S
SyCarl
Guest
Protestants do look at the Church Fathers. However we view them as what they are, informative but fallible writings. Or should we accept Irenaeus when he seems to say that Jesus lived to be over 50?
- Status
S
SyCarl
Guest
I am a Presbyterian. You apparently do not have a very wide knowledge of Protestantism. Most of the services I have attended include a Prayer of Confession and an Assurance of Pardon. This consists of a general prayer followed by a silent individual prayer, after which the minister gives an assurance that if we confess our sins God is good and faithful to forgive us our sins. This seems to be more in line with the Diadche than private confession to a priest.
As for faith, I am quite confident in my faith, confident enough that I do not have to insult others to justify myself.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Well, they were good enough to contribute to the creation of The Bible huh?
You accept that much from them, yet halt to a stop with screaching tires at their rather “Catholic” teachings, right?
Cafeteria Christianity.
As for Irenaeus being off by about 17 years in Jesus’ age, did he teach that as “doctrine”? Or was that his personal belief?
See that? You could separate Martin Luther from his Marian beliefs and accept his teachings (he believed in her perpetual virginity, in her title as Mother of God, in venerating her, etc…).
But when it comes to a “Catholic” Church leader, forum forbid that you should choose to ignore something about him that you disagree with.
Leave that splinter in my eye please…you’ve got bigger problems.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Ahhh! A “Calvinist!”
The Cafeteria Test:
So, do you believe in what Calvin believed or do you “ignore” that part of his teachings?
John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”."Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."8 Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."9
"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."10
mariology.com/sections/reformers.html
==========================================
Confessions to a Priest:
Matt 8:
2And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, “as the Father sent me, so I send you.” As Christ was sent by the Father to forgive sins, so Christ sends the apostles and their successors forgive sins.
John 20:22 - the Lord “breathes” on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord “breathes” divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place.
John 20:23 - Jesus says, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
Matt. 9:8 - this verse shows that God has given the authority to forgive sins to “men.” Hence, those Protestants who acknowledge that the apostles had the authority to forgive sins (which this verse demonstrates) must prove that this gift ended with the apostles. Otherwise, the apostles’ successors still possess this gift. Where in Scripture is the gift of authority to forgive sins taken away from the apostles or their successors?
Matt. 18:18 - the apostles are given authority to bind and loose. The authority to bind and loose includes administering and removing the temporal penalties due to sin. The Jews understood this since the birth of the Church.
=======================================
S
SyCarl
Guest
You just don’t seem to understand that Protestants do not have to accept past leaders or theologians as infallible so I don’t have to agree with all of Calvin’s views. In fact to be a member of the Presbyterian Church in Canada all you have to do is affirm the Apostle’s Creed. Calvin himself did not stress double predestination. That mainly came later at the Council of Dordt in response to Arminius. It is interesting though that Augustine did use language akin to double predestination in some of his writings. I really don’t feel it is necessary to know why we believe. The important thing is that we do believe for whatever reason or means. There are Scripture that suggest absolute predestination and others that support freewill. I think that both can be true although we may not know how. But then we are not God whose ways and thought are beyond ours and with whom nothing is impossible.
As for confession, can you show me one place where either Jesus or the Apostles asked anyone what sins they had committted?
As for confession, can you show me one place where either Jesus or the Apostles asked anyone what sins they had committted?
2
2ndGen
Guest
- No, we don’t accept that men who contradict themselves and Scripture have any authority to teach.
- The Apostles Creed? Do you “Cafeterially” choose to believe in The Church being one, holy, catholic and apostolic?
- Slow down there cowboy! LOL! Before we even go off into that wild blue yonder, what do you think that Jesus meant when He gave the authority to The Apostles to forgive men’s sins?
Now, “oral confession” can be found throughout the Bible:
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
Acts 19:18 - many came to orally confess sins and divulge their sinful practices. Oral confession was the practice of the early Church just as it is today.
Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5 - again, this shows people confessing their sins before others as an historical practice (here to John the Baptist).
1 Tim. 6:12 - this verse also refers to the historical practice of confessing both faith and sins in the presence of many witnesses.
1 John 1:9 - if we confess are sins, God is faithful to us and forgives us and cleanse us. But we must confess our sins to one another.
Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.
2 Sam. 12:14 - even though the sin is forgiven, there is punishment due for the forgiven sin. David is forgiven but his child was still taken (the consequence of his sin).
Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.
scripturecatholic.com/confession.html#confession-II
And Jesus only gave the authority to His Apostles to “forgive & remit”…they would go on to pass this authority through Apostolic Succession so that how Jesus The High Priest multiplied Himself through His Priests (The Apostles), they would go on to multiply themselves going on to create the world’s largest Church.
Amen.
W
Whathell
Guest
You said:
[non-universal Christians that belong to sects of Christianity invented by men]
Did not men invent Catholicism since its doctrines are NOT in the Bible?
