Protestants, why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter enickman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
LOL!

The Holy Spirit went through each of the 27 books of the NT and the (66?) books of the OT specifically and spoke to Mr. White, indicating that they were inspired? Or did the HS also go through the other 400 or so other early Christian texts and give some sort of “nay” vote to Mr. White so he knew for sure that the Epistle of Barnabas was not inspired??

Really, how did that work? :confused:
Click to expand...
And given that James White is fallible, how do we know that what he is saying is true? Just take his word for it…?
 
Hi David Noonan,

Appreciate your sincere quest for understanding of Church…

We have to see the Church as comprising of Tradition…the interpreter of Sacred Scripture and how we as Church put into flesh what it means to be church, what it means to how to worship Christ, and how to live out morality and spirituality in our current times.

By 100 AD, the practice of faith was the same throughout the Christian world. But they all had their own customs and practices that were integrated into their faith which we call ‘small t’ or small traditions. They enrich the diversity of our common faith. But small traditions must contain the reality of our faith and practice, creed and hierarchy based on the apostles.

Finally, we must come to understand that the Church is mystery…mystiological…The Church only exists on the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ of Whom we draw our life in His Word and in His Eucharist and concrete sacraments that contain the interior grace of Christ Himself, the Church comforted and united and taught by the Holy Spirit at work in it, and in those particularly called to administrate the Lord as His minsters.

The essence of the universal faith is to become adopted sons and daughters of the Lord by entering into communion with the Holy Trinity…not just through the Word but by being nourished by Christ Himself.

Just today at Mass, the Gospel spoke of Jesus telling His apostles that He already knew of those who would leave Him and the one who would betray Him…most of the disciples leaving Christ when He foretold that they would have eternal life by eating and drinking of His Body and Blood…and He gave context to His words at the Last Supper…that He would become the perfect sacrifice prophesized by Melchizedek…through the outer appearance of the gifts of bread and wine.

So our worship has the same practice and intent in both the Latin and Orthodox rites, but the exterior practices may differ due to geographic and linguistic differences…but always…as we believe, we pray.
 
XianThinker said:
I want to thank everyone for their help. I’m now convinced the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura. I think it is okay to go outside the Bible and follow apostolic tradition so now I’m going to go read the ECFs to see whether Catholic Sacred Tradition is apostolic tradition as the Catholic Church claims or whether it is a tradition of man as Protestants claim.
Click to expand...
👍 One more thing that used to bother me as a former protestant: if the catholic church began to add teachings as early as the 4th century, then how, I thought, could I know, with certainty, that the catholic church didn’t include books in the bible that were not meant to be there, or exclude books from the bible that were meant to be in there…🤷
 
To be completely honest and fair, I am not Catholic because Catholicsim shows reverance to things and people that do not warrant it. The Pope is just a man. In the case of this current Pope, he is a man who also at one point was a very literal Nazi. I have a huge problem with that. The Bible tells us that no man, save Christ, is or ever has been holy.
The Bible prescribes what is and is not required for salvation.

Belief in Christ our Lord and his sacrifice for our sins saves us. It tells us that when we pray, it is to be directly to God the father through the name of his holy lamb. Not once does it tell us to sit in a closet and spill our guts to some dude in a white collar. When mortal men presume to “forgive” others of their sin, they take upon themselves an authority that belongs ONLY to Christ. They are not the representatives of Christ on earth. Christ does not need their help to forgive.

The Bible is also very clear in describing God’s disdain for idolatry and graven images, but when you go to any Catholic church, there are crucifixes and statues of this that or the other long dead man or woman all around. In some churches in Europe and South America, there are even “venerated” corpses on display before which prayers are offered up. That goes beyond idolatry and directly into the realm of paganism.

The Catholic church presumes too much upon God’s patience and takes upon itself much of what the father has plainly said is his domain and his alone. The entire concept of praying to saints or to Mary (who did NOT die a virgin, to which the siblings of Christ would attest) suggests adherents to Catholicism hold that they are, like God, omnipresent. I could go on for a long, long time on why, but this is a quick snapshot. Hope that answers the question.
 
