Should we evangelize Protestants?

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Throw humans in the mix and pure truth goes out the window. I don’t care what church you attend or what doctrines the fact is that 2000 years of human interaction will detract from truth. Also being that the Catholic church was the only church for 1500 years I believe that the transfer of political power to the papacy was a corrupting influence and makes the likelihood that the 100% pure tradition of the early church were followed. The thing is there is no way to prove or disprove this. All the records would have been handled by the Catholic church of that time. Again this is not based on feeling but a logical assumption that could be made of a church/government system of the time. .

There are indeed records, and if the Church handled them the way you are infering there wouldn’t be any negative recordings of the actions of the Church; but there is. We wouldn’t even know of the political corrruption unless it was recorded.

Also, I am not talking about politics, but theology. All one would have to do is study theological history to see that Protestants do not have a foot to stand on in regards to the innovations I have previously stated (s. fide, s. scriptura, baptism and communion). The evidence is not there. If you can show me evidence to the contrary, I will revert to Protestantism right now.

Shlemele:

I agree, but as I said the Catholic church replied with too little too late. In letters written by Luther it is evident that a split was not what he desired and only did so when it was evident that the Church would not be reforming in his lifetime. The thing is that the Catholic church of today is in many ways influenced by the reformation. Man does not change unless prompted to and the church is no exception…

The Church cannot change if this change contradicts what has come before. This is what Protestants fail to understand. In Catholicism there is a continuity of belief, all anyone has to do it look at the record.

Shlemele:

[continued] I am open to change my opinions as well, otherwise I would not be here but just like you I have been working on my faith for a while. My father is a pastor so church has always been a big part of my life and I have always asked questions. Over time those questions have changed but in my experiance the protestant traditions are the most compatible with the way I understand the truth to be.

But does this truth correspond to reality. If the Catholic Church is the Church Christ established, are not all who claim His name obligated to be part of Her?

What do you make of the lack of evidence for some of the core Protestant beliefs in the early Church?

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

(Matt 15:3) He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

(Matt 15:6)So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in this passage, whose job it was to take the oral traditions and pass them down to the people, just as the Catholic church has done today. From reading this the scripture of the day (the 10 commandments) had been compromised by tradition and diluted. Jesus spoke against this.

(Luke 10:25-26) And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?”

When Jesus is asked how to find heaven he does not refer to tradition but rather to the word of God or salvation and instruction.

Catholics use the passage in 2 Thes 2:15 to support the claim of authority of tradition; So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. I would ask you who is us? From this passage and taking into consideration that it was a letter from Paul to one of the early churches us would have been limited to the early church fathers. I don’t believe that the intent was for the authority to then be transferred to the Church since Paul was not the head of the church but rather a missionary.

Another thing that the Catholic church assumes is Infallibility. I know that there is a long process needed and it is only used rarely but I see no basis in scripture that man is anything but fallible, even the Pope. That said allowing a process by witch a man may be allowed to make a “perfect statement” seems frightening to most Protestants. I hope this has given you some material to digest. Again I’m enjoying the debate here and am thankfull for a place where we can discuss our beliefs honestly and openly.

 

[Delgadoajj]

(Matt 15:3) He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

(Matt 15:6)So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in this passage, whose job it was to take the oral traditions and pass them down to the people, just as the Catholic church has done today. From reading this the scripture of the day (the 10 commandments) had been compromised by tradition and diluted. Jesus spoke against this.

(Luke 10:25-26) And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?”

When Jesus is asked how to find heaven he does not refer to tradition but rather to the word of God or salvation and instruction.

Catholics use the passage in 2 Thes 2:15 to support the claim of authority of tradition; So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. I would ask you who is us? From this passage and taking into consideration that it was a letter from Paul to one of the early churches us would have been limited to the early church fathers. I don’t believe that the intent was for the authority to then be transferred to the Church since Paul was not the head of the church but rather a missionary.

Another thing that the Catholic church assumes is Infallibility. I know that there is a long process needed and it is only used rarely but I see no basis in scripture that man is anything but fallible, even the Pope. That said allowing a process by witch a man may be allowed to make a “perfect statement” seems frightening to most Protestants. I hope this has given you some material to digest. Again I’m enjoying the debate here and am thankfull for a place where we can discuss our beliefs honestly and openly.

When Jesus speaks against the “traditions”, he is referring to the Jews’ traditions that go against “love your neighbor as yourself”, and love God more than anything else". When the Apostles say to hold fast to the traditions, they are speaking of those teachings which have been passed down from them. Those Traditions form the basis of the Church and give continuity to it.

