You can't have it both ways.

[Rightlydivide]

Man’s natural inclination to sin. The threefold concupiscence can be described as “The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”

Well according to many people on here I am full of spiritual pride. That has been said numerous times.
The lust part was one of the most incredible changes. Some of that was going to occur due to physical problems and illness (God did not see to cure me of physical ailments but spiritual ones). In a thread that no longer exists, I discussed for example how the sin that many men struggle with is completely a nonexistent problem for me.
But no of course I do not think I am without sin. Its just so completely different. That is what happens when you get saved. I understand that it might not be that way for everyone of course.

 

[Roy5]

As others have pointed out, most mainline Protestants are not sola scriptura. They encourage an attitude of free expression. Some might believe in Adam and Eve, but many would see that as a fable with a moral, perhaps. Some would believe that the literal Transfiguration (Mark 9) during which Jesus chatted with Elias and Moses, while other would have questions, maybe reject it. Etc. They are aware of ‘higher criticism’ and ‘modern Biblical scholarship’ and are influenced by new interpretations.
For better or worse, there is a Protestant denomination or two for every taste in theology, liturgy, etc. Most mainline denominational families - Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Disciples of Christ - are 'big tent' churches in that they permit a diversity of beliefs. Polls have shown, for example, that among Methodists there are many who believe in the Virgin Birth and perhaps even more who doubt or disbelieve it. They don't worry a lot about such differences of opinion. The message of the gospel is to love God and one another. That message and their church community are more important to them than theological variations.

 

[StTommyMore]

Well according to many people on here I am full of spiritual pride. That has been said numerous times.
The lust part was one of the most incredible changes. Some of that was going to occur due to physical problems and illness (God did not see to cure me of physical ailments but spiritual ones). In a thread that no longer exists, I discussed for example how the sin that many men struggle with is completely a nonexistent problem for me.
But no of course I do not think I am without sin. Its just so completely different. That is what happens when you get saved. I understand that it might not be that way for everyone of course.

I do not doubt your sincerity, but the Gospel you are preaching is not the same Gospel preached by Paul, and as such, must be rejected.

 

[Roy5]

I should have added that the mainline Protestant denominations work together through the National Council of Churches. I neglected to mention the Baptists, who are the largest Protestant family group in the USA. The Southern Baptist Convention is strongly evangelical, though some local congregations are moderate. The SBC is not all that cooperative with the other mainline churches. In contrast, the American Baptist Convention (formerly Northern Baptist Convention; they split over slavery before the Civil War) is very cooperative with other mainline Protestants.
As everyone knows, Protestantism is complex and divided. Catholicism is united, though behind apparent unity I have detected major differences of approach and even belief. I guess we're talking about 'cafteria Catholics'.

 

[Rightlydivide]

I do not doubt your sincerity, but the Gospel you are preaching is not the same Gospel preached by Paul, and as such, must be rejected.

Well…if I had rejected it, you would not have me to discuss this with you.

Regardless of whether you believe I am saved or not, I know whom I have believed.
Take care.

 

[nickybr38]

I should have added that the mainline Protestant denominations work together through the National Council of Churches. I neglected to mention the Baptists, who are the largest Protestant family group in the USA. The Southern Baptist Convention is strongly evangelical, though some local congregations are moderate. The SBC is not all that cooperative with the other mainline churches. In contrast, the American Baptist Convention (formerly Northern Baptist Convention; they split over slavery before the Civil War) is very cooperative with other mainline Protestants.

As everyone knows, Protestantism is complex and divided. Catholicism is united, though behind apparent unity I have detected major differences of approach and even belief. I guess we're talking about 'cafteria Catholics'.

I do believe the scripture described His Church as ‘United in its diversity’.

 

[beehumble]

Whew! We can all discuss this topic for the next 100 years and still get no where. As I get older and hopefully wiser ( ) I have come to realize that some people simply will not accept or care what one has to say no matter what is presented. We all follow our respective Christian churches and traditions and some us since birth. To be honest I am growing tired of the “I am right” and “you are wrong” arguments. I for one try my best without getting into heated debates, tell my non-Catholic friends and our separate brothers and sisters what we as Catholics believe and teach. They want to learn more about it…great! If not,then God bless and may the Lord guide us all as one. Now I know at times it does not go in such a pattern,but I try. Peace!

I agree except that a lot of protestant churches teach their folk to prey on and try to “convert” Catholics. If they would just leave us alone then the approach you outline above would work great. And since they attack, then we must not only defend but attack and show the weakness of their positions. (It is interesting that Protestants who seek truth by reading the ECFs many times become Catholic.)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Or Anglican or Othodox!