XianThinker said:
I understand what you’re saying but how do you know that some things weren’t changed or added along the way? For example, the Bible seems to teach that the apostles baptized by full immersion (the word baptize means “to immerse”) in the name of Jesus (as recorded in the book of Acts). I was told the Catholic Church changed this apostolic teaching and now sprinkles in the name of the Trinity. How does an unbroken succession from the apostles prevent anyone from changing what the apostles taught especially if everyone is forced to agree with the Pope who is considered infallible?
Click to expand...
Good questions. I’m not far along enough in my Catechesis to know about how the Trinitarian Baptism works, but as to your first point, I quick google search offered this page on Trinitarian Baptism. You should read the whole article, but one paragraph elaborates:
“Jesus Only” Pentecostals also argue that the New Testament talks about people being baptized “in the name of Jesus,” but there are only four such passages (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5). Further, these passages do not use the same designation in each place (some say “Lord Jesus,” other say “Jesus Christ”), indicating that they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply descriptions by Luke. These four descriptions are not to be considered as a substitute for or contradiction of the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to: “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19)
Click to expand...
As to your question about Pope’s infallibility, it’s true and untrue. Pope can’t just say anything and claim it to be infallible. In fact, much of what Ratzinger, for example, says is his conjecture, though it’s mostly on, if not close to the mark. Papal Infallibility refers to papal definition made Ex Cathedra (From the Chair) regarding existing doctrine. In most cases, these definitions merely affirm what has been held as doctrine through the ages. This doesn’t mean the Pope goes unquestioned on his Ex Cathedra definitions, as they must be in accordance with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. They may not contradict. So in a sense, Papal Infallibility means more so that Pope must submit to and affirm the truths of Church rather than that the Church must submit to and affirm his truths.

One example of this is of Rodrigo Borgia. Arguably one among the handful of most evil men in history, and while Papal Infallibility didn’t exist as doctrine then, he never made a Papal decision that contradicted existing Church practices and beliefs. As a Pope, Rodrigo Borgia did many bad things with his power, but his actual Papal decisions never contradicted the Church. Amazing, huh? I tend to think so.

Here’s a few pages on Papal Infallibility:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
 
The Hebrew word for “worship” in Exodus 20:5 (the Ten Commandments) is “shachah” שָׁחָה. Take a look at what the Strong’s Enhanced Lexicon says about the word.

"172 occurrences; AV translates as “worship” 99 times, “bow” 31 times, “bow down” 18 times, “obeisance” nine times, “reverence” five times, “fall down” three times, “themselves” twice, “stoop” once, “crouch” once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 to bow down. 1a (Qal) to bow down. 1b (Hiphil) to depress (fig). 1c (Hithpael). 1c1 to bow down, prostrate oneself. 1c1a before superior in homage. 1c1b before God in worship. 1c1c before false gods. 1c1d before angel."11

Bowing down is part of the act of worship, as you can see above. Clearly, Roman Catholics who bow down before statues of Mary (and others) are risking breaking the commandment not to worship other gods and not to bow down before idols. The Catholic Church responds by saying that as long as it isn’t divine worship given to Mary, it is okay. But this is nothing more than a word game. They do the same thing to Mary that they would to God and excuse it by saying that it isn’t divine worship. The funny thing is that God doesn’t make the same distinction as the Catholics do. God says don’t do it. Don’t bow down before images (Lev. 26:1).
 
Chance_W said:
The Hebrew word for “worship” in Exodus 20:5 (the Ten Commandments) is “shachah” שָׁחָה. Take a look at what the Strong’s Enhanced Lexicon says about the word.

