The key to showing the error of Protestantism

[inocente]

So this is another issue that ties in to which books are in the bible and sola scriptura. That is Did Christ build a church (agaisnt which the Gates of Hell will not prevail) and if he did don’t we want to be in that Church?

But one thing we seem to know about that Church is that it could not have been sola scriptura. This is because we know Paul refers to the church already existing before the new testament was even written - let alone established as canon. And the Church had some authority.

So if you accept the above and find yourself in a sola scriptura church then you should believe one of 2 things:

1. I am not in the church Christ built
   or
2. The Church Christ started changed from being not a sola scriptura church into being one.

If the second is your view then I think a good question to ask is when and why did this extra biblical authority go away? I think trying to find satisfactory answers to these questions here may trigger some re-evaluation.

Again this only applies to sola scriptura protestants.

You capitalize the word, but all English bible references are to ‘church’ and all Spanish to ‘iglesia’, never with a capital letter.

The original Greek, ἐκκλησία, means assembly or congregation. A second meaning is the whole body of Christian believers (Strong’s Concordance), or Christian community (DGE).

So no, the NT writers didn’t mean the Greek Orthodox Church , they meant all those who Christ calls. Christ is the shepherd, and he decides who is in his flock. You might reread Romans 14, it may in your words “trigger some re-evaluation” .

 

[Markie_Boy]

As someone struggling between Protestantism and Catholicism I can say you’ll probably reach zero, nobody, zip - with factual arguments.

If you really want to help someone, know the basics of Christianity very well, treat people kindly, and listen to them as much or more than you talk to them. These elements were hugely missing at my parish, and still are. I think because of it they are not even doing a good job keeping the people there that are already there - much less convert anyone.

I am sitting in on RCIA (for about the third time - I am confirmed), and the teacher talks so much it’s hard for the students to share where they are or what they think. I feel bad for them - as I don’t think they are being served as they should.

Spend more time listening, and don’t expect people to change on the spot. This is faith, not math.

 

[PRmerger]

As someone struggling between Protestantism and Catholicism I can say you’ll probably reach zero, nobody, zip - with factual arguments.

Not true.

Tim Staples says he studied his way into the Catholic faith.

No need to create an either/or when a both/and will do.

That’s the essence of almost all heresies: creating an ONLY/ALONE when none is required.

Faith ALONE
Jesus is man ONLY
The Bible ALONE
Science ALONE
The writings of St. Paul ONLY

etc etc etc

 

[AmbroseSJ]

inocente:

Christ is the shepherd, and he decides who is in his flock. You might reread Romans 14, it may in your words “trigger some re-evaluation” .

You may want to reread Matthew 16:18-19

Jesus DID leave an authority here on earth which DECIDES who is in his flock.

BTW, Romans 14 is about trivial matters not Church doctrines.

 

[PRmerger]

You may want to reread Matthew 16:18-19

Jesus DID leave an authority here on earth which DECIDES who is in his flock.

Not to mention, it decides which books belong in the Bible.

No one knows if Romans is theopneustos except through his deference to the authority of the CC.

 

[Markie_Boy]

Not true.

Tim Staples says he studied his way into the Catholic faith.

No need to create an either/or when a both/and will do.

That’s the essence of almost all heresies: creating an ONLY/ALONE when none is required.

Faith ALONE
Jesus is man ONLY
The Bible ALONE
Science ALONE
The writings of St. Paul ONLY

etc etc etc

A very good point. Remembering the and/both aspect is important. I guess I was and still am so lacking someone locally that reaches out, that it connects with my heart.

Thank you for the and/both reminder. My posts keep showing my frustration with where we are located. Starting to attend new parish after my wife’s obligations are filled here in the next few weeks.

From someone really working on things to everyone reading - if you reach out to someone and listen to them, it may not seem that big of a deal to you, but it may be a huge deal to them.

 

[JimmyDFG]

So no, the NT writers didn’t mean the Greek Orthodox Church , they meant all those who Christ calls. Christ is the shepherd, and he decides who is in his flock. You might reread Romans 14, it may in your words “trigger some re-evaluation” .

So in Acts 15:4 it should read…
“When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the “all those who Christ calls”/church, as well as by the apostles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them.”?

 

[JimmyDFG]

So no, the NT writers didn’t mean the Greek Orthodox Church , they meant all those who Christ calls. Christ is the shepherd, and he decides who is in his flock. You might reread Romans 14, it may in your words “trigger some re-evaluation” .

So Galatians 1:2 should of read…
and all the brothers who are with me, to the “all those who Christ calls.”/churches of Galatia:"?

Acts 18:22 “Upon landing at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the “all those who Christ calls”/church and then went down to Antioch.”

 

[Porknpie]

Spend more time listening, and don’t expect people to change on the spot. This is faith, not math.

My spouse went through RCIA twice. Conversion involves a journey. For some this journey is relatively short, for others, it’s longer.

And she would add, Catholicism only built upon and enriched her previous faith tradition. It was less that she “left” and more that she gained a fullness of truth that she did not have before. And it’s easier to see this in hindsight, than even during or through the conversion process itself.

 

[inocente]

You may want to reread Matthew 16:18-19

Jesus DID leave an authority here on earth which DECIDES who is in his flock.

BTW, Romans 14 is about trivial matters not Church doctrines.

In Romans 14, Paul doesn’t say it’s trivial to those who are scrupulous. To them it’s important, whatever others may think. So Paul says follow your conscience, but don’t try to impose your rules on others, for “whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord”. And that’s why I suggested reading the chapter rather than stopping at the first sentence.

