesus is saying that Peter is the point from which Jesus’ church–the entire body of believers–will grow. And in fact, this makes sense. Martin Luther was Catholic and a theologian. He was borne of the Catholic Church before starting another branch of Jesus’ church, which in turn allowed the growth of other Christian churches. So, help me please. Is there a passage(s) in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church is the one true Christian religion? Thanks.*

 

[Porknpie]

This question is for my Catholic brethren. And I apologize if it has been covered recently.
In Matthew 16:18 it says: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.*
I have heard Catholics say this is the what the Church bases its authority on. Jesus tells Peter he shall be the rock upon which the Church is built. Protestants, however, believe that Jesus is saying that Peter is the point from which Jesus’ church–the entire body of believers–will grow. And in fact, this makes sense. Martin Luther was Catholic and a theologian. He was borne of the Catholic Church before starting another branch of Jesus’ church, which in turn allowed the growth of other Christian churches. So, help me please. Is there a passage(s) in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church is the one true Christian religion? Thanks.

Matthew, welcome!

But,like many before and after him, Luther was heretic. So “And in fact, this makes sense” makes no sense.

Where do you get the sense that Christ was not being literal in this passage, “churches” not being singular? The early church fathers don’t speak of multiple “churches” either. Scripture and tradition speak of one Catholic church. The apostles didn’t set up all kinds of churches, each believing and teaching differently on faith and morals. And it remained that way for 1,500 years. And, now today, we have 38,000 churches (source: WIKI).

 

[PRmerger]

Of course I’d want to know everything Paul preached but I don’t think a person has to know every little detail to be a good Christian.

I don’t believe that anyone has said that here.

Point is: if you had all the letters written by your long lost dad to you, and from that you were convinced of his love for you…and then you found out that there were videos he had made for you…wouldn’t you be absolutely salivating at the chance to watch them?

You discover there are actually 2 channels of messages from your Father, telling you he loves you.

Or would you say, “I don’t think I need to watch those videos. I already am convinced of his love for me. I’ve got everything I need, thank you very much, regarding me and dear old dad!”

I think loving God and our neighbors is more important than whether we believe Mary had other children

2 points:

-where does the Bible say this? Or did you simply hear one pastor proclaim this, who heard another pastor proclaim this, who heard another …but no one ever read that in the pages of Scripture!

-you can’t fully understand Jesus unless you fully understand Mary. That is, each and every teaching on Mary only serves to enhance, highlight and nurture our Christology.

IOW: an impoverished understanding of Mary can only lead to an impoverished understanding of Jesus.

In fact, you are at a great disadvantage when in dialogue with Muslims who deny the deity of Christ, if you proclaim that Mary’s womb held other children. The Muslim will rightly ask you: how can you claim that this man is Divine, when the womb that contained him–the Creator of the World!–later contained sinful, stained creatures! That would be like the Ark of the Covenant in your OT also housing some pretty desert pebbles, after containing God Himself. No, that person who shared a womb with sinful creatures could not be God.

However, Muslims cannot offer that argument to Catholics. They consider, “Hmmm…they don’t believe that Mary had any other children. That must mean that that which her womb contained must have truly been Divine!”

 

[Radical]

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.

I find it quite bizarre that Catholics post this verse as if there are no issues surrounding its interpretation and that it establishes that religious leaders must be obeyed no matter what.
What gives? Have you read those passages in the gospels where Jesus went against the traditions of the Pharisees? If not, then read them and tell me how those are reconciled with (your interpretation of) this verse. If you have, then why do you carry on as if they don’t exist?

Better yet, have you read the rest of the chapter that you just quoted? Immediately after the bit you quoted it reads:
“Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
It is gobsmackingly mind boggling that you Catholics quote verses 1-3 and pat yourselves on the back thinking that you have established that your bishops must be obeyed. You do realize that the traditions of the Pharisees were in error, right? Is it that you admit that, like the Pharisees, your bishops have erred and then go on to insist that they should be obeyed in that error? Why don’t you present verses 5-12 in that same fashion and come to the conclusion that what your bishops do is exactly the opposite of what is taught (in a number of instances)? How do you not realize that Jesus has just told he disciples that, as leaders, they are not to be at all like the Pharisees? It seems that you have never read those verses. What’s the deal? Is it that even though the apostles are not to lead like the Pharisees led, and even though the apostles are not to desire or be given titles of honor as the Pharisees did/were…we are still to treat them as Pharisees? And what about the 7 woes that show up in verses 13-39? How do you reconcile them with the command to obey the Pharisees?..especially when those woes contain indications that the teachings of the Pharisees were in error? Was Jesus really teaching that we should carry on in error? Lucy, you have a lot of esplainin’ to do! IMHO Joe370’s verses (@ post 670) are at least a little better for your position, but they too fail to account for other verses which qualify the obedience and authority…I’ll get to them next.

