Questions from your friendly neighborhood Protestant

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Part 1.

The Church would agree with you. She also agreed to some of other issues he presented, but unlike St. Francis he left the Rock built upon Peter.

Which, I believe, he should not have done. A reformation was needed, but it seems that what happened was the Protestant Separation.

Gods peace be with you theophilus lambic Pen

And also with you!

So, do you believe in banning children from being baptized?

Absolutely not. The issue is that even at the young age of five, a person is capable of discernment and understanding (limited, I admit). An infant several days from the womb is not. At any rate, I started a thread devoted to this issue and am, of course, very interesting in the Catholic position.

I believe the Bible is absolutely true.

Which one and why? The Authorized and origional King James Version or one of the many spinoffs with missing/added verses, changed words, deleted books, etc… The NIV, the NWT, JST, etc…

A man by the name of Jack Chick, and others, has suggested that the King James Bible is the only Bible and that all others have been corrupted by Satan. I recall a cartoon in which he showed the Pope and Satan presenting the NIV Bible to the world. Personally, I disagree with Mr. Chick, on this issue and on numerous others. I believe in the truth of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. Any translation must be completely faithful to the originals. My only criticism of the King James Bible is that many modern English speakers find the 1611 English to be hard to understand. If you are referring to the Deuterocanonical books, that is an issue I am in the midst of studying.

Does a President like Bill Clinton or dicatator like Hitler have a right and authority to change a Bible to his likeness? Did a flameing homosexual King like James?

No.

Do you know where the Bible came from and the history of how it was written, who first thought of putting it together and why, how long did it take to write one, etc…?

I learn more all the time and have learned a good deal just in the last few days.

Continued…

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Part 2

I bet you had ceremony but they taught you you didn’t because to have it would be Catholic!

It isn’t that we were taught we didn’t have ceremony. The idea was (and is) that it does not matter whether the preacher wears a suit or whether there is an organ, or whether the service is one hour or three, or whether the pulpit is placed to the left, right or center on the platform. What matters is that the Gospel is preached and that people are led into a personal relationship with Christ.

I suggest you read Scripture to find out what to believe and not to justify what you believe. Think about the difference and then try reading Scripture with NO bias or forgone conclusions. You will see that everything in Scripture is Catholic!

And I have been trying to do this. However, if I try to read Scripture with an eye to proving Catholicism, I would be commiting the same error. And, as Catholicism depends heavily on tradition, a sola scriptura analysis of the Scriptures is not going to necessarily lead to Catholicism.

Scripture even encourages sex free clergy!

Paul certainly praises the single life, and I agree with him. However, he was not married, and I don’t see him advocating married celibacy. In the case of Mary and Joseph, it may very well have been true, but I don’t see the Bible advocating “sex-less” marriages. The Bible says the following:

Genesis 2:24 - For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
1 Corinthians 7:5 - Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

It seems to me that a marriage without sex would be seen as being contrary to the very nature of marriage, as such a marriage would not be ordered to the procreation and education of offspring. Also, a non-consummated marriage can be anulled, suggesting to me that the covenant of marriage between a man and his wife who are married in this way would not be complete.

“Faith” is a gift. Either you have "F"aith or you have "f"aith. Jesus lost followers over this in Scripture and He seems to have lost you on this issue too?

If that passage truly means the partakers in the Eucharist partake of the actual blood and body of Christ, I am confident that Christ will lead me to believe that. I am not so pessimistic about my present or future standing with God. I learn more every day, and I am confident that God rewards those who earnestly seek him.

I thank you for your posts, and I hope you will not take my arguments as an attempt to put down Catholicism. I am attempting to show, rather, that my views are really not so different from yours, and that my search for the truth is genuine. God Bless!

 

[WynCatholic]

QUOTES are from The Iambic Pen {Part 2}

What matters is that the Gospel is preached and that people are led into a personal relationship with Christ.

Amen, Because of His Mercy, By His Powerful Grace.

However, if I try to read Scripture with an eye to proving Catholicism

A year ago at this time I had been listening to the New testament on cd and mp3 (NIV and NASB) almost 6 hours per day whilst working. Why? not to “prove catholicism” but to know Christ Jesus, (and His Father, and the Holy Spirit) who had been pouring Grace in overflowing measure into my life since Christmas’03 and Easter’04. I set aside my Reformed [1689 baptist confession] interpretive structures and listened to the scriptures unfiltered by the “‘that’ means ‘this’ because I think the Bible teaches ‘this’”. I set aside my traditions.
Already I had ‘discovered’ from the Holy Spirit opening my eyes through the scripture that the Bible taught Faith and Works, Grace floods from God, directly, and through incarnational means, -That God’s symbols were also Real, -that I’m a partaker of the divine nature -That my grace expressed works of obedient faith had salvific,eternal value, -that God always set a pattern of working incarnationally, and breaking out of that pattern because HE is God. He is Wild, -a consuming fire, who cannot be controlled or contained. Personal, Passionate, Trancendent, BIG, Intimate, Saviour, Friend.
I was withdrawing my involviement in my wonderful Mennonite Brethrn Church, abandoning thoughts of going back into Pastoral Ministry, wondering about where my theology was taking me.

