Will someone explain Protestantism to me?

[Alphonsine]

Dei Verbum,
Please read the very last paragraph of that long quoted text I posted, and then consider this analogy, from the same source:

“Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.”

 

[Dei_Verbum]

I realize that not everybody’s questions are going to be answered here. But if you have questions about Catholism, and you want answers, I strongly advise you to read Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home. He was a very anti-Catholic Protestant minister who converted to Catholism, and his book tells his story. It might clear up some questions.

God Bless You.

I would be getting someone’s opinion and I am searching for the truth. My protestant friend is very sincere and I just want to know what to believe and why should I believe anything.

 

[exoflare]

Jesus did not sin as he is God.

You’re jumping the gun. Jesus is a human just as well as he is God, and if you stick to the rigid fundamentalist interpretation that you are giving me for that verse you would also have to admit that the fact that Jesus never sinned also “contradicts” it. The only difference is it doesn’t fit the agenda of the ones who propagated that interpretation, so they conveniently ignore it.

Stillborn babies are unborn.

And they are also humans! Or is the “all” you speak of a bit more selective than you made it out to be?

Mary was not a stillborn baby or God.

No argument here.

What proof text are you talking about?

Isolated scriptures taken out of context are known as “proof texts” and they are a shoddy debating tactic that many fundamentalists use to try and smear Catholic doctrine.

How does the rest of the bible support Mary’s sinlessness?

By not denying it, for one thing.

More specifically, the angel Gabriel refers to her as Kecharitomene, or “full of grace”. This is a whole other topic though, I’m afraid…

 

[Dei_Verbum]

Dei Verbum,
Please read the very last paragraph of that long quoted text I posted, and then consider this analogy, from the same source:

“Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been “saved” from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.”

I have been a Catholic for 50 years and this is the first time I have seen this story. Why is the story the truth and why is it not in the bible?

 

[exoflare]

Why did Mary require a saviour when she was sinless?

She was preserved by the stain of original sin only through God’s intervention… otherwise she would be no different from anyone else in that regard. God saved her from the destruction of sin just like everybody else, but in more of a pre-emptive way.

 

[Dei_Verbum]

You’re jumping the gun. Jesus is a human just as well as he is God, and if you stick to the rigid fundamentalist interpretation that you are giving me for that verse you would also have to admit that the fact that Jesus never sinned also “contradicts” it. The only difference is it doesn’t fit the agenda of the ones who propagated that interpretation, so they conveniently ignore it.

And they are also humans! Or is the “all” you speak of a bit more selective than you made it out to be?

No argument here.

Isolated scriptures taken out of context are known as “proof texts” and they are a shoddy debating tactic that many fundamentalists use to try and smear Catholic doctrine.

By not denying it, for one thing.

More specifically, the angel Gabriel refers to her as Kecharitomene, or “full of grace”. This is a whole other topic though, I’m afraid…

“All have sinned” seems to be a denial. Why is this a proof text and not a supportive text. How do I find out about the difference or does it not matter much?

 

[sandmountainsli]

Sandmountainsli,

How can an infallible compilation of Scripture be compiled by a Church that you claim to be wrong? It can’t. Truth is consistent.

The church of the third century and the church of Augustine was by no means wrong.
Synod of Whitby, things were getting a little odd and by the time of the late middle ages it had gone completely awry.
The national churches did not “end” with the reformation, the Church of England and Church of Scotland still exist, just not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome.
WP

 

[Dei_Verbum]

She was preserved by the stain of original sin only through God’s intervention… otherwise she would be no different from anyone else in that regard. God saved her from the destruction of sin just like everybody else, but in more of a pre-emptive way.

I have believed this for 50 years. Why don’t protestants believe this and why are Catholics correct? What is the truth? Does the truth matter or is the truth what you belief and is this different for everybody?

 

[Alphonsine]

Dei Verbum,
Rome Sweet Home is not just based on Hahn’s opinion - he was searching for objective truth, and based his search objectively on scripture. Try reading it.

Sandmountainsli,
It all comes back to Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. Your history of the quality of the church in each century seems to be based on your opinion… Anyway, just a question - what do you think about the passage in Mat. where Jesus said “This is my body” and “This is my blood” ?

 

[Dei_Verbum]

Dei Verbum,
Rome Sweet Home is not just based on Hahn’s opinion - he was searching for objective truth, and based his search objectively on scripture. Try reading it.

Thank you for your suggestion.
I am not interested in someone’s opinion anymore. I desire to know the truth, whatever that is.

 

[Alphonsine]

You’re welcome, and God Bless.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

JMJ just wondering if this did clear it up?

Yes, it did sort of clear it up. But, from what it says, I would say that I disagree with it - at least in part.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Okay - so all Christians believe in Christ’s Resurrection, the Trinity, and the Apostle’s Creed. Agreed. These are not the matters that Christian denominations are agruing about amongst themselves. They are debating moral issues, scripture, etc. If there is One Christian Church, as you say, then there would be one clear doctrine regarding faith matters.
I know that Protestants are not united in many of the above areas. Unity in Christ calls for unity in truth. Christ’s truth pertains to all areas of our lives.
The only church that I know of that has a clear and defined doctrine is the Catholic Church.

