Laundry list for Protestants

[racer]

BTW, so the thread doesn't get hijacked by a subject that has nothing to do with the OP, please review the OP: Post 1

I'm sure there are more questions to add to the list.

Pax Vobiscum,

John

Just to let you know, my original response here was pertinent and on topic. You derailed your own thread with this response:

BTW, for the record, it was St. Augustine that said they were unbelievers because they didn't believe in the true presence in the Eucharist. St. Augustine in the writing that you posted takes for granted that all Christians know that he means the Eucharist in the fuller context. Plus, if a person is denying the true presence, that isn't having faith, that is lacking faith - thus the reason that they are consider unbelievers, being that they do not believe. What is atheism? It is specifically to not belive in God, but it can also be attributed to not believing a particular theology. Thus, I am atheistic when it come to not believing in sola scriptura. Am I godless for not believing in Sola Scriptura? I'm sure some Protestants out there would contend that to be true.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hope everyone's up for the challenge. To start, I'll go with the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides.

Sola Scriptura.

It's not a doctrine, it's a principle.
An epistemological principle of norming.
It stands in contrast to the other main Christian principle of norming, Sola Ecclesia.

While principles can't be proven, they can be evaluated according to what they are to provide - which is, in this case, accountability.
Sola Scriptura insists that EVERYONE is accountable to Scripture; that a teacher (person, congregation or denomination - who or whatever is the teacher) is not correct on the basis that the self-same Teacher self-claims that he is, and therefore is infallible and unaccountable except to self and to God as self so determines. Sola Scriptura embraces that no one is excluded from accountability on the basis they they self-claim that they are.

Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura. It does not exclude Tradition, indeed, most that embrace the principle of Sola Scripture hold Tradition in high esteem and consider it essential. However it does relegate such to hermeneutics and not norming, since for an interpretation to be the norm for the self-same interpretation would eliminate all accountability for that interpretation. For Tradition and Scripture to be equal final norms, it is necessary to assume that they are not in conflict so that whatever Tradition says is what Scripture says (and vise versa) and thus to eliminate all accountability.



Sola Fide

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied,"Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." Acts 16:30-31

"For God so loved the world that He gave His Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"Everyone that believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins in His name." Acts 10:43


Our heart embraces the Gift of Salvation by faith, which is to trust or rely.

Faith is a busy, active thing that "works out" salvation and love in our lives, so that it is accompanied by and evidenced by good works. However, works alone - if not accompanied by and produced from faith - do not save. That doesn't mean they don't have value otherwise, but pagan, faithless works are not salvational (James 2:17, Galatians 5:25, John 13:34, Philippians 2:13, Philippians 3:12-14, Hebrews 11:6, and others).



MY quick thoughts on those two issues...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Sola Scriptura.

It's not a doctrine, it's a principle.
An epistemological principle of norming.
It stands in contrast to the other main Christian principle of norming, Sola Ecclesia.

While principles can't be proven, they can be evaluated according to what they are to provide - which is, in this case, accountability.
Sola Scriptura insists that EVERYONE is accountable to Scripture; that a teacher (person, congregation or denomination - who or whatever is the teacher) is not correct on the basis that the self-same Teacher self-claims that he is, and therefore is infallible and unaccountable except to self and to God as self so determines. Sola Scriptura embraces that no one is excluded from accountability on the basis they they self-claim that they are.

Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura. It does not exclude Tradition, indeed, most that embrace the principle of Sola Scripture hold Tradition in high esteem and consider it essential. However it does relegate such to hermeneutics and not norming, since for an interpretation to be the norm for the self-same interpretation would eliminate all accountability for that interpretation. For Tradition and Scripture to be equal final norms, it is necessary to assume that they are not in conflict so that whatever Tradition says is what Scripture says (and vise versa) and thus to eliminate all accountability.



Sola Fide

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied,"Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." Acts 16:30-31

"For God so loved the world that He gave His Son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16

"Everyone that believes in Him receives the forgiveness of sins in His name." Acts 10:43


Our heart embraces the Gift of Salvation by faith, which is to trust or rely.

Faith is a busy, active thing that "works out" salvation and love in our lives, so that it is accompanied by and evidenced by good works. However, works alone - if not accompanied by and produced from faith - do not save. That doesn't mean they don't have value otherwise, but pagan, faithless works are not salvational (James 2:17, Galatians 5:25, John 13:34, Philippians 2:13, Philippians 3:12-14, Hebrews 11:6, and others).



MY quick thoughts on those two issues...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

can't be said better.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The fact that one Protestant can't speak in any universality regarding Protestant faith is one of my top questions. Why is it impossible? Is God a God of confusion that he would tell one denomination what is true to them, but yet false to another denomination?

