Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[walker_p]

As I said; ALL books. The Bible is sufficient; and the official Adventist teachings do reinforce this idea, including with Ellen White’s books, or those of any of our Pioneers. We can praise God that His Word is sufficient; and that we can always depend upon it.

I am still waiting for Catholics to show us even one written word teaching about salvation which is NOT sufficient, without some other source.

It is good that you recognize Ellen White is a liar and a false prophet. The Catholic Church follows Holy Apostolic tradition and not the false man made tradition of Ellen White that is condemned by the Bible. God does not build a true church on a foundation of error. Seventh Day Adventists were wrong from day one. The Bible does not interpret itself. If it did you would not deny Jesus’ clear teaching on the Eucharist.

 

[rcjones]

rcjones;3794180:

They simply do not identify the early church and the present RCC as one and the same.

You are right, this would be a great topic to start a new thread. Why exactly do Protestants not identify the early Church as being the same as the Roman Catholic Church? Is the main reason because of the Reformers teachings that Matthew 16:18 wasn’t Jesus calling Peter the Rock (Kephas) There is fantatic thread discussion on that very subject, How Can People Believe that Peter is the Rock and Still not be Catholic?

I would be happy to join the discussion, but couldn’t find it…
My computer is not much more than plastic and beach sand…

 

[walker_p]

Well; you are making me chuckle now, whooshing forth with all this “bluntness” which I have already heard hundreds of times. You certainly havent shocked or surprised me.

But; in summary, I do not follow Ellen G White. I do not quote her or talk about her on this forum, and I have been here well over a year. When I come to Catholic Answers; I come with Bible answers. I don’t have a problem with that; only you do. It looks like you are not going to be able or willing to tell us even one salvation doctrine in the Protestant Bible which is “insufficient.” That’s all I am asking. I challenge all other Catholics reading this to step up to the plate and show us Protestants where our Bible is “insufficient.” We can argue away all day about what is canon and what isn’t; but Catholics here are the ones denigrating the Protestant Bible as “insufficient” so I am asking them **WHERE?" **

What salvation doctrine in this Bible is so “insufficient” that it needs another source to make it “sufficient” for our salvation?

Salvation is Jesus; and He is in all 66 books of the Protestant Canon. If he is not; please show us where. I don’t think you ever will; because there isn’t a single fact about our salvation in the Protestant Canon which you and all the hosts of “fathers” and Popes will never be able to “improve” no matter how much “binding and loosing” you claim to have rights to.

I challenge you to step up to the plate and stop evading the question. Apart from the Catholic Church - the only true Church founded by Jesus - you cannot even tell us what scripture is or which books belong in the Bible. You are the one denigrating the Bible by trying to cut books out of it. Your question is nonsense and a strawman argument. The real question is who gave you the authority to throw out Apostolic oral tradition, which we are commanded to keep?

 

[jean8]

rcjones;3794180:

They simply do not identify the early church and the present RCC as one and the same.

You are right, this would be a great topic to start a new thread. Why exactly do Protestants not identify the early Church as being the same as the Roman Catholic Church? Is the main reason because of the Reformers teachings that Matthew 16:18 wasn’t Jesus calling Peter the Rock (Kephas) There is fantatic thread discussion on that very subject, How Can People Believe that Peter is the Rock and Still not be Catholic?

"Upon this rock I will build my church? What scripture?
Do you think God is building His church on the man called Peter?
It is the Holy Aspostolic Church. the Catholic did not exist at the time of Peter.

Jean8

 

[walker_p]

Unfortunately, forum members here have gone a lot further than me in your concern for forum rules, calling some of my church leaders liars and all manner of derogatory names; so yes, I express contempt for the authority being claimed by your leaders, and by your forum members to say what they want about either my character, or the character of various Protestant Church leaders. I do not believe that I have broken any forum rules though, because I am sticking to observable behaviors and statements by same; and no malice or hatred is intended. It would be ludicrous to expect a dedicated Protestant to come to this forum and not express some contempt for some things. Just like you guys do when you talk about us.

Your reminder is duly noted though; and I will be glad to listen to the Moderators at CA if they choose to label me as you and others here have.

I have said nothing about your character. I have stated facts about Ellen Gould White and the false church she founded upon the ash heap of false Millerite teaching. It is a demonstrable fact that Ellen White was a plagiarist and a false teacher and a false prophet. Period.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

"Upon this rock I will build my church? What scripture?
Do you think God is building His church on the man called Peter?
It is the Holy Aspostolic Church. the Catholic did not exist at the time of Peter.

