Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

Ok CET,

I am going to try to show you the error of your ways by responding to your arguments in a similar way that you did. Hopefully I can also show some compelling arguments as well, and I would ask that you consider them, rather than just resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.

John 10:34-35
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

Jesus calls the word of God scripture, more spesifically the old testament in this case

You are right that he calls the old testament scripture. Unfortunately it says nothing for the new testament, and we would know nothing of Jesus without the New Testament. Or would we? The early church converts certainly knew about him without a word being written in the New Testament, the vast majority of these converts never saw or heard Jesus. So how did they know God’s Word. Did they rely on the church, the apostles, the community of believers to teach them? Would such behavior be accepted today? Why not?

At the end of the day as was mentioned, there is ZERO basis for you to claim the New Testament is the Word of God without the Church. You have no way of definitively knowing the authors and the completeness of the collection without the church.

As said… Jesus refers to a passage in the old testament as scripture, while saying it cannot be broken… Go figure… I mean maybe Jesus word doesn’t count as much as Peter’s?

Why do you state this? It makes no sense? Peter did not compile the New Testament either. Nor is their any passage of the Bible in which Jesus or anyone else says to write Scripture. The one exception is Peter’s statement that Paul’s writings are to be considered scripture. Outside of that we know nothing other than what the church came together and declared under the power of the Holy Spirit.

Okay, then i guess you can nice and quietly refer to the scripture that names all desciples as bishops of the catholic church… Otherwise it is a assumption, and assumptions don’t get very far without solid evidence… Yes i agree they became big personalities in the first church, but is there ANY evidence at all that this was even called the catholic church? As far as i’ve studied the bible, i haven’t even found -one- scripture to support that assumption. Besides if you look at the time of pentecost, the Spirit of Truth were given to about a 120 of Jesus’ desciples… Were all those bishops in the catholic church? Even the women? (Acts 1:15-26 + 2:1)

I am just going to turn this around on you because you show a complete unwillingness to look at historical documents. You are happy to have this collection of books called the New Testament based on the historical documentation of the church outside of the Bible, but you refuse to look at those same documents to see what else they thought about Christianity beside the Canon of the New Testament. This is because your tradition accepted this one book the Bible and came up with a whole bunch of manmade traditions without ever thinking about what authority they had to say the book was the Holy Word of God. They took it for granted and only once apologist point it out do they backpedal.

So I ask you, Where in the Bible does it say there will be a great divide in Christianity and a church called the Seventh Day Advenists will be made up.

Where does it say Ellen White is a prophet or teacher or foundress or anything.

Where does it say her writings carry any authority?

I have not found one scripture to support that someone would invent the true church of adventist by ellen white. Not one Scripture!!

Paul wasn’t even one of the 12, yet he has very much to say when it comes to things pertaining to the law, and also other theology…He was a great teacher, and he even reproved Peter at one point in Galatians 2:11-21

How then is it that a person that is not a “bishop” so freely can reprove and scold the “first pope”? I believe it is because the truth is given to laypersons as much as leaders of the church… It is up to every single person alone to decide what direction they want to follow. Their own interpretation, or the interpretation given by the Holy Spirit.

First, the pope can and is often corrected and collaborates with others. The pope goes to confession every week, why shouldn’t Paul call out his mistakes. It shows that he is human and a humble person to accept such criticism and be open to change.

Is the Holy Spirit Schizophrenic? Does he tell everyone something different? Maybe he likes to play mental games with people? Either that or you don’t really believe your statement of "every person alone decides…their own interpretation…given by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Christ built the church on the cliff, which is Himself. Peter was named Chephas, which means pebble, And Christ is the one that is repeatedly called the cliff several times through scripture. And Jesus never set up anything called the eucharist. Of course you could try to find it in your bible… I believe you’ll have a hard time with that though, even in your catholic bible…

I don’t believe you know what language Jesus spoke. Please think about it. Did Jesus speak Greek? Not primarily at least. He did his teaching in Aramaic. There is one word for rock in Aramaic. It is the word Kepha. So in the tongue spoken by Jesus in Matt 16:18, He said "You are Kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church.

Even Protestant scholars acknowledge this, although anti catholic cult groups maintain there is some sort of difference here.

Further in Greek, it is translated as "You are Petros and upon this petra I will build my church.