"172 occurrences; AV translates as “worship” 99 times, “bow” 31 times, “bow down” 18 times, “obeisance” nine times, “reverence” five times, “fall down” three times, “themselves” twice, “stoop” once, “crouch” once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 to bow down. 1a (Qal) to bow down. 1b (Hiphil) to depress (fig). 1c (Hithpael). 1c1 to bow down, prostrate oneself. 1c1a before superior in homage. 1c1b before God in worship. 1c1c before false gods. 1c1d before angel."11

Bowing down is part of the act of worship, as you can see above. Clearly, Roman Catholics who bow down before statues of Mary (and others) are risking breaking the commandment not to worship other gods and not to bow down before idols. The Catholic Church responds by saying that as long as it isn’t divine worship given to Mary, it is okay. But this is nothing more than a word game. They do the same thing to Mary that they would to God and excuse it by saying that it isn’t divine worship. The funny thing is that God doesn’t make the same distinction as the Catholics do. God says don’t do it. Don’t bow down before images (Lev. 26:1).
Click to expand...
Oh Gee…:rolleyes:
 
Chance_W said:
The Hebrew word for “worship” in Exodus 20:5 (the Ten Commandments) is “shachah” שָׁחָה. Take a look at what the Strong’s Enhanced Lexicon says about the word.

"172 occurrences; AV translates as “worship” 99 times, “bow” 31 times, “bow down” 18 times, “obeisance” nine times, “reverence” five times, “fall down” three times, “themselves” twice, “stoop” once, “crouch” once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 to bow down. 1a (Qal) to bow down. 1b (Hiphil) to depress (fig). 1c (Hithpael). 1c1 to bow down, prostrate oneself. 1c1a before superior in homage. 1c1b before God in worship. 1c1c before false gods. 1c1d before angel."11

Bowing down is part of the act of worship, as you can see above. **Clearly, Roman Catholics who bow down before statues of Mary (and others) are risking breaking the commandment not to worship other gods and not to bow down before idols. ** The Catholic Church responds by saying that as long as it isn’t divine worship given to Mary, it is okay. But this is nothing more than a word game. They do the same thing to Mary that they would to God and excuse it by saying that it isn’t divine worship. The funny thing is that God doesn’t make the same distinction as the Catholics do. God says don’t do it. Don’t bow down before images (Lev. 26:1).
Click to expand...
Far more important than the physical position of “bowing down” is the inner position of “bowing down”. Catholics report that they are not worshipping statues and the like, that invocation of the saints is not worship in the sense that we all worship God (dulia as compared to latria). If physical poition is that important, then those protestants who raise their hands and look up to the ceiling need to be careful.

The key here is to believe what others say about their pious practices and worship, and not tell others what they believe.

Jon
 
joe370 said:
Sola scriptura as the Christians final authority via individual interpretation or Jesus ’ church via leadership, as it is guided by the HS?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you mean by this…is it that you are trying to create what I would categorize as a false dichotomy? It seems that you want to say that it is either:

a) Individual interpretation with no leadership; or

b) Leadership w/o individual interpretation.

…from there you supply 6 verses evidencing leadership in the NT church. So what? We all know that there is leadership within the church….the real question (from a Protestant’s perspective as it relates to the necessity of the radical reformation) is: What does a congregation or an individual Christian do when the leadership is unrighteous or when it is discovered that the leadership has introduced erroneous doctrine?
Your six verses, rearranged so that the 3 from Hebrews 13 are together and with my comments added in bold, were:
Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.** yep, there were leaders and from 1 Tim and Titus we know that the leaders were to be blameless**

1 Corinthians 16:16 to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it. we are to submit to such as these…and “these” were those who were devoted to service(v15)….and not the corrupt or misguided

1 Thessalonians 5:12 Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you.** those that were to be respected, were to be respected b/c of the work that they were doing (13)…again, this has nothing to do with respecting the corrupt and misguided**

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.** yep…there were leaders**

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.… and from 1 Tim and Titus we know that the leaders were to be blameless….there is no indication that the writer of Hebrews expected obedience to corrupt and misguided leaders as such as those were simply not to be leaders

Hebrews 13:24 Greet all your leaders and all God’s people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.** yep…there were leaders**

