Stumbling Block for Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Porknpie;11308513]Hi Jon!
True and restated, they are unified in having at least have 73 books in their bible, all of which are considered inspired and inerrant.
True, and it is this reason that I am not convinced Luther was right regarding the 7 books.
Beyond 73, I would say someone is right and someone is wrong on what is inspired and inerrant. Answer that and you answer which Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to all Truth.
I don’t think it is as easy as that. I think it a reasonable position by the Church to look at books of scripture in the three ways they were historically: universally attested, disputed, and rejected. And treat them individually with that in mind. For example, Sirach and the Prayer of Manasseh have some wonderful writings in them, and whether or not we know if they are inspired or not doesn’t change the fact that they are inspiring.
Admittedly, I think its a reasonable position because it is the Lutheran position. 😃

Jon
 
The masters degree is only as good as where it comes from. There are plenty of “pastor mills” out there.

I agree with your point on succession and the real requirement being the preservation of apostolic teaching.

How is that then measured???

Ultimately, as a Lutheran, I would ask you what makes you believe that thousands of bishops in the church over 1500 years got it wrong, but one scrupulous priest got it right?
You assume, falsely, Jon, that Lutherans believe that thousands of bishops got it wrong for over 1,500 years. It is the very fact that we believe the early Church got it right (as do you) that leads to our sad division. Unlike other protestants that may fit your description, our issue with Rome has to do with, primarily, with the “innovations” that happened ion the western Church after the Schism, not what happened in the early 7 councils, which we accept.

Jon
 
Not always.

“Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20-21).
Yes,quite intercessory right ? We know angels are around us and thus can hear us,unlike saints in heaven… I think a few verses down psalms admonish nature and His works, “Bless the Lord all his works in all places of his dominion”. So now do we pray to nature, his works ? But thank you, it’s close, but no cigar.
 
Yes,quite intercessory right ? We know angels are around us and thus can hear us,unlike saints in heaven… I think a few verses down psalms admonish nature and His works, “Bless the Lord all his works in all places of his dominion”. So now do we pray to nature, his works ? But thank you, it’s close, but no cigar.
pocohombre-

Your religion is listed as “Christian”. Praise the Lord for that.

But could you be a little more specific about the church that you attend so that I can tailor my remarks using analogies and contexts that might be more familiar to you?

Thanks.
 
The church is in the mix? What did Paul tell Timothy?
Yes, I do not deny the church role. But does not Paul also say something about scripture / It is like the proverbial family bible, pictures and all sitting on the coffee table. Do we focus on the coffee table that scripture rests on ? How did it get on the table ? For sure the church better be the pillar of truth, receive the truth and be a conduit. It is just that the tone sometimes is that the church manufactured the truth. I don’t want to institutionalize the "wind’, the Spirit of God more than He desires. So at best I call it a mix, and the corporate body is in there. I just caution for a proper balance, a proper “tone”.
 
:eek:
Jesus did not defer to the authority of Israel. As if!
It is not deferring while in the flesh, it is making the authority while still Jehovah in heaven. Did he not authorize Moses and the prophets and the Psalms etc. etc. Did he not authorize Judaism for that mission of writings ?
 
It’s right after the verse that says that we have to show what we believe has to be found in Scripture. 😉
You are right, and scripture is not enough to make us complete and thoroughly furnished, perfect, for every good work, and we are mistaken if we say Paul tried to say so ? I hope Timothy didn’t misunderstand either.
 
You are right ,and scripture is not enough to make us complete and perfect for every good work, and we are mistaken if we say Paul tried to say so.
Wow. That’s really something, poco.

Many non-Catholics would have a hard time saying that!
 
Jon S;11307918:
Well,prayer is talking .Are you saying all talking to those in heaven is only to God ?
No, I just believe we don’t talk to people in heaven to talk to God for us.
Wow. Apparently you have not dialogued with us much about Purgatory, where we constantly say, “to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”. Don’t know of any good churches that believe in “soul sleep”. Hebrews does not describe talking to those on the “other side”, talking to saints in heaven. You want to have a consciousness of them, an awareness, an appreciation for the reality of the invisible “world”, yes, amen.
First, you say “prayer is talking” so apparently I pray whenever I talk to my grandma on the phone.

You are one of those Protestants that loves to believe in a made up Catholic Church rather than a real one. You just can’t let go of what you were erroneously taught. How sad.

