Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[CentralFLJames]

Both you and I know, James, that many Protestants take at least some of the Commandments seriously, some very much so. These souls are stranded somewhere in a spiritual no-man’s land between Luther’s basic dogma that the most heinous of sins will not endanger their salvation, and their own standards of decency. The individual who is not going to just give in to it is going to have to do battle with temptation. But he lives in a city without a doctor or a hospital, and when he falls into serious sin, there is no system in place to get him back on his feet, spiritually. And so Protestantism cannot recover its wounded.

The hidden oral tradition of Protestantism requires that redemption and salvation be identical, that His death exclude any possibility of eternal punishment for those who “accept Jesus” as their “personal Savior.” If we were only redeemed by His death and must “work out [our] salvation” (Phil 2:12), Luther was wrong, and we cannot be saved by “believing” that we are. Therefore, the distinction between redemption and salvation, once recognized universally before the Protestant Reformation, is eliminated, and the two are telescoped together, to validate the false dogmas concocted by the Reformer.

Agree - a “just believe” philosophy has to first begin with somone believing in the person who teaches this philosophy. And that person is Luther and I don’t remember reading anywhere in the bible where it says we must first come to Luther for a teaching before we can come to Jesus.

Jesus was at face value credible. Not because of his miracles and his signs and wonders but because of his consistency and because people left homes, family, friends, wives, jobs to follow him just on his mere words. But even more so because he walked the walk and talked the talked and did not exempt himself from the teachings he gave like the pharisees did and like the Reformers did. None of the reformer intellectuals died for their faith or for me or for anyone. That sacrifice was left for the peasants and those who believed them and had faith in THEIR revolutionary message.

We believe that every apostle save John (who was tortured but survived) died for what they believed; as did ALL the first 30 or so popes and many bishops and early church fathers. Who did Luther die for? By what extraordinary grace should we believe such a vulgar man that would make many comments and maxims too vulgar to express here. By what life example does Luther give us that lend credibility that ANYONE should pay him ear? Was it his breaking of his vows to be celibate and dedicated to Christ as a monk; or was it his inability to control his depraved passions?

Anyone who professes the sola-fide salvation slogan “by faith alone” must turn a blind eye to the character of the man behind the reformation and be oblivious that they vicariously must first profess “I trust Luther” then say secondly - “I trust what Luther says about Jesus”.

To me, the whole “by faith alone” phraseology has a certain suspicious school-boy ring and air to it. One might imagine hearing this among revelling collegiate at a Rathskeller around the University of Wittenberg where Luther taught Theology. After the infamous nailing of the 95 thesis its easy to imagine Luther right in the middle of it drinking and making merry with the boys. Might the traditional toasts (“prosit”) to one’s health have been replaced with a revolutionary rallying form: “Sola fide!”, “Prosit!” – at least for as long as the ale kept one’s spirits up; and before the euphoria came crashing to earth under the gravity of the massive bloodshed; and God knows what eternal fate of those who trusted the disturbed man.

James

 

[SteveGC]

James
The last bolded area is exactly why I’m not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather Christ’s Church.

I guess it’s true. Protestants can’t help but take things out of context. Old habits die hard, I suppose.

 

[CentralFLJames]

James
You might want to check your facts, The Catholic church is losing members and Evangelical churches are growing.

P.S. The last bolded area is exactly why I’m not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather Christ’s Church.

You must be reading and believing those mass mailing marketing materials coming out of the mega-Church’s Shell.

Here, read what your own people are saying:
The Coming Evangelical Collapse (Michael Spencer, Christian Science Monitor March 10, 2009 edition)

James

 

[ralphy]

Do you think ANY of those 12 men were scholarly, sinless individuals? We ALL are. But, Jesus knew what He was doing and did it the WAY HE wanted it done. Who are any of us to question Christ’s decisions?

Do you understand anything from the OT that is foreshadowing? The Keys…David’s Key given to Peter. Rock meaning Kepha/Petra/Petros, has been gone over and over - “YOU are Kepha.” Whenever God changes someones name, it means that person is being placed in a position of authority. Feed my sheep. You have to ignore a lot of Scripture and 2,000 years worth of Church history to come to the less than 500 year-old conclusion that you come to.

No, I do not think that any of those twelve men were scholarly, sinless individuals. Ralph

 

[Always_For_Him]

No, I do not think that any of those twelve men were scholarly, sinless individuals. Ralph

I guess my point being that NONE of us is of any caliber to take on the task that Jesus gave to the Apostles because we are all weak, sinners. That is our nature. But, the Holy Spirit descended upon those men at Pentecost and MADE them ready to do His will. That had to be absolutely an amazing feeling for them, to KNOW, that you, a simple human, were chosen BY Jesus, given His Authority to found His visible Church on earth and given THE amazing gift at Pentecost to actually DO IT!!! Just thinking of it, the beauty of God entrusting and protecting HUMANS to do His will, by having these men teach us HIS WAY so we can experience His grace, HIM until His return, just makes my knees weak.

 

[Howie01]

CentralFLJames:

Rather, how funny it is that hypocrisy always self-orbits its own gravity to conjure a halo that to most everyone else looks more like a dog whirling about snapping at its own tail.

