Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Porknpie]

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.

One can reason here…objectively, the Christian faith is more than the bible. It has to be. The Christian faith existed for 350 years or so BEFORE there was a bible. Go back to 100ad, 200ad, 300ad… the Christian faith is more than the bible because the bible did not exist and scripture itself records that Jesus said and did more than all the books in the world could record.

I just don’t accept things that are not clearly scriptural.

And the authority that you are looking at, the bible, does not state anywhere your thesis. In fact, the written Word of God says to hold fast to both what is written and spoken. Scripture and Tradition are never in conflict.

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

 

[PRmerger]

One can reason here…objectively, the Christian faith is more than the bible. It has to be. The Christian faith existed for 350 years or so BEFORE there was a bible.

Indeed.

That is like the period of time from when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock to modern day.

Imagine an America for that long of a period without any written authority.

 

[Contarini]

Indeed.

That is like the period of time from when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock to modern day.

Imagine an America for that long of a period without any written authority.

But as I have pointed out ad nauseam, that just isn’t true. Second and third century Christians certainly thought they had a Bible. They frequently referred to it as authoritative. Your historical assumption is just plain wrong here.

The precise limits of the canon were not fully worked out, but that isn’t the same thing as “not having a Bible.”

You’re weakening one of the strongest points in Catholic apologetics by this overstatement.

Edwin

 

[pocohombre]

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

Well, faith is a gift from God as is the hearing of the Word from which it springs. Our foundation is sure (Christ and the apostles-as per scripture), but are we not warned to be careful of what is built upon it ? They did leave us writings and even the reason for them.

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

There is the circular reasoning. Tradition gives us scripture and scripture backs up tradition, but it is more circular than that. It is like the old sign that says rule #1 is that the boss is always right and rule #2 is that when possibly wrong refer to rule#1. Like the scriptural interpretation of infallibility. Almost impossible to penetrate such apologetics.

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

You have heard it all before. I will only say that we both love His word and that any tradition should be scriptural, as you have stated. It is just that tradition, like scripture, is in the eye of the beholder as to it’s validity (or interpretation). We have free will to see correctly or not. If we disagree on some scripture (e.g. how do you eat Christ or is Peter the rock ?), we will probably disagree on some things built upon respective interpretations.

 

[pocohombre]

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

No thanks. You are in a cold environment, and I am wearing a summer shirt bought at Cocoa Beach.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But as I have pointed out ad nauseam, that just isn’t true. Second and third century Christians certainly thought they had a Bible. They frequently referred to it as authoritative. Your historical assumption is just plain wrong here.

The precise limits of the canon were not fully worked out, but that isn’t the same thing as “not having a Bible.”

You’re weakening one of the strongest points in Catholic apologetics by this overstatement.

Edwin

Edwin, calling it a Bible for the 2nd and 3rd century Christians is also a stretch.

They certainly understood to have writings from the Apostles and other ones that they considered to be authoritative as well (Didache, Hermas, Clement I to name a few). But to call it a Bible is far from accurate. Even more, there was no closed canon for the Old Testament either.

Whatever was used for the Early Liturgy, was considered authoritatively because it was used by the Church - not the other way around.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No thanks. You are in a cold environment, and I am wearing a summer shirt bought at Cocoa Beach.

That was meant for the brother you referenced. But it appears you need a hug as well.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1596832512/h73E374BC/

 

[PRmerger]

But as I have pointed out ad nauseam, that just isn’t true.

It may appear that way to you–the “ad nauseam” part–but you must remember that not everyone reads every one of your posts. For my case, I don’t believe I have heard you say this particular comment repeatedly.

If you’ve said it “ad nauseam” in this thread I have missed it.

Not a big deal. Just wanted to explain that your dyspepsia with being repetitive is your own.

Your historical assumption is just plain wrong here.

Ok. I defer to your expertise here. :yup:

The precise limits of the canon were not fully worked out, but that isn’t the same thing as “not having a Bible.”

So is it your opinion that the early Christians appealed to the texts/manuscripts…or did they defer to the Church…in matters requiring an authoritative definition in theology and eccelsiology?

You’re weakening one of the strongest points in Catholic apologetics by this overstatement.

Edwin

Perhaps. But it appears that you are making an overstatement of your own. To call the manuscripts that were read at the Liturgy as a “Bible” appears to be a stretch.

