Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[PRmerger]

Partly .By definition tradition can simply be oral transmission of the gospel, not necessarily a practice or dogma surrounding it (another part of a possible definition). As I have stated in other threads, to me SS is adherence to what God has said (vocally or by inspiration), and what He has done, then put into writing. So one can cite what God has said, or what he has done, because it is in writing. So while we use the word “tradition” to describe the first preaching, we would not know with as much surety what was actually said had it not been written down. Because I agree to the obvious, oral transmission was before written, does not take away from a SS stance one takes after Jesus gave His written Word.

Except that there’s the problem that you accept the authority of the CC to tell you that Hebrews is inspired.

You don’t get that assurance from the Bible. You get that assurance from submitting to the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

This would be true if SS rejected the teaching role of the Church. But that is not the case. SS does not speak to what books make up the canon of scripture. That is the job of the Church. The Church then uses scripture as its final norm when determining doctrine and teaching. SS is simply the Church using scripture as the final norm to hold teaching and doctrine accountable.

For the sola scripturist, Sacred Tradition is, of course, part of faith. It is a witness to the truth of the faith, the truth of scripture, though not equal to it.

Jon

That is the current Lutheran definition of SS.

But it is not how most SS advocates here on the CAFs would articulate their definition of SS.

And, since you are essentially more Catholic than almost every Catholic I know in real life (although not as Catholic as almost all my Catholic friends here on the CAFs ) I don’t think you count as an advocate of SS.

 

[pocohombre]

If you asked a Christian in the first 3 centuries what the New Testament was, what would be their response?

It wasn’t the 27 books we call the NT. A Christian in the first 3 centuries would point to the Eucharist and tell you that is the New Testament.

(BTW, “testament” means “covenant”, so New Testament really means New Covenant.)

Luke 22:14 When the hour came, he took his place at table with the apostles. 15 He said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for, I tell you, I shall not eat it [again] until there is fulfillment in the kingdom of God.” 17 Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you [that] from this time on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

Thank you for the semantics class. What about Holy Writ, Sacred Scripture and other words to denote God’s written Word ? Were these terms also non-existent before 4th century ? I think Tertullian wrote of Scriptures as the “New Testament” around 200 A.D. A letter from the Roman church to the Corinthian church 100A.D (Clement) has references/quotes from 7 books. Ignatius’s letters (110) to 12 books,Justin Martyr ( 140) to 14 books.Iraneus (130-200) most of the 27. The Old Syriac and Old Latin version and the Muratorian Fragment(150-170) has 19,24 and 23 books respectively. Origen (185-254) held to 27 books. Eusebius made 50 bibles (27 books in NT) for Constantine around 330 A.D.

 

[Atheling]

As for the original topic, the “stumbling blocks” on a journey to the Catholic Church for me are numerous. I certainly find the practice of confession to be highly questionable, in addition to the usual aversions to saintly intercession, veneration of Mary, idolatry, issues relating to other Sacraments, and so on. Now, I am well-versed in the Catholic responses to those criticisms, and I am not arguing that those rebuttals are without merit, but one must appreciate that, hailing from a Calvinist Protestant tradition, these concepts tend to remain somewhat murky.

The dilemma for me is quite paradoxical; whereas I believe in the teachings of the Reformation - sola fide and all the rest of it - the Protestant churches themselves are spiritually rotten. With some exceptions, far too many are embracing modern perversions from the top (homosexuality and its facets, female clergy, defiance of scripture, etc.) with essentially no resistance from the grassroots. In contrast, the Catholic Church remains a consistent force and a moral compass in the Christian milieu. That, and the fact that God has a tendency to place helpful Catholics in my path has certainly given me pause for consideration. But, for reasons aforementioned, how could any move to the Catholic Church be sincere when my motives would be born out of a disillusionment with Protestantism, rather than a genuine embrace of Catholic teachings?

Or maybe the family living in that house simply hadn’t found a larger Jesus statue that fit within their budget.

Let me get this straight…You’re basing your opinion of Catholic spirituality on a drive-by sighting of a statue in some neighborhood in Pittsburgh without actually speaking to the owners to determine exactly why their “priorities” were, in your estimation, all wrong? Then you want to come onto a Catholic forum with rock-solid evidence for your anti-Catholic pre-suppositions like that?