In ancient poetic greek several hundred years before Christ, perhaps their was a difference here, but in the Greek spoken at the time of Christ there was no difference. It is merely changing the gender of the word to reflect a masculine name. It would be inappropriate for someone to call Petros, Petras since that is the feminine form. This is similar to todays latin languages. In spanish the word Casa meaning house is feminine, and so if you named a boy “house” his name would be Caso. This merely differentiates that the word takes on a masculine instead of a feminine.

People believe that the Holy Spirit guides them to a lot of things, even contraticting things, which makes at least one of the partys wrong, maybe even both…
-c-

This is important. It is in contradiction to what you wrote earlier that the Holy Spirit guides every individual into their own truths. You know it is false, but stick to the talking points. Perhaps this is because you believe your truth is the one true truth revealed by the Holy Spirit, however you have not the historical pedigree or basis to assert that Adventism, invented by White and others in the 19th century has any link to the Apostolic age, nor do you have any authority to claim that what they say about God is correct.

In order to find who is “right” as you put it you must look at what the early church practiced. Read Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, and others. People that learned the faith from the Apostles. They knew these people personally!

It makes no sense to discount them. It would be like me wanting to learn about the civil war in america, and I go to a historian and he tells me to read a number of documents by Abraham Lincoln, as well as historians and newspapers from the time and right after the war, and I say no, I will only read what is in this modern book about the civil war as I don’t trust the eyewitnesses.

 

[Porknpie]

John 10:34-35
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;”

Jesus calls the word of God scripture, more spesifically the old testament in this case

As said… Jesus refers to a passage in the old testament as scripture, while saying it cannot be broken… Go figure… I mean maybe Jesus word doesn’t count as much as Peter’s?

CET, please list the OT books that Jesus was referring to as Scripture. Note… I do agree with Jesus that scripture is the Written Word of God. When you are done trying to figure out what OT books Jesus was referring to as scripture, then think how it came about that your bible has 39 OT books?

Okay, then i guess you can nice and quietly refer to the scripture that names all desciples as bishops of the catholic church… Otherwise it is a assumption, and assumptions don’t get very far without solid evidence…

We have the writings from the early Catholic Church CET, preserved by the same Church for 2,000 years. That is evidence. Interesting those writings are, some 1800 years closer in time to Christ than Ellen White, some were even written in the apostolic age

Yes i agree they became big personalities in the first church, but is there ANY evidence at all that this was even called the catholic church? As far as i’ve studied the bible, i haven’t even found -one- scripture to support that assumption.

You are suffering from Sola Scriptura again. St. Paul writes to hold fast to BOTH what was written and spoken. And no where, not even one verse of scripture says that scripture holds the compendium of the Christian (Catholic) faith. We can see the Church, founded by Christ, calling itself Catholic in writing by 110ad.

Besides if you look at the time of pentecost, the Spirit of Truth were given to about a 120 of Jesus’ desciples… Were all those bishops in the catholic church? Even the women? (Acts 1:15-26 + 2:1)

Don’t confuse the apostles with the disciples.

Paul wasn’t even one of the 12, yet he has very much to say when it comes to things pertaining to the law, and also other theology…He was a great teacher, and he even reproved Peter at one point in Galatians 2:11-21

Certainly Paul was the most educated Jew among them but he did go back to Jerusalem to make sure he was teaching correctly. And yes, he did reproach Peter for his practice on not preaching to the Gentiles.

How then is it that a person that is not a “bishop” so freely can reprove and scold the “first pope”?

He admonished St. Peter for his practice, not his teaching on faith and morals. St. Peter understood already that Christ came for all, Jew and Gentile alike.

I believe it is because the truth is given to laypersons as much as leaders of the church…

Very protestant of you…an example of why there are 40,000 protestant denominations. God’s truth varies from Pastor to Pastor and from lay person to lay person. This is what you believe. But what Christ said in scripture, is that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church, singular to all truth on faith and morals. He’s done so for 2,000 years.

Christ built the church on the cliff, which is Himself. Peter was named Chephas, which means pebble, And Christ is the one that is repeatedly called the cliff several times through scripture. And Jesus never set up anything called the eucharist. Of course you could try to find it in your bible… I believe you’ll have a hard time with that though, even in your catholic bible…

So you want to call Peter a feminine name? Really?? Doesn’t make any sense at all.

