Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Mlon]

What was asked of you, Mlon, was to provide some Scriptural support for your belief that “whether or not one is forgiven for their sins is by their relationship with Christ.” Chapter and verse for this please.

And for verses which state that your verses constitute the “overall message” of the gospel.

NB: I am not asking for verses which you think are the “overall message”. For another Christian could pick and choose an entirely different set of Scripture verses and state, “These are what encompass the overall message of the Bible”.

I am asking for verses which state: “This is the overall message of the gospel”.

That the “overall message” is 'implied" is fine. As long as you are ok with Catholics using this paradigm to say that “Doctrine A” is also implied.

The relationship is a result of faith. Abraham believed God by faith and was saved. Clearly he had a relationship with God through the covenant. Moses had a relationship with God as the one appointed to deliver Gods chosen people out of Egypt. The disciples had a relationship with Christ as their teacher, friend and savior. A example of relationship is in the books of Acts:

A group of Jews was traveling from town to town casting out evil spirits. They tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus in their incantation, saying, “I command you in the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, to come out!” But one time when they tried it, the evil spirit replied, “I know Jesus, and I know Paul, but who are you?” Then the man with the evil spirit leaped on them, overpowered them, and attacked them with such violence that they fled from the house, naked and battered. (Acts 19:13, 15, 16 NLT)

The above story indicates these men did not have a relationship with Jesus. They were using His name as a magic spell instead of having a true heart felt relationship. I have used the word “implied” throughout this discussion. In hindsight implied gives the impression the message is not clear. Nevertheless, that is not the case in my examples the message is pretty straight forward that there is a relational aspect to faith.

Back to your point of giving slack in regards to the RC implied doctrine of priestly intercession. There is a difference of exegesis vs. eisegesis of scripture. Clearly the message of relationship is throughout the scripture; however, building doctrine around vague references that cannot be supported scriptural is not proper exegesis.

Clearly we can go back and forth regarding this with either of changing each others mind. With that said I will let you have the last word.

Thanks

 

[zz912]

I don’t think humiliation is the biggest issue but it’s certainly something that would cause hesitation, much to the delight of the devil who wants to keep us sick and paralyzed. Accepting a priest as “christ” is seen as contradictory to Scripture.

How is it contradictory to Scripture? Scripture explicitly states that Christ said “he who hear you, hear Me”. And Jesus also gave the Apostles the Holy Spirit, and the authority to forgive OR retain sins.

Anyway, there were no Christian priests for Christ to hypothetically command,“Confess your sins to priests”, which would allow the Protestant conscience to confess to a person.

See above, Christ ordained the Apostles with His breathing on them and giving them the Holy Spirit.

But Christ went up to Heaven before the Church can be more fully developed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And Protestants don’t believe in Tradition…so…back to square one.

This is simply wrong. Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. And this happened at Pentecost.

 

[EIF5A]

How is it contradictory to Scripture? Scripture explicitly states that Christ said “he who hear you, hear Me”. And Jesus also gave the Apostles the Holy Spirit, and the authority to forgive OR retain sins.

Protestants don’t believe in Apostolic Succession. So that’s another issue.

See above, Christ ordained the Apostles with His breathing on them and giving them the Holy Spirit.

See above.

This is simply wrong. Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth. And this happened at Pentecost.

You’re saying the Church and her teachings didn’t develop throughout the centuries?

 

[Brandall]

Protestants don’t believe in Apostolic Succession. So that’s another issue.

See above.

You’re saying the Church and her teachings didn’t develop throughout the centuries?

If you mean didn’t the doctrine develop through the centuries? Then yes. The information was there but it literally took centuries to decipher it. It is still being deciphered.

 

[Per_Crucem]

If you mean didn’t the doctrine develop through the centuries? Then yes. The information was there but it literally took centuries to decipher it. It is still being deciphered.

Jude says the faith has once for all been delivered to the saints. He didn’t say the faith is beING delivered.

