Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[pocohombre]

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?

Forgot printing was that early. Should have remembered for I have seen a Gutenberg bible in Washington-in Latin. The phrase I was commenting on was" printing the bible for all to read", so I was also thinking of printing and vernacular bibles together, which may have taken a little more time. Anyways, then only Hussb(priest) and Wyclif (theologian) were before printing, and perhaps some anabaptists, Waldo,and Cathari. The latter two may have been extreme and wrong on some things, but also had much that later reformers agreed with, but were not theologians or clergy, as was my point.

 

[PRmerger]

Forgot printing was that early. Should have remembered for I have seen a Gutenberg bible in Washington-in Latin. The phrase was printing the bible for all to read,so i was also thinking of printing and vernacular bibles together, which may have taken a little more time. Anyways, then only Huss and Wyclif were before printing, and perhaps some anabaptists, Waldo,and Cathari.The latter two may have been extreme and wrong on some things ,but also had much that later reformers agreed with, but were not theologians or clergy …

Fair enough.

Not even sure what your point was? Why would it matter if the reformers began their revolt before the printing of the Bible (even if it turns out that most of them revolted after it was printed)?

 

[Mlon]

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?

So you’re basically saying there are other ways to salvation? There is a difference between arrogance and the truth. Jesus clearly states in John 14:6, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” To be consistent with my other posts Jesus’ message is throughout the entire New Testament. Jesus says He is the door to the sheep fold. In fact, the entire message of the bible is a sacrifice had to be made for the sins of humanity and only God Himself was the appropriate sacrifice. That sacrifice was manifested in Jesus. The previous is not opinion, but the truth. Now however if I say my branch of the church is the only way to salvation that is arrogance.

Let me give you an example. Jesus tells the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee goes to the temple looks at the tax collector and says, “Thank you Lord I am not like that tax collector” (paraphrased). The tax collector on the other hand says, “Lord forgive me I am not worthy to be in your presence, please forgive me” (paraphrased). Now which one was truly repentant and forgiven? In today’s terms it would be like the RC saying Lord thank you I am not a Protestant because they are apostates." We both believe in the same God, but one is saying their belief is real while the other is counterfeit. Too me that rings a little like arrogance.

 

[PRmerger]

So you’re basically saying there are other ways to salvation?

No. I am just asking how you respond to the challenge that it is arrogance to declare that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

How would you respond to someone who tells you that you are displaying extreme arrogance when you profess this?

 

[pocohombre]

Fair enough.

Not even sure what your point was? Why would it matter if the reformers began their revolt before the printing of the Bible (even if it turns out that most of them revolted after it was printed)?

The point presented was that Church was fearful for putting bible into the hands of the masses.The inference was partly that they were not "trained’ enough to get correct interpretation of scriptures and would lead to problems and divisions. My point was that the problems and divisions came not from uneducated, wrong interpretive guessing people but from folks who were heavily trained in Church thought. So that the bible being distributed more was not the problem totally, in my opinion.

 

[dronald]

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.

But Jesus said if we withhold forgiveness then they are not forgiven… I understand how Catholics interpret this, but Protestants? I have no clue.

What do Jesus’s words about not being forgiven if we don’t forgive their sins mean?

 

[PRmerger]

The point presented was that Church was fearful for putting bible into the hands of the masses.The inference was partly that they were not "trained’ enough to get correct interpretation of scriptures and would lead to problems and divisions.

Ah, yes. And I think the Church was quite wise to do this.

See what happens when people interpret the Scriptures apart from the Church which gave them these Scriptures–all sorts of weird and bizarre ideas, all based on reading the Bible and claiming they don’t need the Church to tell them what it means:

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_de_Jes%C3%BAs

My point was that the problems and divisions came not from uneducated, wrong interpretive guessing people but from folks who were heavily trained in Church thought. So that the bible being distributed more was not the problem totally, in my opinion.

True. The problem came from believing that one could read the Bible without the lens of the Church.

 

[Mlon]

No. I am just asking how you respond to the challenge that it is arrogance to declare that Jesus is the only way to salvation.

How would you respond to someone who tells you that you are displaying extreme arrogance when you profess this?