 

[Bugenhagen]

What? You guys already do “evangelize” protestants. Admittedly, you may not do it as aggressively as fundamentalists attempt to snatch sheep from Catholics, but EWTN makes no bones about trumpeting the conversions of pastors, etc. coming from confessional Lutheran and Calvinist communions. (If only we had a tv channel!) If every diocese was as aggressive as is EWTN, we would have a mass effort at protestant evangelism.

Myself, I have some misgivings about active efforts to evangelize members of any other Christian group, be they Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, or Non-denom. Instead, I intend to preach the truth of the gospel, engage in debate with those who hold erroneous beliefs, and evangelize in that way. I would have no bones about inviting a lapsed Baptist or Catholic to come to Divine Service at my church. But it seems bad form to actively seek to steal the sheep of another communion.

 

[dennisknapp]

(Matt 15:3) He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

(Matt 15:6)So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees in this passage, whose job it was to take the oral traditions and pass them down to the people, just as the Catholic church has done today. From reading this the scripture of the day (the 10 commandments) had been compromised by tradition and diluted. Jesus spoke against this.

(Luke 10:25-26) And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?”

When Jesus is asked how to find heaven he does not refer to tradition but rather to the word of God or salvation and instruction.

The Word of God for a Catholic is Tradition and Scripture.

Shlemele:

Catholics use the passage in 2 Thes 2:15 to support the claim of authority of tradition; So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. I would ask you who is us? From this passage and taking into consideration that it was a letter from Paul to one of the early churches us would have been limited to the early church fathers. I** don’t believe that the intent was for the authority to then be transferred to the Church since Paul was not the head of the church but rather a missionary**.

Paul was an Apostle. You adhere to his writings, don’t you? Why not adhere what he passed down orally? Why is the written Word still binding and not the oral Word?

Shlemele:

Another thing that the Catholic church assumes is Infallibility. I know that there is a long process needed and it is only used rarely but I see no basis in scripture that man is anything but fallible, even the Pope. That said allowing a process by witch a man may be allowed to make a “perfect statement” seems frightening to most Protestants. I hope this has given you some material to digest. Again I’m enjoying the debate here and am thankfull for a place where we can discuss our beliefs honestly and openly.

Our Lord Jesus told Peter in Matt. 16:19 to Peter, *“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” *and to all the disciples in Matt. 18:28, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

You still haven’t told me how you account for the lack of Protestant beliefs in the early Church. Why are they not there?

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

Paul was an Apostle. You adhere to his writings, don’t you? Why not adhere what he passed down orally? Why is the written Word still binding and not the oral Word?

Because I do not trust the source to be quite frank. Written word is there in black and white, oral traditions have no such reference. Being that the church was pretty much under ground oral tradition wouldn’t have been practiced in the open until Rome was a Christian state, several hundred years after Paul. As I had stated once you throw humans in the mix things tend to get screwed up. Relating to the previously posted scripture is seems that the keepers of oral traditions tend to run away with the law aspect (the Pharisees). So while we agree that tradition is subordinate to Scripture we also see that tradition can detract from it. Again When the lawyer asked Jesus how to be saved Jesus said nothing of traditions, only of scripture.

…and to all the disciples in Matt. 18:28, “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I don’t see anything here that limits this to the Pope so are you using this scripture to imply that that EVERY Christian can make infallible statements? In all honesty I need to look into this passage more before going in to too much depth (it’s after midnight so I’ll save it for when I can spare the brain power )

In response to the statements about the early church and traditions not found in protestant churches, what are the tradition is the early church that you don’t find in protestant churches, and more importantly what are your sources? I don’t think that many of the traditions of the Catholic church were in the early church either. Breaking bread is a tradition protestants hold to, baptism, Missionaries, and a handful of others. The thing is though that tradition is limited to what is written in scripture. It’s human nature that repetition creates apathy so doing things just for traditions sake is hollow. Anyways having to work to keep my eyes open (12 hour work days are NOT fun) so I’ll catch ya later.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Because I do not trust the source to be quite frank. Written word is there in black and white, oral traditions have no such reference. Being that the church was pretty much under ground oral tradition wouldn’t have been practiced in the open until Rome was a Christian state, several hundred years after Paul. As I had stated once you throw humans in the mix things tend to get screwed up. Relating to the previously posted scripture is seems that the keepers of oral traditions tend to run away with the law aspect (the Pharisees). So while we agree that tradition is subordinate to Scripture we also see that tradition can detract from it. Again When the lawyer asked Jesus how to be saved Jesus said nothing of traditions, only of scripture.