 

[PRmerger]

What does that mean?

What does Strive to enter mean?

Well, what does the Holy Spirit tell you it means? Isn’t that your paradigm that you can read the words of scripture and the Holy Spirit will tell you?

Why are you asking me what the words of Christ mean?

 

[PRmerger]

It seems like most of what is included in Sacred Tradition is also found in the Bible. It’s not about wanting to do the bare minimum. It’s about focusing on what is most important. I find it’s easier for me to follow two commandments (love God and love your neighbor) than trying to remember and follow 100 other commands that almost always involve loving God or your neighbor.

Yeah, well I respectfully say that if I were your wife and you asked me, “Just tell me what’s “necessary” to be considered a good husband” I wouldn’t be impressed. And then if you told me, “Well, I just want to focus on what’s the most important things to keep you happy. If you just give me 2 things that I have to accomplish every day, rather than 100, I’ll be fine with that”…

you’d be sleeping on the couch!

 

[PRmerger]

What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of the apostles?

An interesting question has been posted by stewstew03, Radical, regarding your tradition that all theological truth must be “actually” found in the Scriptures… Take the dogma of the Trinity. "“The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” said no Scriptures,* ever.*

Yet it is clear that you proclaim the very Catholic dogma as cited above.

Stewstew03 posits, "However, the apostles did not explain that God is “one in three persons” and Jesus did not clearly teach that concept either (Matthew 28:19 does not explicitly state that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in three). The only reason Oneness Theology (Modalism or Sabellianism) didn’t gain more traction is because the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, condemned it! Tertullian wrote that during his ministry he noticed ‘the majority of believers’ adhered to the Oneness doctrine being put forth by Noetus of Smyrna. It took time for the doctrine of the Trinity to develop. So, clearly, the Trinity is not so cut-and-dry UNLESS we rely on Sacred Tradition.

So, if a monotheist said to you, Radical, that “God is One Person who manifests Himself in Three ways” how can scripture (alone) be used to refute it?

What say you, Radical?

 

[PRmerger]

It is gobsmackingly mind boggling that you Catholics quote verses 1-3 and pat yourselves on the back thinking that you have established that your bishops must be obeyed. You do realize that the traditions of the Pharisees were in error, right?

You seem to be saying, Radical, 2 things.

1. It’s okay to disobey what Jesus commanded. For there is no denying from you that he commanded us to do this, right? Yet you seem to be suggesting that we can and ought to disobey our leaders. Curious, this.
2. Religious leaders only need to be obeyed when they are not in error.

Firstly, I find it astonishing, still, that you would state #1 here, on a Catholic forum.

No Catholic here on this thread is going to be saying that we can disobey Jesus, as you are proposing.

Regarding #2, the Scriptures are, again, not on your side. Our leaders are to be obeyed even when they are leading us in the wrong direction.

What you are proposing is in the tradition of Korah (see Numbers 16), who was slain for his disobedience of Moses (who, incidentally, was leading the Chosen People in the wrong direction! Talk about a leader being in error!) and also see Jude 11.

Incidentally, are children not to be obedient to their parents, even if they may be prone to error?

Thus, if we are to obey our parents, who aren’t infallible, how much more ought we obey our Bishops, who have been given the charism of infallibility??

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Yes, and one answer is the canon of Scripture.
Another is the Divine Liturgy.

Radical:
Is wishful thinking…please provide some substance to your claim! Try again! Demonstrate that it is an inspired apostolic teaching….

What denial! If the canon of scripture us NOT an inspired Apostolic teaching,then tell us what Bible are you using? Under whose authority are you using ANY Bible?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical
The canon simply wasn’t provided by the apostles

Then why are you reading and using ANY Bible to defend any doctrine or dogma? Why are Protestants using a 27 NT canon?