 

[Brandall]

Jude says the faith has once for all been delivered to the saints. He didn’t say the faith is beING delivered.

doc·trine
ˈdäktrin/
noun
1.
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

The Trinity is a doctrine. It isn’t stated in scripture but it has been decided that it is very implied in scripture and has become a doctrine of most Christian churches. There were major disagreements over this in the early church but it was developed over time and is widely recognized as true. Regardless of when this, and many other things were delivered, they weren’t immediately understood.

 

[pocohombre]

He is asking for the chapter and verse where this is in the Bible.

Saying is one thing, providing source for one belief is another and this is what he wants to know. Is it from the Bible or not? if not, from where does it come from?

Yes of course, it is just that some things should be fundamental,milk, rudimentary etc. But I agreed, the meaty postulation in question should be in there (bible) somewhere, complete with chapter and verse, don’t you think ?

 

[pocohombre]

In other word, it is a Bible interpretation, an exegesis. hmm … .

What that we can intercede for one another, or that we can confess our faults to on another ? That is quite straightforward. But as to how we might be like Job, it’s application, yes, that may be more interpretive or better yet more insightful. One possible exegesis deserves another.

 

[pocohombre]

Well, you are correct.

I *don’t *believe anything from the OT magisterium and their Holy Writ. At least, not on their authority.

I believe it because of Christ’s authority that he bestowed upon His Apostles.

Thank you but did not preincarnate Jesus bestow authority to Abraham, Moses
and other OT folks, traditions, governance etc also.?

 

[Per_Crucem]

doc·trine
ˈdäktrin/
noun
1.
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

The Trinity is a doctrine. It isn’t stated in scripture

What isn’t stated in Scripture, the word “Trinity?”

but it has been decided that it is very implied in scripture and has become a doctrine of most Christian churches. There were major disagreements over this in the early church but it was developed over time and is widely recognized as true. Regardless of when this, and many other things were delivered, they weren’t immediately understood.

It’s far more than implied, Brandall. It’s all over the text of the New Testament.

This is far too simplistic a view of history. The only “major” disagreement was the view of the Arians, which didn’t exist until the early 4th century. Granted, there were movements like the gnostic sects that denied it, but the Trinity was not something decided upon at the Council of Nicea. The Old Roman Creed states “I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh (the life everlasting).” That creed, in various forms, dates to the late 2-3rd century. The Christian faith has always been Trinitarian. While later theologians fleshed out a greater understanding of the Trinity, the doctrine itself has always been understood.

Comparing that to later doctrine which was cut from whole cloth, is just erroneous.

 

[Brandall]

What isn’t stated in Scripture, the word “Trinity?”

It’s far more than implied, Brandall. It’s all over the text of the New Testament.

This is far too simplistic a view of history. The only “major” disagreement was the view of the Arians, which didn’t exist until the early 4th century. Granted, there were movements like the gnostic sects that denied it, but the Trinity was not something decided upon at the Council of Nicea. The Old Roman Creed states “I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh (the life everlasting).” That creed, in various forms, dates to the late 2-3rd century. The Christian faith has always been Trinitarian. While later theologians fleshed out a greater understanding of the Trinity, the doctrine itself has always been understood.

Comparing that to later doctrine which was cut from whole cloth, is just erroneous.

I’m not interested in arguing with you but thanks for the offer

 

[Contarini]

What isn’t stated in Scripture, the word “Trinity?”

It’s far more than implied, Brandall. It’s all over the text of the New Testament.

This is far too simplistic a view of history. The only “major” disagreement was the view of the Arians, which didn’t exist until the early 4th century.