(It is interesting that Protestants who seek truth by reading the ECFs many times become Catholic.)

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

=joe370;7018303]
Jon, that doctrinal purity and Truth is still preserved in Jesus’ earthly church too, according to the bible. The church triumphant really has no need for doctrinal truth (although they know it better than us) - It’s His earthly church that desperately needs those truths and Jesus gave us a way to know those truths so that when people attempt to contort those truths eg. this is a symbol of my body…they can be refuted. If those truths cannot be known with certainty eg - this is my body…as opposed to, this is a symbol of my body…then the holy spirit is not guiding Jesus’ church into all truth. If we agree that truth is necessary for salvation, eg unless you eat my flesh…you have no life in you… then clearly Jesus would preserve said truth so that all Christians (not just those Christians that belonged to Jesus’ church prior to the east west schism) - can know truth - right?
Jon

=JonNC;7025173]I can’t argue with that, Joe. The question since the schism and Reformation is knowing for sure where that truth is. The differences between those who claim spripture and Tradition, and the differences between those who claim sola scriptura, and solo scriptura, just makes that certainty difficult. Therefore, we pray for the SPirit’s guidance, and the Lord’s forgiveness.

Jon, couldn’t it be just as simple as finding the historical church founded by Jesus on Pentecost, on Kepha, against which the gates of hell can never prevail, forever guided by the HS, the spirit of truth, into all truth? The only reason why the church, as per Paul, can be called the pillar and foundation of truth is if the spirit of truth is an active force in Jesus’ church, safeguarding Jesus’ deposit in perpetuity, for the simple fact that all her members are fallible? Like the OP says: we can’t have it both ways. Either the HS is forever protecting Jesus’ church leaders from altering doctrinal truth, and thereby safeguarding doctrinal truth, from within and without, or the HS is absent from Jesus’ church which would make the bible a lie, and if that were the case…

What was your answer Jon:

"… then clearly Jesus would preserve said truth through His established church, so that all Christians* (not just those Christians that belonged to Jesus’ church prior to the east west schism)* - can know truth, with certainty regarding, for example, the Eucharist - yes or no?

The clock is ticking my friend…Just kidding…LOL…LOL…

 

[Nominefili]

The ‘sole’ purpose of Sola Scriptura (no pun intended) is to justify Protestantism’s rebellion and continued secession from the Catholic Church. It allows them to ignore 2000 years of Christian history.

What a charitable way of portraying your brothers and sisters in Christ. Although I’m sure that the hundreds if not thousands of Protestant Scholars who do not ‘ignore 2000 years of Christian History’ would probably disagree.

 

[joe370]

UG you said:

Their continuing existence. It’s just about impossible for me to get 100% behind the belief that the Bible is the final authority when it’s obvious this wasn’t the way early Christians understood Christianity. If the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church had collapsed, sola scriptura would obviously be the only way to ascertain truth, no argument. But they’re still there.

If in fact one of these 2 churches is the church founded by God, ( and it can only be one or the other) - and both had collapsed then all we would be left with in the world would be churches founded by men a as opposed to Jesus, making the bible out to be a lie, for Jesus said that he would be with His church forever.

UG if sola scriptura was the only way to ascertain truth, what do you think would happen? Is the HS guiding all of these isolated autonomous reformed churches, founded by men, into all truth, considering the fact that many of these reformed churches do not share the same truths regarding many doctrines? Which one is the true reformed church?

It doesn’t make sense to you cos you’re on the other side of the fence. Come over to my side and you’ll make sense of it no problemo.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Originally Posted by zdon011 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The ‘sole’ purpose of Sola Scriptura (no pun intended) is to justify Protestantism’s rebellion and continued secession from the Catholic Church. It allows them to ignore 2000 years of Christian history

.

What a charitable way of portraying your brothers and sisters in Christ. Although I’m sure that the hundreds if not thousands of Protestant Scholars who do not ‘ignore 2000 years of Christian History’ would probably disagree.

Hello Nominefili,

You don’t think that there might be some truth to this post, for some people, maybe not in your case but for those who actually are protesting Rome?

Your Thoughts?

 

[StTommyMore]

Well…if I had rejected it, you would not have me to discuss this with you.

Regardless of whether you believe I am saved or not, I know whom I have believed.
Take care.

You are making an argument based on subjectivity. The Gospel is objective. The Gospel Paul preached was that of an ongoing process. Though this does not necessarily preclude moments of conversion, it does mean that these experiences are not singular events.

 

[schaick]

Hello schaick,

So, what are you saying here? Ae you saying that the Bible is the Holy Spirirt? I am familiar with these verses and with the meaning of the Holy Trinity, so I don’t know what your point is here. My question was, what part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible? I ask this question, because some here have claimed that the Bible is their “sole authority”, speaking as if the Bible itself… a book, is in fact God and it’s not God.