Wow. It’s a pity that a second, better thought didn’t immediately follow the first.

I’m trying hard these days to put forth a kinder, gentler face to my apologetics work, but this is a real test of my patience.

Let me ask you this: I live in the Bible Belt. Wanna know how many Baptists I see with statues of Jesus of any size in their yards? ZERO.

Now, who is making more effort to witness publicly that they are Christians? The Baptist family with no public display or the Catholic family who bought the wrong-sized Jesus?

Sheesh.

And since you’ve got me riled up, let me remind you that you have not responded to my post # 654 in which I undermined your entire premise that everything must be proved by scripture when I demonstrated that your doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unbiblical and therefore, self-refuting.

Further, you have not interacted at all with my post #667 wherein I demonstrated non-Biblical Traditions which you, as a Protestant, accept as binding and which provide further evidence that sola scriptura is false.

Until you can provide us with biblical evidence that the Bible Alone is the basis for testing and approving all things related to our faith, I suggest you back off on the idea.

[/rant]

This is why I tend to avoid the more divisive issues as it pertains to ecumenical matters. Crucifixes adorning walls in my home likely make me an anomaly in the Calvinist realm, but I digress. Arguing which of the Catholic or Protestant traditions is more righteous, and pointing out the former’s display of statues or the latter’s adherence to sola scriptura as negatives or positives, certainly will not lead to any constructive dialogue. Personally, building on common ground with Catholics when it comes to areas of convergence on scripture, working together with my Catholic friends on my school and city’s local right-to-life associations, and other mutually-agreeable initiatives is, as it stands, the best way forward.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And, since you are essentially more Catholic than almost every Catholic I know in real life (although not as Catholic as almost all my Catholic friends here on the CAFs ) I don’t think you count as an advocate of SS.

JonNC has some serious thinking and praying to do. :yup:

 

[MartinJordan]

As for the original topic, the “stumbling blocks” on a journey to the Catholic Church for me are numerous. I certainly find the practice of confession to be highly questionable

Why? The Apostles practiced it and it had been handed down. Jesus consecrated them and it continues to today.

MJ

 

[Randy_Carson]

The dilemma for me is quite paradoxical; whereas I believe in the teachings of the Reformation - sola fide and all the rest of it - the Protestant churches themselves are spiritually rotten. With some exceptions, far too many are embracing modern perversions from the top (homosexuality and its facets, female clergy, defiance of scripture, etc.) with essentially no resistance from the grassroots. In contrast, the Catholic Church remains a consistent force and a moral compass in the Christian milieu. That, and the fact that God has a tendency to place helpful Catholics in my path has certainly given me pause for consideration. But, for reasons aforementioned, how could any move to the Catholic Church be sincere when my motives would be born out of a disillusionment with Protestantism, rather than a genuine embrace of Catholic teachings?

Well, I agree that wouldn’t be a good thing. Atheling, I’d take the long view…read some good Catholic books to make sure you understand…I mean really understand…our theology - especially in the areas you mentioned. Above all, pray and ask the Lord for wisdom. Many, many people have stood right where you now stand looking at the waters of the Tiber and hesitating to take the plunge. There’s no hurry.

This is why I tend to avoid the more divisive issues as it pertains to ecumenical matters. Crucifixes adorning walls in my home likely make me an anomaly in the Calvinist realm, but I digress. Arguing which of the Catholic or Protestant traditions is more righteous, and pointing out the former’s display of statues or the latter’s adherence to sola scriptura as negatives or positives, certainly will not lead to any constructive dialogue. Personally, building on common ground with Catholics when it comes to areas of convergence on scripture, working together with my Catholic friends on my school and city’s local right-to-life associations, and other mutually-agreeable initiatives is, as it stands, the best way forward.

So, go forward and God speed!

 

[AdvocatusVerbum]

But, for reasons aforementioned, how could any move to the Catholic Church be sincere when my motives would be born out of a disillusionment with Protestantism, rather than a genuine embrace of Catholic teachings?

Regardless of the reasons, I’d say any movement in that direction is a positive step. The rest can come with prayer and contemplation.

Theologically, look to the origins from Holy Scripture, regardless of the fallacies inherent in Sola Scriptura. The roots of our faith is in the origin. Even the staunchest Protestant acknowledges that Jesus had Apostles. Humility must recognize as a conceit that they could know Him better than those He broke bread with. Those Apostles had disciples of their own and performed miracles in His name and fostered The Church in the face of persecution. This is in Scripture, of course.

