500 years of protesting what?

[DeaconDean]

None of which altars the fact that Sola scriptura is provably false.
Proven from basic logic. As well as history and scripture prove it wrong.

None of your quotes challenge that at all.

Nowhere do they say scripture alone, and without that sola scriptura is a self refuting logical proposition,and so provably false.

The Catholic Church was the ONLY church. And also the authority that decided your New Testament! Without the Catholic Church you have no bible. You reel out all the usual myths. So sad none of you study the early church.

Ignatius - disciple of John the apostle uses just those words " Catholic Church" at the turn of the first century- in a letter to the smyrneans. Read it, if you want to know what the early church was like! It mentions succession bishops appointed to replace apostles empowered a Eucharist of the real flesh. Which rules out 99.9 percent of denominations at a shot!

Indeed " catholic" didn't even need the adjective Roman till the easterns split away after a millinenium. And even those orthodox who split away believe much as we do on most doctrine,

It is not just sola scriptura that is a wholly false man made tradition and foundation of the reformation.

Take "sola fideii"
Another battle cry of the reformation. Equally provable FALSE!!
You just need one verse in scripture to prove that!

Because The only place the words " faith alone" appear together in scripture is specifically to state that faith alone is NOT enough. Check it out!

Does that not concern you? The bible states clearly that another pillar of the refirmation is FALSE!

To show how far reformationists were willing to go to distort the faith - Luther tried to edit it that verse and book out at one point in history. Historical fact,Check it out. Luthers "epistle of straw"

Luther was not interested in conforming his Doctrine to scripture. He wanted instead to change scripture to support his doctrine! The temerity of a man who thought he could choose which scriptures he liked, and could throw out or alter others if they did not suit him.

It is strange that bible alone folk, then wholly disagree with what the bible says, as Luther did and they do on sola fidei!

Indeed our Lord clearly states many things as necessary for salvation, and others you must avoid. Faith alone is not enough - not if you believe what the bible says!

But as the bible says " by their fruits you will know them" and the fruits of sola scriptura and Protestantism is endless division and thousands of mutually exclusive doctrines. Most of which churches must be false because they believe in mutually exclusive things: and truth is unique, Protestantism is the a house divided that cannot stand. You still have not explained how it is that if scripture is enough... you all come to so many opposing beliefs on what it means?

Enough. I tire of repeating myself.
Study journey home series or reason to believe- Madrid - if you want to understand why study of history forced many Protestant pastors and theologians to go back to Rome.

The reformation was built on falsehoods. Easily demonstrated so.

All I can say is study the early church. It was nothing like Protestant churches and Poles apart from modern day evangelical biblical churches. I was both at one time. I know.

As Newman said to " be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"

He was right.

You know, its people like you who come in here, saying that there is no church other than "your" church.

That your church is the only one who is "authorized" to do anything.

In spite of the fact that Protestantism has flourished and saved countless millions of souls.

Before I'd bow my knee to some guy in a robe sitting on a throne in the Mediterranean area, and know that I have compromised what I believe, I'd rather die and spend an eternity in hell than join myself to the Catholic church which reserves the right to run all facets of my life!

I will not bow down to the Pope!

I will not bow down a pray to any dead saint.

I will not bow down and offer prayers to any saint hoping that they will intercede on my part.

I will not accept that I have to work at justification and then store up some merit that I might be able to use at a later time.

Last time I looked, I live in the United States of America, and have the right to worship as I see fit, in any church I see fit to attend with pressure from the state or any other church.

I was saved in a Baptist church in 1974, and I'll die in a Baptist church.

Its people like you who come in here with a sledgehammer beating anybody and everybody who just so happens to disagree with the catholic church.

Its people like who only further my resolve.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I stand united with Martin Luther in:

"Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me."

Meaning:

"Luther asserted that his conscience was captive to the Word of God and that he could not go against conscience...Though already excommunicated by Rome, Luther saw himself as a sworn teacher of Scripture who must advocate the right of all Christians to hear and live by the gospel."