1. Protestants are apt to not self-claim that they are infallible and therefore unaccountable. They are not apt to self claim such for the leaders of their faith communities either. They are apt to regard such to be amazingly egotistical and self-authenticating. They might see such in sharp contrast to the teachings of Jesus regarding humility and not lording it over one another. And they might recall all the bold warnings in Scripture about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, and those that would lead many astray and consider accountability not something that should be so easily abandoned.


2. I know hundreds of Catholics. I've never met two that agreed about everything all the time. I've never met a Catholic who could speak for all the thoughts of all one billion Catholics, only one who is thought to speak for what all one billion Catholics should think about some things. I don't see those as identical.


3. It might occur to Protestants that ANY teacher (person, congregation, denomination) can self-claim ANYTHING they want - it doesn't make it true (or false) - just a self-claim. And if such a person self-claims infallibility, the entire issue of accountability is moot. They become correct cuz they say self-claim that they are, end of discussion. ANYONE can say that God forgot to include something in His Holy Scriptures and told it to them, and of course, that is theoretically possible, but it doesn't make it true (or false) just a self-claim. Joseph Smith says this and claims it's apostolic, authoritative, and self-normative. You can claim stuff too. Mary Baker Eddy claimed stuff. I have a friend whose mom speaks all kinds of interesting stuff from God in tongues. Protestants are apt to note that for 1600-1800 years, ALL Christians have embraced the Holy Scriptures as the written Word of God - infallible, apostolic, Authoritative, True, DIVINELY inspired, and written - in black and white - in words neither you nor I can change to suit our fansy. Jesus, Peter and Paul directed us to Holy Scriptures, God's written Word well over 50 times, but never once to the Catholic Church or the Pope or to any institution as the normative authority. We are to teach the Word, Protestants believe, not create it.


Just a few thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[good4u]

Another thing to add to the list:

Why don't Protestants have an easily definable and common set of doctrine?

That is nonsense. Of course we do. You just are not talking to well-studied protestants. Protestant doctrine is taken squarely from the teachings throughout Scripture. Gee, I feel a doctrine coming on...Sola Scriptura!

There are others like: the Triune Godhead, the virgin birth of Jesus, Salvation by grace thru faith, the second coming of Jesus and others.

Or, How can one Protestant denomination proclaim something as the truth of Christian faith when another Protestant denomination Proclaims that such teaching as the former denomination is false? Does that mean God teaches one thing to be true for one denomination and false for another? If so, why? Wouldn't that be like making God both speaking the truth and speaking lies at the same time? Is it not said in Scripture that God is not a God of confusion?

Basically your asking why all the denoms. Gee, could God like variety in his people? Are all Orthodox and Catholic churches monolieths? Hardly. Tho' denoms emphasize some doctrines more than others, some have strayed from the scriptural doctrines that founded them much to their chargrin. They will have to answer before God for that at the time of judgment. Like I said, it is up to the individual believer to do personal study in God's Word for themself to have a personal relationship with God in Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

can't be said better.

Thank you.



I rarely get any responses to what I post.
My goal in posting here at CF is never that people agree with me (I have no conversion agenda) - and don't expect much.

I TRY, as best I can, to articulate the Protestant position - usually from MY perspective (I'm Lutheran). There are many other Protestants here that do excellent, outstanding work, too! If someone takes the time to read - with the goal of learning rather than arguing or rebuking - much can be learned here. And fortunately, we have some excellent, outstanding Catholics and Orthodox Christians here, too! Even after 5 years in Catholicism, I learn much here - for which I am thankful. I'm especially eager to learn more about Orthodox and Anglican Christians - whom I'm coming to see as very close brothers, indeed.


But for all the frustrations and difficulties, I VERY much beleive in the mission of this website - it's why I'm here, why I post, why I'm on staff. And while agreement is, IMO, too lofty a goal, understanding might be achievable. PERHAPS we can understand each other better?


I spent some years with one foot in my father's Protestant church and one if my Catholic church - with both held in high esteem. I was RICHLY blessed by both. But I found the misunderstandings large and unfortunate. It's NOT that we agree on everything (although we do agree on MUCH, far more than most desire to acknowledge) - and I'm not attempting to address that. I"m not nearly so egotistical to think I can make any progress where FAR brighter and wiser Christians have failed. But if Protestants can "see" things from the Catholic perspective - we may realize it's not so different after all. And vise versa.


Part of the problem, too, is that neither is monolithic (although some Catholics think Catholics are). PART of the frustration I feel in these conversations is MUCH is assumed about what I believe - without bothering to read my words or ask my views. It happens a lot with Catholics, too.


