Some Protestants Believe the Strangest things.

[Nicea325]

It doesn’t matter that they didn’t have the New Testament. The New Testament has the history of what the first Christians were like and what they were taught by the apostles. Protestants follow the apostle’s teachings as recorded in the NT.

Now you are contradicting yourself. You said the Bible-only,which means the NT would be included in the Bible. The NT as a whole is not techinically “history” per se,but the Acts of the Apostles is considered history of the early church.

 

[Zenkai]

Unfortunately you are incorrect,Scripture does point to the CC. Why would the Apostles have to mention it? Show me where the Apostles mention the canon of the NT?

They wouldn’t need to mention the canon of the NT because the canon is just all of their writtings put together.

 

[Zenkai]

Now you are contradicting yourself. You said the Bible-only,which means the NT would be included in the Bible. The NT as a whole is not techinically “history” per se,but the Acts of the Apostles is considered history of the early church.

It’s Bible-only because that’s where it shows the earliest Christians and their beliefs. Protestants try to follow that.

 

[Nicea325]

They wouldn’t need to mention the canon of the NT because the canon is just all of their writtings put together.

Actually it goes a lot deeper than that my friend. The NT canon was made official in the
5th century,well over 400 years after Jesus. You said if the RCC is the true church,the Apostles would have least mentioned it-right? Thus my question to you:

So since we have a 27 NT canon,why didn’t they mention it?

 

[Nicea325]

It’s Bible-only because that’s where it shows the earliest Christians and their beliefs. Protestants try to follow that.

Nope! Many Protestants only accept the Bible as the only source of Christian History. Sorry,but what about the scores of writings of the early church fathers many Protestants flat out reject or deny? Protestants at times only follow what suits their biblical interpretations and yet reject scores of other verses.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zenkai,

In all charity… you are just spinning your wheels. Where are you getting these answers from? You have yet to respond to my post where I tell you that the Bible is not a catechism or a COMPLETE account of what took place.

Protestants, and you are one of them, ONLY have the Bible, because they reject the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It is as though Jesus walked on this earth - and then 16 centuries later, Luther and the others involved in the Protestant Revolt sprang fully formed with - and this is critical - all this conflicting doctrine that evolves from ‘Sola Scriptura’. You may dismiss this as an explanation … but, there are still these 30,000+ Protestant that bear witness to the fact that Protestants not only disagree with the Catholic Church, they disagree with one another … over, and over, and over again! philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

In think over your previous responses … i personally do not think you are going to have an easy time in RCIA as you wave a banner for how the Protestants conform to Scripture and these Catholics have obviously gone their own way. Seriously, it does no one any good to hear that you “…almost converted…” … but, then found Protestants living more like Scripture describes. It makes me wonder just where you were prior to just finding this out. In my opinion, if you are serious about this conversion, you will start listening to what we are telling you and begin reading Catholic authors. Now, if you are not serious … that is another story.

God bless

It’s Bible-only because that’s where it shows the earliest Christians and their beliefs. Protestants try to follow that.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nicea325,

My guess is that Protestants reject the ECF is because these men were so supportive of the Catholic Church - from the earliest of the writers. When then do claim an ECF like St. Augustine on predestination, they never quite get it right and refuse to focus on his love for the Church, the Eucharist and the authority of the Pope.

There is simply nothing consistent about Protestantism in how they explain their own origin.

God bless

Nope! Many Protestants only accept the Bible as the only source of Christian History. Sorry,but what about the scores of writings of the early church fathers many Protestants flat out reject or deny? Protestants at times only follow what suits their biblical interpretations and yet reject scores of other verses.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, Nicea325,

My guess is that Protestants reject the ECF is because these men were so supportive of the Catholic Church - from the earliest of the writers. When then do claim an ECF like St. Augustine on predestination, they never quite get it right and refuse to focus on his love for the Church, the Eucharist and the authority of the Pope.

There is simply nothing consistent about Protestantism in how they explain their own origin.