Source

There are only two things in this world a man can call his own, his sins, and his principles.

Compromise your principles and all you have are your sins.

I will not compromise my principles.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mountainmike]

With sincere respect, As you now MOST of the comparative theology posts on christian forums are anticatholic - including this thread, aiming at showing that catholicism is either antiscriptural, antihistorical or apostate.

I sometimes post the countercase to show that if either should challenge the others basis for existence catholicism has the greater justification to exclude others... For the basic reasons that, The solas are provably unscriptural and demonstrable as false. The protestant churches are nothing like the early church - eg eucharist of the real flesh - and that the "fruits" sola scriptura are provably endless protestant differences on doctrine.

Whilst protestants start many threads that attack catholicism, it surprises me that they post so few noting their own differences between each other.

That said...Catholics dont prosyletize.

We don't start threads aimed at undermining protestantism We just defend catholicism in threads where protestants try to undermine catholicism , like this!

So I am not in trying to undermine protestantism per se, just defend catholicism against unjustifiable attacks. And in doing that I inevitably undermine protestantism by looking at history of early church and later new testament, and how the faith was passed down. And how doctrinal differences were resolved. Indeed the meaning of "bind and loose"

Which I am well placed to do...because I started the other side of the fence, and I used - and sadly believed - all the arguments protestants use against catholics. Till I studied the early church. And as Newman said I discovered to be "deep in hisotry is to cease to be protestant" so I came home to Rome. It is a surprise to many when I point out the real history of christianity and the new testament - and an even bigger surprise the sheer number of pastors and theologicans that make the same journey, no longer able to defend protestantism.

So god bless you, and I do not seek to change your beliefs, just defend my own!

I admire all who live the christian life, and preach the good news as indeed you do.

Just so long as they dont preach fastfood christianity ,
..."do this one simple thing and be saved forever" OSAS because I think it is dangerous doctrine! My question for such people is , if one simple thing were enough, why did our Lord waste so many scripture verses and time, explaining a myriad of other things you must do or not do? Clearly there is more to it! And the christian life is not an easy road! So OSAS I do speak out against.

You know, its people like you who come in here, saying that there is no church other than "your" church.

That your church is the only one who is "authorized" to do anything.

In spite of the fact that Protestantism has flourished and saved countless millions of souls.

Before I'd bow my knee to some guy in a robe sitting on a throne in the Mediterranean area, and know that I have compromised what I believe, I'd rather die and spend an eternity in hell than join myself to the Catholic church which reserves the right to run all facets of my life!

I will not bow down to the Pope!

I will not bow down a pray to any dead saint.

I will not bow down and offer prayers to any saint hoping that they will intercede on my part.

I will not accept that I have to work at justification and then store up some merit that I might be able to use at a later time.

Last time I looked, I live in the United States of America, and have the right to worship as I see fit, in any church I see fit to attend with pressure from the state or any other church.

I was saved in a Baptist church in 1974, and I'll die in a Baptist church.

Its people like you who come in here with a sledgehammer beating anybody and everybody who just so happens to disagree with the catholic church.

Its people like who only further my resolve.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

With respect

As you now MOST of the comparative theology posts on christian forums are anticatholic - including this thread, aiming at showing that catholicism is either antiscriptural, antihistorical or apostate.

I sometimes post the countercase to show that if either should challenge the others basis for existence catholicism has the greater justification to exclude others...
For the basic reasons that, The solas are provably unscriptural and demonstrable as false. The protestant churches are nothing like the early church - eg eucharist of the real flesh - and that the "fruits" sola scriptura are provably endless protestant differences on doctrine.

Whilst protestants start many threads that attack catholicism, it surprises me that they post so few noting their own differences between each other.

That said...Catholics dont prosyletize.
We don't start threads aimed at undermining protestantism
We just defend catholicism in threads where protestants try to undermine catholicism , like this!

