THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumspirospero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing that I really like are terms like The Passion of Christ. I never heard such profound statements in the prot circles, they dont have the depth or mindset. One thing that almost sent me to tears when I first returned to the true Church is the deep, deep care and respect for all parts of Christs life. I first remember this one a Holy Week a few years back. I couldnt imagine that Catholics go to Church on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Easter Sunday. Such devotion, care, humility, etc. Not even one prot church I went to had anything more than an Easter Sunday service. The Protestants miss the boat here more than any other time. ON Good Friday, I remember it was the closest thing I could imagine to actually being at the foot of the Cross, I was so sad at what I had missed all those years. Yet I was glad to be there. The day that defined Christianity and the Protestants didnt even flinch, watch TGIF sure, watch Wheel of Fortune sure, watch Jeopardy sure, take time to reflect on Good Friday nope. For the few Prots reading this even if you hate the CC if you only attend Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday,of Holy Week your view on Christianity will never be the same.

That is at the heart of why modern day Prots dont like crucifixes. They think because it is a sad time then it is not worth celebrating, also they dont like celebrating on any day except Sunday. I lived that life, I will not go back.
 
I have lived the opposing view.
What background are you coming from and how knowledgeable of traditional protestant doctrines are you? When I speak of protestants and their teachings I am speaking of the traditional ideas that came out of the reformation. How well do you understand these. From your first response I got the impression that don’t understand them very well. That’s okay because there are many protestant churches where the members are also ignorant of why exactly it is that they are referred to as protestants and have never really studied on their own or been taught about the reformers.
There are so many versions of what Prots teach they cant agree on anything.
That is an unfair characterization of protestants. I could say the same for Catholics since when I ask individual Catholics what it is they believe about things I receive varied answers. To judge all Catholics based on my encounters with individual Catholics would be wrong. In fact, to judge Catholics (the people) would be wrong. However, it is not incorrect to judge one anothers teaching. That is what I am interested in. You will notice while I am here I will not be attacking anyone personally. I will be attempting to discuss what the CC teaches and how those teaching compare with the scriptures.
Sorry if I come off strong, were so used to getting the same stuff thrown at us we are defensive sometimes.

No problem. Believe me, I know exactly how you feel. Protestants are in the same position. We hear the same stuff thrown at us all the time.

You call yourself Protestant, what are you Protesting?

I’d rather just call myself a Christian or for the purposes of this board a non-Catholic Christian. The term protestant in the context of this board is simply to designate the fact that I am a non-Catholic. As far as the historical meaning of protestantism, you can look it up in the dictionary or do a search and find a wealth of information. Basically, it just means someone who holds to the priciples of the reformation, especially sola scriptura (scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), and the universal priesthood of all believers. To pick up on your comment above about protestant teaching, these are three ideas that are common to all protestant teaching.
**It’s one thing to talk about how difficult it is to be a disciple of Christ and another to talk about salvation. They go hand in hand. **

My understanding is that Christians (that is, those who are saved) are called to be disciples of Christ. Of course, this is not an easy thing. We all have difficulty in following Christ and sometimes fall, but we keep looking to Him in faith for strength and guidance along the way. Ultimately, our trust is in Him alone for salvation and our salvation is not conditioned on our performance as disciples. If it were, then salvation is of works, and if someone could be saved by works (I say if because the scriptures preclude that as a possibility) they would have something to boast of.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
**Christians are saved by grace through faith for good works. I am betting this will boil down into the same faith alone thing. You are the first Prot I have seen use “for good works” at the end of your faith alone clause. **

You are right. I do hold to sola fida or faith alone. However, I think you might misunderstand exactly what this means. It is short for justification by faith alone. This is not some idea invented out of whole cloth. It comes from our understanding of the scriptures. Justification in this sense deals with our standing before God. If we have been justified before God, we are no longer under condemnation for sin, we are forgiven our unrighteousness, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed unto us. This kind of justification only comes by faith. There are several passages of scripture dealing with this, but I will just leave you with a couple of passages for example.
15We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Galatians 2:15-17

23Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification. Romans 4:23-25

Further, your mention about my adding of the clause “for good works.” That is not something I have made up, but once again comes from the scriptures.

8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10

**We are called to count the cost, take up our cross, to follow Christ. No one denies that, but no one will be justified by works. Theres two kinds of works. You are thinking that I am referring to going out with my calculator and looking up in the Bible how much I have to do to get to Heaven regardless of what Jesus said and do it and secure a place for myself.No. **
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. What are the two kinds of works? I wasn’t thinking about what you said and I am not sure why you say I was. Just listen to what I have to say and try not to put words in my mouth. If you are not sure of something I am saying, just ask. I will do the same for you. Okay?
God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
**Grace has to be backed up by worksor else its dead. **

Did you mean faith should be backed up by works? If so, I totally agree. Faith without works is dead. However, we are saved by grace. Grace and works do not mix. If it is of works, then it is not of grace. This is the teaching of scripture.

