Are The Scriptures Sufficiently Clear?

[Phil 1:21]

If you simply don't like the Protestant moniker, what label can you think of which adequately distinguishes your group from Catholics and Orthodox?

Honestly, I refer to myself the same as before I was called out of the RCC -- a Christian. If someone else feels compelled to break it down further, that's on them.

 

[straykat]

I'm not saying what is written in Holy Scriptures does not have application in our lives. They obviously do. What I'm saying is we do so by drawing the truth out of the scriptures and not stuffing in our preconceived notions.

We should exegete what God is communicating in the passage at hand to the actual person or audience first before injecting ourselves into the equation. For example, as attached in pdf format.

I do adhere to that. It's obviously about John in one respect. But he's also a model disciple in another respect. And the history of the church bears witness to this. All of the living apostles honored Mary. But since I'm not a Protestant and now call upon extra-biblical tradition, I suppose I'll be ignored. None of this matters apparently. The Church started in AD 33.. then was postponed until Reformation times. Only then could we could get the pure truth, after throwing everything out (ironically, not even Luther or Calvin went this far.. as they were fond of Mary herself. It's the spirit of Anabaptism and the radical Reformers that really took it all off the cliff).

 

[thecolorsblend]

If you disagree can you please share some of the doctrine and tradition changes of the Orthodox Church?

With as much respect as I can muster under the circumstances, I really have no interest in discussing the in's and out's of my Church's relationship and history with the Orthodox Church with a "non-denominationalist".

jeez

an automatic "No true Scotsman"

poppy-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]

My Church does not permit disagreement on the defined dogmas. Protestantism has no defined dogmas and no method of correcting someone who has gone astray. My Church's teachings are known and Catholics who intentionally reject the Church's teachings know (or should know) the risk they're taking.

So unless we bring back the Inquisition (which I would have only limited objection to, incidentally), I'm not really sure what more my Church can do to bring those types back into line.

 

[Anto9us]

So unless we bring back the Inquisition (which I would have only limited objection to, incidentally), I'm not really sure what more my Church can do to bring those types back into line.

Only limited objection to The Inquisition, eh?

Knock yourself out, Torquemada, bring it on!

 

[redleghunter]

On the contrary, I'm a firm believer in policing one's own.

I am too. Jesus tells us to do so in Matthew 18.

In relation to the Mormons and the JW's specifically, blaming Protestants for those strange brew cults is simply wrong headed. Addressing Mormons and JW's specifically, they're non-Trinitarian. I have many many points of disagreement with the Protestants. But I will acknowledge that they endeavor to be Trinitarian. And that counts for a lot.

Glad you said this.

I take it you object to that criterion. Fair enough.

Protestant means something. Protest is baked into the name of the movement. So if the Protestants are protesting something or someone, what or who are they protesting? If you simply don't like the Protestant moniker, what label can you think of which adequately distinguishes your group from Catholics and Orthodox?

I think you have read the history. We can probably agree the protest was not over the 12 articles of the Apostles Creed, nor the first 6 early ecumenical councils.

This is no small source of scandal among Catholics. However, I should say that the people you mention specifically have, by their own actions, ex-communicated themselves. It would be a bit redundant for the Church to formalize that. Maybe that would pacify some of the angrier Catholics out there but the task is already completed.

That means that if those people receive the Blessed Sacrament without being properly restored into communion, they're in seriously deep trouble. Deeper, perhaps, than anything the Church can do to them.

I always thought the concept of self-excommunication was one was in disobedience to the Church articles of faith but remained silent. Meaning, no one knows Joe Doe in the pew next to you is in disobedience but has in effect self-excommunicated. Every church has that issue since Pentecost of course. However, the visible and brazen continue on without discipline (Matthew 18). I know it is a mixed bag as some bishops will act boldly and others give room in patience for repentance and correction, but some don't do a thing at all.

My point was not to poke Roman Catholics in the eye but to point out you all have the same challenges.

 

[redleghunter]

"Can have". And it's true. I have seen it and heard it for myself. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

And I mean what I say. If one does not get Christology right, then they are not Christians.

 

[Anto9us]

I forget -- when was Didache canonized?

 

[Anto9us]

If you git Christology wrong -- you a Hairy-Tick - no ifs ands or buts.

 

[Halbhh]

Given those numbers that puts roughly 70% of Catholics not onboard with their own catechism.

Whoa, really a big number like that? It's of interest because reading some in the Catholic Catechism, I found it good stuff on justification and another related section, so I wonder what is being answered. Maybe a proxy for some issues they discern.

Ah, ok; I see now what you refer to there now.

 

[Phil 1:21]

My Church does not permit disagreement on the defined dogmas. Protestantism has no defined dogmas and no method of correcting someone who has gone astray. My Church's teachings are known and Catholics who intentionally reject the Church's teachings know (or should know) the risk they're taking.

for the sake of discussion, what would that risk be for not believing all of the RCC's dogmas?

 

[redleghunter]

I laughed at that, I won't lie.

Ok, fair enough I will laugh with you on that. Was trying to make a distinction between non-Nicene faith groups and Protestants who are creedal.

However, I've found plenty of those obnoxious Truly Reformed types who either don't understand or else don't value the significant differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. One example can be found at Hank Hanegraaff Chrismated Into Eastern Orthodoxy-Apostasy, Theosis

Yes as a former Roman Catholic and educated through university Catholic (if one considers Jesuits still Catholic ) I do endeavor to police this up myself when I can. As well as having "married into the family" members who were Eastern Orthodox and knowing the distinctions. Not to mention working 5 years for a chatty Greek Orthodox entrepreneur while in HS and college.

