Protestants, why?

[JonNC]

Yes. Exactly. Man has been interpreting the Bible for thousands of years, and continues to come up with new interpretations today. No one on earth can be trusted to interpret the Bible flawlessly because none of us are flawless. The only flawless person is Jesus. This is why we need to serve Him and place our trust in Him and adhere to the commandment that He said is the most important: Love. Love your neighbor. Love your enemy. Love the Lord God with all your heart. Read your Bible to know Jesus and know His message. And above all, love.

This is discouraging even to me as a sola scripturist. What good is a flawless scripture if we can’t have some method of understanding the message it holds within. Where then are **least chances **for flaws? Not in our own interpretations, because as you say they are flawed.
It seems the safest bet is to turn to those very close in time to the Christ, those who wrote the early creeds and councils. ISTM that is, at least, a good starting point.

There’s a lot of folks smarter than me about what scripture says. As a Lutheran, I tend to turn to those Lutheran teachers that appear to support and accept those early councils.

What say you?

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

However, none before the “Month Day Year” who did not hold to them could be accused, even by Catholics.

I don’t understand, Jon.

Luther held, generally to the Assumption before it was declared, but others did not, Catholic or otherwise.

Catholics are required to give religious assent to all beliefs, not just those that have been formally defined.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;9693811]But what is the jursidiction of that Petrine office, and why is it that the other patriarchates
have*** never*** undestood it in the way Rome claims it to be?

I have plenty of quotes from eastern churches, back then, that did see it that way. But, even if those other patriarchates didn’t, does that nullify Matthew 16? Jesus never mentioned Rome, but He did say that His church would be forever linked to Peter, and Rome just happens to be where Peter set up shop, regarding Jesus’ earthly (militant) church.

So, Peter allowed James to be in charge out of courtesy?

LOL…I am not sure… no one knows, with certainty. I sure wish I could talk to the apostles and ask them…I suppose we just have to live by faith and trust that Jesus continues to guide His church.

It is compelling, and the early councils had access to that compelling verse.

And, much to my surprise, they respected that office.

Clearly, for the gates of Hell to prevail, it must prevail against His whole Church. That won’t happen regardless of our divisions here on Earth.

If Satan and company succeeds at altering doctrine, in the slightest, then hell has prevailed, in my humble opinion. Can you imagine if the church suddenly denied the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist for example…

 

[joe370]

This is discouraging even to me as a sola scripturist. What good is a flawless scripture if we can’t have some method of understanding the message it holds within. Where then are **least chances **for flaws? Not in our own interpretations, because as you say they are flawed.
It seems the safest bet is to turn to those very close in time to the Christ, those who wrote the early creeds and councils. ISTM that is, at least, a good starting point.

There’s a lot of folks smarter than me about what scripture says. As a Lutheran, I tend to turn to those Lutheran teachers that appear to support and accept those early councils.

What say you?

Jon

I agree Jon…

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;9693867]I don’t understand, Jon.

If you follow the posts back, the discussionwas about marian dogmas, and I was commenting on how some of them were not dogmatized until after the Reformation.

Catholics are required to give religious assent to all beliefs, not just those that have been formally defined.

Please explain. It sounds like you re saying that all Catholics in histroy were required to believe and confess the IC, for example.

Jon

 

[joe370]

If you follow the posts back, the discussionwas about marian dogmas, and I was commenting on how some of them were not dogmatized until after the Reformation.

Please explain. It sounds like you re saying that all Catholics in histroy were required to believe and confess the IC, for example.

Jon

I, long ago, used to get hung up on words used to define teachings, but not anymore. The church has always professed, much to my surprise, that Mary was sinless (Martin Luther too) through out her entire life, thanks to the power of her Savior. The IC is just a phrase adopted by the CC to express this belief…

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;9693879]I have plenty of quotes from eastern churches, back then, that did see it that way. But, even if those other patriarchates didn’t, does that nullify Matthew 16? Jesus never mentioned Rome, but He did say that His church would be forever linked to Peter, and Rome just happens to be where Peter set up shop, regarding Jesus’ earthly (militant) church.

Really Joe? That spoke in terms of infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction? And if they did, they were not councils. Correct?

LOL…I am not sure… no one knows, with certainty. I sure wish I could talk to the apostles and ask them…I suppose we just have to live by faith and trust that Jesus continues to guide His church.

Ok, Joe.

And, much to my surprise, they respected that office.

So do I. Perhaps moreso than my Lutheran ancesters.

