A few questions for Protestants

[Albion]

False. There are eight Catholic "denominations" in the world but all believe exactly the same dogmas and doctrines,

Well, that's clearly wrong. There are more than that number although it might be said that there are eight which are prominent. But if so, that means several things:

1. When you say there are "thousands" of Protestant denominations, you are referring to the larger and the smaller ones alike, so if that were done with the Catholic denominations for the sake of having a reasonable comparison, there would be many Catholic ones, not just whatever eight you had in mind. And

2.. They all teach different doctrines, so your criticism of Protestantism concerning a diversity of teachings applies equally to Catholicism.

 

[Fidelibus]

no

Could I ask why?

My impression is that not all in a group do this; plus God can make us able to tell the difference > 1 Corintthians 11:18-19 > Paul knew the Christians could tell whom God approved, in spite of how impostors could use politics to make it seem like they were the approved.

As I see it in my Catholic bible studies, and to get the full understanding of these passages com7fy8, verses 17, 20 21, and 22 must be included. When this is done, we can see St. Paul is referring to abuses concerning the Lord's Supper.

17 In giving this instruction, I do not praise the fact that your meetings are doing more harm than good. 18 First of all, I hear that when you meet as a church there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; 19 there have to be factions among you in order that also those who are approved among you may become known. 20 When you meet in one place, then, it is not to eat the Lord's supper, 21 for in eating, each on goes ahead with his own supper and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. 22 Do you not have houses in which you can eat and drink? Or do you show contempt for the Church of God and make those who have nothing feel ashamed? What can I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this matter I do not praise you.

In these verses, Paul addresses a more serious problem that threatens the unity of the community. In imitation of the complete meal of the Passover victim that Jesus and His disciples ate before He offered Himself in the bread and the wine that became His Body and Blood, it was the custom in the early Church to share a meal before partaking of the Eucharist. St. Ignatius referred to the shared meal prior to the Eucharist as an "agape" meal/"love" meal (Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, 8.2).

Lead by example, especially of the character of Jesus . . . because how we are in God's grace can spread to make others the same way, better than words can tell or religious acts can show > 1 Peter 4:9-10.

I see the answer as three-fold. 1. They must lead the sheep not by force or for profit but with eager willingness in service to God. 2. They must not be overbearing but must serve as good examples. 3. If they behave rightly in their obligations, they will be rewarded by the Great Shepherd, Jesus Christ, when He returns.

Concerning Peter's warning for priests not to be domineering to the community, Jesus preached on this same human failing in Matthew 20:25-28 and gave them the example of humility of service when He washed the Apostles feet at the Last Supper (Jn 13:4-5, 12-17).

As for 1Pet.4:9-10, I believe verses 7, 8, and 11 must be read to get the full context of verses 9 and 10. That being, many Christians at this time, including Peter, felt that the increased persecution that Christians were facing signaled that the time of Christ's Second Advent was near. Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins is a maxim based on Proverbs 10:12 ~ Hatred stirs up disputes, but love covers all offenses and returns to Peter's continuing theme of mutual love.

How does Peter advise the newly baptized Christians of these provinces to prepare for Christ's return in verses 7-11?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[timothyu]

Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone

Yes, He said truth from the Father was the rock, the foundation His church (church not yet another human institution of governance, but a movement where the power lay with the people) would be built upon. That truth was He and His teachings about the Gospel of the Kingdom (all but ignored).
... "I am the way, the truth, and the life"

 

[Fidelibus]

True, the Holy Spirit is our guide if we let him be.

If you read John 14:26 closely, you will see Jesus is speaking directly to the Apostles, not to every Christian who will ever live, when He says the Holy Spirit will, "teach you all things". He is not speaking to all Christians everywhere, because all Christians everywhere were not "still with" Jesus (vs. 25), nor did Jesus speak to them in person such that the Holy Spirit could bring to their "remembrance all that "Jesus" said to "them," (vs. 26). So one cannot properly interpret John 14:26 as meaning that the Holy Spirit will individually teach each and every Christian "all things".

No. God gives us assurance.