If I can’t ask someone in heaven to pray with me (I pray to God myself too) then please never ask another person to pray for you.

Hebrews clearly places the Saints as people we come before and places them in the same sentence as Christ and God. I supposes you think it means we just “appreciate” Christ and God.

“to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” is found nowhere in scripture. Please quote scripture correctly.
 
Wow. That’s really something, poco.

Many non-Catholics would have a hard time saying that!
Sorry, you are a speedy Gonzalez. I wasn’t finished with post,still editing. The sentence has a question mark after editing ,to avoid exactly what you are inferring . Sorry hombre.
 
pocohombre;11309586:
First, you say “prayer is talking” so apparently I pray whenever I talk to my grandma on the phone.
No,that is why we have a special word for talking, and when talking to the Godhead in Judeo -Christian terms. Only pagans and gentiles prayed to other gods, things, people (dead or alive) in the old testament.
You are one of those Protestants that loves to believe in a made up Catholic Church rather than a real one. You just can’t let go of what you were erroneously taught. How sad.
Perhaps, but I don’t think misinformed views of CC is my problem, thanks to many here and this learning experience at CA.You have expressed your view very well.
If I can’t ask someone in heaven to pray with me (I pray to God myself too) then please never ask another person to pray for you.
Sorry, but there is a difference between life on this side on life on the other, just a little bit, enough to question the practice praying to saints in heaven.
Hebrews clearly places the Saints as people we come before and places them in the same sentence as Christ and God. I supposes you think it means we just “appreciate” Christ and God.
No but don’t say there is no difference between God and angels and men either.
“to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” is found nowhere in scripture. Please quote scripture correctly.
Thank you “Therefore we are always confident,knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord…we are confident, I say, willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord” 2 Cor,5:6-8
 
Yes, I do not deny the church role. … For sure the church better be the pillar of truth, receive the truth and be a conduit. …
Good. It appears you agree with both Paul and the Bishop of Rome.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]
 
Sorry, you are a speedy Gonzalez. I wasn’t finished with post,still editing. The sentence has a question mark after editing ,to avoid exactly what you are inferring . Sorry hombre.
So, you’re a “pokey hombre” when it comes to typing and editing? 😛
 
Jon S;11309778:
No,that is why we have a special word for talking, and when talking to the Godhead in Judeo -Christian terms. Only pagans and gentiles prayed to other gods, things, people (dead or alive) in the old testament.

Perhaps, but I don’t think misinformed views of CC is my problem, thanks to many here and this learning experience at CA.You have expressed your view very well.
Sorry, but there is a difference between life on this side on life on the other, just a little bit, enough to question the practice praying to saints in heaven.

No but don’t say there is no difference between God and angels and men either.

Thank you "Therefore we are always confident,knowing
that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord…we are confident, I say, willing rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" 2 Cor,5:6-8

If someone is going to deny the Communion of Saints which has its confirmation in the earliest church writings, and is mentioned in the creeds,

Then you must have the burden of proof to show that you know better. There is not one verse in scripture that says you should not ask the angels and saints to pray for you.

Although I guess there are two that clearly show and demonstrate intercession to angels.

“Bless the LORD, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.
Bless ye the LORD, all ye his hosts; ye ministers of his, that do his pleasure.” (Ps 103:20-21)

“Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights.
Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.” (Psalm 148:1-2)

These are the exact type of “prayers” we say today.
 
THIRD REQUEST

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, it is unreasonable for you to insist that evidence for our faith must be drawn from the Bible only.
All of the examples you give are descriptions of traditions that have changed over time. For example, the marriage vows have changed since the early church. In fact, there was no detailed account of a wedding ceremony until the 9th century. Let me ask you a question does the women in you church cover their head? If not, they are not following the teachings of Paul in the New Testament. Let me ask how many wives do you have? The norm of having one wife wasn’t established until Pastors were encouraged to do so in the NT. Also in defense of the RC Church celibacy was recommended by Paul. The point to all of the above the Bible was written during times when cultural norms were different than today. Traditions change over time; however, Gods word does not.

