Questions for Protestants (please answer yes, no or scripture verse):

[Odell]

Its funny people think they are led to the correct interpirtation of scripture because they have put some thought to it. God can led them but He can not led a whole church.

I can be in error you can, but I can look to a church that that has been thinking it out for 2000 years

 

[hvg3akaek]

(continued)

Where to go for truth? The Church; 1 Tim 3:15 but how could we go to a Chruch that does not have all the truth?

Jesus left us a Church that upholds and defends the truth.

How could the church that uphholds and defends the truth itself teach false truths, false doctrines?

Obviously, if it teaches false doctrines, it is not the church that upholds the truth
Your argument here is begging the question.

(Matt 18:15-17) “Tell it to the Church.” Here we have a church that seems to be an authoritative church. Or else there would be no need to tell it to the church. Well which church do we tell it to? We have 33,000 churches to choose from.

There are also secen churches at the start of Revelation. Which one of them was the true one?

Im takeing the issue of Marys perpetual verginity.
Who do I take this to? You the devided Protestant Church the bible or the Chruch that gave us the bible?

Possibly a spell-check would be useful

So, no, don’t take the protestant churches word. But no, don’t take the Roman Catholic churches word. Take the Bible’s, and the Bible’s alone, word. It is, after all, God’s word.

(Lk 10:16) “He who hears you hears Me”

He who hears the Church hears Jesus.

Actually, Jesus is talking to the 72 there, not to anyone of our time

Did Jesus teach false doctrine?

He left us a infallible Church.

Do you not believe this?

Nope, as I have not yet seen it.

either you do or you dont.

so do you believe you do have mistakes but you just dont know what hey are?

Or do you not have any mistakes?

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Yes, I have made mistakes. For sure. Haven’t you?

You say that your goal is to get to “what the Bible teaches,” but how do you know that you’re doing that? Don’t all Protestants(Christians) think they are doing that?

Yet, you disagree with what some of the doctrines that Protestants (Christians) teach. Why are you right and those Protestants (Christans) who disagree with you wrong?

Why should I believe you, and not believe them?
Can you answer now?

And yet, the very thing you want me to do is why “we” left you i the first place. You want me to claim some higher power, some infallibility - but it just isn’t so. And, I would rather be the tax collector of Luke 18:10-14 than the Pharisee. You, as far as I can see, would rather be the Pharisee.

Did timothy not have authority to tell people not to teach false doctrines.

Did the Chruch not have the authority so people could take there matters too?

What authority is this? (And why do you never back your ideas up with scripture, but yet still ask it of me? )

Passage please.

**2 Timothy 3:16
**All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Acts 5:29
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

Follow the Bible, not men.

You think those people Timothy was instructing not think out what they believe to be false doctrines?

Do you not think that all the Scholars that disagree with you have not thought it out?

Have you, personally, thought them out? Without any influence from Traditions, can you arrive at the same conclusion from the Bible? or have you been told them, and accepted them?

the bottom line is authority.

Correct. I have God, His Word, and His Spirit as my authority. You have the Roman Catholic Traditions as yours.

That is what everyone says everyone of the 33,000 denominations that contardict you.

And yet, you have not shown me one of these ‘contradictions’…

Im going with the Chruch that teaches no false doctrines

That claims no false doctrines…by a power they claimed…from the doctrines they reach. A little too cyclic for my liking

 

[hvg3akaek]

Its funny people think they are led to the correct interpirtation of scripture because they have put some thought to it. God can led them but He can not led a whole church.

I can be in error you can, but I can look to a church that that has been thinking it out for 2000 years

First mistake:

RCT does not claim that God leads the whole church, but leads the ‘top dog’ in said church. Else, Luther would never have protested, and there would never have been heretics, and the Orthodox church would never have split off.

Second mistake:

Roman Catholicism has not been around for 2000 years, unless you want to accept that Protestantism has, too The first ~400 years of Christians were not Roman Catholic. They were ‘catholic’, but that makes them no more “Roman Catholic” than me walking into a hospital and starting to call myself a Doctor makes me one.

 

[Odell]

What I am saying is that God didn’t want us to be one “Roman Catholic” church. There was a problem, and He used people to fix it.

he just wanted us devided and not knowing the fullness of truth?

Correct. A possibility. I am not going to claim that it is perfect. I am not claiming that it is wrong, only that it could be wrong.

could you be right? 100%

1 Timothy 1:3
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer

The verse does not say “No one will ever teach false doctrines”. If anything, it states the opposite - people will teach false doctrines, and it was Timothy’s job to stop them. How can you use that to show there was no false doctrines??

people will teach false doctrines but how does Timothy teach false dactrine yet commands others not too?

Paul did not teach false doctrine Timothy did not and his Church still does not.

Obviously, if it teaches false doctrines, it is not the church that upholds the truth
Your argument here is begging the question.

So your Church could be this Church that does not uphold the Truth?