Paul also speaks of authority at the Council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. It is being debated whether Gentiles should be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses. Paul answers: “God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

God decides who is in his kingdom. He knows the heart. Romans 14 ends with a deep thought: “everything that does not come from faith is sin”. The strong in faith are guided by the Spirit not by rules, and faith is measured in trust. We can do what we think is right trusting in God’s grace, or we can can follow rules. But we can’t do both.

 

[inocente]

So Galatians 1:2 should of read…
and all the brothers who are with me, to the “all those who Christ calls.”/churches of Galatia:"?

Acts 18:22 “Upon landing at Caesarea, he went up and greeted the “all those who Christ calls”/church and then went down to Antioch.”

Yes. Not sure of your point. You only quoted my last sentence so perhaps you didn’t notice I also said “The original Greek, ἐκκλησία, means assembly or congregation. A second meaning is the whole body of Christian believers (Strong’s Concordance), or Christian community (DGE)”.

Then just as now ἐκκλησία means an assembly or congregation. Of all those who Christ calls.

 

[PRmerger]

Not true.

Tim Staples says he studied his way into the Catholic faith.

No need to create an either/or when a both/and will do.

That’s the essence of almost all heresies: creating an ONLY/ALONE when none is required.

Faith ALONE
Jesus is man ONLY
The Bible ALONE
Science ALONE
The writings of St. Paul ONLY

etc etc etc

Interestingly, I just heard on Catholic Answers Live another peculiar heretical ONLY: God is spirit ONLY.

Why, oh why, do people feel the need to insert ONLYs where none are required?

God* is* spirit…yes. But there is no need to demand that God be spirit ONLY.

 

[Peter_J]

So no, the NT writers didn’t mean the Greek Orthodox Church .

 

[SyroMalankara]

You capitalize the word, but all English bible references are to ‘church’ and all Spanish to ‘iglesia’, never with a capital letter.

The original Greek, ἐκκλησία, means assembly or congregation. A second meaning is the whole body of Christian believers (Strong’s Concordance), or Christian community (DGE).

So no, the NT writers didn’t mean the Greek Orthodox Church , they meant all those who Christ calls. Christ is the shepherd, and he decides who is in his flock. You might reread Romans 14, it may in your words “trigger some re-evaluation” .

So did Christ call competing, splintering, disagreeing “assemblies”/“congregations”? If not, it doesn’t change anything to call it assembly, gathering, church, synagogue, temple, body, group, congregation or anything else.

 

[JimmyDFG]

Yes. Not sure of your point. You only quoted my last sentence so perhaps you didn’t notice I also said “The original Greek, ἐκκλησία, means assembly or congregation. A second meaning is the whole body of Christian believers (Strong’s Concordance), or Christian community (DGE)”.

Then just as now ἐκκλησία means an assembly or congregation. Of all those who Christ calls.

I wasn’t a 100% sure what you meant by “church”. A church as in a building…or a church being a person who belongs to Christ

 

[Porknpie]

Not true.

Tim Staples says he studied his way into the Catholic faith.

I would add Dr David Anders too. He tried proving Catholicism was wrong.

He has a good article that explains it all here.

 

[PRmerger]

I would add Dr David Anders too. He tried proving Catholicism was wrong.

He has a good article that explains it all here.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yes. Not sure of your point. You only quoted my last sentence so perhaps you didn’t notice I also said “The original Greek, ἐκκλησία, means assembly or congregation. A second meaning is the whole body of Christian believers (Strong’s Concordance), or Christian community (DGE)”.

Then just as now ἐκκλησία means an assembly or congregation. Of all those who Christ calls.

The Church AS DEFINED in the Sacred Scripture (NT) is the Visible Apostolic Church of Baptized Christians. There is no vague, amorphous “body of Christian believers”, in Sacred Scripture. If there were, St. Paul would hardly have ever needed to write a letter! It was in order to shut down those “Christian believers” who argued against HIS doctrine, that he preached to the Churches which he established and oversaw, through the Bishops he appointed.

 

[Porknpie]

The Church AS DEFINED in the Sacred Scripture (NT) is the Visible Apostolic Church of Baptized Christians. There is no vague, amorphous “body of Christian believers”, in Sacred Scripture. If there were, St. Paul would hardly have ever needed to write a letter! It was in order to shut down those “Christian believers” who argued against HIS doctrine, that he preached to the Churches which he established and oversaw, through the Bishops he appointed.

And… all those Bishops were Priests who on Sunday, celebrated Mass with those baptized Christians.

And when infants were born, they too were baptized.

Justin Martyr below:

For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow…And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).

**“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. **For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sins, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” Origen, Commentary on Romans, 5:9 (A.D. 244).

Christ taught the apostles and the apostles taught their descendants that baptism was salvific and sanctifying, which is why infants were baptized.

 

[bettyg51]

For me, the clincher issue is that the canon of Scripture was decided by councils of Catholic bishops. Protestants are depending on the decision at the third council of Carthage in 397 AD and one in Hippo in 393. All the deutero-canonical books were included.
Why would our separated brethren revert to one sect of Judaism’s canon while ignoring the canons of other sects that include them, as in the Ethiopian canon? As the tract on the Old Testament at catholic.com says, the 7 books were removed for doctrinal reasons. That is, these books refuted Luther’s doctrinal innovations.
Why would they trust a Jewish sect that rejected Jesus?