God bless

Yes they deny it for the simple fact: They were Catholic. Indeed many try to say the ECF were Protestant in some of their beliefs,such as the symbolic Eucharist (aka St.Augustine). Radical is one of them making such an absurd argument. If St.Augustine were Protestant,funny how he supoorts scores of other Catholic beliefs? Funny how he never says which non-Catholic church he attends? Finally, if the early church fathers taught a symbolic Eucharist and St.Augustine the Real Presence,how strange that not ONE ever rebukes St.Augustine for holding to a false teaching? Radical’s response: How could they when no one held to such a belief? Weak rebuttal…very weak!

 

[Zenkai]

Hi, Zenkai,

In all charity… you are just spinning your wheels. Where are you getting these answers from? You have yet to respond to my post where I tell you that the Bible is not a catechism or a COMPLETE account of what took place.

Protestants, and you are one of them, ONLY have the Bible, because they reject the writings of the Early Church Fathers. It is as though Jesus walked on this earth - and then 16 centuries later, Luther and the others involved in the Protestant Revolt sprang fully formed with - and this is critical - all this conflicting doctrine that evolves from ‘Sola Scriptura’. You may dismiss this as an explanation … but, there are still these 30,000+ Protestant that bear witness to the fact that Protestants not only disagree with the Catholic Church, they disagree with one another … over, and over, and over again! philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm

In think over your previous responses … i personally do not think you are going to have an easy time in RCIA as you wave a banner for how the Protestants conform to Scripture and these Catholics have obviously gone their own way. Seriously, it does no one any good to hear that you “…almost converted…” … but, then found Protestants living more like Scripture describes. It makes me wonder just where you were prior to just finding this out. In my opinion, if you are serious about this conversion, you will start listening to what we are telling you and begin reading Catholic authors. Now, if you are not serious … that is another story.

God bless

Hello, I do want to convert to Catholicism, but I feel that I need to study it’s teaching some more before I do. I pretty much believe in the Real Presence and the necessity of Baptism, etc. The only things that I have trouble believing are the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, and confession to a priest. I’m not sure if these three points are true, or if they are man-made doctrines. I want to read some of the early Church father’s writtings. Do you know if any of them mentioned these three issues? Particularly early Church fathers that lived before 200 AD.

-Thank you and God bless

 

[Link0126]

Hi, Link0126,

Looks like you got me on that one … can you please give me a reference?

Thanks

Hey tqualey, see these links for the verses in the DR and KJV:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=bishop&b=drb&t=0

blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=bishop&t=KJV

The info of the office of the bishop is from a footnote in my RSV-CE 2nd edition hard copy, which cannot be viewed on line.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zenkai,

Let’s get serious… and work on the items you think you believe before branching out.

So, if you are, “…pretty much believe in the Real Presence…” what is it you actually believe and what parts do you not believe? In fact, why not write down your answer to this on a sheet of paper - do not send it to this thread - this is just for you. Then open this link: catholicapologetics.org/ap060500.htm and read about what the Catholic Church teaches - AND THEN compare and contrast it with what you wrote down.

A phrase like ‘…pretty much believe…’ leaves a lot of room for deviating from what the Catholic Church teaches. Protestants are all over the place with dismissing the Real Presence. Christ spends most of the 6th Chapter of the Gospel of St. John on Christ being the Bread of Life - and He tells us if we do not eat His Flesh or drink His Blood we have no life in us. But, this is dismissed by Protestants with the ‘flesh profits nothing’ quip - as if to say that the Flesh of the Son of God is worthless. And, with you it is a ‘…pretty much…’ item… like Baptism? So, get another sheet of paper out and write down what you believe and what you don’t believe.

Now, open this link: catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism and read what it says. And… read this one, too: catholicity.com/catechism/necessity_of_baptism.html Compare and contrast what you have just read with what you have just written. Identify the differences. Christ is clear to Nicodemus about the necessity of Baptism. Christ is also clear about the Trinitarian formula to be used at the end of St Matthew’s Gospel.

Protestants are a bit more united on Baptism … but, some claim that it is not needed, or that it an ordinance, or that it is an option, or that infants can not be Baptized (and this would be in direct contradiction of what John Calvin taught (he was Baptized a Catholic as an infant!)

Sorry if I sound critical here … but, for someone who claims to want to be a Catholic - you certainly are putting up every Protestant objection imaginable - then, like Protestants before you, when challenged - just fail to respond. You really can not have it both ways. If you want to be convinced, then I suggest that you begin with prayer. Then read the material I have just now given you. Then figure out where you stand on these two Sacraments of initiation (the 3rd one is Confirmation…but let’s get these two straight before we move forward.

