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

[KindredSoul]

You still do not get it in all your tirades against “fundys.”

The Body of Christ does not teach doctrine. It cannot.

It can only obey the Head. That is what the Body does.

Now there are those in the Body who are to teach, but they themselves are not the Body.

So simple.

You may now continue your rant.

…

If the Head teaches the Body, and the Body obeys the Head, then the Body’s action becomes a reflection of the Head’s teachings. Therefore the Body teaches others whatever the Head is teaching by the simple fact that it is obeying those teachings (which others cannot see without the body’s actions to convey them). That’s a pretty inescapable fact. For example, others don’t know your brain is telling you “run” except by actually seeing you run. Your body is therefore teaching them about what your head is saying. So it is with the Church.

Just to explain something further, the Pope and Magisterium aren’t the Body of Christ in its entirety, as someone (perhaps you) asked before, but their infallible teachings are much like the healthy Nervous System which relays the information - when it comes to Faith and Morals, they carry the authentic “signals” of the Head, Christ, to the rest of the Body. If the rest of the Body is in healthy communion with the Head, it will reflect the “teachings” of the nervous system, which in turn reflect the “teachings” of the Head.

The Catholic Church is that healthy body - noninfallible but faithful (big key word - faithful) Catholics are the body parts obeying the Nervous signals, which are Christ’s teachings as relayed infallibly by the Pope and Magisterium…by their faithfulness, reflected in the faith they profess and live, the entire Church, laity and clergy alike, are teaching the rest of the world the Fullness of the Truth, that all might become part of that Body.

Incidentally, unless I am mistaken (I’m still relatively new), it is because the infallible teachings of the Pope and Magisterium consequently and necessarily pass to the entire body of faithful (again, key word) Catholics that we can refer to their teachings as “What the Church teaches” - even though the “Pope and Magisterium” are not synonymous with “the Church”, their teachings are (because of the way the Body works) synonymous with the Church teachings.

 

[Nicene]

You still do not get it in all your tirades against “fundys.”

The Body of Christ does not teach doctrine. It cannot.

It can only obey the Head. That is what the Body does.

Now there are those in the Body who are to teach, but they themselves are not the Body.

So simple.

You may now continue your rant.

…

Simple and unbiblical.

15: The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
16: “For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

27: Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
28: And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
29: Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
30: Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

It appears you have had to backtrack,but instead of admitting your error you are now trying to redefine and reinvent yourself because you were caught in that error.

We can also look at Acts, the apostolic letters themselves where they in fact teach. If they are not part of the body as you say, then there is no question they are not inspired. Is that your assertion, that they are not inspired? In order to maintain your current stream of argument you’ll be forced to declare this.

Backpeddaling isn’t fun is it.

However, yet again you haven’t addressed the original objections and question.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

By the way, you also just admitted that since they are not “the body” that your apologists, preachers and teachers are all teaching error. Again outside of Christ, the head, they can do nothing. Yet this is exactly what you just claimed, they are outside the body and doing it on their own.

This exactly epitomizes and realizes your earlier statement :

If we cannot even properly identify the Body of Christ, then the errors can only mulitply after that.

This is in fact what has happened in protestantism, a multiplicity of errors because as has been just demonstrated you cannot even identify the body.

As a side note; What is particularly sad is that Randy and I, catholics, had to teach you what a protestant believes when they should have taught you themselves.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Curious]

I was especially interested in the following questions:

1. Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?

and

1. Do you believe the Body of Christ, the church, with Jesus as its head, can teach error in the areas of faith and morals? Yes or no?

If I were to answer NO for question 23, then I would be also saying that the Bible itself could be fallible, since at least some of the teaching of the apostles is recorded in the Bible. So I do not believe the Bible is fallible then that would lead me to yes.