Jean8

Proof of this claim, please.

 

[David_Barnes]

So what happens if the Church and the Bible are in disagreement?

 

[guanophore]

T
I would be happy to join the discussion, but couldn’t find it…
My computer is not much more than plastic and beach sand…

Try this link.

 

[guanophore]

So what happens if the Church and the Bible are in disagreement?

Welcome to CAF David!

The Church and the Bible cannot be in disagreement. Both of them were produced by the same Source, that is why they are in perfect agreement. If it seems that they are not, it is because the reader does not understand one or the other.

 

[Static]

I am still waiting for Catholics to show us even one written word teaching about salvation which is NOT sufficient, without some other source.

Baptism for one. What is the correct way to baptize ? ( Correct (W)word(s) to use, water, sprinkle, dunk, what )

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Static]

So what happens if the Church and the Bible are in disagreement?

That’s called protestantism.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Always_For_Him]

My intent in the post was to move the discussion from people to the ideas.

My point was that the churches known as protestant not only officially recognize the councils that put the canon together, but also have officially adopted some of the creeds.

It is quite proper to say that the people in your experience believe this or that. But to label Protestantism as being against the councils is incorrect.

Protestantism accepts the early councils. They also do not dismiss tradition entirely. As Catholicism identifies continuity through the pope, Protestantism identifies a set of core beliefs as identifying the invisible church and in some cases the visible church. These core beliefs and traditions are used in Protestant apologetics, and appeals to the early fathers are common in Protestant debate.

Protestantism is not as anti-catholic at the creedal level as many imply in their posts here, even reciting the Nicene creed:
“And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

As I said, it is their definition of what the church is that allows them to part company.

Because I am not knowledgable in this area of discussion, I am really having a difficult time understanding what this post means.
How could Protestantism accept that the Catholic Church councils and that the Catholic Church put the Canon together, but then only adopt “some” of the creeds or “some” of anything. It is the total belief, interpretation of scripture, practice of Oral and Sacred Tradition as established by Jesus, that the Catholics carried forth into councils and wrote down. The Catholic Church had to understand what it taught in Oral and Sacred Tradition then. They had to understand it and practice it correctly to write it down. The Catholic Church has continued to teach and practice Oral, Sacred and now Written Tradition the same way today as it did then. Is it that Protestants think we have forgotten or never knew the Truth? That couldn’t be, or they wouldn’t believe in the Bible then - the Catholics wouldn’t have known what they were talking about. How could anyone then, just believe in bits and pieces and not believe in the whole Truth that Catholocism taught and practiced and brought to them? How could they possibly believe the Reformation was a good thing? If they knew the exact reasons for the Reformation and researched those, the necessity, the Truth, the reason for doctrine change, the reason to omit books and the other unsubstantiated teachings of Luther and the other Reformers, if they knew them and questioned them in a thorough, honest way, they would begin to understand our Truth and would not refute our teachings the way they do on this forum.

You have to understand that you and your Church may give the Catholics their due (at least some of it), but a LOT of Protestant Churches do not and will not. How could anyone question any creed? How does anyone not believe that all of these were true and believed in the early Church for 1500 years before some men came along and changed things? I think that some initial Protestant beliefs and practices were separated from the Truth in the beginning and have just continued to progress further, change, be re-invented in the last 500 years, and Protestants today don’t even question it.

“Protestantism identifies a set of core beliefs as identifying the invisible church and in some cases the visible church. These core beliefs and traditions are used in Protestant apologetics, and appeals to the early fathers are common in Protestant debate.”

What are these core beliefs? When were they invented? Why were they changed from the original Truth as taught for 1500 years?

“As I said, it is their definition of what the church is that allows them to part company.”

What exactly is the definition you are referring to here? And, why would it be acceptable to “part company” from the original Church that Christ founded 1500 years after Christ founded it? It was men that founded Protestantism on their “own” beliefs. Separating from the Catholic Church was NOT Luther’s original intention. He originally just had a few issues, and rightfully so. Those were addressed and corrected at Trent. It was Luther that got into his own ideaology and as he gained popularity and political power wouldn’t/couldn’t be happy with not being the “big man on campus.” He took it way to far. It didn’t need to go anywhere at all. Do any Protestants ever question the exact reasons for the Reformation? Do they look to see if they were ALL valid? Do they look to see if the Catholic Church corrected them? Do they look to find the truth in ALL of the changes? Do Protestants know every single change that was made and the truth in those changes? I don’t think they do. If they did, it would be pretty obvious that Luther was off his rocker, high with self righteousness. He wasn’t representing Jesus or his teachings. He was representing his own set of beliefs and ushered in so many changes that Protestantism really doesn’t seem remotely similar to the orignal trunk of Christianity. I know that sounds harsh. It is. But, it is true. There is only ONE, True Church - the Catholic Church. There is only One, True Teaching and Tradition of Christ - the Catholic Church continues that same Teaching and Tradition.