No one said it would be easy...
I think it's worth the effort.
Well, most days I do...


Pax


- Josiah


.

 

[good4u]

Why? Protestants do this commonly with Catholics/Orthodoxy, so why not at least one thread where we Catholics and Orthodoxy can build a laundry list of questions for Protestants?

I have no problem with your questions. Fire away. If protestants can't answer then they don't understand their faith yet.

So far, the questions are:

Why do Prots believe the veneration of Saints makes Catholics/Orthodox polytheist and pagans?

Holding a Saint in honor is not wrong. But venerational pairty with Christ is indeed sin.

Why do Prots believe that Apostolic succession is a doctrine of men designed to enslave the simple and delude them?

The laity begins to rely on human teaching instead of trusting the Creator God which is only revealed by personal study of God's Word.

Why do Prots believe that Tradition is used as an excuse to keep the bible hidden from the common man?

Tradition has taken pairity with the Word of God. Thus, confusing the uninformed and inhibits personal study of God's Word.

Why do Prots believe the following:

Lord's supper is symbolic
Baptism is unnecessary
OSAS
TULIP
Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide

LORD's Supper - Jesus asked his disciples to do this in rememberance of him. It causes believers to be thankful and grateful for Christ's work on the cross.

Baptism - It is an external symbol of an internal change and is not a requirement to salvation. But I want to follow Jesus and his example. Jesus was the last person needed to be baptised as John the Baptist pointed out, but Jesus told John it was proper now which ignagarated his earthly ministry.

OSAS - an internal debate in chrisitan orthodoxy and protestantism. It will not be finally resolved this side of heaven.

TULIP - a Calvinist expression of Presbyterian beliefs, not held by all protestants.

Sola Scriptura - indeed, a protestant christian doctrine that the Bible alone is THE standard for Christian faith and practice.

Sola Fide - another protestant christian doctrine that it is what a man believes so as he does...

Why don't Protestants have an easily definable and common set of doctrine?

I think I have already answered that we do. Any more questions?

John

 

[JCrawf]

Holding a Saint in honor is not wrong. But venerational pairty with Christ is indeed sin.

Veneration means to honor, worship is given to Christ. Therefore, in venerating the saints, it is indeed honoring them. Part of the reason we honor them is because of their example and qualities of their piety that is deemed Christ-like. But worship is given only to God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Therefore, since we mean by veneration that we are honoring saints, do you still consider it sin? If so, why?

The laity begins to rely on human teaching instead of trusting the Creator God which is only revealed by personal study of God's Word.

How is the Word taught to people in Protestantism? Does not one go to Sunday schools and Bible studies held by humans? How is this not dilluding or brainwashing so as to enslave Protestants to non/inter/or just plain denominational propaganda that may or may not be Scriptural?

Furthermore in regards to Scripture, how do you keep from what C.S. Lewis called Bibliolatry? How do Protestants keep the Bible from becoming mere social and philosophical platitudes that have no meaning beyond just a nice saying?

Tradition has taken pairity with the Word of God. Thus, confusing the uninformed and inhibits personal study of God's Word.

How, then do Protestants unconfuse and inform so as to allow for true study of God's Word? In other words, how do you teach faith and morals without some type of tradition?

LORD's Supper - Jesus asked his disciples to do this in rememberance of him. It causes believers to be thankful and grateful for Christ's work on the cross.

Indeed, but the question more was along the lines of why do some Protetants not believe in the True Presence/Transubstantiation?

Baptism - It is an external symbol of an internal change and is not a requirement to salvation. But I want to follow Jesus and his example. Jesus was the last person needed to be baptised as John the Baptist pointed out, but Jesus told John it was proper now which ignagarated his earthly ministry.

However, Scripture says:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." (Romans 6:3-8)

Doesn't this Scripture seem to indicate some importance, and even necessity to be Baptized into Christ in order to have newness of life? So how can it be said that Baptism is not necessary when Scripture seems to say that it is?

OSAS - an internal debate in chrisitan orthodoxy and protestantism. It will not be finally resolved this side of heaven.

Are you saying, then that Catholics and Orthodox are among those expressing the orthodox teaching (which is that OSAS is not taught in Scripture, though it may be possible to have a certainty if one continues in the faith)?

TULIP - a Calvinist expression of Presbyterian beliefs, not held by all protestants.

But it is still held by Protestants, regardless of if all Protestant agree. How can it be true if most Protestants do not believe it?

Sola Scriptura - indeed, a protestant christian doctrine that the Bible alone is THE standard for Christian faith and practice.

