Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[JonNC]

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

Well, some…

Article XI: Of Confession.

1] Of Confession they teach that Private Absolution ought to be retained in the churches, although in confession 2] an enumeration of all sins is not necessary. For it is impossible according to the Psalm: Who can understand his errors? Ps. 19:12.

-Augsburg Confession

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

The authority of the church to settle doctrine and bind followers-

Matt 18

15 “If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

1 John 1:9

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

(It does not say “in your heart” and the early church practiced Confession with the Apostles and Bishops as is even seen in John 20)

Acts 19:18

Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

2 Corinthians 5

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling[c] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Please note that “Confession” is called the “Sacrament of Reconciliation”. Here Paul is emploring the people to utilize this ministry. Note that Christ entrusted this message to the Apostles (and successeor bishops)**
How come no one does public confession anymore, as the first church did ? Didn’t the puritans do it also ?

 

[PRmerger]

I guess we missed the connection. No ,the ot is the ot and we is in the new. Without going back I think you asked why leave a church that gave so much truth, truth that I rest in, and how could it be wrong on anything major enough to leave it ? Or that protestants may be illogical for being so resting on scripture that CC gave us. Something like that. So, do we not believe in many of the ot writings and traditions etc ? Of course we do. Yet that faith, that religion, that nation, congregation etc., etc., crucified Christ. Major mistake enough, even though Israel got so many things right, things we rest on (we have been grafted in) .

You have proven my point, poco.

We believe in the OT writings NOT because the Jews did, but because the Catholic Church said to.

That’s why you believe it.

And if you can take our Bible, assume that we got it right, esp. with regards to the canon of the NT, how can you believe that we got it wrong with so many other things?

It appears, then, that you do believe that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC. At least as it applies to the canon of the NT, yes?

 

[Jon_S_1]

How come no one does public confession anymore, as the first church did ? Didn’t the puritans do it also ?

I think it is a discipline that the church can change and did. Although I am not versed in the reasons, I imagine it has something to do with the pastoral goal of hoping all people confess all their sins.

With public confession it ended up just being sins you were caught commiting for the most part.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How come no one does public confession anymore, as the first church did ? Didn’t the puritans do it also ?

I wish I had the historical text at hand…

Anyways, going from memory here

It was embarrassing - plain and simple. People would just declare their sins in public and it would cause 2 things:

1. For some to not declare their sins in public because they didn’t want the embarrassment)
2. Those that were able to deal with their embarrassments would then embarras those around them that heard their confession.

Thus, the practice of private confession with the Priest (Who presided the public liturgy as well) developed.

 

[EIF5A]

Were priests always supposed to not divulge confessions?

 

[PastorVW]

Wonderful hello Pastor !

Thank you, greetings to you as well.

We are saved by Grace, through Faith, working in Love. We can not be saved by works. That is a misconception of Catholic teaching.

Agreed

Christ established a Church before there was any Written Word.

Not totally correct:

1. The Old Testament, which Christ quoted from so frequently, was in place.
2. There is strong internal evidence in NT Scripture that written accounts of Christ’s teaching circulated before the Gospels were complied.
3. We take the promise of Christ to lead the Apostles into “all truth” to bestow upon them unique authority to write the Scriptures AND to establish and teach the early Church. In short, the authors were there so they could teach the content directly.

We both agree that the bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God…may I ask two questions?

1. how do you know that the 66 books in your bible are all inspired and inerrant and that books outside of the bible haven’t been excluded that are?

As I mentioned in my original post, the church was collectively entrusted with the preservation of Scripture. The first generation of believers knew very well what book and letters were authentic, and which were not. This was passed down through the successive generations of Christians. Logically, the task actually became easier with time, as someone presenting an epistle, in say 200AD, that no Christian had ever heard of, was highly unlikely to be widely accepted. It is also likely to contain doctrine inconsistent with the book and letters known to be authentic. As I am sure you know, at the point when the Cannon of Scripture was established the Church was very careful - only accepting works known to be authentic (Revelation was nearly left out out of an abundance of caution). At this point the Cannon had already been established in practice - the church only recognized it formally.

1. by what authority do you only have 66 books and not 73…

Let me be rabbinical and answer a question with a question: When were these seven books canonized? This answers the question for me… these books were known when the Cannon of Scripture was established.

