Question for all protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter rinnie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do protestants mean by neccessary?

A Church wrote, compiled, protected, read aloud, and interpreted Scripture from the beginning.

How can we throw out the Church’s application it has gained from the Holy Spirit through the ages, and say, “we have the minimal neccessary Word to run away with”?
 
ISTM that when we feel we can’t take the other’s hand, we should each take the Spirit’s hand, praying for His guidance.
I’d need a more clear understanding of what this means before I an comment on it…
It sounds nice though…
No, we don’t. Effectively, scripture is inerrant, and therefore must be right. The confessions are not inerrant, and though could be wrong, they are not wrong.
Something does not have to be infallible to be right.
Thanks for the correction. Inerrant is a better word.

So then we get back to the question of who’s understanding of inerrant Scripture is inerrant?
You admit that the confessions could be wrong (errant) and thus - it is possible that the doctrines contained therein - conceivably could change.
Most Evangelicals that I have talked to think the same way - while they are convinced that their view is correct - they will not go so far as to say that they could not be wrong.

This seems to me to give the protestants a place to start from. If they look at Scripture and agree that Scripture calls for unity - and that Jesus says to “tell it to the Church” and listen to the Church - and that Acts shows this instruction in action…
And since each denomination will readily admit that they could be wrong on their understanding (though admittedly they do not think that they do) then perhaps the thing to do is to join hands AND pray for the guidance of the Spirit…

Peace
James
 
One cannot prove from Scripture that Homosexuality is okay. What possible passages could they be quoting?
Look at the UCC (United Church of Christ). What a mess…

I always point to them when people say the Catholic Church isn’t progressive enough and that’s why Mass attendance is falling. The UCC is as “progressive” as it gets, and that whole denomination might go defunct in my lifetime…
 
I was thinking about this idea of protestants really needing to come to grips with the idea of the call to “unity” as described my Christ and the Apostles in the NT.
It is indeed a daunting proposition. We see this too in the efforts of the RC to reach out to the EO, the Anglican, Lutherans and others. It’s tough to even make “baby steps” sometimes.

One thing that I kind of wish we had more of from Scripture is the details of the debate at the council of Jerusalem Acts 15 just says “after there was much debate…”. It doesn’t say how long this went on, or what points were made, or who the various elders were or who came down on which side of the debate at any given point.
“Much debate” could mean hours or days - maybe even a week or more…We just do not know.

The reason I mention this here is because I believe we should not look at the “neat and tidy” summary of the council recorded in Acts and overlook the very real divide and the very real and strong views that were obviously held by those participating in the council.
Nor should we overlook that these views would have been put forth forcefully and tenaciously.
Where the key to solution lay was in the willingness of the participants to submit their own personal views to the collective wisdom of the other elders AND to pray for the guidance of the Spirit so that there could come a consensus in Truth.

I’ve often thought that it would be an interesting exercise - perhaps in a seminary setting - to re-stage the debate at the council. One team assigned to argue the position of the Judaizers and the other side the position of St Paul…

Anyway - just some thoughts…

Peace
James
 
I was thinking about this idea of protestants really needing to come to grips with the idea of the call to “unity” as described my Christ and the Apostles in the NT.
It is indeed a daunting proposition. We see this too in the efforts of the RC to reach out to the EO, the Anglican, Lutherans and others. It’s tough to even make “baby steps” sometimes.

One thing that I kind of wish we had more of from Scripture is the details of the debate at the council of Jerusalem Acts 15 just says “after there was much debate…”. It doesn’t say how long this went on, or what points were made, or who the various elders were or who came down on which side of the debate at any given point.
“Much debate” could mean hours or days - maybe even a week or more…We just do not know.

The reason I mention this here is because I believe we should not look at the “neat and tidy” summary of the council recorded in Acts and overlook the very real divide and the very real and strong views that were obviously held by those participating in the council.
Nor should we overlook that these views would have been put forth forcefully and tenaciously.
Where the key to solution lay was in the willingness of the participants to submit their own personal views to the collective wisdom of the other elders AND to pray for the guidance of the Spirit so that there could come a consensus in Truth.

