THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

[Tim_Hayes]

Stingray, please assess the whole situation without the use of scripture,or tradition or anything and apply common sense.

Christ came to save us, the next time he comes it will be to judge us, in other words God has to ensure that someone or an organisation is 100% right in their teaching of christianity. God has to ensure that someone is 100% right in teaching otherwise how can we be judged fairly if God did not see fit to help us. , Anything less than 100% must essentailly mean salvation for all, non christian, pagan etc.

If someone is not 100% right then it is impossible to know whether they are 1% or 50% right.

There is so much difference in teaching accross all groups who call themselves Christian that unless we allow all to be saved, it would actaully be impossible for us to know who is right, unlesssssssssss God ensures that someone or some organisation has it 100% right and has always had it 100% right.

Why must it always have been 100% right, reason is that anything less than 100% right and we would not know when they went wrong, becasue we are no longer able to tell when they went wrong it becomes an impossibility to once again know the truth.

Your choice as to who you place that 100% certainty on to, but be assured , being 100% right in teaching guaranteed by Christ, is the only posibility.

Any other choice is a choice of our pride, not the truth.

In Christ

Tim

 

[Ozzie]

Church Militant:

A touching testimony…here’s mine:

My intention was not to present a “touching” testimony. And my “testimony” was about Christ and the effect personal faith in HIM has had on my life. Yours is an interesting story but not so uncommon. People often go full circle when they leave their religious roots. Sort of like returning to your hometown after having moved away for many years. I, personally, was raised Lutheran. I was baptized, *chatechized *and communion’ized. I believed in the Trinity, that the Son became a Man through means of the virgin birth, and that He was crucified for the sins of the world. But no one ever shared the truth (the Gospel) about Christ with me personally. Never required of me to, by faith, personally trust in the work Christ accomplished for me on the cross. But when I did, I knew it had nothing to do with being a Lutheran, that it had absolutely nothing to do with being Protestant or Catholic, but all to do with the Person of Jesus Christ and the salvation I just received through faith in Him alone (His finished work on the cross on my behalf).

I appreaciate your full-circle journey back to your religious roots, but what lacks in your testimony is a personal trust in the only One who has the power to save you. Sounds like you’ve tried everything (with great frustration) but Christ Himself. Jesus said, *“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” *(Jn. 14:6). He points to Himself and no one else or nothing else. No church can save you. No man, other than the “Son of Man” can save you, and you certainly can’t save yourself; no matter how many good works you manage to accomplish in your lifetime. Based on your testimony, you have “come home” to your beloved church, but you have yet to personally come to the Father through Christ alone. This can be done only by the exercise of personal faith in Him.

 

[Ozzie]

Tim Hayes:

Stingray, please assess the whole situation without the use of scripture,or tradition or anything and apply common sense.

Christ came to save us, the next time he comes it will be to judge us

Christ is coming back, but not to judge those who are His, i.e., His true Church.

JOH 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

You say Christ came to save us but you, through the teachings of your church, have no idea of what salvation is.

ROM 8:1 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

Tim, do you know what it means to be “in Christ Jesus?”

 

[Ozzie]

Stingray:

Sola Scriptura does not deny that God works through His church. Once God worked through His people to provide the His word, that word then becomes the sole infallible rule of faith.

God bless,
Stingray

Absolutely! And the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” must be tested by this “sole, infallible rule of faith,” as well. Catholics seem to elevate the writings of these fallible men to the position of divinely inspired Scripture. I know they would deny it, but in practice they actually do.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ozzie:

You say Christ came to save us but you, through the teachings of your church, have no idea of what salvation is.

The wording of this assertion, in my opinion, lacks etiquette and does not promote discussion which is what we are here to foster.

’you…have no idea of what salvation is’ is an attribution made against the person.

’your post, in my opinion, demonstrates an (inaccurate, incomplete, whatever) understanding of salvation’ is an attribution made against what the person is saying. It is what the person is saying that we are discussing, not the person himself. Leave the person to God.

Moreover, it is best for discussion to support your assertions with argumentation or reference or both.

Oh, and don’t think I didn’t notice your attempt to appropriate our methodology concerning a personal and transformative truth found in Catholicism. Nice try, but transparent and unsound. Catholicism has checks and balances. Individual testimonies for individual experiences do not. The personal aspect of Catholicism happens within the context of community, a community which goes back 2000 years, which has one teaching received by the authority of Jesus Himself, such teaching extending equally to all Catholics across the world.