The* Bible is a collection of writings, which God’s Catholic Church and Catholic Popes have solemnly and infallibly recognized and approved as being inspired by God*.**

I know the Holy Trinity as - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit… not, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Bible and that was my point.

…

LOL!!! Too funny. I was so shocked when I read your question, that I misread it. Does that make sense? LOL! -What part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible?

That is really a very silly question!! LOL!!

It is simply GOD’s Word why would man’s tradition have higher authority then GOD’s Word?

If you say a tradition was passed down by GOD- show me your concrete proof, the paper chain,etc. anything to prove that it was a tradition from GOD.

As far as I know the only concrete requirements for our salvation are in GOD’s Word.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You are making an argument based on subjectivity. The Gospel is objective. The Gospel Paul preached was that of an ongoing process. Though this does not necessarily preclude moments of conversion, it does mean that these experiences are not singular events.

I am not making an argument. I am sharing what God has done in my life.
Take care

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;7024865:

Their continuing existence. It’s just about impossible for me to get 100% behind the belief that the Bible is the final authority when it’s obvious this wasn’t the way early Christians understood Christianity. If the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church had collapsed, sola scriptura would obviously be the only way to ascertain truth, no argument. But they’re still there.

If in fact one of these 2 churches is the church founded by God, ( and it can only be one or the other) - and both had collapsed then all we would be left with in the world would be churches founded by men a as opposed to Jesus, making the bible out to be a lie, for Jesus said that he would be with His church forever.

UG if sola scriptura was the only way to ascertain truth, what do you think would happen? Is the HS guiding all of these isolated autonomous reformed churches, founded by men, into all truth, considering the fact that many of these reformed churches do not share the same truths regarding many doctrines? Which one is the true reformed church?

If sola Scriptura was the only way to ascertain truth I guess there’d be some indication of that idea in the Old Testament. But there ain’t. At least I can’t see any. As to which is the true reformed church I’ve no idea. It’s extremely confusing.

UniversalistGuy;7024865:

It doesn’t make sense to you cos you’re on the other side of the fence. Come over to my side and you’ll make sense of it no problemo.

Friend, I am a former Lutheran. I was on that side of the fence for a while, at least until I was basically removed from my church for questioning the nature of the Eucharist as being merely symbolic. I asked my pastor: I thought the bible alone via my interpretation, is my final authority, and sole rule of faith? Turns out every other PC is no different than the CC or EOC when it comes to deference to their authority and SS. I think a protestant group huddle should be employed to figure out this whole SS authority stuff. :grouphug:

So when your interpretation of the Bible didn’t fit with your Lutheran boss man’s interpretation of the Bible you got pushed out. I’ll think about that for a while. I wonder what Martin Luther would have made of that? He knew what it felt like to get thrown out of his church for following his conscience didn’t he?

UniversalistGuy;7024865:

Here I am looking at 4 choices. Catholic, Orthodox,

These 2 make sense to me.

Right.

UniversalistGuy;7024865:

Protestant or Restorationist. The Protestant and Resorationist say that what went before was wrong. That’s their basic reason for their existence.

In other words, God failed to safeguard doctrinal truth in His church via the perpetual guidance of the HS, until the end of time, due to some dirty dogs masquerading as holy men in his church, who, will no doubt, hear from their maker: “away from me, I never knew you” - necessitating the need for a mere man or men to safeguard doctrinal truth?

I know Jesus can preserve doctrinal truth in His Fathers House until the end of time, in spite of the wolves masquerading as sheep; don’t you? If not then I guess the the gates of hell did in fact prevail against Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church of which I thought He was suppose to be the head and savior?

I’m still thinking about how relevant/important some of the doctrines are.

UniversalistGuy;7024865:

What went before has gone wrong but with us you’ll be right so come and get it. Therefore to accept the Protestant or Restorationist idea I’m forced into supposing that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are wrong, see? And if they’re wrong it must be that the gates have hell must have prevailed against them both, right?

Silly proposition don’t you think. :sad_yes:

I wouldn’t say silly, exactly. But it does seem to me to be unlikely.

UniversalistGuy;7024865:

I guess at this point I think I’m leaning to the Orthodox. It’s mainly the indulgence thing that makes me think the Catholic Church has gone wrong. But thank you for your kind word.

For me it was Matthew 16 and the prominent role Rome played, regarding Romes primacy among the other Patriarchs. Shoot me over an email one day and we can discuss the indulgences and the bad bad selling of them. There has been abuse in Jesus’ church and there will continue to be abuses from the evil one, but doctrinal truth, the evil one cannot tamper with, like he does with so many wolves in sheep’s clothing in Jesus’ church.