I’ve often thought that it would be an interesting exercise - perhaps in a seminary setting - to re-stage the debate at the council. One team assigned to argue the position of the Judaizers and the other side the position of St Paul…

Anyway - just some thoughts…

Peace
James
Good points.

But in the end, they won’t. It is going in the opposite direction. That’s why I am starting to interact in fellowship with many protestants. I am no longer afraid to open the dialogue with the denominations. I have learned quite a bit here at the forum. I don’t plan on stopping, but I’ve learned how to be curtious, gracious, convicting and now Jesus is giving me alot of inspiration to apply it.

You see, it is our duty to share our faith. Even when we might suffer being ridiculed, labeled “judgemental”, spend more time praying, rely on others in the denominations who are genuine, make some waves, …etc.

When we have a clear conscience through pure Confession, we are able to rely on faith to move mountains. I can give an example of exactly what i’m talking about, and exactly what I am engaged in. It started with a chalenging matter with my wife and I, and I have decided to let God lead us where it takes us. But I need a little more time to lay it out.

Remember, Mass means Sent! In this way, Catholics are the Apostles in the world of Christianity! Let’s be very humble, and gracious in this ministry…remembering we have access to the prayers of our Mother and the Saints. We have the Hidden Manna to give us strength in this daunting task. Through Him, all things are possible.

Peace bw/u
Michael
 
Rinnie, Paul says in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (And by the way, Paul was writing to the church in Galatia to correct to the errors Peter was teaching. Note that he was not amused. Galatians is a fascinating book.)

So lets not focus on who is teaching. If an angel from heaven came and preached, you should test what it says against Scripture. The early church was not preserved from error, nor is the church now. Your question is only interesting to someone who presupposes a church-centered authority. It presupposes a situation in which one doesn’t test what the minister says. But we do. Our measure, our rule, our canon - which means ‘measuring rod’ - is the Bible. Every church I’ve ever been to has Bibles in the pews and we are encouraged by the minister to check what he is saying. “Pick which Protestant minister you choose to believe”?! That doesn’t fit with what we believe at all. I don’t locate truth in the minister: it is in the Word of God. I have to face judgement day by myself. So I prefer to own my faith and trust God directly, rather than have proxy faith in what Rome says about God. The profession of faith on becoming Catholic is: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.” In short: “I believe whatever Rome says”. Yet Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 “test everything, hold on to the good”, or from the Douay-Rheims which you may be more familiar with, “but prove all things…”. Even what the pope says. He’s no angel. And even if he was, still, test everything. If Catholics did that, it would immediately undermine Catholicism.

So you ask, then why have a preacher at all? What’s the point? To quote John Chrysostom:

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain (πάντα σαφῆ καὶ εὐθέα τὰ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις Γραφαῖς, πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα[PG 62:485]). But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from what Prophet was the passage that was read? from what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me—you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them. (NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, Homily III, Comments on 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 10.)

Notice that Chrysostom says that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain. This is essentially word for word the position that we *Sola Scriptura *Christians take. Notice as well that Chrysostom specifically addresses the issue of the need for a preacher. It’s not an absolute, but a relative, necessity. It is necessary because the people are lazy, not because the Scriptures are not clear.
What?:eek: THE RCC is not preserved from error? Then we are in trouble. Because promised it would be.
 
I asked this on another site and its got me thinking!:newidea: Oh NO!

Okay here it is. What makes one Protestant Preachers version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant Preachers version.

Lets say I go to one Protestant Church and the Preacher teaches me that this is what the word of God is saying, and then the next says this, and so on and I go to 10 different Protestant Preachers and get ten meanings. Who do you feel is right?

And how do you know which one is right?:confused:
First, Protestants typically do not think that way.

They know what they believe more or less and “church shop” to find a church that aligns with the way they think. Sometimes they may move from one church to another but the reasons are less likely theological and more like “better sermons” better worship" or “better programs”.