He says that they are difficult, yes… not impossible, and he also says who are prone to misinterpret them… “in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

Remember you are reading a Catholic book CET…written by, for and about the Catholic Church, especially to have a universal set of readings at Mass. It’s through the Church that scripture has to be interpreted…separated from the Church some serious errors occur:

• Symbolic Eucharist
• Symbolic Baptism
• Baptism delayed to the age of reason
• Once saved always saved
• Keeping the Saturday Sabbath
  … just a few.

Well, i take no offence at all, i don’t agree with every adventist out there… And i don’t believe it is right for the adventist hospitals to allow such a thing… But that is besides the point…

While it’s good that you disagree with the SDA hospital system, it’s not besides the point. The Catholic Church has taught for 2,000 years that abortion and contraception are morally wrong…led by the Holy Spirit to all Truth.

Truth is still truth, even if other people don’t follow it…

Yep, and SDA Church is not following it by killing babies in it’s hospitals. I don’t see this in scripture nor in apostolic tradition. It’s Sola Scriptura…a man-made tradition…a serious moral error…the devil leading those away from the truth.

And as christians we are obligated to follow Christ,

Yes, we are to follow Christ. Christ established a Church 2,000 years ago, giving all authority to the Church as the Father gave him all authority. And he gave to his Church, of which he is the head and it is the body, the seven sacraments, to give us the grace needed for salvation.

not other humans.

and that includes Ellen White…who’s name in roman letters adds up to 666 (and of course she accused this falsely of the Pope. Read more here. It is more than a little ironic)

PnP

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think you understand the word "Catholic:. Here’s some information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_term_%22Catholic%22

Ah, so you mean a generic “catholic”. I am ok with that.

But those here who want to claim that they are Catholic, as in just another rite of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but that they can deny the vicar of Christ…

well…not so much.

It’s like a tree surgeon wanting to be admitted to the American College of Surgeons. Sure, the tree surgeon can call himself a surgeon. In the generic sense.

But if he wants all of the glory and honor that accompanies being a member of the American College of Surgeons, then he needs to do quite a bit more than pull bark off a cedar tree.

He wants the term surgeon to apply to himself, and in truth he is a “surgeon”, but if someone asked you, “My mom is ill. Who is the best surgeon in town?” we all know where you wouldn’t direct her.

Everyone wants to claim the name of Catholic. I don’t really know why that is, except that it points to a tacit acknowledgement of what is the real thing.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s your opinion, and the opinion of the Roman Catholic church.

Thank you. That’s what I’m saying. The Catholic Church has NEVER said that Lutherans can call themselves Catholic while divorcing themselves from the Holy See.

That is ree-DANK-u-lous.

I don’t lose any sleep if they don’t consider me a Catholic. But, I am. I belong to the ONE HOLY CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church. No, ifs ands or buts. If that makes you mad, that’s on you.

Just like a tree surgeon can say, “The American College of Surgeons may not consider me a surgeon, but I am one. No ifs, ands or buts.”

Okay. But I’m pretty sure that if someone wants his gall stones out he’s going to call a Surgeon. Not a (tree) surgeon.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Ah, so you mean a generic “catholic”. I am ok with that.

But those here who want to claim that they are Catholic, as in just another rite of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but that they can deny the vicar of Christ…

well…not so much.

It’s like a tree surgeon wanting to be admitted to the American College of Surgeons. Sure, the tree surgeon can call himself a surgeon. In the generic sense.

But if he wants all of the glory and honor that accompanies being a member of the American College of Surgeons, then he needs to do quite a bit more than pull bark off a cedar tree.

He wants the term surgeon to apply to himself, and in truth he is a “surgeon”, but if someone asked you, “My mom is ill. Who is the best surgeon in town?” we all know where you wouldn’t direct her.

Everyone wants to claim the name of Catholic. I don’t really know why that is, except that it points to a tacit acknowledgement of what is the real thing.

Demeaning statement inconsistent with your own Church.

There are many kinds of Americans. Canadians, Mexicans and US. citizens are all North Americans. Are Canadian any less American because the U.S. often calls itself American?

 

[PRmerger]

Demeaning statement inconsistent with your own Church.

You have yet to produce a single quotation/text/statement that states anything even remotely close to what you are claiming.

Not a single quote.

That Lutherans and Catholics can dialogue and agree on salvation through grace? Sure.
That Lutherans and Catholics profess the same credal beliefs? Yes.