I don’t think the Orthodox have a problem with papal primacy. It’s papal supremacy they object to. And I think I do as well.

My objection to indulgences isn’t to do with any supposed “abuse” in the Middle Ages. Indulgences are linked to purgatory and as I object to purgatory I object to indulgences as well.

The Anti-Christ cannot defeat Christ - right??? Peace brother…

Peace also to you.

 

[schaick]

Schaick:

Wrong! Jesus never says MY FLESH counts for nothing…read it again in its entirety. He says THE FLESH.Why would Jesus say a few sentences before that one must eat HIS FLESH or else one has no life and then say a few moments later MY FLESH counts for nothing?

Jesus is at least 100% man-flesh and 100% GOD-Spirit.

We know Spirit is life and fesh is not. We do not know what the makeup of the Body and Blood of the Eucharist.

Contradictory statement and self-refuting. If God is not a God of confusion and many applications is perfectly within the confines of scripture,then why over 30,000 different denominations? I thought God is the not the author of confusion?

Different Trinitarian denominations all hold the very same basic tenents of faith and simply use different applications to celebrate that same faith. All are members of Christ’s universal Church which are does not consist of just the few different Catholic denominations.

U-huh? Come again?

Haven’t you ever read or studied verses one time than later after some time approached those verses again to find a fuller wider menaning? Nothing contradictory but extra information that you didn’t have that light bulb click on for you?

Yet you all belong to different denominations? Apparently they are differences or else there would not be thousands of different denominations.

Evidently not if there exist so many different denominations. The belief that thousands of different denominations all belong to Christ Universal Church is bogus. Universality does include different doctrines and teachings. Different cultures,languages,customs is part of Christ universal church but built on the same dogma/doctrine.

Again. There is one interpretation. WHY do I have to apply it exactly as you say? WHY does anyone as long as the application is appropriate for example grape juice as “fruit of the vine” instead of wine and real presence of the Christ?

For example - At one point Catholics were not recieving the fuller Eucharist-WHY would I have to conform to that? When Jesus instituted the celebrationof the Eucharist using both Bread and Fruit of the vine.

Expecially if the application does not effect if I am saved, for example believing Mary was perpetually Virgin?

Different Trinitarian denominations all hold the very same basic tenents of faith and simply use different applications to celebrate that same faith. All are members of Christ’s universal Church which are does not consist of just the few different Catholic denominations.

 

[beehumble]

I always hear a lot of protestants spouting about the number 666 and the mark of the beast etc.

It is somewhat ironic then that after Luther removed his books, he ended up with 66 books in the cannon! Not that I’m a big ‘666’ kinda guy, but I always get a chuckle out of that one!

 

[StTommyMore]

I always hear a lot of protestants spouting about the number 666 and the mark of the beast etc.

It is somewhat ironic then that after Luther removed his books, he ended up with 66 books in the cannon! Not that I’m a big ‘666’ kinda guy, but I always get a chuckle out of that one!

What about the fact that when Jesus lost disciples due to their refusal to accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist is John 6:66

 

[joe370]

Shaick you said:

…LOL!!! Too funny. I was so shocked when I read your question, that I misread it. Does that make sense? LOL! -What part of the Holy Trinity is the Bible? That is really a very silly question!! LOL!! That is really a very silly question!! LOL!!

Ok, then give me a silly, but correct answer! What part of the Trinity regarding the following, is in the bible: the HS and the Father are one; the HS and Jesus are one? Please don’t cite 1 John 5:7 for obvious reasons, or Matthew 28:20 for one is an interpolation, depending on which NT you use and the other does not state that they are one.

It is simply GOD’s Word why would man’s tradition have higher authority then GOD’s Word?

What happen to God’s word via the spoken word or letter:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Sola scriptura (the bible alone as the Christians only authority) - is man’s tradition found nowhere in God’s word. Why should anyone subscribe to SS?

If you say a tradition was passed down by GOD- show me your concrete proof, the paper chain,etc. anything to prove that it was a tradition from GOD.

You want the paper chain of God’s word **passed down to us orally, through the generations? Now that is a silly question. Prove to me that the bible (written tradition) - is from God? **Why would you believe such a thing considering the fact that the bible is a product of the CC? Please don’t tell me that the CC had nothing to do with the correct inclusion of books in the bible and the correct exclusion of the books from the bible; that would be a silly statement.

As far as I know the only concrete requirements for our salvation are in GOD’s Word.

As far as I know the only concrete requirements for our salvation is Jesus Christ.