(the original KJV had 73)

It sure did. However, remember that they were inserted between the Old and New Testament. The fact that the KJV included them does not prove inspiration - because Protestants at the time considered them to be uninspired, yet still valuable.* “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” Martin Luther *

Sure they have tradition. They have enormous traditions that are man-made and not originating from Christ to the apostles (obvious variants by denomination below)

Wow, let me address these one at a time - or at least in groups.

• they only have 66 books in their bible, missing 7

Addressed above.

• they believe in baptism delayed to the age of reason

Good arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. In deference to this, we let parents decide. I have Baptized infants, but we dedicated our kids, all of whom have since come to faith and been baptized.

• they believe in symbolic baptism
• they believe the Eucharist is symbolic

Not me!!! I do not see how anyone can argue this from the Scripture…

• they only believe in baptism by immersion
• they believe in once saved, always saved

They would argue this from Scripture, but I believe that the agreement clearly fails. These were at least minority views prior to the reformation.

• they believe in the rapture, that Christ will come twice

Pure bunk. Not taught by anyone before 1830. In conflict with Scripture. I therefore reject it. I find it ironic that those who hold so tightly to Sola Scriptura hold this highly questionable doctrine.

• they believe in an invisible Church

Not totally sure what you mean by this - but if you are talking about the universal church, composed of all baptized believers, then - at least to some degree - the Catholic Church holds this view. I certainly hold it, based upon Scripture.

• they believe in alter calls

Yep, pure tradition. An OK tradition, but tradition never the less. Not taught in, or in conflict with, Scripture.

• they believe in Sola Scriptura

I would not say this is rooted in tradition. I would say that Sola Scriptura is supported by sound reasoning PROVIDED that it is limited to matters essential to salvation. My belief is simply that all doctrines of such importance should be found in Scripture AND be supported by a preponderance of the Scriptural evidence.

None of the above have their origin in what Christ taught the apostles and what the apostles taught their descendants.

Would such teaching not be found in the Scriptures? Would they have been so careless as to not record it for future generations?

They are all 100% man-made traditions, the core problem being that they view the Written Word apart from the apostolic faith that produced it and from the Church that guarded and protected it from when it was written.

I can understand why you would take that position, given your beliefs. My response is as follows:

1. The Apostolic faith is logically contained in the Scriptures.
2. The fact that the Church guarded, protected and authenticated the Scriptures in no way proves that the Church as equal authority to Scripture.

 

[PastorVW]

Continued…

They have lost reason by turning from Christ’s Church.

Wow, are you seriously arguing that people cannot think and reason apart from the Catholic Church? That seems to me to be a very easy and illogical method of dismissing those who hold other positions.

Christ promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church to all Truth and to be with his Church until the end of time.

Ironically, you could make that same statement, word for word in a Protestant/Evangelical church and get a lot of amens. The essential difference is that when you say the word Church, you speak of one particular organization, that you must concede is flawed. When we speak of the Church, we believe that it includes all believers who believe in the core of Christian doctrine, have made a choice to follow Christ and have been Baptized.

The points above only highlight the mass confusion sola scriptura and sola fide have brought to man-kind. 40,000 Christian denominations serve as proof … it can not be reasoned with Christ’s words in scripture that he would guide his Church to all Truth.

Have you ever heard the proverb “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket”

How many different orders and movements can be found within the Catholic Church? Each has a different emphasis and different practices and even traditions. Yet they hold to a core of doctrine…

It is much the same in the Protestant/Evangelical church. Just because there are 40,000 different denominations does not mean that there are 40,000 different core beliefs. I would argue that there is a core set of doctrines shared by all. Additionally, many times there is literally no difference at all in doctrine between groups - just a difference in mission and tactics. For instance, my denomination is doctrinal identical to the Salvation Army. We receive both members and ministers by transfer. I could, if so lead, transfer my ordination to the Salvation Army, or any number of other groups with identical doctrine. We co-own colleges and seminaries. We also recognize education from other parts of Christ’s Body, the Church. For instance, my degree is from Liberty University - a Baptist school, yet it was recognized as valid and I was ordained. I would argue that we are united by common doctrine and that we coordinate our efforts as guided by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. I would even argue that I share a common faith with many in the Catholic and Orthodox churches who have a personal relationship with Christ and believe in the core doctrines of the Church universal as found in the Bible and summarized in the Apostles Creed.