Then turn to secular history… To reject Apostolic Succession is to require a contortion in turning the Bible from being the literal truth to being symbolic with even a rudimentary grasp of early history. Look at how early the graduated hierarchy of bishops and Metropolitans and Patriarchs appeared. The Protestant has to claim apostasy but if it was apostasy it happened so early on, certainly no sooner than the 2nd or 3rd generation of disciples. How could Christ have failed to create the Church as He said so early? Back to symbolism instead of literal truth?

Look at the date when each Protestant sect sprouted. How they cherry picked and equivocated and often reversed themselves. To really bring it home, you can spot each of the early heresies and how very similar to many/most of the Protestant sects came and went before… often multiple times. You can spot the Apologetics of the early Fathers speaking against those heresies.

At some point, with the basics of the history of Christian theology, you can realize that the Church is not the Church of the Bible… the Bible is the book of the Church that Our Lord himself created on His Apostles. It was there in the early days when Pagan Rome still strode over Europe and western Asia. It was there when Rome fell. It was there when Islam sprouted and spread. It was there when the Mongols overran much of the known world…and when they faded away. It was there when Europeans discovered the New World… and it’s still here today.

Then the former Protestant can realize that Holy Scripture itself is only half of the big picture. The other half is the enduring Apostolic traditions passed on from the Church Fathers that endure still in the Sacraments we practice and that Holy Mother Church offers still.

 

[Porknpie]

I acknowledged it only for Catholics(or anyone else who says tradition is equal to Scripture).

I’m not clear Poco on what you acknowledging. The bible has 73 books based on Apostolic Tradition, decided by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. You have a bible with 66 books, decided by men outside of the Catholic Church 1100 + years later. You are breaking from Tradition based on? You believe that Jesus Christ could lead his Church to error for 1,100 years? That’s not Scriptural.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC;11302106:

This

Hmm…which church would that be Jon…that would use Scripture as a final norm? I do not recall any of the apostolic churches using this method.

How would Scripture make the judgement of which is Tradition and which is not?

That part of the Apostolic Church that confesses the Augsburg Confession.

Scripture wouldn’t make that judgement. The Church, using scripture as the final norm, would.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m not clear Poco on what you acknowledging. The bible has 73 books based on Apostolic Tradition, decided by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. You have a bible with 66 books, decided by men outside of the Catholic Church 1100 + years later. You are breaking from Tradition based on? You believe that Jesus Christ could lead his Church to error for 1,100 years? That’s not Scriptural.

Well, not all Churches that use the same apostolic Tradition limit the canon to just 73 books.

Jon

 

[Novocastrian]

Regardless of the reasons, I’d say any movement in that direction is a positive step. The rest can come with prayer and contemplation.

This is a very even-handed and thoughtful post, and I imagine that most mainstream Protestants will agree with most of it, disagreeing only with regard to some of the nuance and detail.

Theologically, look to the origins from Holy Scripture, regardless of the fallacies inherent in Sola Scriptura. The roots of our faith is in the origin. Even the staunchest Protestant acknowledges that Jesus had Apostles. Humility must recognize as a conceit that they could know Him better than those He broke bread with.

Completely agreed. This is, in fact, the criticism of the traditional Protestant Churches against Rome! There are those of us who confess 99% of what Rome confesses, with the exception of one or two things that Rome considers binding dogma, such as Papal Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception, which it seems would have been unknown to the Apostles. This is obviously not the place to dispute those particular issues; I just mean to point out that the Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists (who’ve actually read Calvin as opposed to 20th century pseudo-Calvinists) share the same basic assumption you make here.

Those Apostles had disciples of their own and performed miracles in His name and fostered The Church in the face of persecution. This is in Scripture, of course.

Laus deo!

Then turn to secular history… To reject Apostolic Succession is to require a contortion in turning the Bible from being the literal truth to being symbolic with even a rudimentary grasp of early history.

Again, agreed, although we might want to revisit exactly what Apostolic Succession consists of. I’d probably go so far as to say that the Apostolic Succession is primarily about the Apostolic Faith being passed on, although sacramental ministry is clearly a part of that.