I met my first Catholic (who really loved God) (July 23, 2004),
Do you realize what a pain it is to join the church you spent so many years tsktsking for 'heresy", spiritual deadness, liberal theology, infant baptism, sex abuse scandals and plain ‘weird’ spirituality(bleeding statues etcetc)???
Suddenly it is ‘mine’ and I can no longer shrug my shoulders and say ‘oh thats the Catholics…I’m a Christian’ . I was … peeved (very very) to discover the truth of the Church & realizing that God’s path for me was to join those … papists!
Joy,anticipation,dread,worry, fear, pain, comfort,Truth, peace?? yes. doubt? no. I became catholic Easter’05.

It seems to me that a marriage without sex would be seen as being contrary to the very nature of marriage, as such a marriage would not be ordered to the procreation and education of offspring. Also, a non-consummated marriage can be anulled, suggesting to me that the covenant of marriage between a man and his wife who are married in this way would not be complete

…Unless that was the full consentual agreement of both parties before the marriage. FYI, consider www.theologyofthebody.com .

If that passage truly means the partakers in the Eucharist partake of the actual blood and body of Christ, I am confident that Christ will lead me to believe that. I am not so pessimistic about my present or future standing with God. I learn more every day, and I am confident that God rewards those who earnestly seek him.

YES Following God as He leads.

I thank you for your posts, and I hope you will not take my arguments as an attempt to put down Catholicism. I am attempting to show, rather, that my views are really not so different from yours, and that my search for the truth is genuine.

imho,You are doing very well, consider these links:
the first part of the next link might be best as a quick intro to the controversy about 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together": firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9508/public.html
the rest are what they said. firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9405/articles/mission.html
leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9801/articles/gift.html
leaderu.com/socialsciences/ectmarriage.html
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0208/articles/ect.html
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0303/articles/sect-saints.html
firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0503/articles/ect.html

God Bless

Ditto

 

[john_ennis]

The Iambic Pen:

The Immaculate Conception:
Old thought-Mary, while certainly a righteous and blessed woman, was a sinner as are all of us.
New thought-I’m having trouble changing my view on this, I must confess (after all, “All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God”). However, I will admit that I am more open to the possibility that it might be true. This might not mean much to you, but it is a huge admission for me.

It’s huge all right. My wife’s side of the family is very Lutheran; I see their understanding of man’s sinful nature as stressing that we are horribly corrupt–not merely tending to sin, but being sin itself. The idea that God (by His Grace) could or would create another human after Adam who would have no original sin nor tendency to sin, was just too much.

The verse “all have sinned,” though, is not really so troublesome, Iambic. It doesn’t say “except…”, yet we know of at least one exception: the Lord Himself. It’s purpose was for those it was addressed to (including us) to have no doubts about their sinful nature, not to be read so strictly as some do today.

Consider another verse (I forget where; I’m sure others here know), which says that “It is accorded to every man to die once…” Yet we know that those whom Jesus raised (Lazarus, etc), and whom Peter and others raised, actually died more than once. Further, those still alive on earth at the second coming won’t actually die at all. To recognize this is not to explain away the verse, but rather to understand its reasonable meaning.

Peace.
John

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Do you realize what a pain it is to join the church you spent so many years tsktsking for 'heresy", spiritual deadness, liberal theology, infant baptism, sex abuse scandals and plain ‘weird’ spirituality(bleeding statues etcetc)???

Absolutely! Although it pains me to say it now, for most of my life, I have seen the Catholic Church as a very superstitious, weird church that had somehow deviated from true Christianity in the past into something else. I guess when I hear about people travelling for miles just to kiss a box with St. Peter’s left big toe in it (a made up example), or having visions of the Virgin Mary on their shower walls, it tends to arouse skepticism.

But, aside from the (in my opinion) slightly odd examples given above, I have come to see that Catholic Doctrine makes a lot more sense than I thought it did. And, I truly want to learn more. Just today, I ordered several books off of Amazon.com: Surprised By Truth, volume 1; Answer Me This; Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy (all by Patrick Madrid) and A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (by Dave Armstrong).