Do they all agree on those three things? Groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, etc. deny some of those things, like the Trinity. I have heard mainstream Protestant preachers saying that it doesn’t matter if Jesus rose from the grave. How about the Apostles’ Creed - do they believe in the holy catholic Church, or the Communion of Saints? And how about other things that I would put in “essentials” - things like Christology, including His dual natures, the divine motherhood of Mary (i.e. she is the Mother of God, Immaculate Conception, etc.), the Eucharist and other Sacraments, etc. Most of these are denied by many Protestants, from my viewpoint.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Will you admit that the NT is inspired scripture and the supreme document of our faith?

Yes, the New Testament is inspired Scriptures. No, it is not the sole and supreme document or foundation of our faith. Sacred Scripture is a mode of transmission of Divine Revelation, but so is Sacred Tradition - both are equally important and both are interpreted by the Magisterium, which is lead by the Holy Spirit to all truth. Neither three - Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterium - can subsist without the other two.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The church of the third century and the church of Augustine was by no means wrong.

If you believe that the Church of the third century was still correct and had not gone astray - then why do you not see that the Catholic Church is the same Church? Important doctrines like the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the ministerial priesthood, confession to a priest, etc. are firmly taught - and written down in the texts of the Early Church Fathers - in the third century.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I have believed this for 50 years. Why don’t protestants believe this and why are Catholics correct? What is the truth? Does the truth matter or is the truth what you belief and is this different for everybody?

From my viewpoint, one of the reasons that Protestants deny the Immaculate Conception is because they deny some aspect of Christ (though not all do, but the majority do - as far as I have seen). Either they deny that He was fully God, or some derivative of Arianism, or they deny that He was fully man, or some derivative of Docetism (I think that is the correct heresy).

What is the truth - Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). Truth does not change, nor is it relative. It is objective and unchanging. Truth is not something, but somebody - Jesus the Christ.

 

[colliric]

I am simply asking why the bible says “all have sinned” and why our church says that Mary has not sinned. I know that I have sinned. Why does our church make an exception for Mary, when the Holy Spirit has inspired Paul to write Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned” Was the Holy Spirit wrong or has the Holy Spirit revealed something to the clergy that I do not know about?

it was relative to the holy book being written, Revelations has something diffrent to say which clarifies the statement. “For all have sinned” does not include Mary and Jesus. Mary is described in that book as having received a heavenly coronation, being bathed in light with a crown of 12 stars which clarifies it because that book also says that nothing sinfull(or unclean) will enter heaven(which also justifies the Purgatory doctrine). She is not a normal human being, she was born sinless and entered heaven immediately, in fact she was taken wholly up immediatly. “For all have sinned” refers to all “normal” sinful human beings(Like me and you) and not the virgin or her son.

It’s that whole, “don’t read a book out of context, but also keep in mind when god helped them write it they never thought he was getting them to write a complete masterpiece” thing. Yes make sure you keep knowledgable about “proof text” arguements and make sure you keep in mind these two when someone asks how is it that catholic doctrine is mary was sinless? It’s simple really, the Book of Revelations says she was coroneted in heaven immediately after death, and nothing enters heaven with sin attached to it. So logically the statement didn’t apply to her, the New Eve, and it only applied to all Human beings who didn’t birth Christ!

 

[Kitty_Chan]

From my viewpoint, one of the reasons that Protestants deny the Immaculate Conception is because they deny some aspect of Christ (though not all do, but the majority do - as far as I have seen). Either they deny that He was fully God, or some derivative of Arianism, or they deny that He was fully man, or some derivative of Docetism (I think that is the correct heresy).

What is the truth - Jesus Christ is the Truth (John 14:6). Truth does not change, nor is it relative. It is objective and unchanging. Truth is not something, but somebody - Jesus the Christ.

JMJ this could be strange with 2 conversations going here but here goes

also Dei Verbum too

I have never heard of a protestant particulary in the Baptist, Nazarene, Pentacostal, even Word Of Faith denying some aspect of Christ. He was fully God and Human, not only does He speak Truth, He is Truth, Truth does not exist except in Christ.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Hello,

Yes, it did sort of clear it up. But, from what it says, I would say that I disagree with it - at least in part.

on this part if you wish to answer thats great if not its ok

what parts do you agree with or not, Im studying this and wonder how it stands, perhaps Im explaining it poorly.

 

[sandmountainsli]

Hello,

If you believe that the Church of the third century was still correct and had not gone astray - then why do you not see that the Catholic Church is the same Church? Important doctrines like the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the ministerial priesthood, confession to a priest, etc. are firmly taught - and written down in the texts of the Early Church Fathers - in the third century.

The Church was and always has been along national lines as much as anything else.
My ancestors were members of the CC as long as it held supreme in the British Isles, after the Reformation the CC was no longer the British Church, it became a church of foreign nations.
All of my ancestors and my living family members have since that date been Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians, all churches with root in the Church of Augustine.
I don’t mean this to sound hateful in any way but where I live (Appalachia) and among the people of this region Catholicism seems almost as alien as something from another planet.
We stick by the churches of our fathers.
WP