Pretty much the way I explained it above. There are absolute truths regardless whether one choose to believe or not. For example, we all know Washington DC is the Capitol of the United States. If someone says they believe Pittsburgh, PA is the Capitol of the United States, doesn’t make it true. If one examines all the religions of the world and places them side by side Christianity stands alone. This isn’t opinion it is fact. The Bible alone is one of the most remarkable books since the creation of the humanity. It was written over a fifteen hundred year span by more than forty authors from every walk of life. It was written in different places at different times during different moods on three different continents. It discusses some of the most difficult subjects like creation, love marriage, homosexuality, hate, sin, …etc. Inspite of its diversity the bible presents a single uniformed message about Gods creation, the fall and redemption. All other books in antiquity pail in comparison to the Holy Bible. Trust me I could write an entire essay on the facts that conclude the Bible is the inspired word of God written by the profits for mankind. That’s not arrogance my friend that is communicating the truth. The real questions is whether one wants to believe or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Pretty much the way I explained it above. There are absolute truths regardless whether one choose to believe or not. For example, we all know Washington DC is the Capitol of the United States. If someone says they believe Pittsburgh, PA is the Capitol of the United States, doesn’t make it true. If one examines all the religions of the world and places them side by side Christianity stands alone. This isn’t opinion it is fact. The Bible alone is one of the most remarkable books since the creation of the humanity. It was written over a fifteen hundred year span by more than forty authors from every walk of life. It was written in different places at different times during different moods on three different continents. It discusses some of the most difficult subjects like creation, love marriage, homosexuality, hate, sin, …etc. Inspire of its diversity it the bible presents a single uniformed message about Gods creation, the fall and redemption. All other books in antiquity pail in comparison to the Holy Bible. Trust me I could write an entire essay on the facts that conclude the Bible is the inspired word of God written by the profits for mankind. That’s not arrogance my friend that is communicating the truth. The real questions is whether one wants to believe or not.

So I think you can see how it’s not really arrogant for the Catholic Church to say without her you are not saved anymore than it is to say that without Jesus you’re not
saved.

 

[Mlon]

So I think you can see how it’s not really arrogant for the Catholic Church to say without her you are not saved anymore than it is to say that without Jesus you’re not
saved.

No, sorry but that’s not the same thing. In a brief post I gave some examples why Christianity is the only true religion. I cannot find any substantive text in the scripture that says the RC church is the only way to salvation. Remember the early churches were made up of numerous congregations. Each of the disciples founded churches throughout the known western world of their time. With that said they all were part of a community of believers. If there was irrefutable evidence the RC church is the only way to the Father, then in all my years of study I have not seen it.

 

[PRmerger]

No, sorry but that’s not the same thing.

You are correct in that it’s not the same thing. Not exactly, anyway.

But the point that I made I think you understand: if you are accused of being “arrogant” for proclaiming a truth, well, it cannot be “arrogant” if it is true which you are proclaiming.

We are agreed on this, yes?

 

[Contarini]

No, sorry but that’s not the same thing. In a brief post I gave some examples why Christianity is the only true religion. I cannot find any substantive text in the scripture that says the RC church is the only way to salvation.

Why would you?

What the New Testament does say is that Jesus’ followers should be united and should be faithful to the teachings and example of the apostles, and that Peter was given a position of leadership among them.

And, of course, the Catholic case does not rest on Scripture alone.

Edwin

 

[pocohombre]

Ah, yes. And I think the Church was quite wise to do this.

See what happens when people interpret the Scriptures apart from the Church which gave them these Scriptures–all sorts of weird and bizarre ideas, all based on reading the Bible and claiming they don’t need the Church to tell them what it means:

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Luis_de_Jes%C3%BAs

True. The problem came from believing that one could read the Bible without the lens of the Church.

Haven’t we learned anything from the OT and just how right and just how wrong a “magisterium”/tradition, God’s annointed carriers of promise and truth, can be ?

 

[Porknpie]

Haven’t we learned anything from the OT and just how right and just how wrong a “magisterium”/tradition, God’s annointed carriers of promise and truth, can be ?

We have learned a lot. In the NT, Jesus Christ changes everything, protecting his Church from all error. This includes the Father giving the Son all authority and the Son giving authority to his Church.

16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

And Jesus gives this authority to the apostles, to forgive sins

21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

and the authority & power to bind and loose in on earth, shall be bound and loose in heaven.