I link to it only to say that the differences between the traditional Christian Churches is often not recognized or valued by the non-traditional types. So clearly we all have some work to do here.

Agree.

 

[redleghunter]

I do adhere to that. It's obviously about John in one respect. But he's also a model disciple in another respect. And the history of the church bears witness to this. All of the living apostles honored Mary. But since I'm not a Protestant and now call upon extra-biblical tradition, I suppose I'll be ignored. None of this matters apparently. The Church started in AD 33.. then was postponed until Reformation times. Only then could we could get the pure truth, after throwing everything out (ironically, not even Luther or Calvin went this far.. as they were fond of Mary herself. It's the spirit of Anabaptism and the radical Reformers that really took it all off the cliff).

Are you in the Restoration Movement?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I am too. Jesus tells us to do so in Matthew 18.

Glad you said this.

I think you have read the history. We can probably agree the protest was not over the 12 articles of the Apostles Creed, nor the first 6 early ecumenical councils.


I always thought the concept of self-excommunication was one was in disobedience to the Church articles of faith but remained silent. Meaning, no one knows Joe Doe in the pew next to you is in disobedience but has in effect self-excommunicated. Every church has that issue since Pentecost of course. However, the visible and brazen continue on without discipline (Matthew 18). I know it is a mixed bag as some bishops will act boldly and others give room in patience for repentance and correction, but some don't do a thing at all.

My point was not to poke Roman Catholics in the eye but to point out you all have the same challenges.

With respect, no. We don't.

#1- Catholic beliefs are formalized; Protestants' are not. The only doctrine I can think of which might prevent someone from being a Protestant is accepting the Pope's authority. I'm otherwise at a loss to think of any doctrine a Protestant is obligated to believe in so as to remain a Protestant. That label is very elastic and covers a lot of territory. However, one cannot believe just anything and remain Catholic.

#2- Related to that, if one doesn't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, that person is not Catholic. I don't believe some non-Catholics really understand the seriousness of this. It's not a trivial difference of opinion. The Church's teachings have been defined. Rejecting them is an act of rebellion. Protestants tend to view a lot of things as negotiable. But that isn't how the Church works. I can believe what I want on some things. But the doctrines defined by my Church aren't open to debate.

#3- I say the above to emphasize that the people you mentioned in your post are playing with spiritual fire. You may disagree with some of your fellow Protestants at times. But my guess is that most Protestants don't think somebody else is necessarily risking their soul just because they're taking a different viewpoint on something. No such guarantee exists in the Catholic Church.

 

[thecolorsblend]

And I mean what I say. If one does not get Christology right, then they are not Christians.

CF rules prohibit me from saying that I agree with you.

 

[redleghunter]

My Church does not permit disagreement on the defined dogmas. Protestantism has no defined dogmas and no method of correcting someone who has gone astray.

Actually we do:

2 Timothy 3: NKJV
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[redleghunter]

CF rules prohibit me from saying that I agree with you.

Actually they do as the statement of faith here at CF confirms the Nicene creed.

Catholic beliefs are formalized; Protestants' are not. The only doctrine I can think of which might prevent someone from being a Protestant is accepting the Pope's authority. I'm otherwise at a loss to think of any doctrine a Protestant is obligated to believe in so as to remain a Protestant. That label is very elastic and covers a lot of territory. However, one cannot believe just anything and remain Catholic.

When you were Protestant your church did not have a statement of beliefs, church constitution or adhere to a confession of faith?

 

[thecolorsblend]

2 Timothy 3: NKJV
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,

Don't see a dogma.

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Still don't see a dogma.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

If I squint a little bit, I can kinda sorta in a way maybe see an idea that resembles the beginning of something that may someday be mistaken for a dogma. Possibly.

17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

No dogma here either.

No specific methods correction are listed there either.

 

[straykat]

Are you in the Restoration Movement?

Thank heavens, no. Did you not see me earlier laughing about the Church of Christ? Aren't they Restorationists (Campbellites)?

 

[redleghunter]

#2- Related to that, if one doesn't believe what the Catholic Church teaches, that person is not Catholic. I don't believe some non-Catholics really understand the seriousness of this. It's not a trivial difference of opinion. The Church's teachings have been defined. Rejecting them is an act of rebellion. Protestants tend to view a lot of things as negotiable. But that isn't how the Church works. I can believe what I want on some things. But the doctrines defined by my Church aren't open to debate.

Yes the CCC is to be believed and acted out in faith in the Catholic church. Yet as mentioned earlier, poll after poll shows a disconnect with what is written on paper and what is actually believed and acted out upon. Maybe the claim I hear of "one billion Catholics can't be wrong" really should be a few million can't be wrong. Which is fine as there is 'purity' in smaller numbers. However, in both life and death even the ones who self-excommunicate and are not disciplined in this life are treated as members of the Catholic church.

#3- I say the above to emphasize that the people you mentioned in your post are playing with spiritual fire. You may disagree with some of your fellow Protestants at times. But my guess is that most Protestants don't think somebody else is necessarily risking their soul just because they're taking a different viewpoint on something. No such guarantee exists in the Catholic Church.

It depends on the viewpoint taken. In my Evangelical church we are personally interviewed by the senior pastor and elders, review the statement of beliefs and constitution and actually sign a statement we are in agreement. The statement of faith and constitution clearly delineates what is not debatable and what is up to conscience. That functions much like your Confirmation which people affirm the faith.

 

[redleghunter]

Don't see a dogma.

Still don't see a dogma.

If I squint a little bit, I can kinda sorta in a way maybe see an idea that resembles the beginning of something that may someday be mistaken for a dogma. Possibly.

No dogma here either.

No specific methods correction are listed there either.

What if I said you had to actually read the catechism to know what is in it?