 

[zz912]

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

Ummmm, St. Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions that we received, either by letter OR word of mouth. Think about that for a minute. Paul never bothers to write down these traditions. But still demands that we hold fast to them.

Where is the claim made that all teachings we must keep are enumerated in the NT? Nothing in the NT says that it contains all the relevant teachings of Christ.

 

[Mlon]

John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

How did God send Jesus into the world? With the authority to forgive sins as we saw in Matthew 9:6. How does Jesus send the Apostles? In the same way that the Father had sent Him…with the authority to forgive sins as we have just seen in John 20:23. How could the Apostles obey the commandment of Jesus to forgive sins unless they heard these sins confessed? Thus, scripture records that people did confess their sins aloud.

Acts 19:18 (New International Version)
18Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds.

Finally, we find that the Apostle Paul himself forgave the sins of others acting in persona Christi or “in the person of Christ” – just as the Catholic Church teaches concerning the sacrament of reconciliation.

2 Corinthians 2:10
10To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; (KJV)

And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ. (Douay Rheims)

Can we go directly to God for the forgiveness of our sins? Of course, but the scriptures just presented suggest that the normative means of forgiveness is by confession to a priest, and while it is true that only God can forgive sins, the Bible teaches that He has chosen to do so through the ordained priesthood and the Sacrament of Reconciliation that He Himself instituted.

I have responded to every Biblical verses that has been presented to me with alternative interpretations more than once. With all due respect I am not going to do so once again. Let’s cut to the chase. Apart from the RC church can any other Christian denominations be saved? If I have fell to my knees with tears streaming down my face repenting of my sins and asking God through Jesus to save me from death, am I saved? No one has answered my question or responded to examples of people in the bible who were saved by personal repentance. Again, are all Protestants counterfeit apostates who are going straight to hell?

 

[pocohombre]

Ummmm, St. Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions that we received, either by letter OR word of mouth. Think about that for a minute. Paul never bothers to write down these traditions. But still demands that we hold fast to them.
Where is the claim made that all teachings we must keep are enumerated in the NT? Nothing in the NT says that it contains all the relevant teachings of Christ.

So Barnabus (remember him ?) considered an early father was wrong when he penned, ‘It is well, that he who is learned of the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them" ??? And of course does St.Paul said also, "…do not go beyond that which is written…"1Cor.4:6 .Tradition can be oral transmission of His word. Once it is written, it is Holy Writ. So of course Paul said on fast to the oral gospel and now in letter, ( and more letters were to come).It is unlikely they left anything out of "writing’ that was pertinent. To me it simply means the gospel was first preached orally (tradition), and several decades later began to be written down and we know why. “If it is important, get it in writhing” is not a twentieth century phenomenom with our plethora of lawyers. God, who invented the 'Law" was and is the First lawyer.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I have had so many responses to my posts it’s hard to keep up. I am afraid in all of the back and forth my point regarding confession may have gotten lost. Clearly the Christian faith is based on confession both public and personal. Public confession is obviously biblical. John the Baptist preached public repentance. When Jesus started His ministry not only did people public confess He forgave them of their trespasses. This continued throughout the early church. In fact, many evangelical and even Protestant church have alter calls in which people publicly come forth to renounce their sins and accept Jesus Christ. There are also many example of seeking the council of godly men to confess sins. With that said clearly the bible also has numerous examples of people who confess personally. In fact, you can find examples that go back early in the Old Testament of personal confession.

With all of that said the examples that stepping into a confessional on a continuing basis for salvation are weak at best. For every example presented I have provided alternate interpretations. Clearly there are bigger things at play here than the bible. Things like tradition and doctrine established by the church. The bottom line if one feels they need to confess to a priest than by all means do it. However, I have difficulties when people say the reason the RC church is losing members is because of a fear of the confessional. The problem with RC church is more deeper than a fear of confessing to a priest.

No many of the reasons people sadly do not go to reconciliation is shame is which nearly all of the time is a lie.

Church militant is the name for a reason

God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

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. This position is now repeated ad nauseam by the modern Dawkins Atheist. They are thoroughly ignorant of the early Church fathers. Their understanding of early Christianity starts at Luther or the Luther portrayed in the anglophilic history taught at least in most secular and in some respects Catholic schools. Most do not even know what Luther believed rather they rely solely on what their local popes aka pastors tell them the bible says they should believe. Therefore, I am cynical. I do not believe any Protestant will even attempt to consider the Church unless grace so moves them. Nothing I say will bring them to the faith.