Whether or not you “trust” the source of oral tradition is neither here nor there. If it is true, it is true regardless of whether you “trust” it. Also, written tradition can be corrupted as well, so you should have a problem with that too. Unless of course you think God has specially preserved it from error, but in that case I would say that He did the same thing with the oral part of His Word as well.

I never said the Tradition is subordinate to Scripture. When did I say that? Also, taking one example of Jesus addressing the Pharisees about tradition (that is lower case t) and then infering He thought that way about His teachings that were handed down orally is overstating things a bit much.

Shlemele:

I don’t see anything here that limits this to the Pope so are you using this scripture to imply that that EVERY Christian can make infallible statements? In all honesty I need to look into this passage more before going in to too much depth (it’s after midnight so I’ll save it for when I can spare the brain power )

Not every Christian has this gift, only the successor of Peter and the Apostles to whom the gift was given.

Shlemele:

In response to the statements about the early church and traditions not found in protestant churches, what are the tradition is the early church that you don’t find in protestant churches, and more importantly what are your sources? I don’t think that many of the traditions of the Catholic church were in the early church either. Breaking bread is a tradition protestants hold to, baptism, Missionaries, and a handful of others. The thing is though that tradition is limited to what is written in scripture. It’s human nature that repetition creates apathy so doing things just for traditions sake is hollow. Anyways having to work to keep my eyes open (12 hour work days are NOT fun) so I’ll catch ya later.

I did not find the modern concept of the nature of the Church found in most Protestant denominations. I did not find faith alone, scripture alone, merely symbolic baptism and communion.

What I did find was a Church fully inline to what the Catholic Church is today. Sure, we have matured and in so doing have reflected upon the what Christ has given us, but we have stayed true and have remained His Church.

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

Not every Christian has this gift, only the successor of Peter and the Apostles to whom the gift was given.

Also, taking one example of Jesus addressing the Pharisees about tradition (that is lower case t) and then inferring He thought that way about His teachings that were handed down orally is overstating things a bit much.

Here is the problem with these two statements; you use one verse to infer that Peter intended to pass on the gift of binding and loosing but scripture never comes out and directly says it, on the other hand Jesus directly addresses the sin of traditions for traditions sake “the hollow gong” and you make it out to be something inapplicable because he was talking to the religious leaders of the day. The point is that they fell into the same traps we do today, Legalistic Christianity. Jesus was about relationships and not the law.

I never said the Tradition is subordinate to Scripture.

Well both cannot be on the same level, then you fall into the trap of serving two masters, and tradition can not be greater because that would give anyone the permission to believe whatever they wanted as long as they made a tradition out of it.

Whether or not you “trust” the source of oral tradition is neither here nor there. If it is true, it is true regardless of whether you “trust” it.

There are a lot of people who claim to have the truth on their side and to be honest I don’t trust them either. God wants us to trust him and with that I’m ok, anyone else (including the church) needs to prove it first. The Catholic church hasn’t proven itself to me in my readings or in the Masses I have attended so therefore I don’t believe the truth is in oral tradition kept by a church that for all intensive purposes was a secular state during the middle ages. Anyways got to go to work so I’ll continue this later.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Here is the problem with these two statements; you use one verse to infer that Peter intended to pass on the gift of binding and loosing but scripture never comes out and directly says it, on the other hand Jesus directly addresses the sin of traditions for traditions sake “the hollow gong” and you make it out to be something inapplicable because he was talking to the religious leaders of the day. The point is that they fell into the same traps we do today, Legalistic Christianity. Jesus was about relationships and not the law.

What was passed down orally is not “tradition for tradition” sake. It is just as valid as what is in the Bible because it comes from the same source: God. What do you mean by legalistic Christianity? Do you mean any belief about anything? What I am talking about is not legalism, but revealed truth.

Shlemele:

Well both cannot be on the same level, then you fall into the trap of serving two masters, and tradition can not be greater because that would give anyone the permission to believe whatever they wanted as long as they made a tradition out of it.

I serve one master, God. He chose to pass down His Word in two forms, i.e., Scripture and Tradition. You have the same problem with people having permission to believe anything they want? Is there not multiple thousands of Protestant denominations? Seems like a lot of people gaining permission to believe what they want, and this from only having one book. Their interpretation of Scripture gives them permission to believe what they want.