But above you agreed it to be true, that under the Protestant/Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) theological system, there exists no person or no institution that can infallibly decide what is true and what is false for Christians when it comes to matters of faith and/or morals. So, with what you said above to be true, that says to me, under this theological system, there is no way to know for sure what is or is not true when it comes to the Christian faith and the Bible. Because without an infallible person or institution, then every single interpretation of the Bible done by anyone anywhere, carries with it the possibility of being wrong. In other words, there can be no such thing as "absolute assurance" under the Protestant/Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) theological system.

Christ is.

That's not what it says in the bible. In 1 Tim. 3:15 it says the "Church" is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Now 2 questions for you, do you disagree with any of the above verses?

I do not disagree with these verses at all, I agree with them, and the Bible 100%! However, that does not mean I agree with your fallible interpretation of them or the Bible.

If you agree that the Holy Spirit is the teacher, that all scripture is God-breathed and to be used for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, why is this not enough, in your view?

I am well aware of 2 Tim. 3:16-17, and the adherents of sola scriptura claim that Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. (The bible alone) But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is “profitable” (Greek: ophelimos), that is, helpful. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is “sufficient” or that scripture "alone" is sufficient as a rule of faith.

Again, I agree with those passages 100%! However, that does not mean I agree with your fallible interpretation of them, something you admitted under your theological belief system could be in error, Correct?


Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Buzzard3]

The obvious problem with singling out Peter as the one with ultimate authority in the Church (having the “keys” and being the “rock”) is the stubborn witness of the entire New Testament! If we assume that the papacy was established in Peter we would expect to find plenty of helpful evidence for it in Scripture, but we don’t. This highlights why Roman Catholic dogma rejects using Scripture alone to establish authority

Firstly, one of the fundamental errors of Protestantism is that everything is in the Bible. No, everything is in the CHURCH. The Bible is not the body of Christ, the CHURCH is, and the CHURCH is the "fullness" of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Secondly, which Bible are you reading? The first half of Acts (before the focus switches to the missionary activities of Paul) makes it abundantly clear that Peter is the leader of the Church. For example, try counting the number of times Peter's name is mentioned in the first half of Acts compared to the other apostles - compared to Peter, the others are barely mentioned.

And why did Jesus say the devil wants to "sift (Peter only) like wheat" (Luke 22:31)? It's because it was to Peter only that Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven", making Peter the supernaturally guided leader of the Church.

We have to ignore the witness and balanced fullness of New Testament teaching to build a case that even remotely suggests Peter was the rock on which the Church was to be built and to whom special authority was given.

I'm so glad you mentioned "balanced fullness of New Testament"! According to John 1:42, the VERY FIRST THING Jesus said to Peter was “You are Simon
the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which means rock).”
Please explain why Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock" the first time they met.
(Hint - read Matt 16:18).

 

[timothyu]

The Bible is not the body of Christ, the CHURCH is, and the CHURCH is the "fullness" of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

Only those of the world (hence the Adversary) would consider theChurch or Kingdom to be seen through the eyes of fleshy man, in the same way as the Jews sought a physical leader to save Judah. Church and Kingdom are not human institutions. They in no way resemble the traditional governments and establishments of man. Why would God offer us a new way and world then turn around and build it on the old ones of man? Only man who cannot see or want the Kingdom would do that. They like the Adversary, want it all for themselves.

 

[Buzzard3]

Post deleted

 

[Buzzard3]

What makes you think that no one can interpret it correctly?

I didn't say no one can interpret it correctly.

 

[Buzzard3]

Only those of the world (hence the Adversary) would consider theChurch or Kingdom to be seen through the eyes of fleshy man, in the same way as the Jews sought a physical leader to save Judah. Church and Kingdom are not human institutions. They in no way resemble the traditional governments and establishments of man. Why would God offer us a new way and world then turn around and build it on the old ones of man? Only man who cannot see or want the Kingdom would do that. They like the Adversary, want it all for themselves.

Tell that to Jesus ... he gave Peter - a mere sinful man - the SUPERNATURAL POWER of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

 

[Albion]

I didn't say no one can interpret it correctly.

Quoting you now, you wrote:

Pray tell, what is the point of having the Bible if no one can interpret it correctly?