Untrue on several counts. There was the modalist heresy of Sabellius, and the “Adoptionist” view of Paul of Samosata, the first person to use the term “homoousios.” And there were the Ebionites, who seem to have thought Jesus was just a human being. The dominant theology was “Logos Christology” which affirmed the divinity of Christ but was quite “subordinationist” by later standards. As for Arianism, there were at least three Arianisms: Arius’ own view, which was an attempt to state logos Christology in such a manner as to deny polytheism and modalism, but which was rejected by most Christians as going too far; “Semi-Arianism,” which was arguably just the mainstream view of previous centuries reaffirmed in the context of the Arian controversy in rejection to the new-fangled formula “homoousios”; and the late development of “Eunomianism,” which denied Jesus’ divinity outright and was a genuine innovation as far as I can see.

Granted, there were movements like the gnostic sects that denied it, but the Trinity was not something decided upon at the Council of Nicea.

Certainly it wasn’t–for one thing, Nicea doesn’t affirm the Trinity very clearly, saying nothing more than “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”

The Christian faith has always been Trinitarian.

I would agree with that. If by “Trinity” you mean simply “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” then yes, Christian faith has always been Trinitarian. But Christians took a long time to work out an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.

Comparing that to later doctrine which was cut from whole cloth, is just erroneous.

It’s a pejorative assumption on your part that any Catholic doctrine was “cut from whole cloth.” There is no Catholic doctrine that I’m aware of that originated that way.

The “homoousios” was invented pretty much from whole cloth–its only previous use was by Paul of Samosata, a notorious heretic. But of course it was adopted in order to express more fully that which the Church had always believed.

Of what Catholic doctrine is that not true?

Edwin

 

[SteveVH]

Certainly it wasn’t–for one thing, Nicea doesn’t affirm the Trinity very clearly, saying nothing more than “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”

I think you mean the Apostles creed. The Nicene Creed reads “I believe in the Holy Spirit”, the Lord and giver of life". That’s pretty definitive.

 

[benjohnson]

There is no Catholic doctrine that I’m aware of that originated that way.

Looking from the outside, the dogma of Papal Infallibility comes close. Surprised a lot of people, Catholics included.

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you but did not preincarnate Jesus bestow authority to Abraham, Moses
and other OT folks, traditions, governance etc also.?

Christ and His Church superceded the authority of the Jewish “magisterium”. When they failed to acknowledge Christ as messiah, their authority was usurped.

 

[PRmerger]

Back to your point of giving slack in regards to the RC implied doctrine of priestly intercession. There is a difference of exegesis vs. eisegesis of scripture.

True, dat.

But I don’t think you have any authority to determine when exegesis vs eisegesis is being utilized.

Clearly the message of relationship is throughout the scripture; however, building doctrine around vague references that cannot be supported scriptural is not proper exegesis.

Indeed. But that appears to be what you have been doing: saying something is “implied” while not offering any Scriptural reference for how you came to determine that these particular verses constitute the “overall message”.

Incidentally, the Catholic Church has NEVER built doctrine from Scripture, vague or otherwise.

The CC was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

We do not glean our doctrines from Scripture.

Rather, the Scriptures reflect our doctrines, which came before any word of the NT was placed on papyrus.

Clearly we can go back and forth regarding this with either of changing each others mind. With that said I will let you have the last word.

Thanks

Well, that’s what the CAFs is all about–going back and forth, right?

I can’t imagine that you would come to a discussion forum and not want to discuss.

That’s kind of like going to a Cruciverbalist Convention and then saying, “Well, you can do your crossword puzzles. I’ll give you the last word on that!”

 

[pocohombre]

Christ and His Church superceded the authority of the Jewish “magisterium”. When they failed to acknowledge Christ as messiah, their authority was usurped.

So if you make a mistake you can lose your authority ?

 

[CompSciGuy]

Yeah protestants don’t like confession, and they also don’t like that we worship Mary.

 

[Nickerman]

It’s probably some perceived unauthorized extra biblical interpretations and implementation of canonical scripture that give people pause.
-Nick

 

[Jon_S_1]

There was a point when I thought Catholicism was correct but I feel God keeps bringing me back to the Church I’m in now. If it is lacking truth then God would remove me from it, so perhaps it does have the fullness of truth.

Ouch!