(((Sitting with Bible open ready to check answer for other question)))
You said:
[The definition of a Christian?
Chris•tian
–adjective
- of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
- of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
- of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
- exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
- decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
- human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn’t Christian.
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of]
(((Puts Bible down and picks-up non-spiritual secular dictionary)))
Gee, why didn’t I think of that… thanks a lot!
(((Shakes head)))
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
No.
So, the Protestant reformers would not have had access to it.
But to answer some assertions.
The Didache says the baptism must be immersion unless running water is not available.
It says that churches are to pick their own leaders.
The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a section of this very Protestant book!
.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Wow…all of that and you STILL failed to produce a definition yourself!
LOL!
What’s “your” biblical definition?
Mine (and next time specify like I just did which definition you want! LOL!) is Jesus’ definition…a person must be baptized in the name of The Father and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit. They must believe that Jesus is The Son of God and that He is The Messiah.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Ah, Nope. No christian documents, new testament, church fathers or whatever are in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In fact, the current edition of the Didache that we have ( the 1056 AD manuscript ) is a composite document, that is a complilation of other documents. We know this from studying the grammar. Bart Ehrman in his letchure series called “After the new testament” identifies at least four documenta that make up our current didache manuscript 1056 AD. From what I am seeing in research, the textual intergerity of the church fathers is a mixed bag. For example, there is no doubt about the intergerity for the Shepard of Hermas.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
I have a copy of that book, you are simply misreading your above quote to mean what it does not mean.
Your quotes is simply saying that the Community rule documents are rare in judaism of that day.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
What you have today is simply not the didache of 90-110 AD. What you have today is a composite document compiled from other documents that dates in manuscript form to 1056 AD about a thousand years after the original document.
Like I said before, don’t worry your pretty head about it, I am researching the textual criticism of the church fathers, along with many textual scholars, including some of the 800 pound gorillas in textual criticism types.
Basically, take the church fathers within the context of the church in general.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
Your whole argument above is known as begging the question.
Wait for the textual critics to do our work. It is going to take at least a year.
D
Daniel_Marsh
Guest
In Acts 1, they were acting in the flesh. Jesus commanded them to wait for the filling of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. Peter ripped two texts completely out of context from Psalms – in fact those psalms contradict Peter’s purpose. God choose Paul directly in person. It is Jesus who chooses the twelve, not Peter. In fact, look up Mattias in the Catholic encylopedia, tradition is contradictory concerning his life and death. I have covered this argument elsewhere, simply do a search for it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=203430
p067.ezboard.com/fthetruth11187frm2.showMessage?topicID=1562.topic
2
2ndGen
Guest
Ohhhhhhhh!
Now I get it…(the good ole’ stand-by)…it’s tainted.
It was changed. Words were added and/or deleted.
Yeah, I’ve heard that exact same reasoning for The Holy Bible not being accepted by non-Catholic Christians as well.
There’s a book you might love…it’s called “The DaVinci Code”.
2
2ndGen
Guest
That happened once…it spawned 34,000+ new Christian denominations!Your whole argument above is known as begging the question.
Wait for the textual critics to do our work. It is going to take at least a year.
Nah thanks…I’ll stick with someone who’s been around for a couple thousand years than someone who was born after the 1900’s.
Y
YADA
Guest
But in essence the clergy are appointed by the people … If I can explain it in terms that make sense …
Christians are called by God and recognizd by the Church [the people of God] and are baptized [initiated into the Church] … no one beomes a 'Christian" in a vacuum … People who desire to become Christian are catechized and scrutinized and recommended by other christians to the community of chirstians they are joining … this is universal [with variances based upon faith traditions - Lutherans may do it different than evangelicals and catholics]… I would guess that you do not recommend a professed Satanist for membership … you recommend a person who has attended church, read the scriptures, heard God’s call, makes the request [or if an infant, whose parents make the request on their behalf] and professes belief in Jesus … in other words they exhibit the Christian life in some way …
After one becomes a Christian they receive their Christian vocation [one potential is the priestly vocation] … This person again is called forth from the community and is examined, trained and then recommended by the community for ordination by a bishop. Once a priest, this person can again be called for from the community and if found acceptable is then made a bishop [from the community of priests] … you get the drift … part of the process is the assent oof a community …
All priests and bishops are called forth from the community and affirmed by the community … past, present and future …
There has always been a laying on of hands and an apostolic type succession … similar to our jewish brethren and in harmony with our jewish roots and early christianity…
Today we require advnced degrees in theology [as manyy of our protestant chruches do] tht was not a part of the process in the earliest church … no one suggests that all criteria and requirements be exactly as the first century … they too had a teaching method/proccess for clergy …
2
2ndGen
Guest
- Status