I am a Catholic who grew up in the south and I have heard it all. But the worst was taught to me in my Catholic school religion class. I am 43 and just now am starting to understand not only my faith but the depth of the perversions spewed about the Church of Jesus Christ.

I am a bit bitter I am also now militantly Catholic. Praise the living Lord Jesus Christ!

The biggest stumbling block can also be pride, truth, simplicity, and acknowledging that one is a sinner and child.

God bless

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have responded to every Biblical verses that has been presented to me with alternative interpretations more than once. With all due respect I am not going to do so once again. Let’s cut to the chase. Apart from the RC church can any other Christian denominations be saved? If I have fell to my knees with tears streaming down my face repenting of my sins and asking God through Jesus to save me from death, am I saved? No one has answered my question or responded to examples of people in the bible who were saved by personal repentance. Again, are all Protestants counterfeit apostates who are going straight to hell?

That is not the Catholic position. Did you think otherwise?

However, I have laid out the case for confession to a priest in a clear, concise manner using scriptural support.

Do with it what you will.

 

[pocohombre]

Ummmm, St. Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions that we received, either by letter OR word of mouth. Think about that for a minute. Paul never bothers to write down these traditions. But still demands that we hold fast to them.

Where is the claim made that all teachings we must keep are enumerated in the NT? Nothing in the NT says that it contains all the relevant teachings of Christ.

The word “traditions” may be found in scripture 14 times. 8 times by Jesus negatively. Peter once negatively. Paul 2 negative and three positive. letusreason.org/rc13.htm As noted in previous post the positive may simply allude to oral transmission of gospel as “tradition”, not a specific doctrine or practice, that would never be penned. He considered his letter a “tradition”. To say then that we follow traditions is one thing. It is a whole other thing to say tradition equals the written Word. That would and is a first since the days of Moses .

 

[PRmerger]

Well, faith is a gift from God as is the hearing of the Word from which it springs. Our foundation is sure (Christ and the apostles-as per scripture), but are we not warned to be careful of what is built upon it ? They did leave us writings and even the reason for them.

Amen!

However, the ONLY way you know which of these writings are theopneustos is because you defer to the authority of the CC.

There is the circular reasoning. Tradition gives us scripture and scripture backs up tradition, but it is more circular than that.

No. Tradition came first. The Catholic Faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was put to writ.

The deposit of faith was given, once for all, to the saints.

 

[PRmerger]

So Barnabus (remember him ?) considered an early father was wrong when he penned, 'It is well, that he who is learned of the judgements of the Lord, as many as have been written, should walk in them" ??? And of course does St.Paul said also, "…do not go beyond that which is written…"1Cor.4:6 .

Do not go beyond that which is written? Well, it appears that this proves too much, poco. Unless you want to be a Sola Old Testament advocate.

For, of course, what was “written” at the time of St. Paul was only the OT Scriptures.

 

[stewstew03]

But as I have pointed out ad nauseam, that just isn’t true. Second and third century Christians certainly thought they had a Bible. They frequently referred to it as authoritative. Your historical assumption is just plain wrong here.

The precise limits of the canon were not fully worked out, but that isn’t the same thing as “not having a Bible.”

You’re weakening one of the strongest points in Catholic apologetics by this overstatement.

Edwin

Of course, the larger point that PR is making has not been refuted: “sola scriptura” is a 16th century invention.

 

[stewstew03]

… Again, are all Protestants counterfeit apostates who are going straight to hell?

I just want to address this part of your comment.

I’m assuming you’ll first explain to me (1) who/what is a Protestant, (2) your authority for declaring who/what is included in the Protestant community, and (3) the normative means of salvation vis-a-vis the Protestant Church.

 

[PRmerger]

If I have fell to my knees with tears streaming down my face repenting of my sins and asking God through Jesus to save me from death, am I saved?

No one is saved until he dies, Mlon. That’s the bottom line. Salvation = being before the Eternal Throne of heaven, in the Beatific Vision.

No one has answered my question or responded to examples of people in the bible who were saved by personal repentance. Again, are all Protestants counterfeit apostates who are going straight to hell?

That’s above our pay grade, Mlon. No Catholic ought to be telling you where your eternal destination is. And if they do, I give you permission to smugly tell him: you are actually contradicting your own Church’s teachings, dear Catholic. For even the Catholic Church does not state she knows who is going to hell.