Shlemele:

There are a lot of people who claim to have the truth on their side and to be honest I don’t trust them either. God wants us to trust him and with that I’m ok, anyone else (including the church) needs to prove it first. The Catholic church hasn’t proven itself to me in my readings or in the Masses I have attended so therefore I don’t believe the truth is in oral tradition kept by a church that for all intensive purposes was a secular state during the middle ages. Anyways got to go to work so I’ll continue this later.

Do you have the truth on your side, or do you admit in believing a lie? How exactly do you trust God if not from learning about Him through the Church?

What have you read that has not given you the proof you need regarding the Catholic Church? What are your sources?

The facts that the Church was a tempral power during the Middle Ages has no bearing on the truth of its origins.

What about the lack of Protestant Christianity in the early Church?

Peace

 

[Shlemele]

Do you have the truth on your side, or do you admit in believing a lie?

If this is going to be your stance then we need to just stop this discussion. So far you have stuck to the position that the Catholic church is the full truth and infallible. You have portrayed all protestant denominations as “lies”. I have supplied scripture supporting my position and you have done the same for yours. If you see the issue as black and white with your church being devoid of lies, then there is no use discussing the point. I will never get you to believe that Protestants have legitimate reasons for distrusting oral tradition and you will never get me to believe that traditions hold the same legitimacy as scripture. The thread was started to discuss if Protestants should be evangelized and coming from our discussion so far I’m not entirely sure you even believe that Protestants have hope of heaven.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

If this is going to be your stance then we need to just stop this discussion. So far you have stuck to the position that the Catholic church is the full truth and infallible. You have portrayed all protestant denominations as “lies”. I have supplied scripture supporting my position and you have done the same for yours. If you see the issue as black and white with your church being devoid of lies, then there is no use discussing the point. I will never get you to believe that Protestants have legitimate reasons for distrusting oral tradition and you will never get me to believe that traditions hold the same legitimacy as scripture. The thread was started to discuss if Protestants should be evangelized and coming from our discussion so far I’m not entirely sure you even believe that Protestants have hope of heaven.

I think you misunderstood my point with that sentence. I was not saying that you believe a lie, but that we both believe there is such a thing as ultimate truth. To not believe in ultimate truth is to possilbly believe a lie.

What our conversation is truly about is the Truth. We both believe different things about it, but we both believe it exists. What I have been trying to challenge you about is the fact that Truth exists apart from opinion, feelings, or experience. If the Catholic Church is the true Church (please notice I used the “if”), then all should be apart of Her whether or not they like Her or agree with Her.

I think Protestant have the hope of heaven. Many of my closest friend are Protestant.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

If this is going to be your stance then we need to just stop this discussion. So far you have stuck to the position that the Catholic church is the full truth and infallible. You have portrayed all protestant denominations as “lies”. I have supplied scripture supporting my position and you have done the same for yours. If you see the issue as black and white with your church being devoid of lies, then there is no use discussing the point. I** will never get you to believe that Protestants have legitimate reasons for distrusting oral tradition and you will never get me to believe that traditions hold the same legitimacy as scripture.** The thread was started to discuss if Protestants should be evangelized and coming from our discussion so far I’m not entirely sure you even believe that Protestants have hope of heaven.

“Do you have the truth on your side, or do you admit in believing a lie?”

Sorry if this was misunderstood. I did not mean to say that you believe a lie.

I meant that you do claim to have truth on your side, for if you didn’t claim this we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Also, why believe something if you are not convinced its the truth? This is what I meant in a rhetorical fashion.

You can get me to believe that Protestants have legitimate reasons for distrusting oral traditions. I never said I was unable to err. I hope I will always remain open to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable or undesirable.

It does concern me greatly that you are unwilling to do the same in regards to my position. What if what I am saying is true? Is there even a slight possiblity it could be? It’s not like I have a total lack of evidence to support my claim (the evidence is the reason I am Catholic).

If you can show me where I have gone wrong in my understand of Church history and the bible I am more then willing to change. I mentioned before that if you can show me key Protestant beliefs (those beliefs that differ from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) in the early Church I will revert back to Protestantism in a second. Are you will to hear evidence against your position and do likewise?

Let us both be like Socrates and follow the truth where ever it leds us.