Once they settle in they begin to believe their church and other similar ones hold the corner on truth.

For me it was when a deep theological issue came up in my marriage, that this became evident. Not only did different pastors in different churches give different interpretations, but even pastors in the same church!

So my wife and I were divided. She believed her camp (the minority opinion) I believed the other. We both had pastors and the bible to back us up… So what next?

I decided to look to history to see the historical interpretation. And whatdayaknow? Now I’m in RCIA…

🙂
 
My answer is that most of the disagreements between Protestant Churches are not worth arguing over.
This is true superficially. It is the answer Protestant churches give so they feel some unity and on the surface they say it’s all about Jesus so we are all Good.

But deeper it creates tremendous conflict.

Churches split and divide, relationships fracture etc … Over these “unimportant issues”. That’s reality.

Plus in Christian living you need guidance you need doctrine in the non salvific Christian Doctrines.

For example. My true story.

My wife and I had tremendous marriage conflict.

We went on recommendation to a “marriage intensive” supposedly Christian to get help.
I will not use the name because of the extreme heresy taught and I don’t want others to find it inadvertently. It destroyed my marriage.

They taught that the greek word hupotasso in Ephesians 5 (meaning headship) really meant “source if life”. They used this to preach a doctrine that if a woman acts up in marriage it is because the man caused it. Since he is the source of her life. If she murders the kids it’s the husbands fault for not loving her. If she beats her husband it’s his fault.

They went on to preach other crazy heresies such as “if your husband treats you wrong you get him back worse” and Paul did not know what he was writing , saying its a. “great mystery”, they also taught a bizarre doctrine that in order to establish a teaching in the Bible you must find it written in 2 or 3 places (2 or 3 witnesses ) otherwise you should reject it. They rejected tons of verses because of this “rule”

This was taught by an independent “baptist” pastor.

My wife bought it hook line and sinker. Coupled with her mental health problems she had a license to behave horribly. It was all my cause after all and if I just loved her she would not have to act that way.

Despite appeals to a number of pastors, she just sided with this lunatic. After all it’s just everyone’s interpretation of the Bible. There was no authority to say one was a heretic and the other not.

So we ended up divorced and I searched for the historical and biblical Christian Authority. I am thankful so much for the protection and foundation of the Catholic Church. I wish my wife and I had known it before. Perhaps we would still be married.

😦
 
Notice that Chrysostom says that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain. This is essentially word for word the position that we *Sola Scriptura *Christians take. Notice as well that Chrysostom specifically addresses the issue of the need for a preacher. It’s not an absolute, but a relative, necessity. It is necessary because the people are lazy, not because the Scriptures are not clear.
You do recognize that Chrysostom could be wrong, right? The Church has listened to all of her sons and followed the correct path inerrantly - even when choosing between competing ideas of the Fathers.

However, I’m pleased that you see Chrysostom as an authority to whom you should listen. Just how much of Chrysostom will you accept?

On Infant Baptism

“You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).

On Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence

No one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head (The Priesthood 3:5-6 [A.D. 387]).

On Peter, the Keys and Apostolic Succession

“At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here [Antioch] for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him, and this is that this man [Ignatius of Antioch] succeeded to the office after him. For just as any one taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the whole building, and make it more unsound, so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here, the grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” (Homily on St. Ignatius, 4)

**Confession of Sins to a Priest **

“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).

On Prayers for the Dead in Purgatory

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job l:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the “Until” Argument

“The expression ‘until’ need not lead you to believe that Joseph knew her subsequently; rather, it is used to inform you that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth of Jesus. Scripture is accustomed to using the expression ‘until’ without intending thereby to establish a limited period of time…The evangelist uses this expression to establish what had happened before the birth of Jesus…He leaves it to you to draw the obvious and necessary conclusion, namely, that this righteous man (Joseph), even after Christ’s birth, refrained from approaching her who had become a mother in such a manner and had been found worthy of a new kind of childbearing” (St. John Chrysostom, d. 407, Homily on Matthew, 5:3; MFC, p.177).
 
On Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence

No one can enter into the kingdom of Heaven except he be regenerate through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These [priests] truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed Head (The Priesthood 3:5-6 [A.D. 387]).
Why don’t Popes write stuff like this today? They are always so much nicer about who goes to Heaven and hardly ever write anything this blunt.
 
First, Protestants typically do not think that way.

They know what they believe more or less and “church shop” to find a church that aligns with the way they think. Sometimes they may move from one church to another but the reasons are less likely theological and more like “better sermons” better worship" or “better programs”.

Once they settle in they begin to believe their church and other similar ones hold the corner on truth.

For me it was when a deep theological issue came up in my marriage, that this became evident. Not only did different pastors in different churches give different interpretations, but even pastors in the same church!

So my wife and I were divided. She believed her camp (the minority opinion) I believed the other. We both had pastors and the bible to back us up… So what next?

I decided to look to history to see the historical interpretation. And whatdayaknow? Now I’m in RCIA…

🙂
You are pretty much a perfect example of this thread. And I am sure you had many struggles along the way. I mean if the shoe were on the other foot I would have a horrible time with the more I learn, sending me straight to RCIA.

You have family that you must consider, friends, and of couse even sometimes a marriage.

And I am sure you agree it would have been much easier to ignore much truth you were seeing and try to find a Church to meet in the middle.

Unfortunately Christ says no lukewarm. You are Hot simply because you are in RCIA. By the way don’t think it is easy to accept all of the teaching.

Much you may not understand, or even personally agree with. But as your grace from God continues he will slowly show you truth.

Rather its when you are ready to hear and accept it, or when he is ready to reveal it, I am not sure. But it will come.

I have been Catholic my whole life and can say at times I did not totally agree in my heart. Because at the time did not understand. But you don’t have to always understand just obey. And in time the Church is always rigjt.

Because of the reason you said. It has the Power of the Holy Spirit leading it. God Bless you in your journey.

And above all WELCOME HOME!
 
I think that you are assuming all Protestant Ministers do not go to Seminary. As a former Lutheran and now a Roman Catholic CCD teacher you need to be corrected in this matter. The minister that I grew up with, as all Lutheran Ministers must go to seminary as does a priest. He had to learn Greek and be able to work in the original language that the bible was translated into as well as Latin. Now all Protestant denominations are not the same in this matter. You may be correct in indicating that those denominations such as Baptist, Pentacostal, non denominational, unitarian are not taught doctrine and therefore may be interpreting things as they see them. This could cause errors in teaching there parishioners. Just don’t lump all the protestants into one boat they are not all the same.
 
I think that you are assuming all Protestant Ministers do not go to Seminary. As a former Lutheran and now a Roman Catholic CCD teacher you need to be corrected in this matter. The minister that I grew up with, as all Lutheran Ministers must go to seminary as does a priest. He had to learn Greek and be able to work in the original language that the bible was translated into as well as Latin. Now all Protestant denominations are not the same in this matter. You may be correct in indicating that those denominations such as Baptist, Pentacostal, non denominational, unitarian are not taught doctrine and therefore may be interpreting things as they see them. This could cause errors in teaching there parishioners. Just don’t lump all the protestants into one boat they are not all the same.
You realize every seminary teaches different doctrines right ?

Also, especially evangelical Protestantism, encourages their pastors to find “a new angle” “a new system” that they can use to grow their congregation and write books. The result is a wide range of varying opinions and new doctrines. Just go to a Christian bookstore, go to the marriage section, and glance at the choices. You can find a book to fit your position and beliefs. Another classic example of this is Rob Bell and his denial of hell.
 