So I am not in trying to undermine protestantism per se, just defend catholicism against unjustifiable attacks. And in doing that I inevitably undermine protestantism by looking at history of early church and later new testament, and how the faith was passed down. And how doctrinal differences were resolved. Indeed the meaning of "bind and loose"

Which I am well placed to do...because I started the other side of the fence, and I used - and sadly believed - all the arguments protestants use against catholics. Till I studied the early church. It is a surprise to many when I point out the real history of christianity and the new testament!

So god bless you, and I do not seek to change your beliefs, just defend my own!

I admire all who live the christian life, and preach the good news as indeed you do.

Just so long as they dont preach fastfood christianity ,
..."do this one simple thing and be saved forever" OSAS because I think it is dangerous doctrine! My qyestion for such people is , if one simple thing were enough, why did our Lord waste so many scripture verses and time, explaining a myriad of other things you must do or not do? Clearly there is more to it! And the christian life is not an easy road!

Yet your whole posts have been full of the same thing.

How wrong Protestantism is.

How much damage we have done.

How wrong our beliefs are.

Hello pot, this is kettle.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[FireDragon76]

The protestant churches are nothing like the early church - eg eucharist of the real flesh

Lutherans confess that the Eucharist is the true flesh of Christ. So being Protestant is not synonymous with rejecting that doctrine.

and that the "fruits" sola scriptura are provably endless protestant differences on doctrine.

We are free to pursue truth according to our own conscience. Division is a lamentable consequence of that, but also necessary. The cause of Christ is not served by a Christian unity built upon naive traditionalism and premodern gullibility, as was the case of pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

Brother Martin insisted that true doctrine be built upon a firmer foundation than the self-important pronouncements of grand poobah's shrouded in historical romanticism. For that all us moderns owe him a debt of gratitude.

 

[DeaconDean]

In fact, I have posted history.

What has been recorded in history.

From the 3-4th century, until today.

And the fact remains, the Catholic church has been and still is prideful, corrupt, greedy, deceitful (as in the case of lying to Martin Luther to get him in a court), murderous, torturous, what the Catholic church did to John Wycliffe is purely shameful. What crime did he commit that was not only worthy f dying, but some 40 years after he died, warrented being dug up, burnt, and having his ashes scattered in a river. And this went on for some 1500 years!

Shall I go on?

I have posted facts, not "made up drivel".

God Bless

Till alla re one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Lutherans confess that the Eucharist is the true flesh of Christ. So being Protestant is not synonymous with rejecting that doctrine.



We are free to pursue truth according to our own conscience. Division is a lamentable consequence of that, but also necessary. The cause of Christ is not served by a Christian unity built upon naive traditionalism and premodern gullibility, as was the case of pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

Brother Martin insisted that true doctrine be built upon a firmer foundation than the self-important pronouncements of grand poobah's shrouded in historical romanticism. For that all us moderns owe him a debt of gratitude.

Here here!

Well said, I tip my hat to you.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[FireDragon76]

Considering the state of the western world a mere 500 years ago- which is almost nothing in the historical timescale, it's hard not to be caught in awe at the transformation unleashed by Luther's protest. Luther put Christianity on a more humanistic track, he freed us to be human beings and not religious robots trying to earn a place in heaven. Unleashing that energy contributed to western culture's dynamism and creativity, even though Luther himself could not fully understand the ramifications of what he had done.

The "Christendom" that was lost, in comparison, was largely a pious pretense. We can lament the divisions but lets not make the mistake of actually wanting to go back to the religion of Pope Leo.

 

[BobRyan]

Lutherans confess that the Eucharist is the true flesh of Christ. So being Protestant is not synonymous with rejecting that doctrine.

And yet Luther never claimed powers to "confect the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ" though he did argue that in some mysterious way the wafer includes the real presence of Christ.