Peace

 

[SGARRETT_69]

what must be remembered is that faith and salvation are personal between the individual and christ. allignment to a specific church or denomination does not guarantee salvation or prohibit it!
i am a protestant and my own belief is simple, i beieve jesus was born a man died for all sinners the rose again, as im sure every1 on these forums do!
however i am first to admit that i do not understand fully the teachings of the catholic church and believe the church itself is misguided. but if the personal relationship is right then salvation is available, despite the religion.
one question i would like to ask, not of spite or any other means except solely for knowledge is why do catholics need a mediator between themselves and the father, other than jesus. ie why is there a need to confess to a priest and not to god himself? and y is he addressed as father?
with reference to the question, one must look at their own “relationship” with god before trying to influence other peoples eternity!

 

[Lillith]

one question i would like to ask, not of spite or any other means except solely for knowledge is why do catholics need a mediator between themselves and the father, other than jesus. ie why is there a need to confess to a priest and not to god himself? and y is he addressed as father?

About the mediator: The Catholic church is an ice berg. The living members are the tip, and what is seen. Look under the water and you will see the enormity of the ice berg, and the majority of the Church. People who have passed in union with Christ are more alive than I am. If you ask a living person to pray for you, would you pick a crack addicted bar-hopper, or would you ask your Deacon? As a Catholic I ask the holiest folks I know…the ones already in close proximety to God. Of course I pray directly to Jesus, the Lord our God…but if I’m asking someone to pray for me, I go to the best.

Confession: The question should be why don’t you confess your sins to men the way that Jesus asks us to in John 20:20-23?

23. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

 

[SGARRETT_69]

Lillith:

one question i would like to ask, not of spite or any other means except solely for knowledge is why do catholics need a mediator between themselves and the father, other than jesus. ie why is there a need to confess to a priest and not to god himself? and y is he addressed as father?

About the mediator: The Catholic church is an ice berg. The living members are the tip, and what is seen. Look under the water and you will see the enormity of the ice berg, and the majority of the Church. People who have passed in union with Christ are more alive than I am. If you ask a living person to pray for you, would you pick a crack addicted bar-hopper, or would you ask your Deacon? As a Catholic I ask the holiest folks I know…the ones already in close proximety to God. Of course I pray directly to Jesus, the Lord our God…but if I’m asking someone to pray for me, I go to the best.

Confession: The question should be why don’t you confess your sins to men the way that Jesus asks us to in John 20:20-23?

23. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

is it for you to say who is holier? wouldnt that be judgement? and god does not elect these people, men do!
one more thing why is forgiveness sought from the priest? and y is he addressed as father! my personal belief is only god can forgive our sins through jesus christ’s resurrection,

 

[Lillith]

SGARRETT_69:

About the mediator: The Catholic church is an ice berg. The living members are the tip, and what is seen. Look under the water and you will see the enormity of the ice berg, and the majority of the Church. People who have passed in union with Christ are more alive than I am. If you ask a living person to pray for you, would you pick a crack addicted bar-hopper, or would you ask your Deacon? As a Catholic I ask the holiest folks I know…the ones already in close proximety to God. Of course I pray directly to Jesus, the Lord our God…but if I’m asking someone to pray for me, I go to the best.

Confession: The question should be why don’t you confess your sins to men the way that Jesus asks us to in John 20:20-23?

23. Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

is it for you to say who is holier? wouldnt that be judgement? and god does not elect these people, men do!
one more thing why is forgiveness sought from the priest? and y is he addressed as father! my personal belief is only god can forgive our sins through jesus christ’s resurrection,

Did I say who is Holier? I simply asked a question…crack addicted bar-hopper or Deacon. Remember…to a Catholic they, both the living and the dead are alive if the deceased are in Christ.

The Holy Spirit calls men to be Priests or Ministers…would you not agree?..so no. Men do not Elect our priests…they are called.

About Confession. Did you read the scrripture I pointed to you? Jesus commanded the apostles to go out and hear confessions, and for good reason. I don’t know how a person could not remember all of his transgressions without help. Recently I heard my very sweet sis-in-law gossiping in her Baptist Church about another member…She is salt of the earth, very near saintly, but I promise you she had no idea she was sinning…and in church too!
She doesn’t go home and confess this to God…she was right there in God’s house and didn’t even think about right or wrong. Jesus set up confessing to men so that we would use each other to help us become holier!

As far as calling a priest Father…Jesus called Abraham Father did he not?

So many questions SGarrett! Thet each deserve individual threads! Also I encourage you to read the pieces written by Karl Keating at the home page, in the left column…

 

[dennisknapp]

Hey, Shlemele!

I hope you haven’t given up on our conversation, it was just getting good.

Peace