And my response is that there is no reason to think that it might be the case that there's no one who can interpret the Bible correctly.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, that's clearly wrong. There are more than that number although it might be said that there are eight which are prominent.

Actually, I was wrong ... there are not eight Catholic "demoninations" but seven - Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean (within some of these rites there may be a few different "liturgical" rites).

Btw, there are no "denominations" within the Catholic Church. But perhaps by "denominations" you are referring to Catholic "orders", of which there are dozens. Regardless, all Catholic rites and orders share exactly the same dogmas and doctrines, as dictated by the Pope.

They all teach different doctrines, so your criticism of Protestantism concerning a diversity of teachings applies equally to Catholicism.

I suggest that you don't know what you're talking about.
Please provide proof that the different Catholic "denominations" teach different doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Actually, I was wrong ... there are not eight Catholic "demoninations" but seven - Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean (within some of these rites there may be a few different "liturgical" rites).

No, you're just referring to different "rites" within the Church of Rome. I was referring to actual Catholic demoninations like the Old Catholics, the Philippine Independent Catholic Church, the Society of St. Pius X, and so on.

So, back to the point...there are many different church bodies, separate churches or denominations, and they are classified as Catholic, just as Baptists, Methodists, and Lutherans are all classified as Protestants.

The various Catholic churches do have different doctrines, for example, most do not acknowledge the current Bishop of Rome as the head of their churches or of any universal church, let alone be believed to be "infallible." That's just one example, but I'm sure that you'd agree that the Papacy, pro or con, is a pretty important issue.

 

[Buzzard3]

Quoting you now, you wrote: Pray tell, what is the point of having the Bible if no one can interpret it correctly?



And my response is that there is no reason to think that it might be the case that there's no one who can interpret the Bible correctly.

You quoted me correctly. I did not say no one can interpret the Bible correctly.

 

[Albion]

You quoted me correctly. I did not say no one can interpret the Bible correctly.

In that case, what's your objection to Sola Scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the revealed word of God and contains all that is necessary for salvation?

 

[timothyu]

Tell that to Jesus ... he gave Peter - a mere sinful man - the SUPERNATURAL POWER of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

Sorry but Jesus was anti-institution of man. He represented a counter-culture to the culture of man so many in Christianity still defend. The keys were given to Peter based on the fact God spoke through him whereas Jesus said the only truth comes from the Father, not from man. Hence Peter was given the keys to a Kingdom not of man.

 

[timothyu]

as dictated by the Pope.

God offers freedom, man dictates.

 

[Buzzard3]

Then you agree that humans are capable of understanding the Bible correctly upon reading it??

Of course! Like I said, what is the point of having the Bible if no one can interpret it correctly? That's one reason Jesus gave us the Caholic Church ... to provide correct Bible interpretation. But outside the supernatural guidance (Matt 16:19) of the Catholic Church, correct Bible interpretation is prone to various errors, which lead to various erroneous doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Of course! Like I said, what is the point of having the Bible if no one can interpret it correctly?

In that case, what's your objection to Sola Scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the revealed word of God and contains all that is necessary for salvation?

That's one reason Jesus gave us the Caholic Church ... to provide correct Bible interpretation.

That's just something you'd like to believe. Every cult says something similar in order to justify its own existence.

We here cannot just post something our church taught us in Inquirer's Class and expected us to believe uncritically.

But outside the supernatural guidance (Matt 16:19) of the Catholic Church, correct Bible interpretation is prone to various errors, which lead to various erroneous doctrines.

Again, you're not dealing there in anything but what your denomination wants its people to believe.

 

[Buzzard3]

God offers freedom, man dictates.

I knew someone here would say that. God dictates, believe me - he judges the eternal fate of people according to his holy standards and justice (his dictates), does he not?

 

[timothyu]

That's one reason Jesus gave us the Caholic Church ... to provide correct Bible interpretation.

That is your opinion and you are free to believe it but I would think Jesus would never turn over teachings and a Gospel about the government of the Father over to the opposition, the government of man. But that is what ended up happening isn't it, and it was man, not God that turned the movement back to the ways of the world of man instead of God as Jesus knew the opposition would.
Matthew 6:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.