And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. Romans 11:6

**That is the teaching of scripture. There is more to salvation than faith, you seem to acknowledge that. So what do you mean by “for good works”? **
I mean that we have been saved for good works rather than as a result of them. We do good works as a result of being saved and not in order to be saved. As mentioned earlier, the scriptures (Eph 2:8-10) state that we are saved by grace though faith and we have been created in Christ Jesus for good works.

No real Christian teaches what you are arguing against. Thats what almost every Prot that comes in here says, but at the end of the day thats exactly what they believe.
Well I’m sorry if that’s been your experience with protestants in the past, but I think we both know that the scriptures teach that real faith has works. If it faith without works, then it is dead. I have seriously never met any individual protestant or heard of any protestant church teaching that once we are saved we can sit back, relax, and we are on our way to heaven. The book of James makes it clear, that a faith without works is a dead faith. In other words, it is not genuine faith. I think we can at least agree on that. The point where I think we disagree is whether or not those works contribute to our salvation. You seem to think that they do and I say that they don’t.

You are arguing against a straw man. Your right, the Protestant position is a strong as straw.
Well, why don’t we just put that to the test. Rather than arguing against what you believe to be protestant teaching, let’s take an honest look at what protestantism actually teaches (I’m referring to the traditional ideas of the reformation. Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, ect.).

**You make your little straw man up and then take joy in tearing him to pieces. At the end of the day its a text book ending, the same old formula is applied and the pain is cured. **
Well, let’s see. Where do you want to begin? Sola Fide? Sola Scriptura? Anything else is fine too…as long as we stick to the arguments rather than personally attacking one another.

**You should really try listening to what others have to say. In your case im all ears. **
Great then! I’m all ears for you as well. Maybe we can communicate without tearing each other down. I look forward to the conversations we may have.

God bless,
**Stingray 🙂 **
 
This debate pattern here of protestant verses Catholic and vise versa is never ending. If the truth is going to come out to all Protestants that Christ is in the Eucharist and that Eucharist is totally valid it’s going to take more than quoting scripture until we are blue in the face. I understand your position stingray I shared alot of your views for the better part of my life. I would say to all Protestants that instead of just following around in the assumption that Catholics are wrong go and investigate for yourself and see. You all have access to Christ through faith; it is not true when you assume that Catholics do not. It was never possible for me to find out the truth about the Eucharist by a Catholics words. It had to be shown to me by God. So go to the Eucharist as you are and ask God for the truth. We all share the same Holy Spirit yet are divided by teaching. Christ’s is present on both sides … of this I am sure. It’s not a matter of which side is right, it’s a matter of both sides are right and the Catholic Church has more to offer by a long shot. Is that a slap to all other Churches? Not at all but it is the truth and Christ is in the Eucharist. Given your teachings as Protestants nothing anyone can ever say will sway you. So go to God and ask him. Because guess what … believe it or not the Catholics are right.

-D
 
Ok Sting,

I guess I will start with sola-scriptura.
Im no scholar, and so I dont go stating what I not know what I am talking about here are some of my questions:

1)Who put the Bible into the single text it is today?
And who has the authority to make such a book as the Bible?
2)Who has the authority to put in chpter and verse numbering?
3)Who has the authority to interpret what a given passage says?
4)Why dont most prot Bibles have the so called “apocrypha” books if people like Luther wanted them in the appendix and not flushed like I see today?
5)Why are there so many competing versions of protestants if so many of them claim to accept the Bible only?
6)What is you take on the leadership roles that the Bible talks about and the authority of the Church in peoples lives?

Thats it for now, I cant think of anything else.
 
Who are you to say this? The people who preach these untruths think they are real christian.

Thinking one is Christian doesn’t make it so. I am not judging anyone individually as to whether or not they have been saved. I’m judging what it is the Catholic Dude says they are preaching, which by the way I have yet to see any examples of. I don’t know of anyone individually or a protestant church as whole that teaches Christians are saved to sit around. Until some evidence is provided to the contrary, I would say that is simply a mischaracterization of protestants.

What authority are you to say they are not real christians. Not much by your own bliefs, right?