Please note the difference between explicit vs. implicit meanings in regards to scripture. For example, when Jesus says He is the way truth and life there is no mistake in the message is pretty clear. With that said I contend the Bible does in fact support Sola Scriptura. Let me illustrate. Below is a good illustration of Gods word superseding tradition:

Matthew 19 (KJV)
1 And it came to pass, [that] when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In this story Jesus was setting the record straight. The tradition of a writ of divorcement was instituted in the law on Moses to protect women from sinful men. Without this provision men would have thought of horrible ways to get rid of an unwanted wife. They could simply just accuse them of adultery and be stoned to death. The writ of divorcement was God bestowing His mercy to innocent women. Now when the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus he put everything back into perspective. Let’s put it this way He went back to the original word, "5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? This illustrates that the Scripture is the final word that transcends tradition. Trust me I know my little post here is not going to resolve hundreds of years of dispute. But I will contend the Bible does indicate our faith is rooted in scripture and not in ever changing traditions.

On a final note. For every response I make three to four people quote and responde to my post. To be honest I cannot keep up let alone respond to everything that’s tossed my way. As you can see I not the type of person who is at a loss for words.

I originally joined this discussion board to learn and to express my thoughts. My intention was never to offend anyone. I may have mistakenly thought this board was open to all faiths for the purpose of expressing ones religious views. If that is not its intention, then I apologize. If the purpose is to evangelize people into the RC faith, then I will discontinue my participation.

Thank you
 
You are right, and scripture is not enough to make us complete and thoroughly furnished, perfect, for every good work, and we are mistaken if we say Paul tried to say so ?
That is correct. Scripture alone is not sufficient, and this point was driven home dramatically (and decisively) in the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura” debate between Patrick Madrid and James White. Here is Madrid’s rebuttal of White’s use of 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

Now, in our remaining moments, let’s examine some key Scripture passages that are frequently brought up. Let’s turn immediately to II Timothy 3:16, 17, which Mr. White leans so heavily upon, and let’s take a look at what it really says. He quoted it for you, already, so I won’t feel the need to quote it again, but I do want to quote from his book, where he says (this is on page 42 of his book, Answers to Catholic Claims, I believe that the case for sola scriptura is so flimsy, that if you want to find how flimsy it is, you can just go to Mr. White’s book, Answers to Catholic Claims, which purports to deal with the sufficiency, or the formal sufficiency of Scripture. This book, I think, shows how flimsy that case is), Mr. White says, “II Timothy 3:16,17 literally screams sufficiency!” Well, this verse is screaming, but it’s only because of the way Mr. White is twisting it, in his attempt to shoehorn sola scriptura into it. II Timothy 3:17 does not teach the formal sufficiency of Scripture, folks, it simply doesn’t. It teaches, perhaps, material sufficiency, which I would be perfectly happy to go along with. But, just because Scripture contains all the necessary equipment, remember, Paul is saying that the man of God, through Scripture, will be equipped, will be competent, will be “thoroughly furnished”, as it says in the King James, for every good work. Every Catholic says, “Amen!” to that. There’s no argument. But, just because it will give you all the equipment that you need, doesn’t mean that it will necessarily make you able to use that equipment properly. Let me demonstrate.

Scripture says we must rightly divide the Word of God. That means that some people can wrongly divide it. They can wrongly use it. Some of you here, tonight, will think I am wrongly using the Word of God. So that, in effect, proves what I am saying. Some people will use it correctly, others won’t. So, just having the Bible alone is not enough to fully equip the man of God, in the sense that, he may have all the raw materials, he may have all the equipment, but he may not know how to use it properly.

Mr. White used a very quaint example about a bike store. And how the bike store can outfit him thoroughly, give him everything he needs, bike tires, inner tubes, helmets, and all the various things that he might need. But what about, Mr. White, if you don’t know how to ride a bike? Or what if you don’t know the rules of the road? Or what if you don’t know the proper way to handle a bike in difficult terrain, or in bad weather. The Church and Sacred Tradition, which the Bible does talk about, and we’ll show later tonight, is in that support role. Sure, the Bible will fully equip the man of God, but it doesn’t presuppose that the man of God automatically knows how to use that Scripture. That’s where the Church comes in, and Sacred Tradition. Those are the ways that the Church helps to guide the man of God in the proper use of Sacred Scripture. Don’t forget that point.

