Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Anglo_Trad]

What I mean is that they are, for example, entirely unable to hold an ecumenical council for lack of any standard by which its ecumenical nature could be universally recognized. Likewise there can be no equivalent of a Papal encyclical or anything of that nature, as there is no Patriarch with authority to teach the whole Church.

The standard by which an ecumenical council is ecumenical is determined by its acceptance. I understand that you will not agree with this. I do not accept what the Roman Catholic Church calls an ecumenical council as being that. They are called by one man, the Pope. One man alone decides what is on the agenda, the Pope. One man decides what decrees are published from that council, the Pope. That is not ecumenical. That is solely papal. An ecumenical council needs all the bishops. The decisions must be what the majority determines. There must be belief that the Holy Spirit will allow such a council not to lead the Church into error. There is absolutely no need for one bishop to makes all the decisions.

As for schism being unidentifiable, obviously when a schism occurs each side will think it is the right one. What I meant is there is no objective standard for determining who is in communion and who is out, other than a vague concept of “orthodox doctrine” which every Christian presumably believes themselves to have. Lack of a single unmistakable point of unity allows any side of a dispute to simply say “I’m right, therefore it is you who are cast out of the Church not me.”

I think the issue with this understanding of schism is that one bishop (Rome) is deciding who is in schism and who is not. The bishops as a college are better placed to determine who is in schism not a single bishop.

 

[Mlon]

Isn’t that the truth. And by politely and courteously sparing with our Catholic friends in Christ we build each other up in Christian faith and keep all our swords sharp for the old foe that assails us all in subtle ways and not so subtle.

Well said…As Peter said always be prepared. I feel comforted knowing I’m in good company with the folks who participate within these boards.

 

[PRmerger]

In fact, that is what the early Roman Church was fearful of when the bible was being printed for all to read. They were afraid people would stray from sound doctrine.

And, it appears, sadly, that the Church was quite correct to be fearful.

Now, thanks to folks thinking that they can read the Scriptures separated from the Faith which gave them these Scriptures, we have the obscenity of tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.

Proper hermeneutics call for studying the entire bible and look for the overall message.

Amen!

The overall message is the confessing to God you are a sinner in need of a savior and accepting His son Jesus.

Is there a Bible verse that supports that this is the “overall message”, Mlon?

(Of course, there are indeed Scriptural references to the fact that we must confess that we are sinners in need of a savior and must accept His son, Jesus, but where is the verse(s) that says this is the "overall message’?)

 

[PRmerger]

But I think your point still stands, PR.

Exactly.

We can’t discount 2 Maccabees because of an apparent contradiction. Though I wonder if anyone has ever tried to resolve the different accounts of Antiochus’ death?

Honorius, if your paradigm is “If the book contains errors of history or fact, then it ought not be considered inspired”, then do you dismiss the Gospel of Mark, which states in Mark 2:26, that David “went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions.”

According to 1 Samuel 21:1, Abiathar was not the high priest, but rather his father, Ahimelech was the high priest.

(Or perhaps you wish to discount 1 Samuel and say that Mark is correct?)

Either way, using your logic consistently, we would have to remove one of those books from the canon.

What say you?

 

[PRmerger]

Just because we may have doctrine differences doesn’t mean we are enemies. If we all believe in the Holy Trinty and through the blood of Jesus we are saved, then we are united as believers.

Yes. We have no enemies here on the CAFs. No human ones, anyway.

Just as long it doesn’t resort into those same people telling me I’m going to hell because I do not follow their church.

Thanks!

Well, if it’s a Catholic who tells you this I give you permission to very smugly tell him, *“Excuse me, but you are in direct violation of your own Church’s teachings. For the Catholic Church says it is above your pay grade to declare anyone to be in hell. In fact, the Church herself has never even done that, so it seems a bit far-reaching for you to reserve for yourself what the Church does not.” *

 

[Per_Crucem]

Exactly.

Honorius, if your paradigm is “If the book contains errors of history or fact, then it ought not be considered inspired”, then do you dismiss the Gospel of Mark, which states in Mark 2:26, that David “went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions.”