Look at how early the graduated hierarchy of bishops and Metropolitans and Patriarchs appeared. The Protestant has to claim apostasy but if it was apostasy it happened so early on, certainly no sooner than the 2nd or 3rd generation of disciples. How could Christ have failed to create the Church as He said so early? Back to symbolism instead of literal truth?

Which is why Protestants tend not to claim apostasy. Just that the Church is full of humans, some of whom are tares. Catholics, of course, acknowledge the presence of heresy in the church from the 1st century onwards; hence all those letters in the Bible! Mainstream Protestants don’t see ourselves as a replacement for the ancient Church, or a pure group separated from a corrupt mediaeval Rome; we’re just part of the ancient Church which has tried (with varying degrees of success) to dispose of the heterodoxies that accumulate in the Church over the centuries.

Look at the date when each Protestant sect sprouted. How they cherry picked and equivocated and often reversed themselves. To really bring it home, you can spot each of the early heresies and how very similar to many/most of the Protestant sects came and went before… often multiple times. You can spot the Apologetics of the early Fathers speaking against those heresies.

That’s true in some ways, particularly with regard to sectarian Protestants; perhaps analogous are groups like the SSPX or sedevacantists, who have something of the Donatists about them?

At some point, with the basics of the history of Christian theology, you can realize that the Church is not the Church of the Bible… the Bible is the book of the Church that Our Lord himself created on His Apostles.

Agreed, as long as we acknowledge that the Church

(1) ALWAYS had authoritative Scripture, in the form of the LXX.
(2) RECOGNISED the agency of the Holy Ghost in the writing and compilation of the New Testament, such that the NT really is a binding authority on the Church, and not the Church’s creature.

It was there in the early days when Pagan Rome still strode over Europe and western Asia. It was there when Rome fell. It was there when Islam sprouted and spread. It was there when the Mongols overran much of the known world…and when they faded away. It was there when Europeans discovered the New World… and it’s still here today.

Then the former Protestant can realize that Holy Scripture itself is only half of the big picture. The other half is the enduring Apostolic traditions passed on from the Church Fathers that endure still in the Sacraments we practice and that Holy Mother Church offers still.

I think we can probably agree in part here, we’d just differ with regard to which traditions are apostolic.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well, not all Churches that use the same apostolic Tradition limit the canon to just 73 books.

Jon

We are waiting for them to come back

 

[pocohombre]

Partly? Not fully?

How else do you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired, except through the CC?

What other “part” gives you this assurance?

I am wondering if we have scripture because of an authority to say so. Is it corporate authority ? Is it individual authority, or both ? And let us not forget that God says so also. How was it done in the old testament ? Jesus certainly quoted scripture, authenticated their Godly authority. Did the Jews, Israel ever convene to cannonize the books ? How did they decide ? How did they discern ? I look at it as more a thing of discernment. Authority is partly the power to make decisions. Isn’t that a lot like discernment ? So I would think individually and corporately we have “authority” to decide. Post 712 showed the process of our forefathers in the faith… As you stated scripture comes from Jesus (yes, thru apostles/writers,early church etc.) and it is finally Jesus that gives the full assurance to anything worth knowing, including what is scripture…I know you want me to kowotw to the authority of the CC for giving us scripture. I do believe in giving honor to whom it is due, and I humbly think I have, As to what “church” and “tradition” is differs between us, even though we have the same evidences of history before us. As I recall you had a bit of difficulty acknowledging that Jesus used the "authority " of Israel in giving us the Old Testament writings. Some are so bent on making CC the focal point of everything and I in not. Nevertheless, in post #712 I call quite a few things “catholic”. .Sorry, that is far as the Spirit will lead me, thank -you.

 

[stewstew03]

…Some are so bent on making CC the focal point of everything and I [am] not…

Poco - what is your foundation for determining Truth if it is not the Church?

 

[Mlon]

And yet, among the reasons given by protestants (like Matt Slick) for excluding the deuterocanonical books is “Jewish Tradition.”

It’s also common in eastern religions to pray to relatives. Should we adopt those practices too? Illustrate biblical evidence that indicates I should pray to a Saint. It doesn’t exist. The worship of saints are something that has crept into the church over time. For example, every Christmas Christians all over the world sign the song “We Three Kings” or “We Three Wisemen” depending on the version. What most people don’t know is this is a myth that has crept in over time. The bible in all gospels do not mention kings or there were three at all. Yet, every manager scene will have three men dressed up in fine garb, like kings, bearing gifts. The worshiping of saints is a example of a traditional myth turning into a religious practice.