If Satan and company succeeds at altering doctrine, in the slightest, then hell has prevailed, in my humble opinion. Can you imagine if the church suddenly denied the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist for example…

Even if our communions together decided to deny it, and the Orthodox and Anglicans signed on to that denial, His real presence would still be the doctrine of His Church, and the gates of Hell still could not prevail.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Yes. Exactly. Man has been interpreting the Bible for thousands of years, and continues to come up with new interpretations today. No one on earth can be trusted to interpret the Bible flawlessly because none of us are flawless. The only flawless person is Jesus. This is why we need to serve Him and place our trust in Him and adhere to the commandment that He said is the most important: Love. Love your neighbor. Love your enemy. Love the Lord God with all your heart. Read your Bible to know Jesus and know His message. And above all, love.

MatthewMark -

I’m still waiting your response to post 771. Don’t forget me.

Very similar here. How do know if you understand his message in the bible…? But answer 771 first please…I try to ask one question at a time. An observation is that your bible is missing 7 books (most likely), removed by a printing company. So you can’t begin to know his complete message without the complete written Word.

 

[joe370]

JonNC;9693921]Really Joe? That spoke in terms of infallibility and supreme universal jurisdiction? And if they did, they were not councils. Correct?

Councils too.

Even if our communions together decided to deny it, and the Orthodox and Anglicans signed on to that denial, His real presence would still be the doctrine of His Church, and the gates of Hell still could not prevail.

When I read Matthew 16, now…and hell will not prevail…I see Jesus promising to guide His church into all truth in spite of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, within His church. The devil can and does, sadly snatch up souls but the devil cannot alter truth, and that is why, no matter what happens in the CC, (scandals etc.) I will always follow…

 

[PRmerger]

Please explain. It sounds like you re saying that all Catholics in histroy were required to believe and confess the IC, for example.

Jon

I really try never to talk about what Catholics are “required” to believe/do/profess/proclaim/practice, etc etc etc. It smacks of Adult Daily Minimum Requirement Christianity, which, of course, is not part of the paradigm of Catholicism.

The point is: our Mariology has existed from the very beginning, and Catholics were indeed “required” to profess them.

 

[PRmerger]

Because when you start believing things that appear nowhere in the Bible, you are relying on the word of man, not God.

Exactly.

And is it not so that you have never read, from Genesis through Revelation, that “all beliefs about God must be found in the Bible”?

That is something that you have heard professed by a man, who heard another man proclaim it, who heard another man declare this, but no one ever read it in a single page of Scripture.

Which is why no Christian religion is perfect.

Indeed.

Catholicism does not claim to be perfect. :nope:

Indeed. That’s why God gave us his son–to overcome our sinfulness and imperfections. If we put our belief and trust in Jesus, it doesn’t matter if we light candles or sign hymns or practice the baptism of immersion–these are manmade traditions. Traditions of men are just that. My tradition or your tradition is immaterial. What matters is the glory of God in all things.

Yes. You may be surprised to know that Catholicism does not claim that lighting candles, singing hymn or baptism (by immersion) are anything but traditions.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that traditions/customs/disciplinary practices are the same as Sacred Tradition, which is the Word of God transmitted to us through the Church.

 

[MatthewMark]

Doctrinal truth, regarding Jesus’ teachings are unknowable…? OK.

I don’t think any of Jesus’ teachings are unknowable. It is in other areas when interpretations may differ. For instance, Protestants believe Jesus had at least one brother, James. It’s not a matter of critical importance in Protestant churches. Catholics believe Jesus was an only child. Both have interpreted the early Biblical texts to support that Jesus either had siblings or did not. However, there is no sufficient evidence in the Bible to support either claim and we believe what we believe based on tradition. In all honesty, I think if we argue whether Jesus was or was not an only a child, we’re missing the point of his life and mission on earth.

 

[MatthewMark]

MatthewMark -

I’m still waiting your response to post 771. Don’t forget me.

Very similar here. How do know if you understand his message in the bible…? But answer 771 first please…I try to ask one question at a time. An observation is that your bible is missing 7 books (most likely), removed by a printing company. So you can’t begin to know his complete message without the complete written Word.