According to 1 Samuel 21:1, Abiathar was not the high priest, but rather his father, Ahimelech was the high priest.

(Or perhaps you wish to discount 1 Samuel and say that Mark is correct?)

Either way, using your logic consistently, we would have to remove one of those books from the canon.

What say you?

I’m not Honorius!! LOL grrr…

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not Honorius!! LOL grrr…

I know. That’s why I highlighted his name so he would see it when the original was your post.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I know. That’s why I highlighted his name so he would see it when the original was your post.

Oh okay. Whew.

 

[pocohombre]

And, it appears, sadly, that the Church was quite correct to be fearful.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR.

Hiya, poco.

Yet it is interesting that the foundation for the reformation came way before any bible printing, and it came from within, even clergy, from those who were knowledgeable of scripture and tradition and early father writings.

Source for this, please?

 

[Mlon]

You mentioned that Jesus is the only mediator, but in the paragraph, Paul wants us to pray for one another, if truly you see that as I can go straight to Jesus then why do protestants ask one another to pray for them. Their contradicting their own stance. On the contrary, that verse is saying the more we pray for each other, the chances of it getting answered is higher bc we have interceded for each other.

Remember in OT times there was no just me and God doctrine. Or me and my Torah, and God doctrine. In the NT, that wasn’t the case either. In James 5:16 it says that we must confess our sins to each other, you see God is a God for the people, he wants us to help each other out. A lot of Protestants have this Egocentric mentality and that is a false mentality. That is the reason why a lot of ppl become Atheist.

I am with you as a community of believers we should support and pray for one another. Although I do not think its egocentric to say Jesus is the only mediator needed for salvation. The whole theme of this post thread is Protestant fear of confessing sins to a priest. I have no fear of confessing my sin to you, a pastor or priest. I just do not believe based on scripture a priest is my go-between for my salvation.

People expressed early in this post they feel this fear is why people are leaving the RC church. The reason I left the RC church is because I was not being feed by their message. I attended a Lutheran church with my wife when we where dating. I was immediately impressed with the biblical based message that seemed to speak directly to my heart. Confession to a priest didn’t make me leave the church the message did. Another reason is being a student of the bible I seen an allegiance within the RC church to tradition that in some ways superseded scripture. In fact, that was one of the reasons Martin Luther tried to reform the RC church. I’m not saying the RC church needs to abandon tradition, but they need to spread the message of the gospel that reaches out to peoples heart.

 

[dronald]

I am with you as a community of believers we should support and pray for one another. Although I do not think its egocentric to say Jesus is the only mediator needed for salvation. The whole theme of this post thread is Protestant fear of confessing sins to a priest. I have no fear of confessing my sin to you, a pastor or priest. I just do not believe based on scripture a priest is my go-between for my salvation.

People expressed early in this post they feel this fear is why people are leaving the RC church. The reason I left the RC church is because I was not being feed by their message. I attended a Lutheran church with my wife when we where dating. I was immediately impressed with the biblical based message that seemed to speak directly to my heart. Confession to a priest didn’t make me leave the church the message did. Another reason is being a student of the bible I seen an allegiance within the RC church to tradition that in some ways superseded scripture. In fact, that was one of the reasons Martin Luther tried to reform the RC church. I’m not saying the RC church needs to abandon tradition, but they need to spread the message of the gospel that reaches out to peoples heart.

Can you explain John 20:23 for me please?

 

[Mlon]

Can you explain John 20:23 for me please?

Jesus was committing to the disciples to continue His mission. They were given the power through the Holy Spirit to announce the forgiveness of sins. Nothing in this text indicates the only provision for salvation was intercession thought them. To say so is a stretch.

Here’s an example. In Acts 8:27 Phillip was sent to preach the gospel to an Ethiopian, an eunuch of great authority under Candace. Once the eunuch accepted Christ and was baptized Phillip departed and the eunuch went on. Now what happened to the eunuch? He went away rejoicing, most likely back to Ethiopia. Who did he give confession to once he got home? Was he really not saved? No, in fact the eunuch was now a new disciple and ambassador of Christ. We do not know the rest of his life story, but most likely he preached the gospel to his people. Anyone who is a baptized believing follower of Christ are disciples and ambassadors. While we may seek guidance from learned people in Christ we do not need them to intercede for us.