Maybe as a sign that you are serious, try any of the material any of the posters have given you about the Catholic Faith - read it - and then comment on it. So, far you just seem to be repeating yourself by saying Catholic doctrines ‘x’, ‘y’ & ‘z’ aren’t following Scripture - but, somehow neglect where Protestants are floundering x 30,000+ with all of their man-made doctrines. Please address the issue.

Here is another good link to start to know what it is the Catholic Church teaches:

therealpresence.org/essentials/acc.htm

God bless

Hello, I do want to convert to Catholicism, but I feel that I need to study it’s teaching some more before I do. I pretty much believe in the Real Presence and the necessity of Baptism, etc. The only things that I have trouble believing are the Marian dogmas, Purgatory, and confession to a priest. I’m not sure if these three points are true, or if they are man-made doctrines. I want to read some of the early Church father’s writtings. Do you know if any of them mentioned these three issues? Particularly early Church fathers that lived before 200 AD.

-Thank you and God bless

 

[Zenkai]

Hi, Zenkai,

Let’s get serious… and work on the items you think you believe before branching out.

So, if you are, “…pretty much believe in the Real Presence…” what is it you actually believe and what parts do you not believe? In fact, why not write down your answer to this on a sheet of paper - do not send it to this thread - this is just for you. Then open this link: catholicapologetics.org/ap060500.htm and read about what the Catholic Church teaches - AND THEN compare and contrast it with what you wrote down.

A phrase like ‘…pretty much believe…’ leaves a lot of room for deviating from what the Catholic Church teaches. Protestants are all over the place with dismissing the Real Presence. Christ spends most of the 6th Chapter of the Gospel of St. John on Christ being the Bread of Life - and He tells us if we do not eat His Flesh or drink His Blood we have no life in us. But, this is dismissed by Protestants with the ‘flesh profits nothing’ quip - as if to say that the Flesh of the Son of God is worthless. And, with you it is a ‘…pretty much…’ item… like Baptism? So, get another sheet of paper out and write down what you believe and what you don’t believe.

Now, open this link: catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism and read what it says. And… read this one, too: catholicity.com/catechism/necessity_of_baptism.html Compare and contrast what you have just read with what you have just written. Identify the differences. Christ is clear to Nicodemus about the necessity of Baptism. Christ is also clear about the Trinitarian formula to be used at the end of St Matthew’s Gospel.

Protestants are a bit more united on Baptism … but, some claim that it is not needed, or that it an ordinance, or that it is an option, or that infants can not be Baptized (and this would be in direct contradiction of what John Calvin taught (he was Baptized a Catholic as an infant!)

Sorry if I sound critical here … but, for someone who claims to want to be a Catholic -** you certainly are putting up every Protestant objection imaginable **- then, like Protestants before you, when challenged - just fail to respond. You really can not have it both ways. If you want to be convinced, then I suggest that you begin with prayer. Then read the material I have just now given you. Then figure out where you stand on these two Sacraments of initiation (the 3rd one is Confirmation…but let’s get these two straight before we move forward.

Maybe as a sign that you are serious, try any of the material any of the posters have given you about the Catholic Faith - read it - and then comment on it. So, far you just seem to be repeating yourself by saying Catholic doctrines ‘x’, ‘y’ & ‘z’ aren’t following Scripture - but, somehow neglect where Protestants are floundering x 30,000+ with all of their man-made doctrines. Please address the issue.

Here is another good link to start to know what it is the Catholic Church teaches:

therealpresence.org/essentials/acc.htm

God bless

Thank you, I will compare my beliefs with those links soon.

I’m putting up objections because I want to find the absolute truth. Protestants have some good theology and so do Catholics. I’m putting them both up to the same scrutiny in my research. I hope you understand that I am not bashing the Catholic faith or the Protestant faith; I just want to know which one is the most true.

-God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zenkai,

The search for ‘…absolute truth…’ is a impossible task. The most any of us can do is search for moral truth. Only God is Absolute Truth. But, in the quest for moral truth, we have to keep a couple of things in mind.