We are free to pursue truth according to our own conscience. Division is a lamentable consequence of that, but also necessary. The cause of Christ is not served by a Christian unity built upon naive traditionalism and premodern gullibility, as was the case of pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

Brother Martin insisted that true doctrine be built upon a firmer foundation than the self-important pronouncements of grand poobah's shrouded in historical romanticism. For that all us moderns owe him a debt of gratitude.

True.

 

[BobRyan]

With sincere respect, As you now MOST of the comparative theology posts on christian forums are anticatholic - including this thread, aiming at showing that catholicism is either antiscriptural, antihistorical or apostate.

Actually from the OP we see that this thread is aimed to discussing the "gap" and efforts underway during this 500th year anniversary to narrow that gap.

1. Step one -- define the gap
2. Step two -- what steps could be taken to narrow that gap.

The fact that this quickly reduced down to "reject sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine or reject it" ... is "instructive".

Whilst protestants start many threads that attack catholicism, it surprises me that they post so few noting their own differences between each other.

Differences between Catholics and the Orthodox churches then??

In any case the meetings in Germany were not discussing this or that specific non-Catholic denomination and how it might narrow the gap between itself and another non-Catholic denomination... as I am sure we all agree.

A thread such as that could be started however...

That said...Catholics dont prosyletize.

hint: the Inquisition.
Hint: Lateran IV.
Hint: the counter reformation

Hint the crusades against Bohemia and other Protestant nations.
Hint the wars between Catholic Papal armies themselves.

 

[BobRyan]

None of which altars the fact that Sola scriptura is provably false.
Proven from basic logic. As well as history and scripture prove it wrong.

Until you read the Bible

Ignatius - disciple of John the apostle uses just those words " Catholic Church" at the turn of the first century- in a letter to the smyrneans. Read it,

Of the pile of 15 fraudulent letters attributed 10 Ignatius -- all 15 were claimed as legit by the RCC until even they had to admit to the fraudulent nature of the majority of them. Calvin of course - condemned all of them.

Were we "simply not supposed to notice"??


if you want to know what the early church was like read the NT letters!

It mentions succession of Apostles only 1 time... the succession of Judas in Acts 1.

By contrast... in Catholic church history we have 3 papal lines all at war with each other... all with successors.

 

[FireDragon76]

And yet Luther never claimed powers to "confect the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ" though he did argue that in some mysterious way the wafer includes the real presence of Christ.

Luther accepted transubstantiation as one explanation, though not the only possible explanation given the text. He focused on the assurance that is provided in the Supper, and not the metaphysics.

Having a ministerial priesthood is part of the good order of the Church, and we do not object to the notion that an ordained priest is the only appropriate officiant at the Supper. We have similar reverence for the Sacrament that Roman Catholics do, to the point it was a source of contention with the Reformed, who, in their polemics, claimed we worshiped bread.

So on the subject of the Real Presence of Christ, we are far closer to Roman Catholics than any other Protestant group.

We did not leave the Roman church because of anything else other than the Romans denying us the right to preach the Gospel of grace. Luther was not even allowed to debate the merits of his viewpoints. Even though adding ones own glosses to the canon was the accepted practice of the time by doctors of theology. In truth, Luther's ideas hit in the purse and pocketbook, that is why he was silenced.

 

[Mountainmike]

When Catholicism is attacked, which is the nature and intent of this thread, I am entitled and obliged to defend it - and set history straight.

There is no pot and kettle.

I did not start a thread attacking Protestantism, nor join in a thread whose intent was attacking another faction. I defended that which was attacked- by challenging the attackers.


I defended Catholicism using truth , logic and history.
Which shows the battle cries of the reformation are false.

Yet your whole posts have been full of the same thing.

How wrong Protestantism is.

How much damage we have done.

How wrong our beliefs are.

Hello pot, this is kettle.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Mountainmike]

What principles?

He started using sola scriptura as a notional basis for his doctrine, which was provable sophistry demonstrated when he then sought to change scripture to make it conform to his doctrine! The epistle of straw.