18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

And Christ would be with his Church always until the end of time (Matt 28), guided to all Truth. It’s only through this Truth that you can be assured that your bible in inspired and inerrant. (but you are missing 7 books )

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

What did that Church teach, nearly 300 years before there was a bible? All seven of the Catholic sacraments, including the Eucharist (more on St. Ignatius here by Pope Benedict).

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).



PnP

 

[Mlon]

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.

Amen!

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’?)

Before I answer this being new to this board it is difficult to keep up with all of the responses. I know this ones a little old, but felt it should be responded to.

The entire Bible is the story of paradise lost and paradise found. There are no specific verses that indicates the overall message it’s implied when taken in it entirety. God creates humanity they commit a crime against God, which leads to death. God in His mercy provides the payment for sins through the blood of His son Jesus Christ. The act of confession and acceptance is the theme woven throughout the New Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

Haven’t we learned anything from the OT and just how right and just how wrong a “magisterium”/tradition, God’s annointed carriers of promise and truth, can be ?

If you can’t believe that the Catholic Magisterium is “right”, then how can you trust that they got it right for you when they discerned the 27 book canon of the NT, poco?

Do you think the Magisterium got it wrong there? Should she have excluded, say, Revelation, and included, say, the Didache?

 

[PRmerger]

Before I answer this being new to this board it is difficult to keep up with all of the responses. I know this ones a little old, but felt it should be responded to.

No problem.

The entire Bible is the story of paradise lost and paradise found. There are no specific verses that indicates the overall message it’s implied when taken in it entirety.

Ah, very good then.

So you are okay with doctrines being “implied”, yes?

God creates humanity they commit a crime against God, which leads to death. God in His mercy provides the payment for sins through the blood of His son Jesus Christ. The act of confession and acceptance is the theme woven throughout the New Testament.

Amen!! Very Catholic, this!

 

[englishredrose]

You are correct in that it’s not the same thing. Not exactly, anyway.

But the point that I made I think you understand: if you are accused of being “arrogant” for proclaiming a truth, well, it cannot be “arrogant” if it is true which you are proclaiming.

We are agreed on this, yes?

If we are accused of being arrogant when we are proclaiming the truth, then are we really proclaiming the truth or are we proclaiming arrogancy? Just as with when we are correcting someone without actually telling them off. Done very well the person will not notice being corrected but will change their way because the aim isn’t to tell them off but to correct. But by enlarge most aim to tell of with the aim of correcting but the message goes unheard as people busy being hurt by the telling off. By that theory if we are accused of being arrogant in telling the truth are we really telling the truth or showing arogancy as I first asked? Done well then we can proclaim the truth without being arrogant it be impossible to view as arrogancy. ?

 

[Mlon]

If we are accused of being arrogant when we are proclaiming the truth, then are we really proclaiming the truth or are we proclaiming arrogancy? Just as with when we are correcting someone without actually telling them off. Done very well the person will not notice being corrected but will change their way because the aim isn’t to tell them off but to correct. But by enlarge most aim to tell of with the aim of correcting but the message goes unheard as people busy being hurt by the telling off. By that theory if we are accused of being arrogant in telling the truth are we really telling the truth or showing arogancy as I first asked? Done well then we can proclaim the truth without being arrogant it be impossible to view as arrogancy. ?

Wholeheartedly agreed! Peter summed it up perfectly in 1 Peter 3:15, “15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”. Unfortunately a lot times Christians forget about the last three words “meekness and fear”. Peter is telling us not to beat people over the head with a Bible, but to be prepared to give a rational explanation of the truth.

 

[PRmerger]

If we are accused of being arrogant when we are proclaiming the truth, then are we really proclaiming the truth or are we proclaiming arrogancy? Just as with when we are correcting someone without actually telling them off. Done very well the person will not notice being corrected but will change their way because the aim isn’t to tell them off but to correct. But by enlarge most aim to tell of with the aim of correcting but the message goes unheard as people busy being hurt by the telling off. By that theory if we are accused of being arrogant in telling the truth are we really telling the truth or showing arogancy as I first asked? Done well then we can proclaim the truth without being arrogant it be impossible to view as arrogancy. ?

Indeed.

It must be noted that it is no more arrogant to say, “Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation” than it is to say, “Outside of Christ there is no salvation.”

Either they both are utter declarations of hubris…

OR…

both are NOT declarations of arrogance.