That the Catholic Church has declared that Lutherans are just another sect of Catholicism, and free to deny their fealty to the Holy Father. Not at all.

Even your fellow Lutheran, batman, has acknowledged that the Catholic Church has never said this.

There are many kinds of Americans. Canadians, Mexicans and US. citizens are all North Americans. Are Canadian any less American because the U.S. often calls itself American?

Nope. Canadians are North Americans.

Lutherans, however, are not Catholic. They can call themselves catholic and I’ll give them a fist bump on that.

 

[batman1973]

Thank you. That’s what I’m saying. The Catholic Church has NEVER said that Lutherans can call themselves Catholic while divorcing themselves from the Holy See.

That is ree-DANK-u-lous.

Just like a tree surgeon can say, “The American College of Surgeons may not consider me a surgeon, but I am one. No ifs, ands or buts.”

Okay. But I’m pretty sure that if someone wants his gall stones out he’s going to call a Surgeon. Not a (tree) surgeon.

ree-Dank-u-lous. I love that one. May I use it? As for your surgeon quote, it fails to hold water, since you claim YOURS is the only surgeon, when in fact, there are many, capable surgeons. What’s happened to you PR? You used to debate so much better than this.

 

[PRmerger]

ree-Dank-u-lous. I love that one. May I use it?

Sure.

As for your surgeon quote, it fails to hold water, since you claim YOURS is the only surgeon,

Actually, I said that there are tree surgeons. I don’t have a problem with anyone wanting to say, if he’s qualified, “I am a tree surgeon.”

What I won’t let him say, (and neither will anyone whose mind is consonant with reality) is, “As I am a tree surgeon, I deserve admission into the American College of Surgeons.”

Lutherans are certainly free to say they are catholic.

But to claim that they are another subgroup of Catholicism, and that they are free to deny the authority of the pope, is untenable. There is no group of Catholics loyal to the pope, and then another group who can say, “I am not subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

What’s happened to you PR? You used to debate so much better than this.

Stop being rude, or you will be reported.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You have yet to produce a single quotation/text/statement that states anything even remotely close to what you are claiming.

Not a single quote.

That Lutherans and Catholics can dialogue and agree on salvation through grace? Sure.
That Lutherans and Catholics profess the same credal beliefs? Yes.

That the Catholic Church has declared that Lutherans are just another sect of Catholicism, and free to deny their fealty to the Holy Father. Not at all.

Even your fellow Lutheran, batman, has acknowledged that the Catholic Church has never said this.

Nope. Canadians are North Americans.

Lutherans, however, are not Catholic. They can call themselves catholic and I’ll give them a fist bump on that.

You would greatly benefit by acquainting yourself with the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue because your point is almost nonsensical. But evidently, it is important to you to hold to your distortion.

 

[PRmerger]

You would greatly benefit by acquainting yourself with the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue because your point is almost nonsensical. But evidently, it is important to you to hold to your distortion.

Quotes from the Magisterium are not yet forthcoming, I see.

sigh.

 

[esieffe]

I’ve heard this before from protestants…but I’ve never been able to get a clear, consistent list of what these essentials are - exactly. Different groups have a differing number of things that are "essential.

Now - I don’t know exactly what you consider to be essential - in other words - how you would define something as being essential, but for myself I would assume that anything that has an effect on one’s salvation would be considered essential - Would you agree?

If you do agree with this assessment then I suggest you consider the issue of the real presence in the bread and wine. Anglicans and Lutherans hold that the presence is real - while baptists and many others hold that the presence is symbolic…
Yet Jesus speaks of the necessity to eat and drink His flesh and blood in order to have life in us - and Paul says that it is critical that one rightly discern the flesh and blood lest they eat and drink judgement on themselves…

Given what the bible says on this matter - ISTM that the matter of the real presence is an essential - and yet there is no agreement among protestants.

There are other important areas too where this is disagreement among protestants.

Pretty much shoots down the idea that protestants agree on essentials…

Peace
James

Truly, this is the coup de gras on the entire Protestant argument. There is just no way of getting past the treatment of communion. This sacrament is the cornerstone of Christianity, ironic when you consider all the brass and glass pictures out there of the Last Supper. I was shocked as a teenager when I spent the night with a Baptist friend of mine whose family took me to Church Sunday morning [knowing my father was an Episcopal Priest] and when the communion came around it was pillsbury biscuits in a wicker basket with a paper towel and Welch’s grape juice. Whatever was left over went into the trash or down the drain.