And he regretted the monster he helped to create in later life,

I stand united with Martin Luther in:

View attachment 211848

"Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me."

Meaning:

"Luther asserted that his conscience was captive to the Word of God and that he could not go against conscience...Though already excommunicated by Rome, Luther saw himself as a sworn teacher of Scripture who must advocate the right of all Christians to hear and live by the gospel."

Source

There are only two things in this world a man can call his own, his sins, and his principles.

Compromise your principles and all you have are your sins.

I will not compromise my principles.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[BobRyan]

When Catholicism is attacked, which is the nature and intent of this thread, I am entitled and obliged to defend it - and set history straight.

You are of course welcomed to post the best defense of Catholicism that you can find.. I encourage it. But the "intent" is not so much to attack Catholicism as to "define the gap" between Catholicism and Protestantism - given this 500th year anniversary and the proceedings in Germany last month.

 

[BobRyan]

What principles?
He started using sola scriptura as a notional basis for his doctrine, ,

Sola Scriptura --

in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact -- "sola scriptura" times ten!!


"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model used by those attacking the Bible doctrine of sola scriptura testing does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment you conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" the "testing is over" in that model.

And we have this from Christ Himself --

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Pure - "sola scriptura".

Irrefutable.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are of course welcomed to post the best defense of Catholicism that you can find.. I encourage it. But the "intent" is not so much to attack Catholicism as to "define the gap" between Catholicism and Protestantism - given this 500th year anniversary and the proceedings in Germany last month.

Protestants don't all believe or practice the same things, though, and some Protestants are much more similar to the Romans than to other Protestants. This is obviously true for Lutherans and Anglicans. And some of the points you raise are less problematic from a Lutheran standpoint, and some objectionable (we aren't sabbatarians, and would regard the stance on the issue as a kind of vain enthusiasm).

 

[Mountainmike]

Not so. That is wishful thinking.
Your logic is faulty, your quotes are not a logical equivalence of sola scriptura


Both positive and negative logic, disprove it,
That is : the bible fails to say scripture alone, and worse explicitly says there is truth outside scripture.
Which is not surprising - since scripture alone is historically , scripturally as well as logically provable
False.

As well - You presume the meaning travels with words. It clearly does not as the 10000 mutually opposing Protestant doctrine sets prove.


You are " proof texting" - the bane of Protestantism and how " bible alone" folk cherrypick to make the bible say what ever they want it to say, with the net result of endless Protestant schisms. Because authority and tradition are needed for meaning.

None of your quotes say scripture alone , they just prove scripture ( provided part of the canon approved by council, so inspired ) is valuable, the rest is wishful thinking on your part of the closest things you can find. None of which say scripture alone in the form needed to avoid self refutation, as a post grad mathematician, I understand logic.

The pillar and foundation of truth is the church. I read that in scripture so it must be true. As us authority to bind and loose meaning. The words are not enough,


And as for Lutherans believing real flesh. The early church disagree that the Lutheran sacrament is valid. Ignatius to smyrneans shows only valid if by bishop in succession, which is lost at the point of excommunication, as Luther and the others were when they refused the authority of the church and apostasized,. And is presumably why there are no Lutheran Eucharistic miracles. Whose science is astounding by the way.
if you repudiate the authority of the church, you throw out the New Testament with it. You cannot have one without the other,

I also posted the refutation of sola fidei, luthers other big mistake.


Enough.
I tire of repeating the same arguments.

They are black and white, no room for disagreement.

If you believe sola scriptura you start with a supernatural premise, which contradicts history and scripture.

Sola Scriptura --

in Acts 17:11 we have an actual historic fact -- "sola scriptura" times ten!!