Now for question 30. If I were to answer NO to 30 and had answered yes to 23, then the question is, what happened then? Why, for a short time, did the earliest church have infallible teachers to guide them, and now the present day church has to have only fallible teachers? Did God say, “Sorry guys, all the infallible teaching runs out with the last apostle. Hope you figure everything out okay?” AND…if you answer YES to question 30, then the question is WHO teaches infallibly? The Catholic Church? Is it what it claims to be? OR some Protestant denomination? Which one? The one that claims that baptism is necessary for salvation? The ones that believe in OSAS? The charismatic? The liturgical? The “Jesus only”?

:ehh: :banghead: :hypno:

 

[gez722]

Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. 1 Peter 3:15-16

While the questions are thought provoking and informative, I see a serious lack of charity in this thread. I commend all of the Protestants who answered those questions. I wish that some of my fellow Catholics would be a little kinder with their statements. Some of the comments don’t make our Church look too appealing. We should be encouraging dialog, not standing by with a hammer waiting to beat someone over the head if they believe differently than us.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are believers visible people or invisible people?

Another Atemicism.

 

[MrS]

I was especially interested in the following questions:

Quote:
23) Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?

Consider this:

Peter was very fallible…he was human. He made mistakes and even had to be corrected. But we all accept that 1Peter is infallible and inspired.

When the Apostles spoke… people listened. But infallibility was and is the “negative” protection that prevents the Pope (singularly) and/or the bishops (in unity) as a group when they actually proclaim a teaching of faith or morals to be without error.

 

[kaycee]

Can you provide a list from scripture that tells us what was written? If we’re asked by Paul not exceed scripture, we must know first what scripture in totality emodies. Care to advise?

Please, your source to obtain this answer must only come from Scripture.

Can you provide a Canon of Tradition for me?

 

[MrS]

Can you provide a Canon of Tradition for me?

Well, for a start, the oral Tradition existed on its own for many many decades.

Eventually much of it was written down for both future ages, and for the growth of the Catholic Church.

So you can start there… much of the “canon of Tradition” as you call it is found in our book called the Bible.

.

 

[Atemi]

Another Atemicism.

Yes. Simple logic.

Are believers visible people or invisible people?

It is a rhetorical question, Randy. No need to answer.

…

 

[MrS]

Yes. Simple logic.

Are believers visible people or invisible people?

It is a rhetorical question, Randy. No need to answer.

…

I have been “blessed” in having met a lot of people who said that they are believers.

Then we discuss the differences in theology… and even with my limited expertise… I can see right through them

.

 

[Atemi]

I have been “blessed” in having met a lot of people who said that they are believers.

Then we discuss the differences in theology… and even with my limited expertise… I can see right through them

If you are trying to descern true believers and followers of the risen Lord by comparing them to some material you found in a Roman Catholic theology book, I can understand how you could have such a difficult time.

…

 

[hvg3akaek]

Hello Lampo! I do like questionaires!

1. Who do you think God used to preserve the Scriptures? Was it not the Catholic Church? Martin Luther admitted to as much…will you?

There were certainly people within Roman Catholicism that helped preserve it, yes. There are also people outside who have done likewise! (early Christians, Jews, and Orthodox / Protestants too)

1. Were they Lutheran/Presbyterian/Baptist/Methodist,etc. monasteries, or Catholic monasteries?

“They”? I fear that your question is quite vague…what is this “they” you speak of?

1. Is not the word “scripture” itself from the Latin word scriptura (which means “written things”)?

Hrmm…your question seems to suggest that we would disagree… perhaps a better wording would be to remove the “not” and “itself”.

But - yes. So? We have lots of words from latin, and greek, and other languages too.

1. Which Church was it again that used Latin?

this questionnaire is loosing its appeal. The questions are sounding quite arrogant - hopefully this is just my reading of them, as I would hope that it was not the purpose. But, if you wish to ask this question again, please remove the “again” from it.

To your question, however, I think many churches used it, often to the detriment of those who attended. But may I ask - which church continued to use it despite there being other languages it could have used, that would have allowed the public to read and hear the bible easier?

1. Where in the Bible does it say that we should go by the Bible alone when it comes to all matters pertaining to faith and morals? Scripture verse?

