What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

[jericho777]

yes, well, I can understand the reading of the Bible cover to cover, and many times over, is not something all Christians have managed to accomplish, I do believe the Father would understand that one also. The early Christians did not have access to the NT until it was printed and then it had to be guarded , being so few in the beginning, and of course not everyone was able to read early on, Word of mouth and hearing was the way in the beginning. We are so blessed in our time, what a wonderful gift Christ has given us through his Church.God BlessCarlan

Were not many letters of the NT sent to congregations as public instruction? These were then further copied and sent to other churches. This would count toward the great body scripture preserved for us today. These documents far out number anything from antiquity. Ephesians, Romans,Chorinthians,Thesolonians, Philipians etc.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The Apostles crafted the US Constitution? What does this have to do with your claim that Catholics crafted the US Constitution???

Your Catholic letter claiming that non-Catholics are not “Christian” is not very persuasive, nor particularly relevant.

do you believe the CC to be the Church Jesus found? the only Church? to preach the Truth to all men?

**St. Augustine
“We believe in the holy Church for both heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches; but heretics holding false opinions about God violate the faith itself, while schismatics, on the other hand, break off from fraternal charity in wicked separations, although they may believe just what we do. Consequently, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God, nor do the schismatics form a part of the Church inasmuch as the Church loves its neighbor.” **

 

[Carlan]

Were not many letters of the NT sent to congregations as public instruction? These were then further copied and sent to other churches. This would count toward the great body scripture preserved for us today. These documents far out number anything from antiquity. Ephesians, Romans,Chorinthians,Thesolonians, Philipians etc.

Yes, well all was gathered to the best of ability, saved , and put together when it was all ready in Jerome’s time, there are Catholics participating in these forums far more educated in early Church history than I. You may be , let wait and see or, perhaps, if you are interested you can begin a new thread.Peace, Carlan

 

[FrJohnB]

with all due respect.
i have said what i want to say and i stand by what i said.
if you think that people depend on reading the Bible for Faith, we would have to say that those of old did not have any Faith and new nothing about Christ since the laity had no Bibles. i have no interest on any teaches unless it comes from the CC.
i dont care if protestants read the Bible all day long. it does not influence me a bit. it is better not to read and have it right then read it and get it wrong.

Peace.

"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached
by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded;
and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian." St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D…

I cited you the teaching of the Catholic Church on reading the Bible from the catechism that it is greatly encouraged by doing the Liturgy of the Hours. So if you do not want to follow the teaching of the church by your own admissions then why be a Catholic?

You accuse me of being “Hostile” on this thread towards the Catholic Church but I have not violated the teachings of the church contained in the catechism so how can you call me hostile? Because I do not agree with you on history and agree with everyone else does not make me a person that is hostile towards the Roman Catholic church.

You freely admit in this last post that “i have no interest on any teaches unless it comes from the CC” but yet you admit “but what you are saying doesnt hold with me” so my question now to you is: If you are not going to follow the teaching CLEARLY spelled out by the Catholic Church that are in the catechism, how can you call yourself a Roman Catholic? Roman Catholicism is NOT a faith where you can pick and choose and think “well Protestants read the Bible all the time so I don’t have to.” I would encourage you strongly to reconsider your position on this one as this is about YOUR soul, not what everybody else does.

I would ask other Catholics on this thread, Do you read your Bibles???

 

[larkin31]

do you believe the CC to be the Church Jesus found? the only Church? to preach the Truth to all men?

I am agnostic (see my religious description, above right). I have my doubts about everything religious, and do not trust many parts of the Bible.

I am not sure how this relates to the issue of the religious faith of the crafters of the Constitution. Would you please clarify the purpose of the question?

 

[FrJohnB]

You are right Fr John, However, many of us do fall short, we try tho’,so much good stuff available to us these days , a wonderful adult catechism,so very much good publication. Catholic resourses on the internet it goes on and on. And of course the Bible should be at the top of the list,even if time only allows the daily readings . More and more Catholics have been praying the Liturgy of the hours even if only the morning or evening prayer, It is all better than nothing, Right?God bless you and thanks for sharing with us. Carlan

I cited the passage from the catechism for wisdomseeker because for some odd reason it is gotten into the mind of this person that reading the Bible seems to be a Protestant thing and that all a person needs to do is simply follow the teachings of the Catholic church. Hey, if the Liturgy of the Hours is not handy, there are plenty of good devotionals out there. My point is that Bible reading is essential to the Catholic faith to be a good Catholic and to be a good Christian. If wisdomseeker wishes to pick and choose what parts of the catechism to believe then that person would not be in the eyes of the Church be a good practicing Catholic. You are correct we do all fall short, but to blatantly reject parts is outright thumbing your nose at the church and saying “I know better” to centuries of teaching. Is this not what we accuse many of the Protestant reformers of doing?