In the Chemistry Lab, students are given the task of finding the ‘unknown’ chemical. They do this by a very rigorous process of scientific inquiry whereby one set of tests is conducted and if no results then another set of tests - until finally the ‘unknown’ is ‘known’. But, you know, as long as the student follows the established steps and does not deviate - he will be successful. It does not make ANY difference if he shows up with a bias - and his eternal salvation does not depend on finding the answer to a chemical analysis. Real life is quite different.

As I read your post the analogy of a chemistry student came to mind. And, in my opinion, this approach you have offered will simply lead you further from where you really need to be in finding the Church founded by Jesus Christ. The chemistry student acts as an impartial judge as he evaluates the results of his testing - either the ‘unknown’ is this or not this. Once that question is answered in the negative - he tries something else and then asks the same question. But, this implies that the student knows how to thoroughly test the items - there is no room for a hit-or-miss approach.

In my opinion, if you are going to be comparing Catholic Doctrine to the doctrines of a Protestant Church - which one will you use? Seriously, there is very little the unites Protestants except their belief that the Catholic Church is wrong. Take any other topic (hmmmmmmmm maybe ‘Sola Scriptura’ is an exception) and Protestants are all over the place with what they believe. You only know what is crooked insofar as you already know what is straight. If the wooden ruler is warped to begin with - no one can draw a straight line. Establishing just what it is you will use for a ruler is the key - a mistake here will foul all effort to achieve your goal.

I will be praying that you succeed at your task.

God bless

Thank you, I will compare my beliefs with those links soon.

I’m putting up objections because I want to find the absolute truth. Protestants have some good theology and so do Catholics. I’m putting them both up to the same scrutiny in my research. I hope you understand that I am not bashing the Catholic faith or the Protestant faith; I just want to know which one is the most true.

-God bless

 

[zz912]

I’m r reason. I’m looking from an unbiased perspective. I was all set to convert . Purgatory is a pretty big deal, but the apostles only mention Heaven and hell. Why would they not mention that?l.

You are simply factually wrong about the Apostles not mentioning something other than Heaven or hell. Revelation speaks of Death and Hades being thrown into Hell. How can hell be thrown into itself? In Peter’s letter he says that Jesus went and preached to the souls in"prison", which can’t be Heaven (those in Heaven don’t need to be preached to and aren’t in “prison”) or hell (those in hell can’t be saved any more.). So it must be another place. Jesus also talks about the bosom of Abraham, which was neither Heaven nor hell.

Keep reading your Bible and you will find every Catholic Doctrine.

 

[jmcrae]

Presbyters/Elders appear to be married and have children in this chapter. Priests cannot get married and cannot have children.

In the first generation of the Church, the discipline of celibacy had not yet been developed. This didn’t come about until the second or third century, and in some places, even later. In the Eastern Church, which is also in full communion with the Pope, they still allow married men to become priests.

Don’t confuse disciplines with doctrine.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Hi, PbloPicasso,

Thanks for your comments on the Fundamentalists. This group claims they believe everything the Bible says - and then begin to throw out what they do not want by the use of their interpretations.

Doctrines like Christ actually founding His Church on Peter - like He said He did - are not believed. Christ requiring us to eat His Flesh and drink Hi Blood are rejected in the same manner that the Jews in John 6 walked out on Christ because they refused to believe.

They have truly crafted their own set of beliefs that have nothing to do with Christ. What is so painful is that there are people who are believing these man-made doctrines and totally missing the boat.

God bless

You hit the nail on the head. The Church of Christ newly created Theology implemented a term called “Necessary Inference” and use it to describe why we don’t believe the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. If it’s not rationally, then surely God did not mean it in that way… no matter how it was passed down from the begining.

Today, while working on my floor, [seem to have clarity of though during those moments] I realized something. Protestants have nothing to base their beliefs upon other than man made ideas. they have no history to confirm their beliefs, yet hold to their own oral tradition that they cling to, even though they reject the concept of oral tradition. You see, the “underground church” could not exist today without adhering to oral tradition. I once held to such beliefs, but as I grew both academically and cognitively more critical in my thinking, I realized the problem with this adherence. The Christians I fellowshipped with believed something that could not be traced back, all the while rejecting Sacred Tradition/Oral Tradition. We even discussed our “tradition” during one night bible class. Ironically, a couple of years later, the preacher held a “lesson” as part of his Wednesday night bible class.

