Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[PRmerger]

So, your issue is based solely on the idea that the style or form of the confession is not found in scripture? That’s interesting. Are you married? I am…at least I think I am…come to think of it, the Bible doesn’t specify exactly what I was supposed to say and do during the ceremony…so, how am I to know for sure that my marriage is valid?

Love this! May I borrow?

 

[JonNC]

=M1Garand;11296721]What I have stated is based on the Protestant view of my faith relayed to me by them for the 43 years of my life. None of what I said requires “Catholic Church teach[ing]” since I am not addressing an issue of faith and morals only observed and stated positions of Protestants. Perhaps I will qualify a bit. I have never heard any of the above from a Lutheran, at least not a Lutheran that will admit to being a Lutheran.

Well, that’s good to hear that you haven’t heard it from Lutherans.

I used the term “so called Protestant” because many non-Catholic faiths will identify themselves as Protestant when they are in fact evangelical, JW, Morman ect.
If you doubt what I am saying simply Google “Catholic”, “Pope”, “Vatican” and see what pops up. The lies and obfuscation have reached a fever pitch and much of the attack leveled at the Church has been seized on by the new evangelizing Atheist high priest of Richard Dawkins.

Thanks for the clarification. I actually kind of agree with you about the groups you mentioned.

I will not address the Jewish statement further because one cannot point this out without immediately being labeled. I pointed it out not to attack the Jews but to show that the error of the Protestant is not new and it preexist them.

I have no interest in knowing about them, really.

Jon

 

[M1Garand]

Well, that’s good to hear that you haven’t heard it from Lutherans.

Thanks for the clarification. I actually kind of agree with you about the groups you mentioned.

I have no interest in knowing about them, really.

Jon

Jon can you explain something for me? What was Luther’s view of man? Did he view man as inherently good or inherently evil? I have always been confused by the dung covered in snow analogy.

thanks

 

[JonNC]

Jon can you explain something for me? What was Luther’s view of man? Did he view man as inherently good or inherently evil? I have always been confused by the dung covered in snow analogy.

thanks

Nut shell.
The dung-covered snow thing is a legend, not that it isn’t something he would have said.
The Lutheran view of man is that, since the fall, man is incapable of making a decision, or taking action to seek out God, without grace. This is know as total depravity.
The Holy Spirit kindles in man the ability to believe, have faith, and receive grace. Once regenerate, we remain sinners, but also are saints - at once saint and sinner.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Love this! May I borrow?

Of course!

:tiphat:

 

[M1Garand]

Nut shell.
The dung-covered snow thing is a legend, not that it isn’t something he would have said.
The Lutheran view of man is that, since the fall, man is incapable of making a decision, or taking action to seek out God, without grace. This is know as total depravity.
The Holy Spirit kindles in man the ability to believe, have faith, and receive grace. Once regenerate, we remain sinners, but also are saints - at once saint and sinner.

Jon

Ah Ok.
But not inherently evil then, right? Just in capable of doing good without grace?

 

[pocohombre]

Where in scripture does it say that the Christian faith is contained only in scripture? If you can find it… likewise, I’m all for it. What scripture says, the words of St. Paul…says to hold fast to what has been taught both by word and letter.
PnP

Where does it say tradition can go beyond the constraints of scripture ?

 

[JustaServant]

The biggest stumbling block to so called Protestants is simple, they are taught and believe that the Catholic Church is illegitimate and pagan. The body of true believers were some how silenced by Constantine and the Pope who saw the Church as a vector of power and control. They parrot old anti-Christian attacks first leveled by the Jews then repeated through out history. They do not view Catholics as Christians or saved and therefore our entire structure is invalid and evil.

Documentation please, that ALL Protestant denominations believe and teach this.

 

[PRmerger]

Where does it say tradition can go beyond the constraints of scripture ?

This is a strawman, poco. For no Catholic Tradition goes “beyond the contraints of Scripture”. Everything that is in Tradition is in Scripture, and everything that is in Scripture is in Tradition.

 

[Mlon]

Where in scripture does it say that the Christian faith is contained only in scripture? If you can find it… likewise, I’m all for it. What scripture says, the words of St. Paul…says to hold fast to what has been taught both by word and letter.

PnP

The word and letter Paul is referring to is scripture. Like I stated in another post there is more which comes into play in the RC church - tradition. You’re at least the third or fourth RC that has said the Christian faith is more than the bible. What is more authoritive than the Bible? If that is your tradition, that’s fine. Many denominations have traditions. I just don’t accept things that are not clearly scriptural.

 

[M1Garand]

Documentation please, that ALL Protestant denominations believe and teach this.

I did not use the word “ALL”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The word and letter Paul is referring to is scripture. Like I stated in another post there is more which comes into play in the RC church - tradition. You’re at least the third or fourth RC that has said the Christian faith is more than the bible. What is more authoritive than the Bible? If that is your tradition, that’s fine. Many denominations have traditions. I just don’t accept things that are not clearly scriptural.

Oh? Are you sure there are no Traditions which you as a Bible Christian must accept? I’d be willing to bet there are.

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by you, Mlon
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

The following doctrines are proposed as those which meet all of the criteria above and are agreed to be binding upon the consciences of all believers:

1. The canon of the New Testament
2. Public revelation has ended
3. There are to be no more Apostles

Do you accept any of these three doctrines, Mlon?