If somebody goes into the military (and many of you, in this room, have been in the military), when you get there, you’re issued a uniform, a helmet, a rifle, ammunition, not all at once, of course, but you’re issued ammunition, maybe hand grenades, maybe you’re assigned to a tank unit. You are issued all sorts of equipment. And to follow Mr. White’s analogy, you’re fully equipped by the U.S. military to carry out a military operation. But, the military also has to train the soldier, to fire that rifle, to know how to throw a hand grenade, and when to throw a hand grenade, how to drive the tank, when to duck when the bullets are coming, how to thrust with the bayonet. I could go on and on! I could bury Mr. White in his own analogy! The fact is, just because the military fully equips the soldier to carry out his mission, does not mean the soldier is necessarily ready to do it. He needs support things also. And that is the training and the guidance the military will teach him. “This tactic works.” “This tactic does not work.” All of that is necessary so that the military man may be truly complete and equipped for every military work.
 
All of the examples you give are descriptions of traditions that have changed over time. For example, the marriage vows have changed since the early church. In fact, there was no detailed account of a wedding ceremony until the 9th century. Let me ask you a question does the women in you church cover their head? If not, they are not following the teachings of Paul in the New Testament. Let me ask how many wives do you have? The norm of having one wife wasn’t established until Pastors were encouraged to do so in the NT. Also in defense of the RC Church celibacy was recommended by Paul. The point to all of the above the Bible was written during times when cultural norms were different than today. Traditions change over time; however, Gods word does not.

Please note the difference between explicit vs. implicit meanings in regards to scripture. For example, when Jesus says He is the way truth and life there is no mistake in the message is pretty clear. With that said I contend the Bible does in fact support Sola Scriptura. Let me illustrate. Below is a good illustration of Gods word superseding tradition:

Matthew 19 (KJV)
1 And it came to pass, [that] when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan; 2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

In this story Jesus was setting the record straight. The tradition of a writ of divorcement was instituted in the law on Moses to protect women from sinful men. Without this provision men would have thought of horrible ways to get rid of an unwanted wife. They could simply just accuse them of adultery and be stoned to death. The writ of divorcement was God bestowing His mercy to innocent women. Now when the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus he put everything back into perspective. Let’s put it this way He went back to the original word, "5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? This illustrates that the Scripture is the final word that transcends tradition. Trust me I know my little post here is not going to resolve hundreds of years of dispute. But I will contend the Bible does indicate our faith is rooted in scripture and not in ever changing traditions.

On a final note. For every response I make three to four people quote and responde to my post. To be honest I cannot keep up let alone respond to everything that’s tossed my way. As you can see I not the type of person who is at a loss for words.

I originally joined this discussion board to learn and to express my thoughts. My intention was never to offend anyone. I may have mistakenly thought this board was open to all faiths for the purpose of expressing ones religious views. If that is not its intention, then I apologize. If the purpose is to evangelize people into the RC faith, then I will discontinue my participation.

Thank you
You make the mistake that the Word of God is only written.

This is simply not true.

Jesus is God right? What he said in his earthly life was the Words of God, yes?

John 21:25

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
 
On a final note. For every response I make three to four people quote and responde to my post. To be honest I cannot keep up let alone respond to everything that’s tossed my way. As you can see I not the type of person who is at a loss for words.
I do understand how non-Catholics are swarmed in this forum. So, I’ll let this drop for now.
I originally joined this discussion board to learn and to express my thoughts. My intention was never to offend anyone.
No offense taken, and you should feel free to express your views.
I may have mistakenly thought this board was open to all faiths for the purpose of expressing ones religious views.
It is. More than many non-Catholic boards that I could name.
If that is not its intention, then I apologize. If the purpose is to evangelize people into the RC faith, then I will discontinue my participation.
The issue is this: You keep insisting that we Catholics prove our doctrine exclusively on the basis of scripture, but you cannot show us a scripture which supports that standard. You skip over the fact that sola scriptura is self-refuting.

Thus, you are attempting to “prove” Catholicism wrong by generating the impression that our doctrines are unbiblical.

Surely you can understand why we might take issue with that approach.
 
You make the mistake that the Word of God is only written.

This is simply not true.

Jesus is God right? What he said in his earthly life was the Words of God, yes?

John 21:25

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
If they are not written, then how can we be sure they are truly from God? Do I trust the Church with the task of telling me Gods word? How about if a church strays off course and teaches a false doctrine where do I go to verify? The only logical place is the Bible. If you want to win this argument, then I conceded. I don’t agree, but you can win. Hopefully it encourages others to study and make their own decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top