There are also secen churches at the start of Revelation. Which one of them was the true one?

They are all one Church none of them taught any different doctrine than the outher Just like my Church does not teach any different that a catholic Chruch overseas.

Possibly a spell-check would be useful

LOL yes it jwould when I cant spell for nothing and when I try to type fast it just adds to it.

hopfully they will get spell check.

So, no, don’t take the protestant churches word. But no, don’t take the Roman Catholic churches word. Take the Bible’s, and the Bible’s alone, word. It is, after all, God’s word.

I do take his word I also take his Church that is the pillar and bullwark of the truth. You have a real problem with that dont you?

Actually, Jesus is talking to the 72 there, not to anyone of our time

so there was a time that when people spoke they heard Jesus. I find it hard to believe they dont exist anymore.

Nope, as I have not yet seen it.

so let me get this right. the bible says we have a Church to turn to but that Chruch is not 100% correct in all its teachings?

Is the religious system, the church, founded by Jesus Christ, by it’s “origin and nature” a religious system that takes in a “diverse and independent-minded spectrum of doctrines?” If so, where do I find that in the Bible?

What authority is this? (And why do you never back your ideas up with scripture, but yet still ask it of me? )

Thats all I have been using is scripture
Do you claim greater authority than I or any other protestant Chruch?

**2 Timothy 3:16
**All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

thats why I have been using it.

Acts 5:29
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!

Is not body the Chruch?

Have you, personally, thought them out? Without any influence from Traditions, can you arrive at the same conclusion from the Bible? or have you been told them, and accepted them?

The bible is not for private interpritation if that was the case Jesus would have not even have gave us 12 apostles he would have just wrote it all down and say here.

Correct. I have God, His Word, and His Spirit as my authority. You have the Roman Catholic Traditions as yours.

I have God His word His Spirit that resides in my Chruch as my authority.

And yet, you have not shown me one of these ‘contradictions’…

its 33,000 denominations they contradict somewhere.

That claims no false doctrines…by a power they claimed…from the doctrines they reach. A little too cyclic for my liking

First mistake:

Second mistake:

Roman Catholicism has not been around for 2000 years, unless you want to accept that Protestantism has, too The first ~400 years of Christians were not Roman Catholic. They were ‘catholic’, but that makes them no more “Roman Catholic” than me walking into a hospital and starting to call myself a Doctor makes me one.

Do you know what Catholic means?

regarding the first mistake Paul did not teach falsey Timothy did not they are the top dogs who kept the rest of the Church in line

 

[VociMike]

First mistake:

RCT does not claim that God leads the whole church, but leads the ‘top dog’ in said church. Else, Luther would never have protested, and there would never have been heretics, and the Orthodox church would never have split off.

Incorrect. You need to learn who and what constitutes the Magisterium. It’s not just the pope.

Second mistake:

Roman Catholicism has not been around for 2000 years, unless you want to accept that Protestantism has, too The first ~400 years of Christians were not Roman Catholic. They were ‘catholic’, but that makes them no more “Roman Catholic” than me walking into a hospital and starting to call myself a Doctor makes me one.

Incorrect again. But tell us about this c. 400 AD change from ‘catholic’ to “Roman Catholic” (a term invented in Protestant England more than 1000 years later, BTW). I for one would be quite interested in hearing the history of the invention of the “Roman Catholic” Church.

 

[hvg3akaek]

he just wanted us devided and not knowing the fullness of truth?

Better than united and not knowing the fullness of truth, no?

could you be right? 100%

Its a possibility, but I will not claim fact on mere possibilities.

Paul did not teach false doctrine Timothy did not and his Church still does not.

begging the question.

They are all one Church none of them taught any different doctrine than the outher Just like my Church does not teach any different that a catholic Chruch overseas.

and yet…they were clearly living in different ways! strange, how they could do that, but all be teaching the same things

LOL yes it jwould when I cant spell for nothing and when I try to type fast it just adds to it.

hopfully they will get spell check.

firefly is great It comes with its own spell-checker my writing would be half as legible without it!

I do take his word I also take his Church that is the pillar and bullwark of the truth. You have a real problem with that dont you?

When people make claims, but do not reasonably back them up? Yep.

so there was a time that when people spoke they heard Jesus. I find it hard to believe they dont exist anymore.

hard to believe =/= it happens.

anyway, I am not saying that people cannot hear Jesus through others today, only that it doesn’t make anyone infallible. I could say two things to someone, one may be precisely in line with Jesus, and thus through that, they are hearing Him, the second may be in error, and thus they are not hearing Him through it. It is not a blac-and-white situation.

so let me get this right. the bible says we have a Church to turn to but that Chruch is not 100% correct in all its teachings?

As long as it follows God and his Word, then yes. How much can any single human follow God and His Word fully?