1 Corinthians 4:6 is indeed a good start.

However - since you are asking lots of these “give me a verse” questions, can you give me a bible verse that says the trinity exists? Mary was always a virgin? that we should pray to “saints”? No? How about one that says people can keep making stuff up after the Bible?

1. Where in the Bible does it list the books which should be part of the Bible? Scripture verse?

That would be silly now, wouldn’t it?

However, Acts 17:11 does give a good method to working out if 'new" teaching is good or not - compare it to the original scripture!

1. Where in the Bible does it say that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Scripture verse?

Galatians 1:8 would be a good start.

1. Do you believe the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

Yep

1. If yes, where in the Bible does it say that the writer of the Gospel of Mark was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

Ah, I see you made a mistake with question #8. You meant “Do you have proof”, not “Do you believe”. No matter, I will overlook this error

1. Do you believe the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Yes.

1. If yes, where in the Bible does it tell us that the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was inspired by the Holy Spirit? Scripture verse?

See #9

1. Where in the Bible does it tell us who the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews was? Scripture verse?

It doesn’t, and nor did I claim it did

…wow, it said my reply was too long (12706 characters). I need to shorten it to 5000 characters long…so this was part 1

 

[hvg3akaek]

((part two!))

1. Do you interpret the Bible? Yes or no?

Define “interpret”

as in 1) - no. I do not give or provide the meaning - God gives it, His word provides it.
as in 2) - yes, sorta.
3 and 4 are clearly not meant
as in 5) - sometimes, but my greek is not good enough yet. I still “stand on the shoulders of giants”.

1. If the answer to #13 is yes, is your interpretation infallible? Yes or no?

Not at all

1. If the answer to #14 is no, then will you admit that your interpretations of the Bible could be wrong in one or more places? Yes or no?

Absolutely

1. If the answer to #13 is yes, then does anyone have the authority to tell you, that your interpretations of the Bible are wrong? Yes or no?

Absolutely.
How many times are we told to rebuke our brothers lovingly? For example, 2 Timothy 3:16.

1. If the answer to #16 is yes, then who? Just one name please.

Fred.

Seriously, though - just one name? A better question would be who is not? Anyone is free to tell me of my mistake - or what they think is my mistake. Then, we can both share thoughts and understanding, and in reading it together with prayer, hopefully we are both humble enough to see any faults, and allow God to grow us!

1. Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?

Approval?
I am not sure that anyone can get God’s approval without being saved, let alone be saved without God’s approval. So, no, they cannot.

1. Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?

Nope.
eg Galatians 2:2

1. Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?

Nope.
eg Galatians 1:8

1. Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?

Sometimes.
Or rather - not at first, only if it was (a) highly important, and (b) persistent.

For example, Paul did not break fellowship with Peter, even though Peter was teaching incorrectly (Galatians 2:14)

1. Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?

The important ones, certainly. Then, you might not be classing the lesser ones as doctrines, I am not fully sure as to your definitions. (here, I speak of eating meat sacrificed to idols and the like)

1. Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?

No. See above for one of Peter’s big mistakes. However, they were ‘infallible’ when they wrote God’s words. The rest of the time, how closely and correct they were depended on how well they followed God’s Word

1. Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?

What do you mean by “one”? If you are married, you are “one” with your spouse, are you not? If they believe differently, in false doctrines, for example, are you no longer “one”?

1. In your church, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?

In agreement on what? The colour of the drapes for the new hall? Certainly! The divinity of Jesus? Certainly not!

 

[hvg3akaek]

((and part three!))

1. Did Jesus give his real flesh or his symbolic flesh for the life of the world? Real or symbolic?

On the cross? Real. At the Last Supper? Obviously symbolic

1. Did Jesus say that the bread he would give us to eat, which, if we ate we would live for ever, was the flesh that He would give for the life of the world? Yes or no?

