That’s a what answer, not a why answer. What is it about Marian devotions that would lead you to reject Catholicism. If you are saying ‘there’s not enough to support it in my interpretation of scripture’ all you are saying in answer to the question: ‘Why are you a Protestant?’ is ‘I am a Protestant’, since reliance on scripture as the ultimate and predominant source of belief is what Protestantism is. Incidentally, I do not have a horse in this race. I am not a believer.
You’re right; I should’ve made a positive presentation on why I am a protestant. That’s my fault.drac16:
That’s a what answer, not a why answer. What is it about Marian devotions that would lead you to reject Catholicism. If you are saying ‘there’s not enough to support it in my interpretation of scripture’ all you are saying in answer to the question: ‘Why are you a Protestant?’ is ‘I am a Protestant’, since reliance on scripture as the ultimate and predominant source of belief is what Protestantism is. Incidentally, I do not have a horse in this race. I am not a believer.
What is a family without a mother? What is a kingdom without a Queen? God is inviting us to be part of His family and inherit His Kingdom; thus He is our Father; Jesus is the heavenly King and Mary is Queen Mother, much like we see in the Davidic Kingdom which foreshadoed what was to come.
So how do you believe the particular books chosen to be a part of scripture came to be chosen and why do you see these as inspired and not the contemporary and other books rejected? There can have been no scriptural authority for this decision since there was, at the time, no decided canon of scripture.
I don’t know. This is not a subject that I think about. I believe that God still speaks to people and that that presence was still ongoing in the early centuries. Perhaps He used the Holy Spirit to guide them to compile the scriptures in an orderly fashion. I don’t know, in all honesty. What do you believe about the compilation of the scriptures?drac16:
So how do you believe the particular books chosen to be a part of scripture came to be chosen and why do you see these as inspired and not the contemporary and other books rejected? There can have been no scriptural authority for this decision since there was, at the time, no decided canon of scripture.
I think in the Gospels Jesus always expresses particular good works we need to do to get to Heaven. I was just reading the Bible and thought of you when I read this verse:
Well I believe that the church inspired by the Holy Spirit compiled them. I think it was necessary for the Holy Spirit to have inspired the Church in compiling the Bible since there were actually a lot of books in contention to be part of the Bible.
I looked up that passage and I didn’t see anything about works being needed to be justified/saved. Works will naturally flow out of a person’s heart if they are one of Christ’s sheep. The evidence of someone having been saved is that they walk in holiness. They run the race looking only to Christ to strengthen them and save them.drac16:
I think in the Gospels Jesus always expresses particular good works we need to do to get to Heaven. I was just reading the Bible and thought of you when I read this verse:
Matthew7:21
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
I don’t get that from the text. I interpret that text to mean that the persons saying “Lord, Lord” were trying to be justified by way of keeping the law. Jesus knew all about them because He called them workers of iniquity. It’s not enough to keep the laws and try to be a good person-- they need to accept Christ’s perfect atonement for their sins. The only reason I believe that I’m on my way to Heaven is because of Christ.
I think (and I do so as a non-believer, his is not a statement of faith but of my historical reading) that there were many competing schools of thought in early Christianity believing a huge range of things. Over time a predominant ‘orthodox’ faction won and preserved and promoted the scriptures which together told their story. The other scriptures were rejected. Evidence of the variation within belief can be found even in the chosen scriptures. For example there is nothing in the first three Gospels that clearly says the writers believed Jesus to be God. Had they believed this it is surely something they would have stated clearly. And they were not to know that their writings would be bound together with those of ‘John’. None of this prevents someone from believing the Bible to have been divinely inspired. Catholics of course, also accept tradition. But for Protestants of the ‘Bible-believing’ variety I cannot see that it is easy to hold to their position.
Yeah but he’s saying about people saying Lord Lord. Saying this is a sign of faith. And he is saying not everyone who shows this faith enters the kingdom of God. He says nothing of the works of these individuals at all.
Yes Catholics don’t contradict this. But when we are forgiven our sins we need works to stay on the narrow path to Heaven. Faith is of course necessary too.
Yeah, but catholics don’t believe that the grace that was purchased for us is sufficient in and of itself to save. They believe that they have to co-operate with the graces they obtain from doing things like taking part in the Eucharist. When I say that I trust in Christ alone, I am saying that I can only believe and endure to the end because of the grace that Christ gave me after He saved me. The question is not about the necessity of grace because we both believe that grace is required. Rather, our disagreement is as to whether or not that grace is sufficient in and of itself.
Yea everyone says that… but they’re working on it. It’s just a matter of time befor they unit their differences.
For the purposes of this thread it would be good to provide what do you disagree with and why. Of course if your reason does not rest on “I was raised Baptist so I’ll stay Baptist” alone… if it does then that’s a reason too.
Virtually either Protestants reconcile with Catholic Teachings or Catholics contradict their teachings- that would mean they are not True Church of Christ that is guarded by Holy Spirit and it would be best to leave such Church. In other words if unity comes from compromise then it is probably False Church and we ought to leave it. If that happened I would probably either become Sedevacantist or Orthodox… not sure.
I am Catholic and I have contemplated Protestantism a lot when I started believing in God, but ultimately chose Catholicism. However, I know some Protestants who are basically Protestants because they were raised in faith and they believe in disunity of True Church- they hold that it doesn’t matter whether one is Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist etc. Therefore they just choose whatever they see fit because of family or friends or stuff like that. That is something pretty common around me not mentioned there yet. Of course as a Catholic I have a problem with notion that Holy Spirit failed to preserve unity of the Church and promise to Peter about his faith was solely to that one Apostle.