Stumbling Block for Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mlon said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is an important point for everyone on this board. Also keep in mind that if we miss a day or two of posting because of life there’s a chance we won’t come back because the forum has gone thorough 8 more pages of posts. It’s not that we don’t have a solid answer, it’s that it’s extremely hard.
Jon_S said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are there any words or actions of Jesus defined within Catholicism that were not recorded in any book of the NT but have been officially attributed to Him?
 
Mlon said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s why Jesus establish a Church, an infallible Church, INSTEAD of giving us a book which could be misinterpreted. Yeah, we got the book later, but He built the Church first for a reason.

Now, in light of the promises of scripture, how can the Church stray off course?

The fact is that the Catholic Church has never, not even once, taught false doctrine.

There may be Catholic doctrines that you don’t agree with or understand or things you think are/were false doctrines, but that would be your error…not the error of the Catholic Church.

I invite you to begin a thread on any ONE topic that you would like to offer in contradiction to what I have just said.
 
dronald said:
Are there any words or actions of Jesus defined within Catholicism that were not recorded in any book of the NT but have been officially attributed to Him?
Click to expand...
No.

The real issues begin with the interpretation of what He did say, don’t you think? For example:

John 6
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

From this passage, we can all agree that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus, correct?
 
Randy_Carson said:
No.

The real issues begin with the interpretation of what He did say, don’t you think? For example:

John 6
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

From this passage, we can all agree that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus, correct?
Click to expand...
Obviously. Just like we can all agree that Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty” to mean that all believers don’t need to eat or drink anything.

Can we all agree on that? <3 Why does it matter if we all have a heart for the Lord?
 
dronald said:
Obviously. Just like we can all agree that Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty” to mean that all believers don’t need to eat or drink anything.

Can we all agree on that? <3 Why does it matter if we all have a heart for the Lord?
Click to expand...
It obviously mattered to the DISCIPLES who turned away and no longer followed Jesus over this teaching. These were people who followed him. Who saw the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, who loved him.

Jesus lets them go.

Because this teaching is important…critical even.

Come on dronald…don’t be do quick to abandon what you know for the ease and explaining away of the Protestant tradition!
John 6
Click to expand...
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
Click to expand...
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
Click to expand...
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Click to expand...
 
Randy_Carson said:
That’s why Jesus establish a Church, an infallible Church, INSTEAD of giving us a book which could be misinterpreted. Yeah, we got the book later, but He built the Church first for a reason.

Now, in light of the promises of scripture, how can the Church stray off course?

The fact is that the Catholic Church has never, not even once, taught false doctrine.

There may be Catholic doctrines that you don’t agree with or understand or things you think are/were false doctrines, but that would be your error…not the error of the Catholic Church.

I invite you to begin a thread on any ONE topic that you would like to offer in contradiction to what I have just said.
Click to expand...
Yes, but Randy people are fallible. That’s why John tells us “1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” How do we test the spirits - through the examination of scripture. I mean what else do we have other than the infallible word of God? I’m not saying the RC church is preaching a false doctrine, but I feel they are practicing misplaced traditions. Does that make you counterfeit absolutely not.
 
Jon_S said:
It obviously mattered to the DISCIPLES who turned away and no longer followed Jesus over this teaching. These were people who followed him. Who saw the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, who loved him.

Jesus lets them go.

Because this teaching is important…critical even.

Come on dronald…don’t be do quick to abandon what you know for the ease and explaining away of the Protestant tradition!
Click to expand...
I know, and I love ya for discussing it with me. 😉
 
Charlemagne_II said:
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?
Click to expand...
Celebrate Recovery is a Christian 12 step program started by Protestants and is usually held in protestant churches. The 5th step says that the person in recovery must admit his faults to God, to himself, and to another person. Of course this is similar to Catholic confession in a practical way. So I am wondering if some protestants who work the steps in Celebrate recovery see the resemblance between the 5th step and Catholic confession. Of course Catholic confession is a sacrament and the fifth step is not.

Marty
 
Mlon said:
Yes, but Randy people are fallible. That’s why John tells us “1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” How do we test the spirits - through the examination of scripture. I mean what else do we have other than the infallible word of God? I’m not saying the RC church is preaching a false doctrine, but I feel they are practicing misplaced traditions. Does that make you counterfeit absolutely not.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure the Christians John was telling this too referred to the OLD TESTAMENT a bit, but primarily tested it against the Christian traditions they were taught and the practices the Apostles and evangelists taught them in person. Since the New Testament was both not fully written yet, and certainly not compiled.

Think about it.

The Apostle John comes to your town and preaches the gospel. You accept it and believe it. And you are baptized. He preached to you every week for years. During that time you have the Old Testament and a couple letters from a missionary named Paul.

If someone came to your town and started saying “you don’t need to be baptized” to be a Christian, then how would you test that person?

Solely by the few writings you have?

Or by the teachings that you were taught day in and day out for years.

It was these teachings that are handed down through a living church.

The church has been alive for 2000 years. It did not write a book, die and only 1500 years later did people try to reconstruct it.
 
stewstew03 said:
People are fallible and then you cite a fallible person?
Click to expand...
No offense, but your point is ridiculous. John who was appointed by Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit made this statement. By your standards we should question every profit in the Bible. Honestly if we are going to debate lets not nit pick.
 
Mlon said:
No offense, but your point is ridiculous. John who was appointed by Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit made this statement. By your standards we should question every profit in the Bible. Honestly if we are going to debate lets not nit pick.
Click to expand...
It’s not nit-picking at all. How do you know:
  1. John was appointed by Jesus…
  2. John was filled with the Holy Spirit…
Unless you accept the presupposition that:
  1. Jesus established a Church on earth…and
  2. That Church is guided by the Holy Spirit
?
 
stewstew03 said:
It’s not nit-picking at all. How do you know:
  1. John was appointed by Jesus…
  2. John was filled with the Holy Spirit…
Unless you accept the presupposition that:
  1. Jesus established a Church on earth…and
  2. That Church is guided by the Holy Spirit
?
Click to expand...
Of course He established the church and it consisted as a result of the evangelical efforts of the early disciples. What is your point?
 
JonNC said:
True, and it is this reason that I am not convinced Luther was right regarding the 7 books.
Click to expand...
Four letters… RCIA 😛
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. 😃
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
Jon, we can reason to know that the Prayer Of Manasseh (+ others) was not inspired as it did not meet the rule and measure of canonicity below.
  • Apostolic origin, either the apostles or someone who accompanied the apostles
  • Nothing contrary to apostolic Tradition
  • Used universally in the liturgy
That is the Catholic position. 😃

Curious, ever listen to the Jesuit in my signature??

PnP
 
=Porknpie;11311048]Four letters… RCIA 😛
Click to expand...
Weeeelllllll. Not the big issue for me, Pork, but thanks for the invite.
Jon, we can reason to know that the Prayer Of Manasseh (+ others) was not inspired as it did not meet the rule and measure of canonicity below.
Click to expand...
  • Apostolic origin, either the apostles or someone who accompanied the apostles
  • Nothing contrary to apostolic Tradition
  • Used universally in the liturgy
Click to expand...
That is the Catholic position. 😃
Click to expand...
The Prayer of Manasseh would fit in this since it is OT.

It’s interesting because my understanding is the CC has no problem with the Orthodox inclusion of additional books that the CC does not think fits the above outline. :hmmm:
Curious, ever listen to the Jesuit in my signature??
Click to expand...
No I haven’t. I will make it a point.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top