I think that you are assuming all Protestant Ministers do not go to Seminary. As a former Lutheran and now a Roman Catholic CCD teacher you need to be corrected in this matter. The minister that I grew up with, as all Lutheran Ministers must go to seminary as does a priest. He had to learn Greek and be able to work in the original language that the bible was translated into as well as Latin. Now all Protestant denominations are not the same in this matter. You may be correct in indicating that those denominations such as Baptist, Pentacostal, non denominational, unitarian are not taught doctrine and therefore may be interpreting things as they see them. This could cause errors in teaching there parishioners. Just don’t lump all the protestants into one boat they are not all the same.
You bring up a good point here. Yet it is my understanding that protestant seminaries do not necessarily teach from one specific viewpoint (other than maybe Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura). I got this impression while watching the program “the Journey Home” on EWTN and the host, Marcus Grodi" indicated that the seminary he attended graduated men who went to all sorts of ministries / churches who held all sorts of views.
He even mentioned that he and a classmate of his each cam out with very different opinions on Calvinist principles…🤷

This would be quite different than a Catholic seminary.

Peace
James
 
I think that you are assuming all Protestant Ministers do not go to Seminary. As a former Lutheran and now a Roman Catholic CCD teacher you need to be corrected in this matter. The minister that I grew up with, as all Lutheran Ministers must go to seminary as does a priest. He had to learn Greek and be able to work in the original language that the bible was translated into as well as Latin. Now all Protestant denominations are not the same in this matter. You may be correct in indicating that those denominations such as Baptist, Pentacostal, non denominational, unitarian are not taught doctrine and therefore may be interpreting things as they see them. This could cause errors in teaching there parishioners. Just don’t lump all the protestants into one boat they are not all the same.
I am asking because I don’t know. All doctrine taught does it line up with the RCC? Now if it does not, where was the authority claimed to be given to teach or write this doctrine?
 
You realize every seminary teaches different doctrines right ?

Also, especially evangelical Protestantism, encourages their pastors to find “a new angle” “a new system” that they can use to grow their congregation and write books. The result is a wide range of varying opinions and new doctrines. Just go to a Christian bookstore, go to the marriage section, and glance at the choices. You can find a book to fit your position and beliefs. Another classic example of this is Rob Bell and his denial of hell.
Sorry I missed this, Was writing at the time. But okay back to original question in a sense.

This doctrine comes from a Human source correct? Or do they claim that it came directly from the Holy Spirit and they have the Power to trump the original word of God?
 
I am asking because I don’t know. All doctrine taught does it line up with the RCC? Now if it does not, where was the authority claimed to be given to teach or write this doctrine?
The doctrines taught reflect the view if the seminary founder/board and the instructors. The doctrines are as wide ranging as Protestant denominations. They learn core tenants like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, perhaps Calvinism, modest church history focusing on post reformation, Hebrew and Greek, and then classes on exegesis and preaching.

The Doctrines taught, if any are unique to the school and teachers since these are the things that divide Protestants so much. They often agree to disagree and let seminarians figure it out based in their personal tradition and interpretation.
 
The doctrines taught reflect the view if the seminary founder/board and the instructors. The doctrines are as wide ranging as Protestant denominations. They learn core tenants like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, perhaps Calvinism, modest church history focusing on post reformation, Hebrew and Greek, and then classes on exegesis and preaching.

The Doctrines taught, if any are unique to the school and teachers since these are the things that divide Protestants so much. They often agree to disagree and let seminarians figure it out based in their personal tradition and interpretation.
So to be sure I am not misunderstanding you, in the nutshell you are saying they are led by the Human mind not the Divine.

Now if this is true, what do they do with the scripture that no human can know the mind of God?

Even the Pope will tell you he is led by the Holy Spirit (only because God promised to give him the words to preach and teach in his name) but does not know the Mind of God.
 
You bring up a good point here. Yet it is my understanding that protestant seminaries do not necessarily teach from one specific viewpoint (other than maybe Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura). I got this impression while watching the program “the Journey Home” on EWTN and the host, Marcus Grodi" indicated that the seminary he attended graduated men who went to all sorts of ministries / churches who held all sorts of views.
He even mentioned that he and a classmate of his each cam out with very different opinions on Calvinist principles…🤷

This would be quite different than a Catholic seminary.

Peace
James
And when they carn out the different view then what? They take their own personal views and then teach?:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top