We are not going to stop being Catholic. We are here to explain Catholicism to those who have questions and to expand our mutual understanding through discussion of those questions. We are not here to be converted.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Coptic:

Do Baptists…or other Protestant denominations find it wrong to wear a crucifix? If so, do you know why?

God Bless,
Elizabeth

It had never bothered me as a Southern Baptist. I don’t know of any Baptist (all my family and friends back home are Baptist) who ever didn’t like it. The only group I know if is some of my Church of God friends who said "He isn’t there anymore, so why wear a ‘cross with Jesus on it’ "

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

TNT:

I’d be mad too if my parents raised me as a “Babtist”. Sweet revenge on Satan. Who was completely hornswagled (deceived) by the Crucifixion. This is his reminder.
The 3 groups that disdain the crucifix are:

1. Modern day sect protestants.

Wrong. Get your facts straight.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Ani Ibi:

Hi Elizabeth. I don’t know. I would be interested to hear from Protestants:

Is it OK to wear a crucifix? If so, do you make a distinction between empty crucifixes and crucifixes with Christ on them; one being OK, the other not OK?

Of course it is okay. I do not make a distinction. To me, they both have always meant a lot to me. They both point to the price Christ paid and the suffering He endured.

Peace…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ozzie:

Absolutely! And the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” must be tested by this “sole, infallible rule of faith,” as well.

So some sort of change took place with the advent of Scripture? A change which operated to demote the Church to a position submissive to what She Herself decided upon? Retroactive authority?

Ozzie:

Catholics seem to elevate the writings of these fallible men to the position of divinely inspired Scripture. I know they would deny it, but in practice they actually do.

Scripture is a subset of the authoritative teaching of the Church. Indeed the people of the Church were fallible. But yours is an argument against the people not against what the people were saying. The people who wrote the texts which we now call Scripture were also ‘fallible men.’ But, as you admit, their writings were divinely inspired and therefore what they had to say was not fallible. How they said it may or may not have been fallible; that is another discussion.

The point is this: whether or not Scripture or Church Father writings are infallible or fallible is not a useful consideration. They can be as infallible as they want; if our interpretation is fallible, the infallibility of what we read falls on deaf ears. The interpretation of the Church of these writings is infallible. It is infallible because Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church.

The Church which He instituted was not an idea; She comprised real, actual people. The Church which He instituted did not suddenly emerge after 1500-odd years of nothing; She flourished uninterrupted by virtue of the blood of the Martyrs; the sacrifice, love, and faith of her Saints; and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover She was never abandonned for one moment (let alone 1500-odd years) because who Peter was was handed down from generation to generation and because who the apostles were was handed down from generation and because the Holy Spirit never left Her. This handing down was personal, face to face teaching, within the checks and balances of one community united by their faith in Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

Absolutely! And the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” must be tested by this “sole, infallible rule of faith,” as well. Catholics seem to elevate the writings of these fallible men to the position of divinely inspired Scripture. I know they would deny it, but in practice they actually do.

But the scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, whereas no where does Scripture claim to be sola. So you do believe at least one huge, critical theological belief not found in the Bible, that of sola scriptura.

 

[cestusdei]

I always carry a Catholic tract for just such an occasion. I give it to them and say “if Jesus is your Lord then you should belong to his body-The Catholic Church”. They get really annoyed lol.

 

[TNT]

Ozzie:

Absolutely! And the writings of the so-called “Church Fathers” must be tested by this “sole, infallible rule of faith,” as well. Catholics seem to elevate the writings of these fallible men to the position of divinely inspired Scripture. I know they would deny it, but in practice they actually do.

Actually, OZZIE, the Church Fathers past their test 1,500 years ago.
It’s YOUR turn to be tested. To see if you are a a teacher of novelty.
BTW:
I wrote earlier about your novel religion:
This is VERY interesting!
** I like OZZIE’s ease of gaining eternal salvation.**
According to OZZIE, as I understand it:

1. Earn, beg, borrow, or steal a bible (only available after 380AD) Too bad for schlucks before that and anyone who could not read after that.
   2 Learn to read.
   3. Find the ONE verse = ROM 10:13
   4. Think up a “sinners prayer” and recite it with meaning…ONCE.
   5. Have faith that this prayer will give you heaven
   ** #1 = a work.
   #2 = a work
   #3 = a work
   #4 = a work
   ** #5 = Faith
   So far the final score is: WORK 4 Faith alone 1.
   Now,having done all this non-work work:
   1. Tear out the ROM 10:13 verse.
   2. Throw the rest of the bible away. It cannot save you. Bible study on Sun. and Wed nite is completely superfluous.
   3. Fall into temptation and sin.
   4. Go straight to heaven.
      Did I get it right so far?