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am agnostic (see my religious description, above right). I have my doubts about everything religious, and do not trust many parts of the Bible.

I am not sure how this relates to the issue of the religious faith of the crafters of the Constitution. Would you please clarify the purpose of the question?

if you dont believe the Church, how would believe anything else about the Church?

**St. Augustine again: “We believe in the holy Church meaning assuredly the Catholic Church, for both heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches; but heretics holding false opinions about God violate the faith itself, while schismatics, on the other hand, break off from fraternal charity in wicked separations, although they may believe just what we do. Consequently, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God, nor do the schismatics form a part of the Church inasmuch as the Church loves its neighbor.” **

 

[FrJohnB]

Yes, well all was gathered to the best of ability, saved , and put together when it was all ready in Jerome’s time, there are Catholics participating in these forums far more educated in early Church history than I. You may be , let wait and see or, perhaps, if you are interested you can begin a new thread.Peace, Carlan

Originally Posted by jericho777 View Post
Were not many letters of the NT sent to congregations as public instruction? These were then further copied and sent to other churches. This would count toward the great body scripture preserved for us today. These documents far out number anything from antiquity. Ephesians, Romans,Chorinthians,Thesolonians, Philipians etc.

You are both correct! This is why we have the volumes of manuscript evidence for the Bible.

 

[Padrej]

You are both correct! This is why we have the volumes of manuscript evidence for the Bible.

Funny, With all the manuscripts out there of the Bible there are critics that question it. We only have few copies of Shakespeare and Plato and NOBODY questions their validity.

 

[Contarini]

Funny, With all the manuscripts out there of the Bible there are critics that question it. We only have few copies of Shakespeare and Plato and NOBODY questions their validity.

The number of manuscripts is no guarantee of historical accuracy. The two questions are completely separate.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I cited the passage from the catechism for wisdomseeker because for some odd reason it is gotten into the mind of this person that reading the Bible seems to be a Protestant thing and that all a person needs to do is simply follow the teachings of the Catholic church. Hey, if the Liturgy of the Hours is not handy, there are plenty of good devotionals out there. My point is that Bible reading is essential to the Catholic faith to be a good Catholic and to be a good Christian. If wisdomseeker wishes to pick and choose what parts of the catechism to believe then that person would not be in the eyes of the Church be a good practicing Catholic. You are correct we do all fall short, but to blatantly reject parts is outright thumbing your nose at the church and saying “I know better” to centuries of teaching. Is this not what we accuse many of the Protestant reformers of doing?

Very good post!

Edwin

 

[tweetymom]

do you believe the CC to be the Church Jesus found? the only Church? to preach the Truth to all men?

**St. Augustine
“We believe in the holy Church for both heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches; but heretics holding false opinions about God violate the faith itself, while schismatics, on the other hand, break off from fraternal charity in wicked separations, although they may believe just what we do. Consequently, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God, nor do the schismatics form a part of the Church inasmuch as the Church loves its neighbor.” **

No I do not the church is made up of all believers in Christ.

 

[wisdomseeker]

No I do not the church is made up of all believers in Christ.

that is not what the holy father said.

**St. Augustine again: “We believe in the holy Church meaning assuredly the Catholic Church, for both heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches; but heretics holding false opinions about God violate the faith itself, while schismatics, on the other hand, break off from fraternal charity in wicked separations, although they may believe just what we do. Consequently, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God, nor do the schismatics form a part of the Church inasmuch as the Church loves its neighbor.” **

 

[tweetymom]

that is not what the holy father said.

**St. Augustine again: “We believe in the holy Church meaning assuredly the Catholic Church, for both heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches; but heretics holding false opinions about God violate the faith itself, while schismatics, on the other hand, break off from fraternal charity in wicked separations, although they may believe just what we do. Consequently, heretics do not belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God, nor do the schismatics form a part of the Church inasmuch as the Church loves its neighbor.” **

The Holy Father is not God and will not be at my judgement day. I will stand before God alone. Not even you will be there:thumbsup:

 

[Padrej]

The number of manuscripts is no guarantee of historical accuracy. The two questions are completely separate.