"they studied the scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things were SO" that they had been told by the APOSTLE Paul. Acts 17:11

Instead of being 'instructed' to use our feelings... the Word of God says this -

"though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should preach to you a different Gospel - let him be ACCURSED" Gal 1:6-9

The model used by those attacking the Bible doctrine of sola scriptura testing does not allow such a "let him be accursed" result since the moment you conclude "well it is a church Apostle" or "well it is an angel from heaven" the "testing is over" in that model.

And we have this from Christ Himself --

Luke 24

27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Pure - "sola scriptura".

Irrefutable.

 

[FireDragon76]

Because authority and tradition are needed for meaning.

Only if you are drawn to authoritarianism and traditionalism.

And as for Lutherans believing real flesh. The early church disagree that the Lutheran sacrament is valid.

That's the Roman interpretation of the early church, of course.

Ignatius to smyrneans shows only valid if by bishop in succession

Supposing Ignatius did write this... what makes Ignatius infallible?

And is presumably why there are no Lutheran Eucharistic miracles.

The presence of visible miracles doesn't have much to do with Lutheran Eucharistic validity in our self-understanding. And if you are talking about anomalous experiences associated with the Eucharist, there are Lutherans on the forum here who have had those sorts of experiences.

The Roman church may well have genuine Eucharistic miracles. We do not deny the validity of Roman sacraments. But by, at times, hampering the clear preaching of the Gospel, your church has done a disservice to its members.

Whose science is astounding by the way.
if you repudiate the authority of the church, you throw out the New Testament with it.

We Lutherans don't throw out the authority of the Church in the absolute sense, we viewed the Pope as a usurper.

For us, the church is always primarily local, whereas you Romans tend to think of the Church as universal and hierarchical.

If you believe sola scriptura you start with a supernatural premise, which contradicts history and scripture.

Sola Scriptura is not a de fide doctrine that must be believed to be saved. However, it is a pragmatic alternative to the dubious doctrine of papal infallibility.

 

[Mountainmike]

I am through with answering blow for blow -

But the last point you make is a generic problem with this thread and protestants commenting on catholicism.

By your statement - You clearly have no idea what papal infallibility is or means.
And so all of your arguments based on it are false.
As was your comment I quote.
It no sense can it be viewed as alternative to "sola scriptura"


And that is a generic problem - It is sadly true - that the overwhelming number of attacks on the catholic church are based on
1/ A misunderstanding of catholicism - and often wilful misrepresentation of it.
2/ A misunderstanding of the early church both the doctrineand how Jesus instructed the faith handed down
3/ A misunderstanding of what "paradosis" tradition is - the colloquial use of that word does not help, which also proves the point, that scripture is only the word of God IF you take the right meaning of it - you dont get to choose what the words mean, and any interpretation compatible is not necessarily the truth! Which is why catholics teach not sola scriptura but sola dei verbum.
.
4/ A misunderstanding of the history of the bible.

I know. I used to use all the same arguments as a protestant and evangelical - till I studied the early church and discovered how wide of the mark it all was!!

So the antiatholic mythbook grows and gets repeated ad nauseam - no doubt your illinformed post above will get echoed, as a soundbite, and handed on to another illinformed set of posters. True manmade tradition at work - reformationists responsible for most man made tradition invented in the middle ages most of it!

You should study ignatius- because Jesus chose apostles in succession to hand down the faith - he told them to preach the good news, not write!So few of them did. Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of John the apostle. So you can find out what John taught by studying such fathers....the essence of catholicism.

I am leaving the thread now, just requoting Newman.
"to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"
WHich was what I found to be true.

Farewell and God Bless all.
Whatever our differences - those who lead Christian lives and hand on the good news have my never ending admiration.

Except as I remarked - those who preach OSAS - product of the "instant quick fix, fastr food society" we now live , who I think wholly mislead those who follow them. If "do this one thing, be saved forever" was enough...I ask them why did Jesus ask us to do and not do , so many things ?

Sola Scriptura is not a de fide doctrine that must be believed to be saved. However, it is a pragmatic alternative to the dubious doctrine of papal infallibility.