That really isn’t a whole lot of verses given how much Catholics around here will emphasize the need to obey their hierarchy when contemplating the Reformation. I have asked a number of times on this thread what we are to do when the leadership errs in doctrine or is unrighteous….and I don’t recall that a Catholic has bothered to provide an answer. The answer can be found in Acts 4 and 5 (from the NIV):
The next day the rulers, the elders and the teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6 Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and others of the high priest’s family. 7 They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”….18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!
The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!
It seems pretty straight forward to me….when the leading conflicts with what God would have you do, then God’s will is that you don’t obey that leadership.
Protest is one thing…but to disobey and continue to split…thereby fostering the split and disunity…is furthering and abetting disobedience and disunity.
Click to expand...
disobedience to the corrupt and misguided is a good thing……dividing over issues that should have never become issues is a bad thing.
Do you think furthering disobedience, disunity, is the work of the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...
Do you acknowledge that it is God’s will for us to disobey those leaders who command us to go against the will of God?..if not, then how do you account for those occasions when the apostles and Christ did exactly that? Further, you seem to over emphasize the disunity that exists. It seems to me that most Protestants don’t view the vast majority of other Protestants as their separated brethren….they simply view them as their brothers. Unity in the NT didn’t require complete conformity…some Christians viewed one day more sacred than another, while other Christians viewed every day alike. Some Christians ate only vegetables, others ate meat. Paul’s solution wasn’t conformity…it was to stop passing judgement on each other. It would be nice if all doctrinal error could be eliminated as that would result in unity. It would be nice if all disunity could be eliminated, but I wouldn’t advocate unity around doctrinal error (simply for the sake of unity).
 
stewstew03 said:
And given that James White is fallible, how do we know that what he is saying is true? Just take his word for it…?
Click to expand...
Were the Bishops that sat in the early Church Councils that decided on which books of the Bible were inspired, and which books weren’t, fallible?

Sarah x 🙂
 
It took many people many years to determine – through the Apostles and the Tradition of faith they founded and their successors, along with earliest theologians…together discerned in the Holy Spirit which books were inspired for public revelation.

Public revelation must address to the universal person, irregardless of what particular time or conditions that person lived in.

The miracle of faith is that people today don’t need to live in earliest times close to the event of Christ, to have the same faith as the ancients did.

What changed with the Protestant Reformation is that individual Christians lost faith that the Holy Spirit insured the transmission of faith down through each generation, and that individual men decided on their own which books to take out.

So the Protestant Bible has less books than the Catholic one.

The Council of Trent afterwards reflected and studied a great deal and affirmed through the Holy Spirit that the correct books of the Bible were properly chosen and assembled.

The universal Church bases its life on Christ Himself. By 100 AD, most books were already chosen. The Gospel of St. John was on hold for awhile to insure it was truly written by him. The Book of Hebrews took 200 years to approve.

So by 100 AD, the Church had already most of the Bible…its assembly followed the institution of the Church as the Church is the true interpreter of Scripture, not individual men. And the liturgy, its tone spirit and parts were practiced throughout the entire Christian world by this time, the administrative model in place through the episcopacy, and the Apostles Creed.

St. Justin the Martyr wrote a description of the Mass in Rome in 155 AD to the Roman Emperor. Its purpose, function, manner, spirit is the same as today’s.

The apostles not only appointed bishops and founded churches, but they also affirmed the diaconate and presbyters. They had pupils who later became theologians. In his second letter of Epistles…St. Peter 2:2 exhorted everyone to follow only those chosen by Christ, who were preapproved by Christ, witnesses to ‘His Majesty’, and to not follow private interpretation…and we see private interpretation outside the Tradition of faith given us by the Apostles.

We come to the Church for its full deposit of faith, although other forms of Christianity have part of the truth…and even other religions share with us the acknowledgement of God as Creator. We also recognize people of good will who do not have any type of faith as also walking on the path of salvation to God.
 