I know, James, everyone’s hypocritical except for you.

CentralFLJames:

I know from my own frequent peccadilloes that easy opportunities for cheap shots are a compelling target but YOU were the one barking only a few yards back about being contextually dishonest Howie.

C’mon James, I know it was a pecadillo; I used smilies.

It isn’t as though I yanked some dependant clause out of context, but used your complete sentence, which included an objective, personal pronoun (wrongly typed as a possessive, another grammatical pecadillo), the antecedent of which, in context, was the Catholic Church.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I know, James, everyone’s hypocritical except for you.

C’mon James, I know it was a pecadillo; I used smilies.

It isn’t as though I yanked some dependant clause out of context, but used your complete sentence, which included an objective, personal pronoun (wrongly typed as a possessive, another grammatical pecadillo), the antecedent of which, in context, was the Catholic Church.

Yeah - unlike the reformers who found new never before seen “secret” (g)nowledge in the bible 1200 years after the canon is developed to try to redefine Christianity (like the Gnostics) I am made to admit that I am neither impeccable nor infallable.

James

 

[ralphy]

I would also add that the 15th promise Mary gave to those who recite the rosary was “Devotion of my rosary is a great sign of predestination”. I think this compliments what you just said.

Where can I find scripture for this last comment about Mary. Ralph

 

[judechild]

C’mon Ralphy, you know that as Catholics we don’t need to have direct scriptural references to everything we believe; this Marian event happened long after the Bible was compiled. It falls under private revelation, a pious tradition that is not binding on belief. The Church doesn’t say it definately happened, only that it is “worthy of belief”.

That being said, we do accept the Bible as wholly inerant and inspired. I say wholly because ** all** the books in scripture are inspired, including the deuterocanonical books. I don’t understand how a person can argue for a sola scriptura view, and then simply disregard a portion of that deposit.

 

[Lux_Caelum]

Where can I find scripture for this last comment about Mary. Ralph

It’s not in the bible if that’s what you’re asking. Are you really interested in the rosary and how it came to be? Or are you going to lecture me on sola scriptura?

 

[ralphy]

It’s not in the bible if that’s what you’re asking. Are you really interested in the rosary and how it came to be? Or are you going to lecture me on sola scriptura?

If it is not in scripture, then it came from man. Ralph

 

[Always_For_Him]

If it is not in scripture, then it came from man. Ralph

It came from Christ’s Church. Jesus decided to use man as His instrument to teach His Way for salvation. If you believe one word in the Bible, then you have to believe that those MEN who orally taught Christ’s Word for centuries BEFORE writing it down into what we know as the Bible today, DID have authority. Those men, the apostles and their successors (the ECF’s) knew the exact context of the Scriptures that they taught and wrote down. No man today can say that. BUT, many, many, many protestant men teach all kinds of things that are not found in Scripture, so why do you follow them? Unless YOU were given authority to interpret what you think Scripture is saying, then you are as guilty as the men you are referring to.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Where can I find scripture for this last comment about Mary. Ralph

The following two verses are were these future things too great to bear at the time of Jesus are promised to be revealed. And the 3rd verse tells us of the existance of sacred tradition which Catholics evolve as things held by the church becomes accepted into tradition.

We know Protestants 1400 years later have since developed their own traditions like sola scriptura and sola-fide but The Church never practiced these neo-Christian traditions.

*John 16:12
I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 “All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

2 Thes 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.
*

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

If it is not in scripture, then it came from man. Ralph

You have something against man? Jesus came from a woman. Jesus was a man. The apostles were all men. Come on Ralphy - be a man and accept that scripture was written by men and a man died on the cross for you. That man was Jesus both full God and full man.

James

 

[diggerdomer]

If it is not in scripture, then it came from man. Ralph

If it’s in Scripture, it also came from “man.”

 

[sodak]

If it is not in scripture, then it came from man. Ralph

That’s right. Just like the Bible.

 

[SteveGC]

If it is not in scripture, then it came from man. Ralph

Let’s see. Then the following words, phrases and concepts should be off limits to you:

“Bible”
“Trinity”
“Altar call”
“Faith alone”
“Protestant”

ok? So, make sure you don’t use these words, or hold to any of these concepts. It’s ok, the last three aren’t biblical anyway, no matter how you phrase them.

I’m sure my fellow Catholics will come up with more stuff that would now be “off limits” for you.

God Bless

 

[Lux_Caelum]

Let’s see. Then the following words, phrases and concepts should be off limits to you:

“Bible”
“Trinity”
“Altar call”
“Faith alone”
“Protestant”

ok? So, make sure you don’t use these words, or hold to any of these concepts. It’s ok, the last three aren’t biblical anyway, no matter how you phrase them.

I’m sure my fellow Catholics will come up with more stuff that would now be “off limits” for you.