Is the religious system, the church, founded by Jesus Christ, by it’s “origin and nature” a religious system that takes in a “diverse and independent-minded spectrum of doctrines?” If so, where do I find that in the Bible?

where do you find the contrary? mention of a religious’ system? something that specifically states infallibility, instead of having to be interpreted to mean so?

Is not body the Chruch?

I am sorry, I do not understand what you are saying here.

The bible is not for private interpritation if that was the case Jesus would have not even have gave us 12 apostles he would have just wrote it all down and say here.

where is that in the bible?

its 33,000 denominations they contradict somewhere.

Perhaps the differences are not over doctrines, but are smaller than that?

Do you know what Catholic means?

big “C” - Roman Catholic
small “c” - universal

 

[Odell]

Better than united and not knowing the fullness of truth, no?

( Eph 1:22-23) “And he put all things beneath his feet and gave him as head over all things to the Church which is his body, the FULLNESS of the one who fills all things in every way.”

The Church is the FULLNESS of the Truth. How does the fullness of the truth divide amongst 33,000 denominations? This verse sums it up well and works in concert with 1Tim 3:15 – “The Church the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

and yet…they were clearly living in different ways! strange, how they could do that, but all be teaching the same things

living different does not mean we teach different.

When people make claims, but do not reasonably back them up? Yep.

we know the Church is the fullnes and defender of the truth it is Scriptural. Paul says it we say it. Dont you think the one true Chruch would say it?

anyway, I am not saying that people cannot hear Jesus through others today, only that it doesn’t make anyone infallible. I could say two things to someone, one may be precisely in line with Jesus, and thus through that, they are hearing Him, the second may be in error, and thus they are not hearing Him through it. It is not a blac-and-white situation.

The Church as one can not.

As long as it follows God and his Word, then yes. How much can any single human follow God and His Word fully?

we cant follow his word fully but we can teach it fully.

Have you ever read Matthew 23? What does Jesus call the scribes and Pharisees? Liars. Blind guides. White washed tombs. Hypocrites. So, we shouldn’t do what they say, right? again, you’re wrong.

What does Jesus say to His disciples and the crowds in Matthew 23:1-3? The scribes and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses, therefore “do whatever they tell you.” I find that pretty interesting, don’t you, Jesus tells the crowds, and even His disciples to do whatever the scribes and Pharisees say, because they sit on the seat of Moses…in other words, they hold a position of religious authority, and, even though they are some of the worst sinners, Jesus tells the crowds and His own disciples to do whatever they say to do.

Well, the popes sit on the seat of Peter. So, even if there are times when they act less than Christian, they are still guarded from teaching error because God tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the Pope is the head of the Church here on earth. God gives us the Church as a steady guide. God did not give us the fallible interpretations of any one individual or group of individuals as our steady guide. How could he, when your own argument points to the fact that sinners, without God’s guidance, cannot necessarily be trusted in what they have to say when it comes to doctrine and morals? But, the Church, the Body of Christ, can always be trusted. That is why it is necessary to have the gift of infallibility present in the Church. Your own arguments confirm that

continued

 

[Odell]

where do you find the contrary? mention of a religious’ system? something that specifically states infallibility, instead of having to be interpreted to mean so?

You are gambling your salvation on whether or not you have interpreted the Bible correctly? Is that what the Bible says to do? How do you know you’re not one of those Peter is talking about in 2 Peter 3:16 when he says, “There are some things in them [Paul’s letter’s], which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” Peter says there are ignorant, or unlearned, folks out there interpreting scripture in such a way that it leads to their own destruction. Doesn’t that give you pause? How do you know you’re not one of those he’s talking about? And, where does the Bible say that each individual, reading the Bible on their own, has the authority to decide true and false doctrine? Proverbs 14:12, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” And, Proverbs 12:15, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes…”

How does the Bible say we are to decide the “spirit of truth” and the “spirit of error”? Do you know? Is it by individually reading scripture? No! 1 John 4:6 tells us how we are to discern the spirit of truth from the spirit of error…by listening to the leaders of the Church. “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

The bible is not for private interpritation if that was the case Jesus would have not even have gave us 12 apostles he would have just wrote it all down and say here.

where is that in the bible?

(2 Ptr 1:20) “No part of scripture is of personal interpretation.”

Now there is nothing wrong with reading scripture. You can read the bible and come to some understanding and truth. But you still need a guide, an authoritative guide. Or else you can totally take a passage out of context.

As in (Acts 8:27-31)
A Eunuch, (who is someone considered to be a holy man), is a court official and needs someone to guide him in scripture. This is a well-educated man who still needs a guide. Even today, amongst the most holy of educated men in scripture argue amongst themselves on what certain passages of scripture mean. How are we to know the truth if we all interpret scripture differently? Supposing the bible is how we are to know the truths and supposing educated men need guidance too, how do we come to a common understanding?

big “C” - Roman Catholic
small “c” - universal

the early Church was universal in that they all taught the same doctrine. Not that they excepted others that taught different.

Is is ok that everyone has different doctrines?
Yes or No