What about the Protestants that don't believe in Sola Scriptura? Are they wrong?

Sola Fide - another protestant christian doctrine that it is what a man believes so as he does...

If so, then how is this different from faith and works, as is the proper teaching of Catholics, and even the Bible, as St. James makes clear in his epistle in Scripture.

Earlier Post: Why do Prots seem to believe nothing in particular?

You merely ran into a ill-informed protestant who can't express his faith because of immaturity in the faith. I think I have demonstrated clearly that protestants do indeed believe a great deal about their faith.

Yes, and you have pointed out that some Protestants believe some things, when some Protestants believe other things. For instance, maybe Baptism in general is not percieved as important, yet there is still the question among Protestants over sprinkling, pouring, full immersion of water, or if it entails water at all. The "nothing in particular comment" (not mine, but from an earlier post and incorporated into the list) stems from that whole confusion caused by so many different, and even contrary beliefs in Protestant as a whole. So it's kind of the whole question over why is there this multiplicity of beliefs and no aparent universality and unity among Protestants on "the essentials" or "mere Christianity"?

I have given specifics. I have replied sufficiently.

Except for noting where these things are found in Scripture. Plus, they rais more questions than answers. But I hope you don't mind the extra questions and appeal for providing Scripture to show where Protestant teachings are explicitly shown, as that was part of the challenge.

Pax Tecum,

John

P.S. I just had to say that I respect you for going through with answering the questions. Though we may disagree, we can disagree respectfully and, hopefully learn from each other about our faith in civil discussion. Thank you for taking the time and effort to go through the questions and not become offended. Very much appreciated.

 

[JCrawf]

Please note, as said in my previous post, I respect your discourse thus far. So I hope no offense if taken by extra questioning.

Earlier Post: Why don't Protestants have an easily definable and common set of doctrine?

That is nonsense. Of course we do. You just are not talking to well-studied protestants. Protestant doctrine is taken squarely from the teachings throughout Scripture. Gee, I feel a doctrine coming on...Sola Scriptura!

I think much of the questioning here is as posed in my last post: "why is there this multiplicity of beliefs and no aparent universality and unity among Protestants on 'the essentials' or 'mere Christianity'?" Even with Sola Scriptura, it often seems like solo interpretation, being that there are multiple views by Protestants regarding what any particular passage of Scripture says. Not that personal interpretation is bad, but often there seems to be no authority to say, when there are contrary interpretations, which version is right. You can say "take it to the Bible," but that seems to be where the dilemma is, being that both parties have read the Bible and come to two completely contrasting interpretations. Moreso, where does the Bible, even Christ Himself say to take such disputes? Does He say to rely on Scripture alone? No, He says:

"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church." (Matt. 18:15-17a)

It would seem Scripture, nay, moreso, Christ Himself as the Word of God made flesh says that the final "court of appeals" is indeed the Church. Why does He say that instead of rest on Scripture alone if indeed Sola Scriptura is the teaching of the Word of God?

There are others like: the Triune Godhead, the virgin birth of Jesus, Salvation by grace thru faith, the second coming of Jesus and others.

All these are believes by Catholics and the Orthodoxy as well. However, considering a recent thread where the teachings of Arius were practicaly being defended by a few Protestants, as well as knowing of the sect called "Oneness" Pentecostalism that denies the Trinity, what say you of those that claim to be Protestant and deny the Trinity, the virgin birth, or any other aspects of Protestant doctrines that are considered the essentials?

Basically your asking why all the denoms. Gee, could God like variety in his people?

Yet, are you saying God like variety even when there are teachings that might be considered false in one denomination are considered the truth in another? Is God the author of confusion then?

Are all Orthodox and Catholic churches monolieths? Hardly. Tho' [churches] emphasize some doctrines more than others, some have strayed from the scriptural doctrines that founded them much to their chargrin.

So, in other words, and hypothetically posing that you're right that Catholics and Orthodox do err in certain doctrines? Are you saying that such errors are acceptable? If so, that errors in the Church as a whole could be acceptable to God, then why the Reformation? Wasn't the Reformation supposed to have been to correct errors percieved to be in the Church? Wasn't splitting from the Catholic Church supposed to be because the Reformers were right and teaching correct doctrine compared to the Catholics that were percieved to have fallen into apostacy? Yet, if god allows errors within the Church anyways, why the necessity of the Reformation?

They will have to answer before God for that at the time of judgment. Like I said, it is up to the individual believer to do personal study in God's Word for themself to have a personal relationship with God in Christ.

Yes, we do have to, as the Apostle says in Scripture, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 12b-13).