 

[Mlon]

So, when a plaintiff “prays for relief” in federal court…would you consider that idolatry?

I’m sorry but I do not get this connection. If the court is the thrown of the Father, I pray to His son for my relief. I certainly wouldn’t pray to A saint.

 

[Mlon]

You can’t be serious… think of the possibilities:

• “My bible has more books; therefore, I am more biblically literate.”
• “My church is bigger; therefore, we love God more.”
• “My pastor is louder and more long-winded; therefore, he speaks more of God’s truth.”
• “My cross is bigger than my neighbor’s; therefore, I love Jesus more than he/she does.”

Let’s pretend you’re an American Christian in the year 1845 and you live in rural Georgia. You just received news that the Baptist church was splitting over the issue of slavery. In other words, southern Christians were so offended by the idea that they were seen as “less Christian” than their northern baptist brethren, that they decided to break up the congregation and form the Southern Baptist Convention. A church… formed based on the idea that one could worship Jesus AND hold black slaves!

Now, what pops into your head in relation to priorities?

(By the way, it wasn’t until 150 years later that the SBC officially apologized for its defense of slavery).

What is a Christian? Are JWs Christians? Are Mormons? (And please cite your authority for being able to make a determination on who is / who is not a Christian).

Either I’m not getting your point or you’re not getting mine. The point I’m making in the example illustrates the misplaced importance in whom the the savor of our souls. Jesus paid the price He is the sacrifice for all and it is through Him we are saved. While Mary should be held in regard as the mother of or savior she still was like us, a sinner in need of a savior.

As far as my example of the person I know. My wording came across as if I was questioning who is or is not a Christian. Instead I was trying to illustrate the character of the person.

 

[Mlon]

Or maybe the family living in that house simply hadn’t found a larger Jesus statue that fit within their budget.

Let me get this straight…You’re basing your opinion of Catholic spirituality on a drive-by sighting of a statue in some neighborhood in Pittsburgh without actually speaking to the owners to determine exactly why their “priorities” were, in your estimation, all wrong? Then you want to come onto a Catholic forum with rock-solid evidence for your anti-Catholic pre-suppositions like that?

Wow. It’s a pity that a second, better thought didn’t immediately follow the first.

I’m trying hard these days to put forth a kinder, gentler face to my apologetics work, but this is a real test of my patience.

Let me ask you this: I live in the Bible Belt. Wanna know how many Baptists I see with statues of Jesus of any size in their yards? ZERO.

Now, who is making more effort to witness publicly that they are Christians? The Baptist family with no public display or the Catholic family who bought the wrong-sized Jesus?

Sheesh.

And since you’ve got me riled up, let me remind you that you have not responded to my post # 654 in which I undermined your entire premise that everything must be proved by scripture when I demonstrated that your doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unbiblical and therefore, self-refuting.

Further, you have not interacted at all with my post #667 wherein I demonstrated non-Biblical Traditions which you, as a Protestant, accept as binding and which provide further evidence that sola scriptura is false.

Until you can provide us with biblical evidence that the Bible Alone is the basis for testing and approving all things related to our faith, I suggest you back off on the idea.

[/rant]

I’m sorry Randy but I’m not trying to avoid your posts. In fact, I find it very difficult to keep up with all of them. My intention isn’t to offend, but challenge people. Isn’t that what your are doing in return? Over and over I have been asked to proved evidence. I have done so; however, in all cases when I ask the same it’s not returned. Finally, if you’d like I can discontinue participating if I am offending anyone. I mean that in a most sincere way.

 

[stewstew03]

I’m sorry but I do not get this connection. If the court is the thrown of the Father, I pray to His son for my relief. I certainly wouldn’t pray to A saint.

The point is that every petition filed in federal court by a plaintiff “prays” that the court grant relief. You probably don’t consider this idolatry because the word “prayer” means 'request."

In the same way - when a Christian “prays” to Mary, the mother of Jesus, he or she is not worshiping Mary - but is instead making a request that Mary bring our petitions before God. And when my wife, for example, asks me to pray for her, she’s not worshiping me, is she?