In context we were discussing teachings. I was not attempting to judge who is and is not saved, but simply saying real Christianity doesn’t teach one is saved to sit around. If you find someone who claims to be a Christian teaching that, wouldn’t you be concerned that they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. Christ told us to beware of false teachers. Don’t you agree that we should?

For all your fancy little “tricks” you think you know, which I hope one day you can allow yourself to see the Truth.

I don’t enjoy being personally attacked (your fancy little tricks, you think you know) do you? Let’s make a deal. I will stick to evaluating your arguments rather than your person. Will you agree to do the same?
  1. You can’t expain the first 1500 years of Chistianity, where there were no Potestants.
Protestants are Christians. It’s that simple. Do you disagree?
  1. You can’t explain away the fact the the Catholic Church organized and produced the Bible, like mentioned previously around 390A.D.
I’m fairly sure we have different understandings concerning how we arrived at a knowledge of the canon of scripture, but I have no problem acknowledging that the church used by God played a role in it.
  1. You can’t explain away the fact that your beliefs are based on “documents”[sola scriptura, sola fida], not any form of scripture,
Actually, that is incorrect. Both beliefs are derived from scripture. If you doubt, let’s discuss. Where do you want to start?

written by Martin Luther, who was not inspired by the Holy Spirit,
might add, since Luther’s documents were meant to take away the authority given to Christ’s Church, by Christ Himself I might add…

Well…To my knowledge no one has ever said Martin Luther’s works are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Actually, Luther wanted to reform the church, but that’s another subject.
  1. Your church, or “organization”, was not started by Christ.
Those who are saved are the body of Christ, the church. It is not their denominational affiliation that places them in Christ.

God bless,
Stingray:)
 
Here’s a good Sola Scriptura question:

How do you know the books in the Bible are the inspired word of God?
 
The words of the “sinner’s prayer” do not matter and those who use the no Scripture basis are being pedantic. The words of many Catholic prayers have little Scriptural basis but the sinners prayer has much.

I fail to see how anyone can believe you get to say some words and “be” saved. I know people from every spectrum of Christianity and there are perhaps half a dozen at most who think that. It is truly repenting of your sins and commiting from this moment forward to Christ. You are then infused by God’s Grace with the Holy Spirit who indwells in you to help you maintain the lifelong commitment to Christ.

This is being “born-again” - you become a new creature in Christ, leaving your old sinless ways behind. Will you sin again - almost definitely. But will you be truly sorry and endeavour not to - again almost certainly. For when anyone is touched by God’s Grace they understand how truly hateful sin is, how displeasing to God it is. They are ashamed that they could offend Him who sent His Son to die for our sins and they repent to rebuild that bridge.

People who pray the sinners prayer and mean it build a lifelong relationship with the Lord thereafter. Any who brag of being saved really mean they have accepted the Lord’s gift of salvation and He now rules their life. But not one of us truly knows if we are saved as it is for God to judge…
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:13)
Click to expand...
The problem with proof-texting is that it often denies the meaning of the verse. This section of Romans had less to do with the “how” of salvation (notice it doesn’t mention repent and call on the name of the Lord) as it does the “who” of salvation. Paul was convincing Jews of that salvation is for the Jews and Gentiles alike. Read Romans and count the number of times the two groups are mentioned.

Never take a single verse at a time from the Bible. “Repent and be baptized” (shouldn’t you have faith?) “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (what about repentance and baptism?) Jesus gave another view of salvation. " I was hungry and you fed me, maked and you clothed me."

Silver bullets are usually blanks.
 
40.png
HilaryJ:
Just for my info why do catholics use a crucifix?
Click to expand...
Paul was resolved to preach nothing except Jesus and him crucified. Why should we be different. Besides it is a dichotomy which can’t be separated. Without death, there could be no resurrection. Without the resurrection, no power over death.

From a practical point, Jesus was not raised off the cross. It was taken down and the body removed. A better symbol of the resurrection is the empty tomb. That is where Jesus was raised.
 
40.png
Stingray:
Who are you to say this? The people who preach these untruths think they are real christian.

Thinking one is Christian doesn’t make it so. I am not judging anyone individually as to whether or not they have been saved. I’m judging what it is the Catholic Dude says they are preaching, which by the way I have yet to see any examples of. I don’t know of anyone individually or a protestant church as whole that teaches Christians are saved to sit around. Until some evidence is provided to the contrary, I would say that is simply a mischaracterization of protestants.

What authority are you to say they are not real christians. Not much by your own bliefs, right?

In context we were discussing teachings. I was not attempting to judge who is and is not saved, but simply saying real Christianity doesn’t teach one is saved to sit around. If you find someone who claims to be a Christian teaching that, wouldn’t you be concerned that they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. Christ told us to beware of false teachers. Don’t you agree that we should?

