A few questions for Protestants

[Buzzard3]

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.

Any sect can call themselves "Catholic" or claim to be "Catholic" , but that doesn't mean they are part of the Catholic Church lead by the Pope.
For example, the Old Catholics and the Philippine Independant Catholic Church are not accepted by the Pope as being part of the Catholic Church.
As for the SSPX, they are not in full communion with the Pope and are tettering on the edge of excommunication/schism.

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.

No, that is not the point. The point is, there are different Catholic Churches (rites) but they are all united under one Pope and they all share the same dogmas and doctrines.
There is no Protestant Pope uniting them and there is no Protestant doctrinal unity, which is why there are thousands of different Protestant denominations, all going their own separate ways.

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

Any "Catholic" church that doesn't acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as their head is, by definiton, not part of the Catholic Church! Being a Catholic requires full communion with the Pope, which includes accepting all the necessary dogmas and doctrines that are dictated by the Pope.

 

[coffee4u]

You've obviously misinterpreted this verse. If "you have no need for anyone to teach you", why is St. John writing to that community and TEACHING them?

If "you have no need for anyone to teach you", why did Jesus send apostles to TEACH?: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations ... TEACHING them to obey everything I have commanded you.”” Matthew 28:18-20

If "you have no need for anyone to teach you", why did Christ send "some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, For the perfecting of the saints" (Eph 4:11-12)?

Come now, you asked questions and I answered them, how about you in return answer the two questions I asked of you before I answer any more of yours. Seems fair, yes?

Edit: So you replied again -one post would do. Stops multiple posts getting out of hand.

You still didn't explain why the Holy Spirit isn't enough.

 

[coffee4u]

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".



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.



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.




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.



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!

The issue here is you don't understand our position, you think you do but there are subtleties and shades that you are missing.

And just as you don't agree with our fallible interpretation of them nor do we agree with your churches fallible interpretation of them.

 

[Albion]

Any sect can call themselves "Catholic" or claim to be "Catholic" , but that doesn't mean they are part of the Catholic Church lead by the Pope.

None of them are pretending to be the one that's headed by the Pope.

No, that is not the point. The point is, there are different Catholic Churches (rites) but they are all united under one Pope and they all share the same dogmas and doctrines.

You referred to rites of the Roman Church when I mentioned that there are a number of other Catholic CHURCHES or denominations. The different rites of the Roman Catholic Church aren't part of this issue.

There is no Protestant Pope uniting them and there is no Protestant doctrinal unity,

And there is no Catholic Pope uniting the various church bodies defined as Catholic, either.

Most of the other Catholic denominations of course pointedly reject the claims of the bishop of Rome, which was pointed out earlier.

Any "Catholic" church that doesn't acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as their head is, by definition, not part of the Catholic Church!

Those are still classified as Catholic just as the various Protestant churches are classified as Protestant. The difference you are trying to draw simply does not exist.

 

[SamInNi]

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.

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).

Firstly, I'm not a protestant and I've no particular interest in protestantism.

Secondly, my personal insurmountable problem with Roman Catholic unique dogma is its incompatibility with the fullness of the Gospel found throughout Scripture.

In other words, as I've explained more fully elsewhere, in Scripture we can find a complete Salvation that by faith alone fully satisfies God's justice through Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. What need is there then for unique Roman Catholic infallible Tradition? None.

Nothing needs to be added to what is already complete. God's perfect work of Salvation is finished. Roman Catholicism has a mountain of extraneous teaching that corrupts and obscures God's true Salvation.

 

[Buzzard3]

Sorry but Jesus was anti-institution of man.

You obviously haven't studied the New Testament. Try reading it sometime.

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.

When Jesus gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven", Peter became the mouthpiece of God ... just as God used the prophets of the OT as his mouthpiece. Those prophets were all flawed sinners, yet God gave them the power to infallibly communicate his thoughts and will to the people. Peter and his successors - every Catholic Pope in history - have been given that same power.

 

[Buzzard3]

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?

Here's one reason: The Church that began with the apostles and gave us the NT says Sola Scriptures is wrong.
Btw, are you aware that your Bible was originally a Catholic publication?

Here's another reason: Sola Scriptura has proven itself to be a recipe for error, confusion and disunity.

Here's another reason: Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

... yet the NT describes a Church with a clearly defined and strict hierarchy that alone has the authority to teach and rule believers.
In other words, you've got your wires crossed.

 

[Buzzard3]

You still didn't explain why the Holy Spirit isn't enough.

The Holy Spirit is enough but he works through the Church that the Son founded, which is lead by one man - the man Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to.

Like all non-Catholic Christians, you haven't put any thought into the significance of Jesus giving Peter the "keys", have you?

 

[Buzzard3]

None of them are pretending to be the one that's headed by the Pope.