Reason illuminates faith but one must reason correctly with an enlighten intellect.

Agreed. It frequently surprises Calvinists to learn that John Wesley consistently preached that you cannot be saved “Any time you want to”. We are all lost and blinded. The Holy Spirit must break through to us - enlighten us if you will - so that we understand the Gospel. He therefore warned his listeners that they need to respond to the moving of the Spirit NOW. I think he was right.

We call this prevenient grace - and I think you do too. I think Augustine held this belief.

I think the key is to be a sincere seeker of God and His truth. I do not believe He will withhold the illumination of His Spirit from those who sincerely seek Him…

Well, I need to go now. I hope that you find my answers instructive, at least in so far as making what I believe clear.

Grace and Peace,

Pastor Vince

 

[GaryTaylor]

Were priests always supposed to not divulge confessions?

No it began as a congregational aspect with everyone present, in the presence of a Priest.

So what do you have one foot on the stairway of the Catholic Church now?

 

[PRmerger]

.2) There is strong internal evidence in NT Scripture that written accounts of Christ’s teaching circulated before the Gospels were complied.

What internal evidence are you referring to, Pastor?

And what written accounts of Christ’s teachings are you adverting to?

1. We take the promise of Christ to lead the Apostles into “all truth” to bestow upon them unique authority to write the Scriptures AND to establish and teach the early Church. In short, the authors were there so they could teach the content directly.

How do you know this, specifically regarding the author of the epistle to the Hebrews?

 

[PRmerger]

.As I mentioned in my original post, the church was collectively entrusted with the preservation of Scripture. The first generation of believers knew very well what book and letters were authentic, and which were not. This was passed down through the successive generations of Christians.

Amen, Pastor! Amen!

What you have just professed above is nothing more, and nothing less, than…

a testimony to your belief in SACRED TRADITION!

This means, Pastor, that you do not adhere to Sola Scriptura, but have given great acknowledgment to the power of the Holy Spirit, working in the Church, through the bishops, through Sacred Tradition.

 

[PastorVW]

What internal evidence are you referring to, Pastor?

And what written accounts of Christ’s teachings are you adverting to?

(Luke 1:1 NIV) Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
(Luke 1:2 NIV) just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
(Luke 1:3 NIV) Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Of course, most scholars believe that Luke’s major source was Mark’s Gospel. Additionally, John 7:53 - 8:11 appears to have been an authentic account that was not initially incorporated into the Gospels. I believe - and so do much better scholars than I - that this is an example of an early written account, most of which were incorporated into the Gospels and therefore validated as both authentic and inspired.

I think that some, if not most, Catholic scholars would hold the same position as to N.T. origins. I could be wrong.

How do you know this, specifically regarding the author of the epistle to the Hebrews?

I know it because I trust the early Church collectively to authenticate Scripture. I may not be able to say who wrote it, but the early church knew what person or persons was used of God to write it. Later Christians knew that it had been authenticated by earlier believers. As I said, and I think most evangelical scholars wold agree, the early church was entrusted to both authenticate and protect the NT Scriptures. If they accepted it, and it was accepted as both authentic and inspired when the cannon was formalized, that is good enough for me - especially given the care that was taken.

However, I do not believe that because the Scriptures were entrusted to the Church, it logically follows that the Church as equal authority.

 

[PastorVW]

Amen, Pastor! Amen!

What you have just professed above is nothing more, and nothing less, than…

a testimony to your belief in SACRED TRADITION!

This means, Pastor, that you do not adhere to Sola Scriptura, but have given great acknowledgment to the power of the Holy Spirit, working in the Church, through the bishops, through Sacred Tradition.

As I indicated we find tradition of great value. In terms of all issues, not just issues essential to salvation, yes, we find tradition has great value in so far as it is consistent with Scripture. In reality what we believe could be called Prima Scriptura, again as regard all doctrine, not just matters essential to salvation.

We would see tradition as being something the church established and maintained collectively - not as decisions mandated by one individual. So I think we would differ at this point.

 

[Slaney]

Why do more Protestants not convert to the Church? Is the Sacrament of Penance (confession) a stumbling block to conversion? We see many Catholics no longer going to confession, and many others converting to Protestantism. Blaise Pascal several hundred years ago commented that he believed Confession was indeed a stumbling block to Protestant conversion.