For all your fancy little “tricks” you think you know, which I hope one day you can allow yourself to see the Truth.

I don’t enjoy being personally attacked (your fancy little tricks, you think you know) do you? Let’s make a deal. I will stick to evaluating your arguments rather than your person. Will you agree to do the same?
  1. You can’t expain the first 1500 years of Chistianity, where there were no Potestants.
Protestants are Christians. It’s that simple. Do you disagree?
  1. You can’t explain away the fact the the Catholic Church organized and produced the Bible, like mentioned previously around 390A.D.
I’m fairly sure we have different understandings concerning how we arrived at a knowledge of the canon of scripture, but I have no problem acknowledging that the church used by God played a role in it.
  1. You can’t explain away the fact that your beliefs are based on “documents”[sola scriptura, sola fida], not any form of scripture,
Actually, that is incorrect. Both beliefs are derived from scripture. If you doubt, let’s discuss. Where do you want to start?

written by Martin Luther, who was not inspired by the Holy Spirit,
might add, since Luther’s documents were meant to take away the authority given to Christ’s Church, by Christ Himself I might add…

Well…To my knowledge no one has ever said Martin Luther’s works are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Actually, Luther wanted to reform the church, but that’s another subject.
  1. Your church, or “organization”, was not started by Christ.
Those who are saved are the body of Christ, the church. It is not their denominational affiliation that places them in Christ.

God bless,
Stingray:)
Click to expand...
I never said this stuff?
 
Catholic Dude:
Ok Sting,

I guess I will start with sola-scriptura.
Im no scholar, and so I dont go stating what I not know what I am talking about here are some of my questions:

1)Who put the Bible into the single text it is today?

God working through His church.

And who has the authority to make such a book as the Bible?

Same answer.

2)Who has the authority to put in chpter and verse numbering?

I would say again, same answer. However, I see this as a non-issue.

3)Who has the authority to interpret what a given passage says?

The people of God, the church.

4)Why dont most prot Bibles have the so called “apocrypha” books if people like Luther wanted them in the appendix and not flushed like I see today?

Because they were never viewed by the church as inspired or canonical.

5)Why are there so many competing versions of protestants if so many of them claim to accept the Bible only?

I don’t see Christians as being in competition with one another. Sure we have minor differences that can be debated in a proper manner, but isn’t it common for brothers and sisters to have some differences. We are all part of the body and each part may serve a different function. This does not mean we are in competition with one another or separated by our differences. There is room for differing opinions within the body. In fact, such differences can be seen throughout the history of the church. There has never been lockstep conformity on every point.

6)What is you take on the leadership roles that the Bible talks about and the authority of the Church in peoples lives?

God has made a role for leaders in the church. These people are tasked with the responsibility of teaching and preaching the word of God. We are to obey and submit to their authority. Yet, that authority is tied to responsibiltiy. If they fail in their responsibility to teach and preach the word of God, Christians are not bound to submit to or obey false teachings or false teachers.

Thats it for now, I cant think of anything else.
Click to expand...
If you think of anything else or need clarification, l’d be more than happy to help you out.

God bless,
Stingray:)
 
but isn’t it common for brothers and sisters to have some differences
Click to expand...
Not when it comes to God’s one Truth. There aren’t multiple interpretations of Scripture that are true. If there were, God would not be perfect. His Truth cannot be two differnet things at once.

Answer my question, how do you know what books belong in the Bible?
 
Here’s the answer. your family or preacher gave you a Bible and told you that it contained the inspired word of God. That is Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does it say which books are part of the canon of inspired scripture. You have to look to Tradition for this.
 