If so, can you provide scriptures in support?

 

[PRmerger]

The word and letter Paul is referring to is scripture.

Actually, since the NT had not been completed yet, what he is referring to, Mlon, is the Old Testament.

So if anything, what you are arguing for is Sola Old Testament.

I am certain that you as a Christian don’t want to argue for that position.

Like I stated in another post there is more which comes into play in the RC church - tradition. You’re at least the third or fourth RC that has said the Christian faith is more than the bible. What is more authoritive than the Bible?

Where does the Bible say that it is the most authoritative manifestation of Revelation?

That is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, Mlon.

You heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it…but no one ever read that the Bible is the most authoritative word in a single page of Scripture.

If that is your tradition, that’s fine. Many denominations have traditions. I just don’t accept things that are not clearly scriptural.

Yet you accept the 27 book canon of the New Testament. That’s not found in Scripture.

You do indeed accept Tradition, Mlon, if you accept that there is a 27 book canon of the NT.

You accept that Hebrews is the inspired Word of God, yet it never says it is.

And you also accept Tradition when you profess that revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. No where is that found in the Bible. You believe that because of…Tradition.

You accept that there will be no new books added to the NT. You believe this even though the Bible doesn’t ever state this. You believe that because of…Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh? Are you sure there are no Traditions which you as a Bible Christian must accept? I’d be willing to bet there are.

In order to determine this fairly, we must evaluate each doctrine that is proposed as a candidate according to several criteria:

a) The doctrine in question is accepted by you, Mlon
b) The doctrine is not stated in Scripture
c) The doctrine is not implied by Scripture
d) The doctrine has an extrabiblical history to which one can appeal as an alternative, extrascriptural basis

The following doctrines are proposed as those which meet all of the criteria above and are agreed to be binding upon the consciences of all believers:

1. The canon of the New Testament
2. Public revelation has ended
3. There are to be no more Apostles

Do you accept any of these three doctrines, Mlon?

If so, can you provide scriptures in support?

Haha! We must have been posting simultaneously, Randy.

Great minds, and all that.

 

[pocohombre]

So your resigned to a point of relativism

No.How so?

You hold the corner on truth because you say so.

No. I asked does truth need an authority to be realized (understood) ? That does not sound relativistic or “cornering the market”.

When Moses came off the mountain and do the nation of Israel worshiping the golden calf he did not say “oh well” and let them go whichever way they wanted.
No he was given authority by God to lead and he did.

In your abortion scenario I did not say oh well. I said short of repenting (which I would desire for them) I understood they had a free will and it was more than a question of “authority " that kept them from the truth. In your Moses scenario, yes there was authority and leadership. God had spoken to Moses who spoke to and led all the nation. They all heard and understood and followed at first. With the golden calf episode Moses also wished for repentance and pleaded to God for them. He then offered them a choice with,” who is on the Lord’s side?". People had to decide for themselves. People had to believe for themselves. This human element can lead to division. It is no reflection on the truth, or how it is conveyed or authority structure.

Finally Christ comes and founds a church and gives Gods authority to the church do that the church he works through and protects can be the beacon of truth.
So that church could compile the scriptures.
So that church could settle disputes with authority.
So that church when called upon could say like Moses on the mountain. “Thus Sayeth God”

Yes but more. For everything you stated was also given to Israel-Old Testament -also .The new is what you said and much more, and much more than the old. He has given the Holy Spirit like never before, where we are now truly a nation (church) of priests, what Israel was supposed to be before their unbelief .

 

[pocohombre]

This is a strawman, poco. For no Catholic Tradition goes “beyond the contraints of Scripture”. Everything that is in Tradition is in Scripture, and everything that is in Scripture is in Tradition.

So no chapter and verse for this ? Why doesn’t Tradition go beyond scriptural constraints ? How do we know it doesn’t without using circular reasoning ?

 

[pocohombre]

Well, you can consider all you want. But you are making yourself the authority to decide what is and isn’t based on Scripture.

I think when you are more humble, you will be able to pass the test.

For now:

Inside The Story - CHCH

Wow. Looks a lot like what a catholic was saying about what protestants are taught about negatives of CC a few posts above ( #649 and #652)-though the video is much easier to swallow.

 

[JonNC]

Ah Ok.
But not inherently evil then, right? Just in capable of doing good without grace?

I wouldn’t say evil. God didn’t create evil. Without grace, we are in control of sin, death, and the devil. Baptism frees and delivers us from these, and instills the Holy Spirit within us, bringing us to faith because of grace. For those not Baptized, hearing the word is used in the same way.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

So no chapter and verse for this ?

Our faith does not come from the Scriptures, poco. Our faith comes from Christ and the Apostles.

Why doesn’t Tradition go beyond scriptural constraints ? How do we know it doesn’t without using circular reasoning ?

Because Scripture and Tradition come from the same source: Jesus, through His Apostles.

So what is in one, is essentially in the other.

Perhaps you could explain what Tradition you believe goes “beyond” Scripture?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Wow. Looks a lot like what a catholic was saying about what protestants are taught about negatives of CC a few posts above ( #649 and #652)-though the video is much easier to swallow.

http://doblelol.com/uploads/3/funny-sonic-gif.jpg