Yes, the general meaning is there i guess

Jesus said “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” in Luke 22:19. Note - “remembrance”. If it were really his body, why were they only remembering him? he would be right there, in their hands!

He also said “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)

And in the following verses he continues…but note - just as people who did participate in communion did actually die (for it was not “life” that Jesus promised, but he used that as an example of heaven) so did they not have to eat literal flesh, or drink literal blood. They too were examples, and the communion a sign that we were partaking in his death, and through that, his resurrection

He also greatly confused his disciples with other symbolic uses of bread and yeast (Matthew 16:7)
Jesus also said that man did not live on bread alone (Luke 4:4)

1. Did Jesus say that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?

yep.

Jesus also said to obey his commandments to have eternal life (eg Matthew 19:16-17), and He says twice in John 3:14-16 that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.

1. Did Jesus say that His flesh was food indeed and that His blood was drink indeed? Yes or no?

I cannot find the words “indeed”, so I will have to go with no on this one, under the assumption that their addition is important

1. Do you believe the Body of Christ, the church, with Jesus as its head, can teach error in the areas of faith and morals? Yes or no?

Absolutely. As long as you are meaning the earthly church. The heavenly part cannot and will not - but then, will we need to teach then?

1. Can God appear to you under any form He chooses? Yes or no?

Yep. But will He?

1. Is the correlation I am drawing between the flesh that Jesus shall give for the life of the world and the bread that Jesus shall give us to eat, found in John 6:51? Yes or no?

Partly, but I think you have missed out the figurative, metaphorical nature of Jesus’ teachings.

1. Do we need to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ in order to have eternal life? Yes or no?

Literally? No. Thankfully.
Semi-literally? (that is, partaking in the Lord’s supper). No. Think stranded on a desert island, with no priest around, no wine, no wafers. And then you were converted - without being able to partake, would you still be saved?
Figuratively? yep, we have to be with him.

Basically - if you are requiring the specific action, then no. Works don’ get us into heaven.

If you are requiring cannibalism, then no.

If you are speaking figuratively, as Jesus was, then yes.

1. If the answer to #35 is yes, then can we say that His flesh does indeed profit us? Yes or no?

well, N/A, N/A, and what??

Seriously, what do you mean?

1. If the answer to #36 is yes, then does verse 62 of John 6 mean that it counts as nothing to eat Jesus’ flesh and to drink His blood? Yes or no?

but I haven’t gotten up to #36 yet!!

hold on a tick…

Yeah, so even if they could cannibalise Jesus, this wouldn’t help them. For it is all figurative

1. Does Jesus’ flesh “count for nothing?” Yes or no?

Not sure of the question…hrmm.

Ah, I see what Jesus, through John is saying. Yes, that is correct. Well, the eating of it does.

 

[hvg3akaek]

(( judged poorly, that last post spilled over. So, here is part four, the final bit!))

1. Are you an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?

Authentic? Well, I am not fake…
See #13.

1. If #37 is yes, is your interpretation of Scripture infallible? Yes or no?

Hrmm, I do think you have asked these before Of course it is not.

1. Am I an authentic interpreter of Scripture? Yes or no?

I don’t know, I would need to see some evidence of your interpretations I hope you are, but some of these questions make it sound like you at least have some mistakes in your interpretation

1. If you are not an authentic interpreter of Scripture, then who is?

Well, struggling over your definition of “authentic” and your definition of “interpreter”, I would have to say I don’t know.

 

[hvg3akaek]

No, that is the truth.

Name something that the Church teaches, that contradicts scripture.

Well, Mary’s perpetual virginity would be an easy one…

From a simple reading of the Bible (such passages as Matthew 1:25, 12:46-47, 13:55, Mark 3:31-32, 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, 7:3-10), it is very clear that Jesus had physical siblings (as well as spiritual siblings) - indeed, if it were not for the comparison to the physical, born of Mary, siblings, the spiritual sibling comments would not make sense.