 

[David_Barnes]

That’s called protestantism.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

I want to avoid playing ‘text tennis’ on this one. I wonder why it took Martin Luther to bring about (indirectly) the end of the sal of indulgences. I want to know if the church and the Bible agree about such a practice. Luther clearly thought they did not.

I want to know about doctirnes such as the assumption of Mary and veneration of Saints can be justified Biblically. That’s judsy for starters.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I want to avoid playing ‘text tennis’ on this one. I wonder why it took Martin Luther to bring about (indirectly) the end of the sal of indulgences. I want to know if the church and the Bible agree about such a practice. Luther clearly thought they did not.

The Church never supported or condoned the “sale” of indulgences.

Reform Came Before the Reformation
Myths about Indulgences

I want to know about doctirnes such as the assumption of Mary and veneration of Saints can be justified Biblically. That’s judsy for starters.

This thread is concerned with the question of which came first, the Church or the (complete) Bible.

You can find your answers about the Assumption of Mary and about Saints in the Catholic Answers library. Just click Library at the top of the page and do a search for those topics. Happy reading, and God Bless you.

 

[rcjones]

Because I am not knowledgable in this area of discussion, I am really having a difficult time understanding what this post means.

Protesant “ideology” likely began with the signing of the Magna Carta, wherein King John submitted the prevuiously sovereign power of the king to the law the same as any man. With time, and bad behavior by popes, the idea grew and became the reformation concept that the Popoe too, was subject to God’s law the same as any man.

So if kings and popes are subject to the law, then from where does the law derive. The idea of rule by consent of the governed was the idea that spawned democracies, in secular societies, and the priesthood of the believer in the religious.

By defining the church as a communion of freely associating Christians, the institutional church became merely the outward evidence of the invisible church, whose existence is evidenced by the desire of Christians to congregate and worship together.

These groups didn’t have to cast out everything that went before in the “Catholic institutional church” . They could choose by common consent which traditions were good to continue and which were a burden.

Modern Protestants and non-Catholics rarely give the history of the Catholic church any notice taking for granted that they may freely associate with other Christians.

This is how they can accept early councils and creeds without buying into what you accept as the whole tamale of Catholicism.

There are certainly rabid anti-catholics around. And there remain anti-catholic teachings in some of the creeds of churches. If you start with the assumption that someone is rational, you have a better chance of understanding the why’s and how’s of their choices.

 

[Always_For_Him]

rcjones,
Thank you for such a well-thought out and informative response. Whatever the reasoning, Popes have always been subject to God’s law, just as man has been. They are human, prone to human will. The bad popes and evil doers didn’t do the Catholic Church any favors. I could see Luther’s initial concerns as valid. Beyond that, man’s law couldn’t ever surpass God’s law and command. King John’s ideas may have ushered in a whole set of beliefs, laws, but that should not ever have created any belief to support the separation of Christians from the original Church.

Man didn’t have the authority to “pick and choose” which traditions were good to continue and which traditions were a burden, so they didn’t have to continue on with them. These were Jesus’ Teachings and Traditions. You are right though, it is a burden to follow the True Catholic Church. Jesus expected a lot from us. He gave us free will, but the responsibility to use it wisely. Choosing to pick and choose what to believe and to privately interpret Sacred Scripture is never what he taught or expected of his followers.

Don’t you find it troubling that Protestants and non-C’s don’t teach the history of the Catholic Church? I find the changes that occurred through the Reformation weren’t actually needed. Luther’s initial concerns were corrected at Trent. It is what Luther did after Trent that Protestantss won’t question. It is my understanding that Protestant Churches do not teach the exact, true, reasons for the Reformation. They just teach their beliefs. Luther (along with his pals) ushered in a different Christian religion. They separated everyone that followed them from the One, True Church that Christ founded. Protestants can’t teach the history of the Catholic Church, or teach the entirety, the truth of the reasons for the Reformation because it would be realized that all along the Catholic Church did have authority and Apostolic Authority was true, and eventually realized that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.