I apologize to anyone if that last sentence sounds crass, I don’t mean to offend, but in the Catholic church, holy water left over from a service does NOT go down the drain into the sewer, it does go into, as in our case, the water feature in the Saint Francis garden. We refer to actual presence of Christ in the host and wine as the transubstantiation. I too think of this as a primary difference between Catholics and Protestants.

 

[batman1973]

Stop being rude, or you will be reported.

I am not trying to be rude. If I came across that way, I am sorry.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Quotes from the Magisterium are not yet forthcoming, I see.

sigh.

Please prove your point. Quote from anything that says Lutherans are not part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

 

[batman1973]

Please proof your point. Quote from anything that says Lutherans are not part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Preferably from a non Roman Catholic source.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not trying to be rude. If I came across that way, I am sorry.

Forgiven.

 

[PRmerger]

Please proof your point. Quote from anything that says Lutherans are not part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church.

You have stated that my statements here have contradicted that of the Church.

Those are fighting words to me.

For you to assert that I have stated anything contrary to my Church is offensive to me.

And if you are going to make this accusation, then* you* need to back it up. Not me.

But, EC, as this is at least my 4th attempt to get you to provide some sort of Church teaching which proclaims, “Lutherans are another subgroup of Catholicism, and they are free to disassociate themselves from the Holy See”…and you have not been able comply…

I will leave the readers of this thread to come to their own conclusions.

It is quite clear to me that I have NOT said anything contrary to my Church. There is nothing in my Church’s teachings which have stated that there is a subgroup of Catholics that can offer any desuetude from the Chair of Peter.

Nothing.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You have stated that my statements here have contradicted that of the Church.

Those are fighting words to me.

For you to assert that I have stated anything contrary to my Church is offensive to me.

And if you are going to make this accusation, then* you* need to back it up. Not me.

But, EC, as this is at least my 4th attempt to get you to provide some sort of Church teaching which proclaims, “Lutherans are another subgroup of Catholicism, and they are free to disassociate themselves from the Holy See”…and you have not been able comply…

I will leave the readers of this thread to come to their own conclusions.

It is quite clear to me that I have NOT said anything contrary to my Church. There is nothing in my Church’s teachings which have stated that there is a subgroup of Catholics that can offer any desuetude from the Chair of Peter.

Nothing.

Sorry but I have produced several documents even co-authored by the Roman Catholic bishop representing the Vatican claiming Lutherans profess the Catholic faith. Why don’t you produce a single document to the contrary?

 

[Reuben_J]

Truly, this is the coup de gras on the entire Protestant argument. There is just no way of getting past the treatment of communion. This sacrament is the cornerstone of Christianity, ironic when you consider all the brass and glass pictures out there of the Last Supper. I was shocked as a teenager when I spent the night with a Baptist friend of mine whose family took me to Church Sunday morning [knowing my father was an Episcopal Priest] and when the communion came around it was pillsbury biscuits in a wicker basket with a paper towel and Welch’s grape juice. Whatever was left over went into the trash or down the drain.

I apologize to anyone if that last sentence sounds crass, I don’t mean to offend, but in the Catholic church, holy water left over from a service does NOT go down the drain into the sewer, it does go into, as in our case, the water feature in the Saint Francis garden. We refer to actual presence of Christ in the host and wine as the transubstantiation. I too think of this as a primary difference between Catholics and Protestants.

It depends on how one see the bread and wine after the consecration and the treatment given to them would reflect the belief accordingly. Perhaps there was not even a consecration. Perhaps there was no one who is eligible to confect it or to administer the Sacrament. Perhaps there is no Sacrament at all.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sorry but I have produced several documents even co-authored by the Roman Catholic bishop representing the Vatican claiming Lutherans profess the Catholic faith. Why don’t you produce a single document to the contrary?

Probably the Lutherans fall under the category of ‘separated brethrens’ (fratres seiuncti) thus fall short in professing the fulness of the Catholic faith though there are many belief that we share together or have in common. The Catholic Church has softened much of her stance toward Protestantism especially after the Vatican II Council where ecumenism is more emphasized. The Council’s Decree on Ecumenism as per Unitatis Redintegratio document spells much of how the Church see those Christians who are not in communion with her.