Edwin

While you make a valid point that the number of manuscripts is no guarantee of accuracy, it does stand to reason that in all of those from oldest to newest that there has been little to no change. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have OT manuscripts that predate any by a 1000 years that were used to translate today’s Bible. When compared they are the same with only a few “punctuation places” that would be different. So I would argue that the issue is not a separate issue when it comes to questioning historical accuracy. we have no other manuscript comparison say to Plato that just a few; we have MANY when it comes to scripture. That is the comparison that I was making.

 

[larkin31]

if you dont believe the Church, how would believe anything else about the Church?

One can make estimations of an institution even from outside of it. You know, like all historians do, and some of them very well.

So, do you retract your claim that the US Constitution was crafted by Catholics? You seem to be asking me about personal matters rather than our topic. I would appreciate getting back to the topic.

 

[FrJohnB]

While you make a valid point that the number of manuscripts is no guarantee of accuracy, it does stand to reason that in all of those from oldest to newest that there has been little to no change. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have OT manuscripts that predate any by a 1000 years that were used to translate today’s Bible. When compared they are the same with only a few “punctuation places” that would be different. So I would argue that the issue is not a separate issue when it comes to questioning historical accuracy. we have no other manuscript comparison say to Plato that just a few; we have MANY when it comes to scripture. That is the comparison that I was making.

You make a very valid point Padre We tend not to question if what we read of say a Shakespeare play of work of Plato or some other great philosopher of old is valid but yet people will argue all day over Biblical manuscripts. I see your point that it IS a valid comparison.

I wonder why when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they contained the dueterocannonical/apocryphal ( spelling )books in Hebrew. Something that Protestants have yet to fully acknowledge. The Vulgate separated them because they were written only in Greek, but now we know differently that they did exist in Hebrew. I guess because Protestants would have to change some doctrines and some of their Bibles to include these books they might be still ignoring the evidence that IMO demands a verdict.

 

[Padrej]

You make a very valid point Padre We tend not to question if what we read of say a Shakespeare play of work of Plato or some other great philosopher of old is valid but yet people will argue all day over Biblical manuscripts. I see your point that it IS a valid comparison.

I wonder why when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, they contained the dueterocannonical/apocryphal ( spelling )books in Hebrew. Something that Protestants have yet to fully acknowledge. The Vulgate separated them because they were written only in Greek, but now we know differently that they did exist in Hebrew. I guess because Protestants would have to change some doctrines and some of their Bibles to include these books they might be still ignoring the evidence that IMO demands a verdict.

I agree with you 100% on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think that this is evidence that demands a verdict. I am not advocating we take everything of the Dead Sea Scrolls as canonical, for example they contained the Book of Enoch and some other astrological scrolls; but the books that we would call “apocrypha” were there in Hebrew and not in Greek as we thought for years that they were only written in. In my mind this lends all the more credence to them being accepted. I know at this point there are some other Protestants on the thread that will probably cast aspersions on me for these lines but this is how I feel on the matter.

 

[FrJohnB]

I agree with you 100% on the Dead Sea Scrolls. I think that this is evidence that demands a verdict. I am not advocating we take everything of the Dead Sea Scrolls as canonical, for example they contained the Book of Enoch and some other astrological scrolls; but the books that we would call “apocrypha” were there in Hebrew and not in Greek as we thought for years that they were only written in. In my mind this lends all the more credence to them being accepted. I know at this point there are some other Protestants on the thread that will probably cast aspersions on me for these lines but this is how I feel on the matter.

I know what you are saying Padre, sometimes when you speak the truth it tends to offend some people. Never let that stop you from speaking the truth anyhow, it is God we are accountable to, NOT the others.

 

[wisdomseeker]

One can make estimations of an institution even from outside of it. You know, like all historians do, and some of them very well.

So, do you retract your claim that the US Constitution was crafted by Catholics? You seem to be asking me about personal matters rather than our topic. I would appreciate getting back to the topic.

no, i stand for what i said. it was based on the CC teachings. i dont care who signed.

well, i assume you made your estimations about the CC and like you said, you dont believe it.

blessings.