----------------------------------------------

Out of the many thousands of verses if one should pick some trick verse like:
“BAPTISM now saves you”
“He who believes AND is baptized, shall be saved”
“Each will be JUDGED according to his works”
“Faith without works is DEAD”
“Unless a man is born AGAIN of WATER and the Holy Spirit he CANNOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven”
Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.
Or countless other trap door verses, and makes the innocent mistake of believing these as being literal and essential, your dead meat.
The game is over and you lose.
What this amounts to is a “trick you with the wrong verse to believe” type of game-show religion.
**The final score in this process is:
Satan 1. Bible non-Worker Worker 0.
**The questions I have for our NEW church fathers (OZZIE and StingRay) come from theses “Scriptures”:

**2Thes 2:15. **

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether** by word**, or by our epistle.
**Matt 18:15-17. **

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

** 1. WHERE is this WORD outside of the Epistle?
2. Exactly what CHURCH will I have take the disagreements to and HEAR back from? Name the Church AND its location, please.
Finally:
3. If I tell you that HEBREWS is NOT part of your NT “Scriptures”, EXACTLY how do you prove to me, INFALLIBLY that it certainly is? Reference any place in your bible. Outside “church fathers” are fallible and OUTSIDE the bible, so no reference is possible for your reply to be INFALLIBLE.

**

 

[wabrams]

TNT:

So, there are “Pro-Catholic” Protestants??
What in the name of heaven are they “protesting” then?
Does that make you a “no-protesting” protestant?

I’m Protestant and I have no major issues with the Catholic church. My fiance is Catholic and I’ve had some people here at work question her beliefs, which I have defended.

What am I protesting? Mainly I don’t like the Mass or agree with the Magistereum. I like a lot of things about the Catholic Church, but have no desire to convert.

 

[Ignatius]

Stingray:

Sola Scriptura . . . . becomes the sole infallible rule of faith.

Scripture is suitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

Sola Scriptura claims that any doctrine not found in scripture may be false. Since Sola Scriptura is not found in the scriputres, it is a False, man made doctrine.

May the Holy Spirit lead you to the foundation and bullwark of Truth.
God Bless.

 

[Stingray]

Ani Ibi:

Me too.

Me neither.

Thanks for the kind words. They are greatly appreciated.

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Ozzie]

Ani lbi:

your post, in my opinion, demonstrates an (inaccurate, incomplete, whatever) understanding of salvation’ is an attribution made against what the person is saying. It is what the person is saying that we are discussing, not the person himself. Leave the person to God.

Actually, it’s a judgment based on the soteriological teachings of the Roman church and what Tim Hayes wrote (based on what he’s been taught by Rome) regarding Christ coming back to “judge us.”

Moreover, it is best for discussion to support your assertions with argumentation or reference or both.

Which is exactly what I did: JOH 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” ROM 8:1 *“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” * I followed up with the question regarding his understanding of the Biblical term “in Christ.” This certainly does promote discussion. How about you, what does the Biblical term “in Christ” mean to you?

The personal aspect of Catholicism happens within the context of community, a community which goes back 2000 years, which has one teaching received by the authority of Jesus Himself, such teaching extending equally to all Catholics across the world.

Can you show me where Christ Himself taught your Marian doctrines? Where Christ or the Apostles taught your fully developed doctrine of “Purgatory?” Where any of the Apostles taught the idea of “Indulgences?” Paul is very clear in his Epistles that true believers are, through personal faith in Christ, reconciled to God because “reconciliation” was one of the works Christ accomplished, forever and completely, on the cross:

ROM 5:10 “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

ROM 5:11 “And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.”

2CO 5:18 “Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,”

2COR 5:19 “namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

Hence, your subsequently developed sacrament of “Penance/Reconciliation” has no Apostolic authority and is contrary to what Christ Himself accomplished on the cross 2000 years ago.

COL 2:13 "And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

COL 2:14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

The N.T. was penned while the Apostles were still living. And when one compares the doctrines and practices developed by men, subsequent to the Apostolic age, to what was penned by the Apostles and other N.T. writers, we can clearly see that many of the teachings that developed later in “Christendom” truly are not 2000 years old (as your claim) and do not have the authority of Christ Himself or His Apostles. The beauty and power of the N.T. Scriptures, which the Holy Spirit Himself inspired to be written, allows us to actually know what was taught from the beginning, thereby we have the means to test the subsequent teachings and traditions of men. True Christianity is not based on what men have believed, but on what God has revealed. This is what separates true Christianity, the true faith, from all others in this world.