Originally Posted by Catholic Dude
*Ok Sting,
Click to expand...
I guess I will start with sola-scriptura.
Im no scholar, and so I dont go stating what I not know what I am talking about here are some of my questions:
Click to expand...
1)Who put the Bible into the single text it is today?
Click to expand...
God working through His church.*
Could you be more specific on what you mean by “His Church” If you are talking about the Catholic Church I agree with you. If not could you answer these:
1)Who was in charge?
2)Does this level of leadership exist today?
*3)*How do you define Church?
*
3)Who has the authority to interpret what a given passage says?
Click to expand...
The people of God, the church.*
1)see the above questions.
Click to expand...
4)Why dont most prot Bibles have the so called “apocrypha” books if people like Luther wanted them in the appendix and not flushed like I see today?
Click to expand...
Because they were never viewed by the church as inspired or canonical.
Why do you say that? The Catholic Church claims they are right now and forever.
Click to expand...
5)Why are there so many competing versions of protestants if so many of them claim to accept the Bible only?
Click to expand...
I don’t see Christians as being in competition with one another. Sure we have minor differences that can be debated in a proper manner, but isn’t it common for brothers and sisters to have some differences. We are all part of the body and each part may serve a different function. This does not mean we are in competition with one another or separated by our differences. There is room for differing opinions within the body. In fact, such differences can be seen throughout the history of the church. There has never been lockstep conformity on every point.
Minor Differences? The reason why so many different churches are opening is because somone didnt like what their pastor said. So are the methodist in a minor difference when they were going for gay weddings? What about divorce. The undesputable reason why America is in shambles today is because of the Protestants, especially on the issue of divorce, if one pastor refused they would shop around, how many pastors refused to remarry someone 2,3,4 times? These guys are divided like no other. Im not saying that all pastors do this, there are hard line conservative clean respectable men who are pastors, but this is out of their control. When a group does something 180 degrees out of line with what the Bible clearly states then thats not “minor”
Click to expand...
6)What is you take on the leadership roles that the Bible talks about and the authority of the Church in peoples lives?
Click to expand...
God has made a role for leaders in the church. These people are tasked with the responsibility of teaching and preaching the word of God. We are to obey and submit to their authority. Yet, that authority is tied to responsibiltiy. If they fail in their responsibility to teach and preach the word of God, Christians are not bound to submit to or obey false teachings or false teachers.
So where and who are these people? If you are talking about the Catholic Church I agree with you. I see the leaders all the time. Do you ever listen to EWTN? What do you think about it?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
pnewton:
The problem with proof-texting is that it often denies the meaning of the verse. This section of Romans had less to do with the “how” of salvation (notice it doesn’t mention repent and call on the name of the Lord) as it does the “who” of salvation. Paul was convincing Jews of that salvation is for the Jews and Gentiles alike. Read Romans and count the number of times the two groups are mentioned.

Never take a single verse at a time from the Bible. “Repent and be baptized” (shouldn’t you have faith?) “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved” (what about repentance and baptism?) Jesus gave another view of salvation. " I was hungry and you fed me, maked and you clothed me."

Silver bullets are usually blanks.
Click to expand...
I agree with your assessment of proof-texting as a practice. However, I’m not sure as to the section in Romans you are referring. I’m pretty sure the verse I was discussing, and you can correct me on this if I’m wrong on this, is from the book of Acts, which reads as a narrative of events rather than an exposition on salvation and who it concerns as you mentioned in Romans, which by the way I don’t think in anyway diminishes the implications of such teaching. Furthermore, it’s a fairly simple narrative. The Phillipian jailor observes the faith of Paul and Silas under imprisonment. An earthquake occurs and the prisoners are set free. In fear of the penalty for allowing such to occur, the jailor begins to kill himself. Paul in further demonstrating his faith calls to him and informs him all the prisoners are still there and have not tried to escape. Overwhelmed by such an amazing demonstration of faith, the jailor cries out, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? The response, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Very simple and to the point. Now, I ask you, are you offended by the simplicity of the answer given by the apostle Paul? If someone asked you what they must do to be saved, why would it be wrong for you to give the same answer? Certainly, the apostle knew how one is saved. And yet, some seem to have a problem with this. Why do you think that is?

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
Catholic Dude:
I never said this stuff?
Click to expand...
Yes, bear with me. I’m still trying to figure this system out. I must have hit reply to the wrong post. These answers are actually for The GARG. Forgive me for any undue trauma such a mistake may have incurred. :o Just kidding, please be patient with me.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
Catholic Dude:
I never said this stuff?
Click to expand...
Yes, bear with me. I’m still trying to figure this system out. I must have hit reply to the wrong post. These answers are actually for The GARG. Forgive me for any undue trauma such a mistake may have incurred. :o Just kidding, please be patient with me.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
Genesis315:
Not when it comes to God’s one Truth. There aren’t multiple interpretations of Scripture that are true. If there were, God would not be perfect. His Truth cannot be two differnet things at once.

Answer my question, how do you know what books belong in the Bible?
Click to expand...
And what is God’s one Truth? I agree, only one possible true interpretation for each passage of scripture. However, if the creature has the wrong interpretation this in no way impugns the perfection of God. I agree truth cannot be contradictory or it is not truth.

I know what books belong in the bible because God working through His church saw fit to make known His canon of scripture. Do you want to go into the criteria the church used for determining whether or not a book is inspired scripture? Is my answer insufficient? I don’t know what else you are looking for.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top