It just can’t simply be said that “We buy into and accept early councils and creeds, but we don’t accept Catholocism.” The early councils were Catholics and the creeds were written by Catholics. You really can’t pick and choose. You either believe the people who carried forth Jesus’ teachings and produced the Bible, had councils to determine inspired Teachings, continued to have councils to keep the One Truth, or you don’t. The Catholic Church didn’t forget Jesus’ teachings or change them along the way. They teach the same thing now as they did 2,000 years ago. Picking and choosing is individual interpretation, it is deciding for ones self what is true and what isn’t… Jesus didn’t give that authority to anyone except Peter. It is just that Protestants have never been taught that, and they don’t/won’t/can’t believe that. I have some really wonderful Protestant friends who are truly awesome Christians. I firmly believe they will go to heaven. Their Church has only taught them and their ancestors what it has taught them. They haven’t been exposed to anything else. The ones that I know haven’t been taught much of any Catholic history, importance, prominance, but they have ALL been taught how the Catholic Church is wrong.

Anti-Catholics aren’t really being rational. They are teaching beliefs other than what Christ taught. They are leading other people away from Christ’s original Word to believe something that was made-up by someone else, some man/men. Putting down the Catholic Church and spreading false information about the Catholic Church, doesn’t make the Catholic Church wrong. Because anti-Catholics say it doesn’t make it true. It just makes them misinformed and wrong.

There is just too much information, 2,000 years worth of writing and history, to much proof to current debates for anti-Catholics to have a leg to stand on.

 

[guanophore]

I want to avoid playing ‘text tennis’ on this one. I wonder why it took Martin Luther to bring about (indirectly) the end of the sal of indulgences. I want to know if the church and the Bible agree about such a practice. Luther clearly thought they did not.

Welcome to CAF David! Indulgences cannot be “sold”. Some corrupt officials were taking advantage of their position and acting in greed. The Church has never supported such practices, and since the Bible was produced by the Church, it does not either.

I want to know about doctirnes such as the assumption of Mary and veneration of Saints can be justified Biblically. That’s judsy for starters.

Personally, I don’t think that the assumption of Mary can be 'justified" Biblically. This does not concern me, since I don’t think that any of the Catholic doctrines are “based” on the NT. They all came from Christ before the NT was written, and the NT reflects them, but does not produce them. I do think that veneration of the saints is clear in scripture. Perhaps we should discuss that on another thread?

 

[rcjones]

The operative word concerning whether something is rational or not is the word “If”.

If the church is what you believe it to be, then of course your position is the rational one, because it is always irrational to oppose God.

But IF the church is invisible as they believe, then it is perfectly rational to do what they have done.

If the church is what the Orthodox church believes, then it is rational to do what they have done.

The reason there are discussions here about such issues, is that people assert opinions as you have, presuming that theirs is the rational position. But there is little discussion.

It bothers me less that people don’t know history than it does that people don’t know scripture in that in my own experience, there was no Catholic nor Protestant present in my salvation. Neither had ever shared Christ with me. Neither had their history and tradition imposed upon me in such a way to move me to Christ.
But it was God’s Spirit moving upon my conscience and the scriptures that compelled me to embrace Him.

This might be called “practical sola scriptura” simply because I had nothing else.

In the 30 years since then, no Catholic has ever thought I was important enough to share their faith with me, nor invite me to the Bingo game. And since I am not from a particular Protestant tradition, I am not particularly welcome in their midst either.

So I have largely found fellowship with Christians outside of institutional churches. The largest barrier to both Catholic and Protestant churches in my mind is that Christ said that you cannot serve God and mammon, and that his kingdom is not of this world.

From a theological position, there may be a difference between the Church of God and the Kingdom of God. So whether the church is invisible or not can remain a debate, while there can be no question in my mind that His kingdom is.

Oh, and if I went to the church that gave me the Bible I had, I guess I would be Church of England, since it was a KJV Or maybe I’d be a Gideon, but they aren’t a church…

 

[Always_For_Him]

rc,
What you are writing is really thought provoking.

I agree with you that if that is what someone’s Church has always taught them, then that is most likely going to be what tjey believe, no matter what Church that is. The difference for me is that Christ taught One Truth, founded One Church. It stayed that same, One Truth until the Reformation. Now, after 500 years, individual/self interpretation, and other changes ushered in with the Reformation, has created thousands of different beliefs.