 

[Deanna]

Catholic Dude:

CM,

That was some touching stuff. If he will only read it! And then do his homework.

P.S. Your one of the few on Catholic Answers whos posts I read and take away something each time. Especially if its a long thread if I have to skim through I only read select posters like you if I want to understand whats going on to make my own comments.

Church Militant,

I second everything Catholic Dude said. You’re a true blessing on this post. I myself have learned A LOT from you.

God Bless,
Deanna

 

[Stingray]

Ani Ibi:

Oops again. The post to which you were responding was unquestionably civil, in my opinion (I re-read it to make sure) and in no way resembled a personal attack. It was a bit of a shock to me to suddenly happen upon the part about the personal attack. So much of a shock that, now I am wondering if you have an agenda or protocol you are following and didn’t notice that the poster to which you were responding didn’t match the stereotype.

Oops again. Another poster mentions personal attacks frequently. That poster confuses disagreement with animosity – and I think disingenuously. Sort of makes you think this personal attack business is a ‘play’ rather than a ‘premise.’

Moreover, when we hear patterns of words repeated, we begin to think maybe people are getting together via private messaging or even on other boards to strategize. Nothing wrong with that as long as the argumentation remains at the level of discussion and does not violate the following board rule:

**Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda. **

Operative concept: single-mindedly

If people are getting together to strategize, it would be much more conducive to discussion to just come out and say so.

If what you are saying is unfounded or unsound, somebody is going to take issue with it. This has nothing at all to do with you as a person and cannot legitimately be construed as a personal attack. It may feel uncomfortable to have your views challenged, but it is not a personal attack.

Ani,

I’m going to be honest with you. I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. I can’t make reference to having civil discussions without personal attacks unless the person I am talking to has personally attacked me? Is there something wrong with telling someone you hope that we (the participants on this board in reference to Darrels mention of the debate pattern around here)can discuss things in a friendly manner and not resort to attacking one another?

As far as all this stuff about promoting an agenda or strategizing with others, I really have no idea what your talking about. Respectfully, maybe you could clue me in. I understand your comments about falsely accusing someone of personal attacks. I do understand the difference between honest disagreement and personal attacks. However, I was not implying that Darrel had personally attacked me. I was just saying that I hope we, everyone here, can have civil discussions. I think, maybe, and I mean no disrespect, you are reading too much into my comments.

God bless,
Stingray

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

Can you show me where Christ Himself taught your Marian doctrines? .

He didn’t. That’s one of the things he delegated. Can you show where he taught faith alone?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

pnewton:

But the scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, whereas no where does Scripture claim to be sola. So you do believe at least one huge, critical theological belief not found in the Bible, that of sola scriptura.

Can people please clarify how they each understand the term ‘Sola Scriptura’? Because it seems to mean different things to different people.

michaelp makes the distinction between sola and solo; presumably sola scriptura and solo scriptura. Is solo scriptura possible in Latin? I think this distinction is Spanish not Latin and not even completely Spanish. The Spanish distinction would be la unica escritura and solo la escritura or solamente la escritura. In any case, this is neither here nor there. Sola Scriptura is what we have, not **Solo **Scriptura.

sola: (Latin) adj; only, single, sole, alone, lonely, solitary

denotations depending on context:

The only scripture about which we are talking as opposed to other scriptures which may exist.

A single scripture about which we are talking as opposed to multiple scriptures which may exist.

The sole scripture in question or in existence.

A lonely scripture amid a wealth of other sources.

*A solitary scripture *amid a wealth of other sources.

Scripture alone as opposed to other sources. This may also be said as only scripture (not the only scripture)* as opposed to other sources.*
**
The denotation in turquoise is the intended denotation: Bible alone.

This term has come to mean that the canonical Scriptures, are the only infallible source of faith and rule of practice. Moreover, since it places Tradition subordinate to it, it claims that the individual may legitimately make private interpretations. Bible alone does not necessarily claim that the Church has no authority, but that whatever authority She may have is secondary to the authority of the individual.

Nevertheless, the distinction between Bible-not-Church and Bible-over-Church has equivalent effect and therefore is of little use as far as distinctions go. Either way, the effect is the same: the Church is still out of the interpretation business. And we are left with a collection of ‘loose cannons.’ :dancing: D-oh! I couldn’t resist. :bounce: I better put some winks in quick.