Your thoughts?

There’s a plethora of things the Catholic Church teaches that are a stumbling block to non-catholics…& a stumbling block to many Catholics…

 

[Jon_S_1]

(Luke 1:1 NIV) Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
(Luke 1:2 NIV) just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
(Luke 1:3 NIV) Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

Of course, most scholars believe that Luke’s major source was Mark’s Gospel. Additionally, John 7:53 - 8:11 appears to have been an authentic account that was not initially incorporated into the Gospels. I believe - and so do much better scholars than I - that this is an example of an early written account, most of which were incorporated into the Gospels and therefore validated as both authentic and inspired.

I think that some, if not most, Catholic scholars would hold the same position as to N.T. origins. I could be wrong.

I know it because I trust the early Church collectively to authenticate Scripture. I may not be able to say who wrote it, but the early church knew what person or persons was used of God to write it. Later Christians knew that it had been authenticated by earlier believers. As I said, and I think most evangelical scholars wold agree, the early church was entrusted to both authenticate and protect the NT Scriptures. If they accepted it, and it was accepted as both authentic and inspired when the cannon was formalized, that is good enough for me - especially given the care that was taken.

However, I do not believe that because the Scriptures were entrusted to the Church, it logically follows that the Church as equal authority.

My evangelical pastor also seemed to believe the church fell off the tracks sometime after Nicea. There is no evidence of this though. And absolutely no evidence that the early church resembled anything like modern evangelicalism.

 

[pocohombre]

You have proven my point, poco.

Oh nooooo. Just kidding.

We believe in the OT writings NOT because the Jews did, but because the Catholic Church said to.

On one level but equally or even more because God gave us the faith to do so (come on, Jonah swallowed by a whale ? You bet, yahoo ! Thank you Lord-for the faith to believe it, for once I did not and now I do, all cause of You).

And if you can take our Bible, assume that we got it right, esp. with regards to the canon of the NT, how can you believe that we got it wrong with so many other things?

Cannon technicalities aside (66 books or 72 or threrabouts.), that was my point, you may be right on one thing but wrong in something else, just like the Jewish nation/religion. Not to worry. His truth marches on, whether carried by you or me or someone else. Is it about Him marching on thru us, or is it more about just who the "us 'is ? The church marches on, the bride is getting ready, right ?

 

[pocohombre]

My evangelical pastor also seemed to believe the church fell off the tracks sometime after Nicea. There is no evidence of this though. And absolutely no evidence that the early church resembled anything like modern evangelicalism.

Does the first church, even first century, resemble CC ? It’s funny how two people can study scripture, early fathers and come away with different views. I think the more honest folk will say things did “evolve” at the very least, and especially in tradition and practice. There is ample evidence, but it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

books or 72 or threrabouts.), that was my point, you may be right on one thing but wrong in something else, just like the Jewish nation/religion.

Oh noes. The Jewish nation/religion was corrected by the only begotten son of God: Jesus Christ. In turn, He established His Church.

Man does not get to correct Christ’s Church, oh no no no. There is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and She is with the Rock to which Christ established His Church, to which the Keys of the Kingdom were given, to that Shepherd appointed by Christ to Feed and Tend His sheep.

You, nor me, nor Luther, nor Calvin, nor any other mere human gets to correct that which only Christ can.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Does the first church, even first century, resemble CC ? It’s funny how two people can study scripture, early fathers and come away with different views. I think the more honest folk will say things did “evolve” at the very least, and especially in tradition and practice. There is ample evidence, but it is in the eye of the beholder.

Oh yes in countless ways. Have you read the chuch fathers?

All that talk of Bishops, authority, correction, Eucharistic Real Presence, infant baptism, authority of See of Peter, Sacramental Comfession…on and on.

There are 50 quotes from the fathers supporting the Catholic position for every one that seems to support the Evangelical.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Oh yes in countless ways. Have you read the chuch fathers?

All that talk of Bishops, authority, correction, Eucharistic Real Presence, infant baptism, authority of See of Peter, Sacramental Comfession…on and on.

There are 50 quotes from the fathers supporting the Catholic position for every one that seems to support the Evangelical.

Amen.

It baffles me that some will expect the Church to be in the exact same state as the first century while typing on a computer keyboard . Really really baffling.