You referred to rites of the Roman Church when I mentioned that there are a number of other Catholic CHURCHES or denominations. The different rites of the Roman Catholic Church aren't part of this issue.



And there is no Catholic Pope uniting the various church bodies defined as Catholic, either.

Most of the other Catholic denominations of course pointedly reject the claims of the bishop of Rome, which was pointed out earlier.


Those are still classified as Catholic just as the various Protestant churches are classified as Protestant. The difference you are trying to draw simply does not exist.

Any "Catholic" church not in full communion with the Pope is not Catholic. Such churches are fake.

 

[Buzzard3]

as I've explained more fully elsewhere, in Scripture we can find a complete Salvation that by faith alone

Firstly, nowhere in the Bible does it say anyone is saved by faith alone.

Secondly, James 2:24 blantantly contradicts your "faith alone" doctrine - "a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE".

Thirdly, Paul teaches that a believer's sins (works) can land him in hell (Gal 5, 1Cor 6) - so much for your "faith alone" dotrine; it's unscriptural nonsense.

 

[Fidelibus]

The issue here is you don't understand our position, you think you do but there are subtleties and shades that you are missing.

Well, if this is true, could you help us non-Protestants by explaining your positions we do not understand?

And just as you don't agree with our fallible interpretation of them nor do we agree with your churches fallible interpretation of them.

First off, which of the many different scriptural interpretations (fallible) within the many Protestant/non-denominational churches or sects are you referring, that I don't agree with? You need to be a little more specific, because there are so many!

Secondly, the Church I am a member of is not "my" Church, it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, The Catholic Church!

Thirdly, it is not my Church whose interpretation of Scripture you do not agree with, it is Christ's Church you disagree with! Doesn't it make sense that the Church founded by Jesus Christ would claim to be the authentic interpreter of Scripture? Which brings up the next question....Where do you believe the Bible came from? It did not just fall down out of heaven. It was not handed to us from the sky directly by God. So, where did it come from?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

Secondly, the Church I am a member of is not "my" Church, it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, The Catholic Church!

We all "get" that Catholics think that's the case.

It doesn't become true just because church members believe that particular teaching of their church. Nor is it true if Mormons say the same thing about their church or Orthodox Christians say it of theirs, or if the members of any other church body say it of their own.

Thirdly, it is not my Church whose interpretation of Scripture you do not agree with, it is Christ's Church you disagree with!

Could we return to the discussion instead of posting testimonials??

 

[timothyu]

You obviously haven't studied the New Testament. Try reading it sometime.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[DeFyYing]

I just wanted to say that there is a huge difference between SOLO scriptura (Bible only) and SOLA scriptura (the Bible is the final authority for doctrine, but in light of patristic interpretation and tradition).

 

[DeFyYing]

Firstly, nowhere in the Bible does it say anyone is saved by faith alone.

Secondly, James 2:24 blantantly contradicts your "faith alone" doctrine - "a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE".

Thirdly, Paul teaches that a believer's sins (works) can land him in hell (Gal 5, 1Cor 6) - so much for your "faith alone" dotrine; it's unscriptural nonsense.

What about Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, and Romans 5:1? Also, the Catholic church is largely in agreement with protestantism on justification now, the ELCA and Catholic church made a joint declaration on soteriology.

 

[timothyu]

yet God gave them the power to infallibly communicate his thoughts and will to the people. Peter and his successors - every Catholic Pope in history - have been given that same power.

First of all, Peter's successors would have been chosen in a forward movement, not reverse engineered to create a connection.

Second, if these so called successors had the power to 'infallibly communicate his thoughts and will to the people' then why did they reject the Gospel of the Kingdom which Jesus said He was sent to teach, and go in an opposing direction whoring themselves instead to the governance of man rather than of God until they became a power unto themselves. No wonder they have struggled to keep that false authourity going as has every world leader. The ways of man are not of the Kingdom.

 

[timothyu]

... yet the NT describes a Church with a clearly defined and strict hierarchy that alone has the authority to teach and rule believers.
In other words, you've got your wires crossed.

The fact this statement argued with the scripture presented is rather telling.

 

[Albion]

What about Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, and Romans 5:1? Also, the Catholic church is largely in agreement with protestantism on justification now, the ELCA and Catholic church made a joint declaration on soteriology.

Yes, but that issue is in the same state as claims that the Great Schism of 1054 is about to be resolved or that Anglicans will all be reunited with Rome thanks to the Papacy setting up its "Ordinariate."

In short, all of these are very preliminary agreements involving only some of the necessary participants and basically avoided all the difficult areas of disagreement for the sake of putting a good face on the results. None of it is going to happen in our lifetimes.

 

[timothyu]

In short, all of these are very preliminary agreements involving only some of the necessary participants and basically avoided all the difficult areas of disagreement for the sake of putting a good face on the results.

So it's like giving the impression of sheeps' clothing?