Well, I need to go for now, so I’ll talk to you all later! God Bless!

 

[Exporter]

Going on further with the same issue, I have trouble accepting the belief that Mary and Joseph never “came together” as a husband and wife. As they were married, there would have been no sin in them doing so. The last mention of Joseph in Jesus’ life is when he was twelve, so we know Mary and Joseph were married for at least twelve years (and probably longer). It seems more than a little odd that they would go all this time without consumating their marriage.

---

Joseph was an old widower wnen he was forced to marry Our Lady, Mary who was about 15 years of age. In those days bright little girls helped keep the Jewish Temple clean but when the reached maturity the were usually married to some very old man. This was to give the girls a place to live and sleep away from the Temple. Joseph did have several sons by his then dead wife. Joseph took the directive to marry her as a religious commitment. It was understood by all they would never be sexually active for Mary had ( just like the Nuns) sworn to be a virgin in the Temple.

PLEASE read the Protoevangelium of James. Many of the Early Fathers wanted this to be in the New Testament, but were out voted. It is written by the son of Joseph, James. James was not a brother of Jesus genetically, but was raised in the same house.

philthompson.net/pages/library/protevangelion.htm

 

[Exporter]

The Iambic Pen:

Absolutely! Although it pains me to say it now, for most of my life, I have seen the Catholic Church as a very superstitious, weird church that had somehow deviated from true Christianity in the past into something else. I guess when I hear about people travelling for miles just to kiss a box with St. Peter’s left big toe in it (a made up example), or having visions of the Virgin Mary on their shower walls, it tends to arouse skepticism.

But, aside from the (in my opinion) slightly odd examples given above, I have come to see that Catholic Doctrine makes a lot more sense than I thought it did. And, I truly want to learn more. Just today, I ordered several books off of Amazon.com: Surprised By Truth, volume 1; Answer Me This; Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy (all by Patrick Madrid) and A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (by Dave Armstrong).

Well, I need to go for now, so I’ll talk to you all later! God Bless!

---

In you first post on this thread you said you have been drawn to the Roman Catholic Church for quite some time. I must say that many of your objections to the Holy Mother Church are not the heart and core of the Church.

If you want to learn about the True Faith then you must go to the source of the Faith, the Catholic Church itself. May I suggest that you go to someplace like WalMart and spen $9.00 to buy a CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

It is the book the Vatican prepared to teacg people about the Faith. You can find it on Amazon too. It is the Official Teaching!

 

[RyanL]

Exporter:

… for Mary had ( just like the Nuns) sworn to be a virgin in the Temple…%between%

BTW,

The Muslims even believe this (that she had consecrated her virginity to God). When both the Orthodox and the Heretics agree on a point about Christian history, it’s probably worth listening to.

God bless,
RyanL

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

PLEASE read the Protoevangelium of James. Many of the Early Fathers wanted this to be in the New Testament, but were out voted.

I have saved it in my Favorites list and will read it soon. Of course, the fact that it was not selected suggests to me that Christians are not required to believe it. Could it be said, then, that the events expressed therein offer theories about Mary that are subject to debate? I assure you that this, like all my questions, is an honest one.

May I suggest that you go to someplace like WalMart and spen $9.00 to buy a CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Well, Wal-Marts are few and far between here, but I have found an online source that I have begun to study. The books I mentioned are of special interest to me because they explain Catholicism with outsiders (particularly them pesky Fundamendalist Evangelicals ) in mind. So, while the Catechism will do much to tell me *what * Catholics believe, I think that Apologetics resources will do much to help explain the why. At any rate, I need something good to read.

God Bless!

 

[awfulthings9]

The Iambic Pen:

The Immaculate Conception:
Old thought-Mary, while certainly a righteous and blessed woman, was a sinner as are all of us.
New thought-I’m having trouble changing my view on this, I must confess (after all, “All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God”). However, I will admit that I am more open to the possibility that it might be true. This might not mean much to you, but it is a huge admission for me.