 

[joe370]

Codified or not, they were there, Joe. But more importantly, not only would it have been impossible, but also unnecessary.

Jon

I agree Jon; they were definitely there. What bothered me long ago was the idea believed by many today (my sister) - that everyone was walking around with a little black bible in their hands in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th…centuries.

 

[joe370]

This question is for my Catholic brethren. And I apologize if it has been covered recently.
In Matthew 16:18 it says: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.*
I have heard Catholics say this is the what the Church bases its authority on. Jesus tells Peter he shall be the rock upon which the Church is built. Protestants, however, believe that Jesus is saying that Peter is the point from which Jesus’ church–the entire body of believers–will grow. And in fact, this makes sense. Martin Luther was Catholic and a theologian. He was borne of the Catholic Church before starting another branch of Jesus’ church, which in turn allowed the growth of other Christian churches. So, help me please. Is there a passage(s) in the Bible that specifies the Catholic Church is the one true Christian religion? Thanks.

By whose authority did ML start another branch of Jesus’ church, which eventually transformed into a separate and independent church, was a question I could not answer as a former non-catholic.

 

[Radical]

You seem to be saying, Radical, 2 things.

1. It’s okay to disobey what Jesus commanded.

you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried…it is quite simple. we are to obey Christ, but we first have to understand his teaching. I pointed out that a few verses later Christ also commanded:

And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

you don’t deny that teaching do you? now, I suspect you call your priest ‘father’ and that you have your kids call their dad, ‘father". Why don’t you follow that command? Is it that you think the verse has a meaning which isn’t obvious on the surface? Now if you can figure that out for the verse regarding ‘father’, how can you not see that there might also be a meaning which isn’t obvious on the surface for the Moses’ seat command? Also, how is it that you keep ignoring the fact that Jesus openingly disregarded and opposed the teachings of the Pharisees…is it that you think Jesus was a hypocrite and said one thing, but then did the opposite? Have you thought about what the Pharisees taught wrt Jesus? Did they teach that Jesus was Lord or that he was a blasphemer?..are you following their teaching in that regard.

1. Religious leaders only need to be obeyed when they are not in error.

besides the Matt 23 verse (which i doubt that you understand) what do you possibly have to suggest that we should follow sinful and misguided leaders? Where in the NT do you get the idea that the congregation must tolerate sinful and misguided leaders? The NT gives clear instructions as to the required qualifications for church leaders…do you think those requirements should be obeyed or ignored?..and when they are ignored the unfit leaders are then tolerated?..is that how you think it should work?

No Catholic here on this thread is going to be saying that we can disobey Jesus, as you are proposing.

first you should figure out what i am actually saying

Regarding #2, the Scriptures are, again, not on your side. Our leaders are to be obeyed even when they are leading us in the wrong direction.

well that sure explains a lot…but please show me that clear teaching. Do you realize that 1 Tim 5:19-20 describes a mechanism for disciplining the bad leader?..what do you think?..is it that the bad leader who refuses to be disciplined is still to be obeyed? Is it that even if the bad leader disobeys 100 commands from God, the congregation must obey that one command to obey that bad leader?

What you are proposing is in the tradition of Korah (see Numbers 16), who was slain for his disobedience of Moses (who, incidentally, was leading the Chosen People in the wrong direction! Talk about a leader being in error!)

ohh really? what exactly was Moses’s error at that time…Moses wasn’t a bad leader…he was one of the greatest. Korah was a bad leader…and you say, good or bad, it doesn’t matter, just follow the leader.

Incidentally, are children not to be obedient to their parents, even if they may be prone to error?

and what if the error is sinning against God?..do you think that the kids should be obedient to those parents and join in?

Thus, if we are to obey our parents, who aren’t infallible, how much more ought we obey our Bishops, who have been given the charism of infallibility??

well if they actually had such a gift, then we wouldn’t have a disagreement…it is b/c they aren’t infallible that we are debating what errors they made.

 

[joe370]

Then why are you reading and using ANY Bible to defend any doctrine or dogma? Why are Protestants using a 27 NT canon?

If the CC, in the 4th century, had codified a NT comprised of 26 books (omitting the book of Revelations for example) all the bibles today, no doubt, would only include 26 books.