What did I miss? Sorry, I had to go back to see what you’re referring to. Here’s what you wrote:
The belief in his being literal is in the scripture itself, he describes a “church”, singular, in multiple passages. And, the church fathers created ONE church. Not two, three or 38,000. These are the same Church fathers who canonized the bible that you use, although you are missing a few books because you let a printing company take them out

I think I did answer this, but perhpas my explanation is getting lost in semantics. You say “church” is singular, but how do you know? “My church,” as Jesus says, could very well mean the same as “my followers” or “my people.” Jesus called Peter a rock. It’s obvious that Peter isn’t literally a rock. He is the starting point of Jesus’ church that will stand forever. Jesus referred to himself as a “temple” before he was crucified, saying “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days.” Obviously, Jesus was not a brick and mortar temple. He used symbolism continually. Protestants and Catholics have interpreted the meaning of these words differently, but honestly, I believe if we dwell on such differences then we’re missing the meaning of Jesus’ life and mission. I also realize the gravity of that statement. This has separated Catholics and Protestants for centuries, but I don’t think it should. Did I answer your question? Sorry I missed your earlier posts.

 

[PRmerger]

In all honesty, I think if we argue whether Jesus was or was not an only a child, we’re missing the point of his life and mission on earth.

MM, an impoverished understanding of Christ is, well, an impoverishment.

Knowing the Truth about Christ being the Only Child Begotten In The Womb of Mary serves to nourish, highlight and reinforce our understanding of Christ’s divinity.

 

[MatthewMark]

Very similar here. How do know if you understand his message in the bible…? But answer 771 first please…I try to ask one question at a time. An observation is that your bible is missing 7 books (most likely), removed by a printing company. So you can’t begin to know his complete message without the complete written Word.

Argh! I wrote out a complete response to this, but it didn’t save. (One more time!)

The 7 books you refer to were included in Luther’s Bible and called the Apocrypha, an appendix to the Old Testament. Luther called them a “useful and a good read” but not used to establish any doctrine. They were later deemed to be not “divinely inspired” and were eventually removed. It’s interesting that some Eastern Orthodox Bibles held several other books: 3 and 4 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees, to name a few. I believe the Bibles we currently have–especially the New Testament–is sufficient for us to begin to know God.

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants and Catholics have interpreted the meaning of these words differently, but honestly, I believe if we dwell on such differences then we’re missing the meaning of Jesus’ life and mission. I also realize the gravity of that statement. This has separated Catholics and Protestants for centuries, but I don’t think it should

So why draw the line at Catholics and Protestants?

Why not change your paradigm slightly to this: Non-Christians and Monotheists (Jews, Muslims) ought not dwell on our differences. We agree on so much: there is One God and He is Merciful, Just, Forgiving, and the Creator of All.

Why not simply stop this “division” and say that we’re all just Monotheists?

 

[Taestron]

MM, an impoverished understanding of Christ is, well, an impoverishment.

Knowing the Truth about Christ being the Only Child Begotten In The Womb of Mary serves to nourish, highlight and reinforce our understanding of Christ’s divinity.

And how is it that a impoverished understanding of Mary necessarily leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ? What does the fact that Mary only conceived one child tell us about Christ’s divinity that we do not already know from other sources?

 

[PRmerger]

And how is it that a impoverished understanding of Mary necessarily leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ? What does the fact that Mary only conceived one child tell us about Christ’s divinity that we do not already know from other sources?

It would change our understanding of Jesus’ divinity.

All teachings on Mary only serve to enhance, highlight and reinforce our understanding of Jesus.

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!"

 

[Taestron]

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!"

Interesting, I guess my initial response would be that something can become corrupted and frequently does except for the grace of God. Do not Catholics claim that mortal sin drives God out of the soul of the sinner? If a chalice is used in the Eucharist and then later on contain milk, does that invalidate the fact that it once contained the blood of Christ?

I would say that the doctrine of perpetual virginity could be true. However, to say that we must believe it or our belief about Christ is deficient strikes me as blatantly false. Think about it this way. Christ shared a world with sinners and did not become corrupted. He shared death with sinners, but was vindicated by God. But say that Christ shared a womb with sinners, that is too close to sin for it to be valid?

 

[MatthewMark]

So why draw the line at Catholics and Protestants?

Why not change your paradigm slightly to this: Non-Christians and Monotheists (Jews, Muslims) ought not dwell on our differences. We agree on so much: there is One God and He is Merciful, Just, Forgiving, and the Creator of All.

Why not simply stop this “division” and say that we’re all just Monotheists?

I’m specifically addressing the differences between Catholics and Protestants. We both believe that Jesus died for our sins and yet there is a chasm between us. Personally, I don’t believe Catholics are “wrong.” I applaud them for their faith. I feel no division between my faith and the Catholic faith, but I fear the feeling isn’t mutual.

I do appreciate the similarities between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Obviously, Christianity is the only religion centered on Christ, and Christ said “No man may come to the father but by me.” I’m not sure how God will deal with Muslims and Jews, but that is in His hands, not mine. I can profess my faith to non-Christians and hope they’ll find Christ, but ultimately, it is a choice.