Porknpie said:
MatthewMark - no no no one is judging you. “Judging” refers to whether one believes that you individually are going to heaven or hell. No Catholic on this board that I can think of has made such a judgement about someone. But to have a discussion on faith and morals, what is true and not true and to discuss why or why not is not judging. Only God can judge us…a God that wants salvation for all of his human creation.
Click to expand...
You are right. I stand corrected. I should have said that I don’t believe in Catholicism as the one true Christian religion. I don’t believe any Christian religion is the one true religion. We are all treading a path, on a journey toward God with each step. I honestly believe God does not hold Protestants in lower regard than Catholics, or will mete out harsher punishments to those who did not choose Catholicism.
 
MatthewMark said:
I honestly believe God does not hold Protestants in lower regard than Catholics,
Click to expand...
This is very Catholic of you to say, MM.
or will mete out harsher punishments to those who did not choose Catholicism.
Click to expand...
As is this.

It’s above our pay grade as Catholics to declare to whom God metes out “harsher punishments.”
 
KathleenGee said:
It took many people many years to determine – through the Apostles and the Tradition of faith they founded and their successors, along with earliest theologians…together discerned in the Holy Spirit which books were inspired for public revelation.
Click to expand...
I understand that it took some time to reach agreement, and there would have been a lot of discussion and prayer I’m sure. It appears the Holy Spirit didn’t instantly inspire the Bishops, in union, to know which books should be included, therefor the need for the various Councils to discuss, agree and confirm.

I’m sure these Bishops felt individually guided by the Holy Spirit, and were certainly praying for this guidance, so what’s the difference between, say, one of these individual Bishops, and Mr. White?

Both are inspired by the Holy Spirit, or claim to be. It seems to me the only difference is one is working on their own, in prayer, and the other is working, in prayer, in conjunction with many others.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Radical said:
the real question (from a Protestant’s perspective as it relates to the necessity of the radical reformation) is: What does a congregation or an individual Christian do when the leadership is unrighteous or when it is discovered that the leadership has introduced erroneous doctrine?
Click to expand...
From a Protestant perspective, you need to be aware that your leadership, whom you acknowledge to be fallible,* is going to be wrong. * At some point. Going. To. Be. Wrong.

For isn’t that what fallible means?

At least you have the assurance of knowing that at some point what your pastor is going to say is going to be in grave error.

(If you want to call that assurance?? To me, I don’t find that re-assuring at all.)

So from the Protestant perspective you really ought to have some sort of exit strategy for when your pastor is preaching erroneous doctrines. (And, as you acknowledge, HE WILL do so.)
 
pablope said:
Prior to the Protestant revolt…of 1521…how many variations of the Christian faith were there?One? two? several thousands?

What is also true, is that prior the 1521…there was only one Christianity…and it did not encompass many religions.

And that Christianity believed in…the Real presence, the Marian dogmas, oral confession, purgatory…had one way of worship…the Mass…this is just scratching the surface of what Christianity was prior to 1521.

The CC came first…before the Bible was produced…or any of the NT writings were written. So may I ask…how could the CC produce a work that contradicted it?

Actually…I would protestantism is not that wholly true and complete Christian faith…since Protestantism was borned of the disobedience of Luther…and this is what the Bible says of disobedience…1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”
Click to expand...
Sounds like we’re discussing which religion is correct when the issue is and always has been Jesus Christ, who is king of kings and lord of all. I realize Catholics always cite the fact that “Catholicism came first” as the reason it is the one true religion. But where is it written that Protestantism is wrong? Martin Luther was not disobedient. Even after he formulated the 95 theses–in part because of the misuse of indulgences–he still did not believe all indulgences were wrong. It was not his intent, with the theses, to break from the Catholic Church. However, through his rigorous study of the Bible and Christian theology, he had identified an inconsistency in Catholic doctrine. He was excommunicated for this.
 
Radical said:
Do you acknowledge that it is God’s will for us to disobey those leaders who command us to go against the will of God?..if not, then how do you account for those occasions when the apostles and Christ did exactly that? Further, you seem to over emphasize the disunity that exists. It seems to me that most Protestants don’t view the vast majority of other Protestants as their separated brethren….they simply view them as their brothers.
Click to expand...
Sure. Until you start talking about doctrine. Then you realize that you are* separated *brethren. :sad_yes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top