And the Apostle said earlier in the same Chapter:

"e of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:2-8)

So the question is still regarding unity. Form the last Scripture I posted above, we regard this as speaking of the selfless love that we are to imitate in the image of Christ. Why? Because it is the love of God we call agaph/charitas - the sacrificial love, and even the love of God for Man and Man for God. It is something that we empty out our pride and selfish interests in order to be cooperate in the unity of God in His love. For the is what we are all predestined to if we accept the salvation of our Lord through His grace. Thus, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10). Do you not agree? So should not Christians in general (en catholicus) seek this unity that the Apostle speaks of in Scripture?

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

Protestants are apt to not self-claim that they are infallible and therefore unaccountable.

So a Protestant is unaccountable for wrongful actions and/or false teachings?

They are not apt to self claim such for the leaders of their faith communities either.

Then why follow a leader who is unaccountable for anything regarding faith and morals?

They are apt to regard such to be amazingly egotistical and self-authenticating.

So it is better to at least pretend to be selfless and have no authority, but moreso, no accountablilty for leadership roles? Does that mean there is a sign at every Protestant denomination that says, "you may follow the pastor at this Church at your own risk. His seminary papers seem to check out, but he has no accountability for any teachings he may prescibe to, whether they be true or false"?

They might see such in sharp contrast to the teachings of Jesus regarding humility and not lording it over one another.

So it is a claim to humility to notice the sharp contrast and say nothing? The persons of the other denomination may be led astray, but a sense of humility says to stay put and let the fellow Christians fend for themselves - even if they are likely to drown?

And they might recall all the bold warnings in Scripture about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, and those that would lead many astray and consider accountability not something that should be so easily abandoned.

So how does one know when they are acting out of humility and charity in tolerating differences (even those that some might consider detrimental to faith) and when they are trying to prevent a person from following false prophets/teachers, and andtichrists? What is the Protestant understanding of authority?

I know hundreds of Catholics. I've never met two that agreed about everything all the time. I've never met a Catholic who could speak for all the thoughts of all one billion Catholics, only one who is thought to speak for what all one billion Catholics should think about some things. I don't see those as identical.

Individual Catholics are that, individuals. Whether they speak for the Church teaching (and correctly) is a different story. We don't say they started a new denomination because they have different opinions. Though some might leave the Church if they do not assent to Church teaching, which is universal throughout the Catholic Church. In short, individual Catholics have individual opinions, but the Church herself teaches the what is universal regarding faith and morals for the Church.

Joseph Smith says this and claims it's apostolic, authoritative, and self-normative.

Joseph Smith is not in succession of the Apostles. His church came into existance some 1800 years apart from the Apostolic teaching. The claim of Catholic authority through the Apostles cannot be fairly compared with the authority claimed by Joseph Smith. You are making a fallacious claim. Are you accountable for your fallacious claims?

You can claim stuff too. Mary Baker Eddy claimed stuff. I have a friend whose mom speaks all kinds of interesting stuff from God in tongues.

Yet the claims are not authoritative.

Jesus, Peter and Paul directed us to Holy Scriptures, God's written Word well over 50 times, but never once to the Catholic Church or the Pope or to any institution as the normative authority.

Jesus selected Peter as leader of the Apostles, and he became known as the first Pope. Jesus also said to take disputes to the Church. St. Paul noted for those to immitate him and consider him a father through the Gospelamd state in one epistle:

"When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church?I say this to your shame." (I Cor. 6:1-5a)

Apparently, St. Paul believed that there was to be an authority present in the Church to be able to judge disputes among Christians.

In speaking of the Church in Rome, St Peter did say. "Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greeting" (I Peter 5:13). but also:

"Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it—not for sordid gain but eagerly. Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away.

In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him, because he cares for you." (I Peter 5:1-7)

You see, I have noticed you trying to say the same things, but not quite. For St. Peter say that the elders (that is, priests) do have authority, and that authority is to be accepted - not this odd sort of potential, but not really accepted or approved of vision of authority. Ther is authority within the Church and Scripture seems to make that quite clear. Why are Protestants so wishy-washy on this subject, I still don't know. Scripture even points to it. If it is in Scripture, is it not true?

We are to teach the Word, Protestants believe, not create it.

What is that supposed to mean? We are the custodians of the Word, not its creators. Though Several saints were inspired to write what has become the Scriptures, and other saints later helped to put together the full canon of Scripture, as well as translate it into common languages - even prior to Protestants doing so. But still, how is the Word taught when people teach multiple meanings - especially when the meanings are contradictory, and potentially even false from the original intent of Scripture itself?



Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Bulldog]

So a Protestant is unaccountable for wrongful actions and/or false teachings?

Actually, his post was saying just the opposite.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Protestants are apt to not self-claim that they are infallible and therefore unaccountable.

So a Protestant is unaccountable for wrongful actions and/or false teachings?

Exactly the opposite...

As I posted in what you quoted, Protestants are apt to NOT self-claim that they are infallible and therefore unaccountable.

They are not apt to self claim such for the leaders of their faith communities either.

Then why follow a leader who is unaccountable for anything regarding faith and morals?

You'll need to direct this question to a Catholic or Mormon.

They are apt to regard such to be amazingly egotistical and self-authenticating.

Does that mean there is a sign at every Protestant denomination that says, "you may follow the pastor at this Church at your own risk.

Protestants do not consider the words of men to be superior or equal to the Word of God. They do not consider themselves to be the lord of the Lord but rather the Lord is Lord of them.

Protestants do not embrace the same epistemology as do Catholics, our faith communites the their leaders do not self-claim infallibility and unaccountablity for themselves and we do not ascribe it to them. They ask us to hold them accountable for their teachings, as they do each other. And we do. They would have it no other way.

They might see such in sharp contrast to the teachings of Jesus regarding humility and not lording it over one another.

So it is a claim to humility to notice the sharp contrast and say nothing? The persons of the other denomination may be led astray, but a sense of humility says to stay put and let the fellow Christians fend for themselves - even if they are likely to drown?

I fail to see the connection between my words and your response. My point was that Protestants are apt to see the self-claim of a teacher (person, congregation, denomination) that he is correct because he just is and therefore is infallible and unaccountable cuz he just is as lacking in humility and accountability.

And they might recall all the bold warnings in Scripture about false prophets, false teachers, antichrists, and those that would lead many astray and consider accountability not something that should be so easily abandoned.

So how does one know when they are acting out of humility and charity in tolerating differences (even those that some might consider detrimental to faith) and when they are trying to prevent a person from following false prophets/teachers, and andtichrists?

The difference is that the Protestant considers the norma normans to be the written Word of God, not his own viewpoints and self-claims.


Protestants are apt to consider that there's nothing a false teacher would love and appreicate more than an epistemology that insists that he is whatever he claims to be and is correct because he just is and therefore is infallible and unaccountable. Ironcially, Protestants are apt to note, Catholics and Mormons ridicule this epistemology as dangerous and self-authenticating but insist that it is correct and best - but only when THEY (Catholics or Mormons) use it. Protestants are apt to conclude that if the principle is so dangerous and terrible, than it is even if one's own denomination uses it.

Joseph Smith says this and claims it's apostolic, authoritative, and self-normative.

Joseph Smith is not in succession of the Apostles. His church came into existance some 1800 years apart from the Apostolic teaching. The claim of Catholic authority through the Apostles cannot be fairly compared with the authority claimed by Joseph Smith. You are making a fallacious claim.

Actually, according to the self-claim of the Mormons, it is Joseph Smith who is in direct sucession of the Apostles, the Catholic Church lost this centuries ago when they became Apostate. They self-claim to be essentially the Church of Christ, the "stewards of the mysteries of God," the community with whom the Holy Spirit works in a special way, the only True Authority for the interpretation and application of Revelation. "The Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church" - Brigham Young. "The Church is essential because it's the Church that tells us what the Bible says" - my priest. Of course, anyone can claim anything they want. You say, they say, anyone can say anything they want. It doesn't make it so. Protestants are apt to hold all - Catholics, Mormons and their own communities - accountable for their teachings and claims, so that their words are not above His written Word, so that the Lord is the lord of us, not we the lord of the Lord. It mostly has to do with humility and accountability.

Are you accountable for your claims?

Actually, I don't think I made any.
I only claim to be a humble, fallible student of God's written Word.

But may I ask the same question? To what is the Magisterium of your church accountable? How would it be determined that a dogma is wrong?

You can claim stuff too. Mary Baker Eddy claimed stuff. I have a friend whose mom speaks all kinds of interesting stuff from God in tongues.

Yet the claims are not authoritative.

Ah, so it's completely moot that the Catholic Church teaches that it was founded by Christ via His Apostles, that it is the 'sole final arbiter' for faith and practice, that the Pope is, under certain circumstances, 'infallible' and so on? What about it's claim that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff?" Is that also moot to anything?

OR is your point that self-claims are authoritative when YOUR denomination makes them but not when any other does? Unaccountability is appropriate for you but not for anyone else?

Jesus, Peter and Paul directed us to Holy Scriptures, God's written Word well over 50 times, but never once to the Catholic Church or the Pope or to any institution as the normative authority.