God Bless

Here’s a few more “protestant words” not found in the bible, courtesy of Steve Ray:

Age of Accountability
Total Depravity of Man
Personal Lord and Saviour
Ask Jesus into your Heart
The Rapture
Invisible Church
Folding your Hands, Bowing your Head
“Personal Relationship with Christ”
Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior
Enthroning the Bible in your Heart
“Covered with the righteousness of Christ”
Limited Atonement
Imputed righteousness
Dedication; Rededication
“Giving your Life to the Lord”
Revival
Inerrancy
Eternal Security
“Once saved, always saved”
Denominations
Sola Scriptura or Scripture only
Devotions
Wedding rings
Full-time Ministry
“Righteousness of Christ” (phrase never found in the New Testament)

 

[Tomster]

If it is not in scripture, then it came from man. Ralph

Talk about coming from man, Ralphy! Why does so much of Holy Scripture say so little to the Protestant reader? The answer is at both simple and complex. The simple answer is because so little of it can be used to confirm his beliefs. More complex is the part played by the history Protestantism and the Protestant’s own oral tradition.

Luther’s theology required the reworking of the Word of God because it was his OWN system. His notions had to be put there. So Protestantism departed from Holy Scripture at its birth. Beginning with one falsification (Romans 1:17), the Reformer ended with a multitude, all of them required to justify the first one. He then put forth a falsified Christianity with the claim that it was based on the Bible: “The Protestant reformation had its birth and inspiration in Holy Scripture.” Along with the myth that it is biblical, the Protestant inherits an unbiblical system, which, because of the myth, he is required to justify from the Bible.

This presents him with an insoluble problem. His chief difficulty is that, even with all of the manipulations, falsifications, insertions, excisions, and rejections, the Great Reformer wound up with little to show for his labors. The Bible remains, from the first page to the last, a Catholic book.

What is more, Protestant oral tradition is in effect a template laid over Holy Scripture. However long and however often he may look at it, the Protestant sees only what is applicable to his system: not much. Out of the 35,000 verses, the biblical core of Protestant apologetics is still some thirteen verses.

Despite the smallness of the number of misunderstood Bible verses he really believes, it is an article of faith for the Protestant, constantly reiterated to him by his oral tradition, that his religion is based on the Bible - that is to say, one of his beliefs is that he believes the Bible, implying that he believes all of it. The innumerable texts which confirm the Apostolic Faith and condemn the imitations of it make no discernable impression at all on the Protestant reader. He views his few memorized Bible verses as stupendous truths which prove conclusively that Protestanism is the restored primitive church, and indict Catholicism as a false religion. They must be brought to the attention of the Catholics he meets, who know nothing about the Bible.

Thus, apart from his thirteen verses and passages about which there is no argument, the rest of what Holy Scripture says is necessarily overlooked, absolutely meaningless, or just plain misunderstood. He can do nothing more than ignore, distort, and misrepresent it.

 

[paul_c]

Talk about coming from man, Ralphy! Why does so much of Holy Scripture say so little to the Protestant reader? The answer is at both simple and complex. The simple answer is because so little of it can be used to confirm his beliefs. More complex is the part played by the history Protestantism and the Protestant’s own oral tradition.

Luther’s theology required the reworking of the Word of God because it was his OWN system. His notions had to be put there. So Protestantism departed from Holy Scripture at its birth. Beginning with one falsification (Romans 1:17), the Reformer ended with a multitude, all of them required to justify the first one. He then put forth a falsified Christianity with the claim that it was based on the Bible: “The Protestant reformation had its birth and inspiration in Holy Scripture.” Along with the myth that it is biblical, the Protestant inherits an unbiblical system, which, because of the myth, he is required to justify from the Bible.

This presents him with an insoluble problem. His chief difficulty is that, even with all of the manipulations, falsifications, insertions, excisions, and rejections, the Great Reformer wound up with little to show for his labors. The Bible remains, from the first page to the last, a Catholic book.

What is more, Protestant oral tradition is in effect a template laid over Holy Scripture. However long and however often he may look at it, the Protestant sees only what is applicable to his system: not much. Out of the 35,000 verses, the biblical core of Protestant apologetics is still some thirteen verses.

Despite the smallness of the number of misunderstood Bible verses he really believes, it is an article of faith for the Protestant, constantly reiterated to him by his oral tradition, that his religion is based on the Bible - that is to say, one of his beliefs is that he believes the Bible, implying that he believes all of it. The innumerable texts which confirm the Apostolic Faith and condemn the imitations of it make no discernable impression at all on the Protestant reader. He views his few memorized Bible verses as stupendous truths which prove conclusively that Protestanism is the restored primitive church, and indict Catholicism as a false religion. They must be brought to the attention of the Catholics he meets, who know nothing about the Bible.

Thus, apart from his thirteen verses and passages about which there is no argument, the rest of what Holy Scripture says is necessarily overlooked, absolutely meaningless, or just plain misunderstood. He can do nothing more than ignore, distort, and misrepresent it.

I thnk this is very good and has the makings of a Great thread. I think you should compile the 13 verses you believe are the core scripture verses used in Protestant apologetics. We could have our Protestant breathren add any they think are appropriate, and then we can debate them. It would be an excellent Catholic Apologetic tool as well. will you consider kicking off such a thread (and point us to it). Thanks.