 

[dronald]

Jesus was committing to the disciples to continue His mission. They were given the power through the Holy Spirit to announce the forgiveness of sins. Nothing in this text indicates the only provision for salvation was intercession thought them. To say so is a stretch.

Here’s an example. In Acts 8:27 Phillip was sent to preach the gospel to an Ethiopian, an eunuch of great authority under Candace. Once the eunuch accepted Christ and was baptized Phillip departed and the eunuch went on. Now what happened to the eunuch? He went away rejoicing, most likely back to Ethiopia. Who did he give confession to once he got home? Was he really not saved? No, in fact the eunuch was now a new disciple and ambassador of Christ. We do not know the rest of his life story, but most likely he preached the gospel to his people. Anyone who is a baptized believing follower of Christ are disciples and ambassadors. While we may seek guidance from learned people in Christ we do not need them to intercede for us.

So, whether or not one is forgiven for their sins is up to me as an ambassador of Christ?

 

[pocohombre]

Hiya, poco.
Source for this, please?

I’ve been missing that “source please”. Just give you rough response, or at least what I was thinking. Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Huss, Calvin, Savonarola,Erasmus I think were all Catholics,some clergy ,some scholars and reformers(before printing i think).

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve been missing that “source please”. Just give you rough response, or at least what I was thinking. Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe, Huss, Calvin, Savonarola,Erasmus I think were all Catholics,some clergy ,some scholars and reformers(before printing i think).

Perhaps if you could tell me when you think the Bible was first printed, that would alleviate my confusion with your answer above.

It is my understanding that the first Bible was printed in 1454.

Are you thinking of something different? * Later* than Luther et al?

 

[PRmerger]

Although I do not think its egocentric to say Jesus is the only mediator needed for salvation.

Yes. This is very Catholic. Our salvation is effected by Christ, and Christ alone. We are, indeed,* Sola Christus* people.

However, as Christ without a Body is a Head with no way to act, His Body, the Catholic Church is the means through which Christ saves.

 

[Mlon]

So, whether or not one is forgiven for their sins is up to me as an ambassador of Christ?

No, whether or not one is forgiven for their sins is by their relationship with Christ. The overall theme in the gospels is salvation takes place when one repents of their sins and accepts Jesus as their savior. Once done they become a new creation, the old is dead and replaced with the new. They then also become representatives of Christ charged with the same mission the original followers where to make disciples throughout the world. The whole purpose of the church is to congregate as a community of believers to enact Jesus’ mission in the world. As the saying goes united we stand divided we fall. As a believer if I try and go it alone my chances of fulfilling that mission stand the chance of failure. However, believing I have to confess my sins to an appointed person to be saved is not scriptural. Yes, people can throw out random verses that, in my opinion, are vague, but the New Testament taken in its entirety salvation is through the one and only moderator Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[Mlon]

Yes. This is very Catholic. Our salvation is effected by Christ, and Christ alone. We are, indeed,* Sola Christus* people.

However, as Christ without a Body is a Head with no way to act, His Body, the Catholic Church is the means through which Christ saves.

If you mean through the Catholic Church as the all encompassing body of Christ, then I agree. However, if you mean specifically the Roman Catholic Church then I beg to differ. I don’t mean to offend, but to say the RC church is the only means through which one can be saved comes across as arrogance. Protestants are not like Jehovah witnesses, Mormon or even Muslims who either distort or worship an entirely different god. We like Roman Catholics believe in the Trinity and salvation is through the blood of Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

If you mean through the Catholic Church as the all encompassing body of Christ, then I agree. However, if you mean specifically the Roman Catholic Church then I beg to differ. I don’t mean to offend, but to say the RC church is the only means through which one can be saved comes across as arrogance.

How would you respond if someone told you that to say that Jesus is the only way through which one can be saved comes across as arrogance?