Jesus selected Peter as leader of the Apostles, and he became known as the first Pope. Jesus also said to take disputes to the Church. St. Paul noted for those to immitate him and consider him a father through the Gospelamd state in one epistle:

"When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before the unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels—to say nothing of ordinary matters? If you have ordinary cases, then, do you appoint as judges those who have no standing in the church?I say this to your shame." (I Cor. 6:1-5a)

Apparently, St. Paul believed that there was to be an authority present in the Church to be able to judge disputes among Christians.

In speaking of the Church in Rome, St Peter did say. "Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greeting" (I Peter 5:13). but also:

"Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it—not for sordid gain but eagerly. Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will win the crown of glory that never fades away.

In the same way, you who are younger must accept the authority of the elders. And all of you must clothe yourselves with humility in your dealings with one another, for "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, so that he may exalt you in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him, because he cares for you." (I Peter 5:1-7)

You see, I have noticed you trying to say the same things, but not quite. For St. Peter say that the elders (that is, priests) do have authority, and that authority is to be accepted - not this odd sort of potential, but not really accepted or approved of vision of authority. Ther is authority within the Church and Scripture seems to make that quite clear. Why are Protestants so wishy-washy on this subject, I still don't know. Scripture even points to it. If it is in Scripture, is it not true?

Christians do have a teaching and pastoral authority, Protestants agree. We simply don't self-claim that we can invent doctrines but rather are subject and accountable to God's Holy Written Word. We don't claim that God must agree with us, we rather want to agree with God. It has to do with humility, accountablity, lordship. Protestants embrace that our interpretations of the Word are subject to the Word, not the other way around.


You might take notice that not a one of those verses you quoted mentions the Catholic Church or the Magisterium or the Pope. Not one. Jesus, Peter and Paul did mention the normative authority of Holy Scripture - over 50 times. Protestants are apt to note that. We also notice that all those verse speak of CHRISTIANS - not any denominational institution, so we are apt to consider the church to be people, not a particular denomination. We think that only people can have faith and thus be a Christian, institutions do not have a heart, mind or soul.

We are to teach the Word, Protestants believe, not create it.

What is that supposed to mean? We are the custodians of the Word, not its creators. Though Several saints were inspired to write what has become the Scriptures, and other saints later helped to put together the full canon of Scripture, as well as translate it into common languages - even prior to Protestants doing so. But still, how is the Word taught when people teach multiple meanings - especially when the meanings are contradictory, and potentially even false from the original intent of Scripture itself?

I think your position would be stronger if there were a large corpus of canonical Scriptures that speak of the death of Mary - and Tradition has interpreted them to affirm the DOMGA of the Assumption of Mary. Or if we were all looking at various canoncial texts regarding the Pope and Tradition interpreted such to affirm the DOGMA that the Pope is infallible. OR if there were a corpus of Scriptures that speak of salvation and obedience to the Roman Pontiff that affirm that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. But Protestants conclude there are Dogmas, doctrines and more in Catholicism that may be rooted deeply in their own past but not in God's Word. Catholics, of course, think it's all "implied" in the Scriptures because their epistemology, Sola Ecclesia, means that the Bible MUST say whatever they say - even if such can't be found even by them. It's the same with Mormons and all others that use Sola Ecclesia, Protestants are apt to conclude.


I would also add that this strick insistance on private interpetation - so central to Catholicism - is a point many Protestants do not embrace. Many Protestants do not believe that the Scriptures are the private property of a certain teacher (person, congregation, denomination) so that only THEY ALONE (Sola Ecclesia) may interpret and apply it and no other. We tend to believe that the Scriptures are in the hands of ALL believers collectively, to the whole (catholic) church. God did not give the Scriptures just to me or my congregation or my denomination, He gave it to all of us - His church. BTW, many Protestants find it, well, ironic that Cathoics are very opposed to private interpretation but insist upon it when they do it. IT's the same odd point that we see in Sola Ecclesia - the principle is flatly rejected and then passionately embraced - but only for them.


I hope this helps you understand how Protestants tend to view these issues.


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Continuing the post above...

That is NOT to imply that Cathoiic, Mormons and all for that matter cannot embrace whatever they want as an article of faith. They certainly can - and I (and most Protestants I think) can and will affirm such as such.

But the point of this website is not to convince or convert but to understand. It is my hope that Catholics might better understand how Proptestants are apt to view things - and vise versa. With the hope that such will lead to greater understanding and perhaps even unity.


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

And the list of questions for Protestants so far:

1. Why do Prots believe the veneration of Saints makes Catholics/Orthodox polytheist and pagans?

I don't.
I'm Protestant...