A couple of years later the preacher received permission from the elders/bishops to give a presentation on the 2nd and 3rd century Church. And one night we walked in on it, late as usual [children], and saw the “Apostles Creed” on the overhead projector. He discussed the history of it that was exactly as I learned as a Catholic, which didn’t set well with me during that moment for reasons I’ll discuss later. Shortly after he posted the original Nicene Creed the Orthodox adhere to and then discussed the Filioque clause, a term I had forgotten. I scrutinized everything he said about it and the early Christians. He may not have realized it, but he just described the Catholics of the early Christian Church.

Suddenly, he asked us to stand and recited all three of the creeds from the overhead. Then we recited the Our Father, which really threw me. I looked at my wife during the recitation of it and she was baffled as to how I knew this. I know I looked like the impressive educated type at the time. As we walked out the auditorium I said, we just professed being Catholic and gave her my sarcastic smile. She gave me her flame throwing eyeball looks and girrrred at me. She did not like me saying that. SO I bit my lip and wondered.

Eventually, all of this wonderment brought me back to the Church. There were far too many coencidents related to Catholicism that kept popping up. In my resistence I was determined to believe the real Church was actually the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, all of the issues I had were ironed out by several priests, including Orthodox priests. I was advised to remain Catholic and have ever since. However I have gained an immense respect for our Eastern Catholic brethren. Then I discovered the Eastern Orthodox in communion with the Church. I love Eastern Orthodoxy theology and divine liturgy. However, I do feel lucky that I’m not obligated to participate in their ancient practices of fasting - really hard with my condition.

Early in my reversion, a week or two, I feared divorce once I truly realized that I needed to come home to the Catholic Church. I set the facts on the table before my wife expecting her to seek separation. I’d hoped she seek more information on it, and my prayers came true. We’re all Catholic now. but you should have seen our son look at us like we’re were possessed. He thought the Catholic Church was the whore of Babylon. Believe me, my wife [and son] would not be Catholic if she did not believe it. She gave up communion with a huge Church of Christ family, with a father as an elder. It was very difficult for her.

 

[Beati_Pacifici]

One word debunks why any small heretical sect could be the “true” early Christian Church: Catharism (not people who currently call themselves Cathars, but the early Catharist heresy that tried to destroy marriage)

 

[JustaServant]

Hiya Jo-Artist…

I’m not sure which specific beliefs or groups you are talking about, since you don’t specify…but I do assume that it is common knowledge to everyone here that there were many different Christian groups that developed soon after Jesus died, each one differing a little in their beliefs, each one basing their beliefs on what was considered holy teachings and scripture from disciples at the time…the Ebonite Christains and Marcion Christains, for example.
There are many, many books out there on this topic–Lost Christianities is one of them.

Is this what you are talking about?

These groups were around until that council in the 4th Century, when all the details of “Christianity” were decided upon by that group of Bishops–I believed it took them many decades to do this–and the books of the bible were put together.
From what I’ve read, the books that would espouse the beliefs of these other groups were left out, of course…and banned, etc.
But from what I’ve read many continued to follow these Christian beliefs long afterward in secret, because they were not allowed to do so in public.

I don’t know if these early Christian groups are related belief-wise to any Protestant religions of today, though.

You keep pushing this “alternative christianities” hobby horse over and over on countless threads. And when asked to provide forensic proof, you hightail it every time.
So I will ask for the upteenth time.
Proof?

 

[cajunhillbilly]

even I, an Anglican, realize that those groups that are mentioned in “The Trail of Blood” were either out and out heretical or actually taught the same view of the Sacraments, etc as was taught by the historic Church. That is why I am Anglican. Of course as Roman Catholics you would say out orders aren’t legitimate, but that is another topic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

even I, an Anglican, realize that those groups that are mentioned in “The Trail of Blood” were either out and out heretical or actually taught the same view of the Sacraments, etc as was taught by the historic Church. That is why I am Anglican. Of course as Roman Catholics you would say out orders aren’t legitimate, but that is another topic.

Exactly and I doubt Anglicans place much thought on the King and his issues back in time while focused on Jesus Christ.