 

[hvg3akaek]

Then it is as I always said, The body of Christ in fundamentalism is only symbolic, not real. Which means not united to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one through indwelling. And Christ as the head of that body cannot interpret scripture. Very very interesting. And as attested to above by Kacee (post #2) Jesus, and his body can in fact can teach error. If Jesus (and the Holy Spirit; trinity) as the head cannot teach in truth but is capable of error Jesus’ divinity is in question in fundamentalism.

…wow. That is some messed up logic there Lets take it a piece at a time…

The body of Christ in fundamentalism is only symbolic, not real.

Symbolic =/= Not Real.

In communion, we have bread that is symbolic for the body of Jesus. That bread is real. We can afford real bread, and we do. We don’t have real wine, but we do have real grape juice.

Which means not united to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one through indwelling.

I can see no link here.

It can be symbolic and still be united. Or do you really think Roman Catholics are actually united with God? That people who sin are actually part of God?

And Christ as the head of that body cannot interpret scripture.

…why does Jesus have to interpret Scripture? If its anyone’s job its us, here, on earth. Not God. God gave it to us. Sure, he also gave us his Spirit so that we may understand it. But you are severely messing up the actual, earthly “church” with the perfect, spiritual, in-heaven “church”.

And as attested to above by Kacee (post #2) Jesus, and his body can in fact can teach error.

You read that? Where did Kacee say that Jesus can teach error? I see fallen and sinful men, who are part of the body, teach error.

Do you think the fact that we can sin means that God also sins?

If Jesus (and the Holy Spirit; trinity) as the head cannot teach in truth but is capable of error Jesus’ divinity is in question in fundamentalism.

Well, it is good then that no one is saying they think that God is capable of error then!

 

[Lampo]

HVG…thanks for answering. Thought I would just touch on one of your responses for now.

1 Cor. 4:6 - this is one of the most confusing passages in Scripture. Many scholars believe the phrase “don’t go above the line” was inserted by a translator as an instruction to someone in the translation process. Others say Paul is quoting a proverb regarding kids learning to write by tracing letters. By saying don’t go above line, Paul is probably instructing them not to be arrogant. But even if the phrase is taken literally, to what was Paul referring? The Talmud? The Mosaic law? The Old Testament Scriptures? This proves too much for the Protestant because there was no New Testament canon at the time Paul wrote this, and the text says nothing about the Bible being the sole rule and guide of faith.

 

[Lampo]

Hello Lampo! I do like questionaires!

There were certainly people within Roman Catholicism that helped preserve it, yes. There are also people outside who have done likewise! (early Christians, Jews, and Orthodox / Protestants too)

“They”? I fear that your question is quite vague…what is this “they” you speak of? They=monestaries

Hrmm…your question seems to suggest that we would disagree… perhaps a better wording would be to remove the “not” and “itself”.

But - yes. So? We have lots of words from latin, and greek, and other languages too.

this questionnaire is loosing its appeal. The questions are sounding quite arrogant - hopefully this is just my reading of them, as I would hope that it was not the purpose. But, if you wish to ask this question again, please remove the “again” from it.

To your question, however, I think many churches used it, often to the detriment of those who attended. But may I ask - which church continued to use it despite there being other languages it could have used, that would have allowed the public to read and hear the bible easier?

1 Corinthians 4:6 is indeed a good start.

However - since you are asking lots of these “give me a verse” questions, can you give me a bible verse that says the trinity exists? Mary was always a virgin? that we should pray to “saints”? No? How about one that says people can keep making stuff up after the Bible?

That would be silly now, wouldn’t it?

However, Acts 17:11 does give a good method to working out if 'new" teaching is good or not - compare it to the original scripture!

Galatians 1:8 would be a good start.

Yep

Ah, I see you made a mistake with question #8. You meant “Do you have proof”, not “Do you believe”. No matter, I will overlook this error Nope, I meant what I said.

Yes.

See #9

It doesn’t, and nor did I claim it did

…wow, it said my reply was too long (12706 characters). I need to shorten it to 5000 characters long…so this was part 1