Hey Iambic,
Hadn’t seen anyone address this concern, so I thought I’d chime in. Consider the entire context of the “all have sinned verse” Paul, here, was addressing the idea that, with regards to salvation, there is no difference between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in their need for a savior - all have sinned. All here, refers to all groups. If we take it literally to mean “every person”, then aborted infants have sinned, as well as dead children (below the age of reason), the mentally deficient or handicapped, and even Christ, himself, who was fully human. There are individual exceptions to the “all” expressed here, which makes it possible that Mary can qualify as an exception. Actually, the verse that did it for me was in Genesis, when God tells the serpent that he will place enmity between the serpent and the woman and between his seed and hers. Now, the woman here can’t be Eve, because there definitely wasn’t enmity between her kids and sin. The only seed with true enmity against evil is Christ. Since the seed is Christ, then the “woman” must be she from whom that seed came - Mary. This verse is a foreshadowing of the Savior who is now needed to redeem mankind after the fall just verses earlier. Could this woman also be the church? Yes, the Bible works on many levels, but we must also take the Scripture at its face value in that there is an actual seed - Christ, and therefore an actual woman for this reference. Does this make sense? Anyway, I’ve really enjoyed reading your posts. When I go to Mass next, I’ll focus my prayers specifically on you and your journey. p.s. If you’d like a catalogued list of verses to support Catholic doctrine, e-mail me at spencerallen@midamerica.net, and I’ll send you the pages I’ve compiled from my own reading of Scripture and lots of theology books.

 

[BibleReader]

I’ll deal with your issues one-at-a-time.

**Friendly Neighborhood Protestant: **The Immaculate Conception. I realize this has been dealt with by Catholic apologists many times, but I find it difficult to believe that any person has been sinless. Some may have said that for Christ to be sinless, he would have to have come from a sinless womb, but if that was the case, a sinless Mary would have had to have had a sinless mother as well.

**BibleReader (a Catholic): **I think that those who maintain that Jesus was sinless because Mary was sinless are wrong.

Mary was immaculately conceived for the same reason that Moses could not look at God in the face without dying, Exodus 33:20. The Incarnation would have killed the ovum with which Jesus’ divinity was joined at the moment of the Incarnation if the ovum from Mary’s ovary was Original-Sin-tainted. Mary herself would have been destroyed by Christ’s presence in her womb, had she not been immaculately conceived.

You can see the immaculate conception prefigured in Ezekiel 17. In the Bible, the Desert/Wasteland/Wilderness Type = “world in need of salvation.” Note that in Ezekiel 17, the uppermost branch of the cedar tree which grew up into a mighty vine with many branches was planted by the eagle in a “fertile field” or “seed bed” (depending on your particular translation). No matter what, it wasn’t "wasteland or wilderness or desert.

I believe that in essence, it was NON-desert – NOT “in need of salvation” – because it was immaculately conceived Mary!

The eagle was the Holy Spirit. The uppermost branch of the cedar tree which grew up into a mighty vine was Mr.-I-am-the-vine, Himself, Jesus.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

The Iambic Pen:

In the Army, I’m a 13F, Fire Support Specialist. King of Battle, hooah!

Fiiiiire Miiiiision!!!

 

[Kay_Cee]

Iambic Pen:

Welcome! I too love your user name–I was also an English major in college.

You’ve received some wonderful answers here, and I don’t have much to add. However, regarding tradition, the best book I’ve ever read on it is *By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition *by Mark P. Shea. It’s a short, often humorous book covering Mark’s journey to Catholicism, and it shows how logical it is to believe some things that are not explicit in the Bible.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Okay, well I’ve read the Protoevangelium of James. It was very interesting, though I guess I’m still not sure what the Church’s stance is on it. If true, it certainly deals with the “Mary Ever Virgin” idea. Thanks for pointing it out!

When I go to Mass next, I’ll focus my prayers specifically on you and your journey

Thank you! Your post was also quite helpful. It has been a very pleasant surprise to discover that the so-called “weird” doctrines of the Catholic Church really come from the Bible.

Fiiiiire Miiiiision!!!

Fire for effect, over!

Welcome! I too love your user name–I was also an English major in college.

We’re everywhere!

You’ve received some wonderful answers here, and I don’t have much to add. However, regarding tradition, the best book I’ve ever read on it is By What Authority?: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition by Mark P. Shea.

I’ll have to remember that. At the moment, I have several books coming in the mail, so I should have plenty to read for a while. Who knows? Maybe I’ll write my own Catholic Apologetics book someday?

Well, once again, thanks for the posts! God Bless!

 

[cardenio]

As far as transubstantiation… Jesus said “This is my body. Do this to remember me.” Catholics assume that Jesus meant that that was his body and that we were supposed to do that to remember him.

 

[awfulthings9]

cardenio:

As far as transubstantiation… Jesus said “This is my body. Do this to remember me.” Catholics assume that Jesus meant that that was his body and that we were supposed to do that to remember him.

Another interesting thing about John 6 is that, before the Bread of Life discourse, we read the narrative of Christ walking on water, where he shows us he can do anything he wants with his *body. *We then read the narrative where he feeds the multitudes with a few loaves, showing he can do anything he wants with bread. Then, in the Bread of Life discourse, he announces something very cool that he is going to do with both.