There has been more discussion now than ever before. It is difficult for Catholics because we didn’t practice apologetics to refute Protestants. Protestants have been raised with the refuting of Catholocism, so it is second nature to them. Catholics are not trained apologists like Protestants are trained in their protests of the Catholic faith. Their authority began in the 1500’s with men. The ONLY authority the Catholic Church has is Jesus. There is nothing else we have to prove our Truth by. Catholics are constantly asked to “prove” where that is in scripture, when the Sacred Teaching and Sacred Tradition was around before the written scripture. They use their self-interpretation of scripture and changed Bible to argue against the Catholic Church who gave it to them. Non-C’s won’t listen, won’t believe the history. It doesn’t fit with what their Church has always taught them. It hasn’t changed! It just is what it is and has always been, Jesus’ Deposit of Faith as continued to be practiced by the Catholic Church. Almost every Protestant that I know that openly and truly honestly began looking at the teachings of the Catholic Church, how said teachings differed from the teachings of their Church, and learned the truth through all of the misconceptions, converted to Catholocism. I think it would be very difficult to go against everything you have been taught and have believed your whole life.

I feel much sorrow that you feel that no Catholic has thought you were important enough to share their faith with you or invite you to the bingo game!!! We are supposed to share the light, His Teachings as we were instructed to by Christ himself. He put it up on a hill to be seen, and instructed it not to be hidden under a bushel. He intended it to be a VISIBLE Church for all to see and learn the Truth.

I think it is important for non-C’s to know the history as each denomination touts that they are true interpreters of Sacred Scripture. I don’t understand exactly what you are referring to when you say people don’t know scripture. People know it, it is just they know it the way they know it. There are thousands of different ways of knowing it. Jesus only taught One Truth, one way. The Catholic Church has NEVER changed that way, that Truth. It is the same today, 2,000 years later! In 500 years, the Protestant Truth has changed into thousands of ways and there is no way to counter it if they won’t listen. Jesus didn’t teach Sola Scriptura, or individual/self interpretation. Individual interpretation is actually condemned in the Bible. Protestants have picked and chosed what to believe and ignored the rest because it wasn’t inline with their Church teachings. You can’t do that. It is written and it means something. The same thing it has always meant for 2,000 years. Not what the Protestants in the last 500 years say it means.

I am so grateful that you heard God speaking to you and were open to him. You have been blessed with his love and knowledge. Your “practical sola scriptura” was perfect for you because you had nothing else. But, now you are learning that there was more before your enlightenment and I am so glad that you are researching it!

I hope you understand that most, if not all, non-denominational churches are off shoots off of other branches of Protestantism. Someone (human) didn’t like a teaching or something, so they started a new Church. I went to some Protestant, Baptist, non-denominational churchs for while in my teens and early twentys and they really make you love JESUS!! They are so evangelical and fun. But, something was always missing. Each taught their own truth. It was always different. There was no special feeling of it being Jesus’ teachings. It was the teaching of the man up on the pulpet (sp?). I missed the sacraments. I missed the Real Presence of Christ each time I went to church. A Catholic Mass is special. If you have never been to one, you should attend one with an open heart. I believe you will be moved.

There are some highly knowledgable Catholics on this forum who can give you so much scholarship. There are some really good threads that cover so much. This is way to long, so I am gonna give it to you now!!!

 

[rcjones]

rc,
What you are writing is really thought provoking.

Thank you. “If women don’t don’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy” Red Green

I feel much sorrow that you feel that no Catholic has thought you were important enough to share their faith with you or invite you to the bingo game!!!

I really didn’t want to play bingo… There is a saying that when you are missing one of your senses that the others increase to compensate. I have been tremendously blessed by God in seeing Him in and through his word. One of the reasons I am here is to share some of those images of Him to see if others have seen Him that way. I’d invite you to peek at some of the other threads and see the birth of Christ in the story of Tamar, the cross in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the first mention of the cross in Gen 1:1, etc.

I went to the Antarctic twice. When you only have God to talk with you have a chance to learn to listen.

Individual interpretation is actually condemned in the Bible.

I agree.

I hope you understand that most, if not all, non-denominational churches are off shoots off of other branches of Protestantism.

And most people in the pew haven’t any idea what the history of that denomination is.

There are some highly knowledgeable Catholics on this forum who can give you so much scholarship.

I am hoping to run across some who are knowledgeable about sensus plenior and/or the four layers of meaning in the scripture.

Thanks.