By the way - English major. I’ll go by trochaic pencil, though, since you already took the cool name. Take care.

 

[BibleReader]

**Friendly Neighborhood Protestant: **Going on further with the same issue, I have trouble accepting the belief that Mary and Joseph never “came together” as a husband and wife. As they were married, there would have been no sin in them doing so. The last mention of Joseph in Jesus’ life is when he was twelve, so we know Mary and Joseph were married for at least twelve years (and probably longer). It seems more than a little odd that they would go all this time without consumating their marriage.

The issue of Jesus’ brothers and sisters being his step brothers/sisters or cousins is a minor issue in my mind, but it still seems odd. Why couldn’t Joseph and Mary have had other children after Jesus?

**BibleReader: **The best explanation for Mary’s post-nativity virginity I have heard is that Joseph saw that she had become God’s “spouse,” too holy to touch, too holy to have sex with. Mary became “touched” by God, analogous to the way Moses was “touched” by God, so that, after talking to God, he had to veil his face when talking to the Israelites. Exodus 34:29 et seq.

The gospels can actually be read with enough care to prove that those “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus were cousins.

Read Mark 15:40-41. All agree that that Mary who is the mother of James and Joses and Salome is not Mary Jesus’ mother, okay? Note that these women “followed Him [Jesus] when He was in Galilee.”

Now read Mark 6:3, a “brother and sister” verse: “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of JAMES and JOSES and Judas and Simon? Are not his SISTERS here with us?” There they are – “James” and “Joses,” ACTUALLY THE CHILDREN OF THAT OTHER MARY. One of the “sisters” in Mark 6:3 would have been Mary’s daughter Salome.

Now, note where Mark 6:3 took place: Nazareth, which was in GALILEE, wasn’t it?

In effect, Mark 15:40-41 confirms that James and Joses and Salome were in fact children of this OTHER Mary, who apparently was a relative of Mary the mother of Jesus – which is why they were AT the crucifixion.

 

[luvthelight]

i will try to explain your issues with mary to the best of my ability. most of my understanding i hve picked up here at the forums, so im probably quoting many of you more experienced apologetics but here goes my best attempt.

the sinlessness of mary. best analogy ive heard, sin is a giant pit. for all humans, Jesus came as the savoir to pull us out of this pit because we can’t ourselves. for mary, God, in His mercy and since He exists outside of time, saved mary before she ever fell INTO the pit in the first place. therefore, she still needed a savoir. this pre-fall miracle, also removed her inclination to sin. all humans are faced with the temptation, an inclination to sin that we must fight. when mary was saved before even falling in, she also did not have this inclination to sin, it was not in her nature at all, as it is in ours from original sin. therefore, she led a sinless life.

one apologetics site i read about mary’s lack of martial relations with joseph quoted letters written by mary’s mother. i will try to recall this information correctly, if i misstate something, someone please correct me, and if anyone has heard of this site to give for a first hand sight - please cite it!

but according to these letters, mary was raised in the temple, similar to samuel of the old testement. the problem was that mary was female, and according to orthodox jewish tradition, she was believed to contaminate the temple if she remained once she hit puberty. therefore, around the age of 13, she was given to a respected man, a much OLDER man, joseph, so that he would care for her. when one looks at it from this angle, it really isnt that odd that they never had relations. also, look at mary’s reaction to gabriel’s announcement, “how can this be, since I am a virgin?” lk. 1:34. if she was expecting to have relations with joseph when their marriage was final, would not the normal assumption simply be that she would conceive the son the normal way once she and joseph had relations? if she was going to live a typical marriad life with joseph she had no reason to ask this question of the angel.

hope this helps! God bless you on your journey home

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Actually, I find little trouble believing that Jesus’ brothers and sisters (or perhaps cousins) were not Mary’s children, for the simple fact that Jesus entrusts his mother to John’s care. I had never really thought about that before, but having it explained to me here has made me see what should have been obvious before. The word “before,” being a preposition, is certainly not an appropriate word to use as the final word in a sentence.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Here’s another really quick question about Catholicism. As it is easily answered and not likely to provoke a long discussion, I’ll go ahead and ask it here rather than create a new thread.

The other day, I noticed that someone had taped the Prayer of St. Michael to the inside of one of our humvees. When I read it, it was addressed to Michael the Archangel. As it was my understanding that only certain righteous people who had died were considered Saints, I was wondering why an angel could be a Saint. Anyone know?

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And do you, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

God Bless!