2. Why do Prots believe that Apostolic succession is a doctrine of men designed to enslave the simple and delude them?

I consider it a Tradition not normed by Scripture - there IS a difference.

I personally suspect it was/is embraced as a way of strengthening the authority of the denomination, but I do not - for a second - question the sincerity of those that embrace it or even developed it.

BTW, some Protestants also embrace Apostolic Succession - although not always in the exact form as in the community headed by the Roman Pontiff. IMO, it's extemely likely that nearly all ordained clergy - regardless of denomination - probably have a direct line of ordination back to the Apostles, but none can "prove" it in any objective sense.

3. Why do Prots believe that Tradition is used as an excuse to keep the bible hidden from the common man?

I don't.
I'm Protestant.


I consider "Tradition" to be the consensus that has evolved among God's people (who are, collectively, the church) as we struggled with various issues. Like most Protestants, I hold it in very high esteem and I consider it essential in hermeneutics. Where Protestants disagree with Catholics and Mormons is that we don't agree that our interpretations and claims are equal to God's Holy, infallible, authoritative, apostolic, written Word. It's an epistemological question. It's an issue of humility, accountability and lordship.

4-6. Why do Prots believe the following:
Lord's supper is symbolic

I don't.
Most Protestants don't


I embrace that Christ has a "Real Presense" in the Holy Eucharist, that He is present - in a literal sense and in both natures - so that the meaning of is is is.

Where we disagree with the community which is lead by the Roman Pontiff is the DOMGA of "accidents" - this teaching of Aristotle to "explain" the appearance of the bread and wine. With the Orthodox church and with Catholics prior to 1215, we leave that issue to "mystery." It's the community which is lead by the Roman Pontiff that has the new and unique view in Christianity.

Yes, there are SOME Protestants that also hold to new views - just like Catholics do.

Baptism is unnecessary

I don't.
Most Protestants don't.


However, I do accept that a person might be saved without necessarily receiving this Sacramental Gift - but then that's the position of the community lead by the Roman Pontiff too.

OSAS

I don't.
Most Protestants don't


This is a Calvinist position, rarely held as dogma.

It would be the same as saying, "Why do Catholics teach Limbo?" Well, SOME do - and not as dogma. Most Protestants consider OSAS to be a "pious opinion" still very much under review. No solid consensus has developed around it during there 500 years since Calvin affirmed St. Augustine's views here, but it is still being discussed. Protestants are open to dicussion - holding all accountable to Scripture.

TULIP

I don't.
Most Protestants don't.


TULIP was developed as a way to summerize some of the distinctive teachings of Calvin - especially vis-a-vis Luther. I probably agree with 1.5 of the 5 points. Again, it's rarely considered to be dogma, but are views under review and consideration - all under Scripture.




I addressed the issues of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide in post 102 (on page 11) which you have not yet replied to.


While the intent seems unclear to me, as a Protestant, I'm thankful for the questions (well, the ones I replied to here). During my years of being active in Catholicism, I found these 5 issues to be ones often brought up by Catholics and often greatly misunderstood. An opportunity to express my views is appreciated and hopefully will lead to better understanding. I don't ask Catholics to agree, of course, nor expect that. But I embrace the goal of mutual understanding, as I HOPE you do, as well.


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[kamikat]

Mod Hat On

Ladies and Gentlemen, please post with Christian kindness and charity
Mod Hat Off

kamikat
theology team moderator

 

[good4u]

Veneration means to honor, worship is given to Christ. Therefore, in venerating the saints, it is indeed honoring them. Part of the reason we honor them is because of their example and qualities of their piety that is deemed Christ-like. But worship is given only to God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Therefore, since we mean by veneration that we are honoring saints, do you still consider it sin? If so, why?

No. But having said this, I have seen with my own eyes Catholics who pray with their rosaries, prayers to Saints, I have seen their liturgies to them. Maybe you personally do not pray to saints, but I have seen personally otherwise. Those Catholics, IMO, are misguided.

How is the Word taught to people in Protestantism? Does not one go to Sunday schools and Bible studies held by humans? How is this not dilluding or brainwashing so as to enslave Protestants to non/inter/or just plain denominational propaganda that may or may not be Scriptural?

Furthermore in regards to Scripture, how do you keep from what C.S. Lewis called Bibliolatry? How do Protestants keep the Bible from becoming mere social and philosophical platitudes that have no meaning beyond just a nice saying?

Not only do I attend Bible studies in my home church, but attend an interdenominational Bible study with over 60 churches and 20 denominations, including Catholics who attend and are leaders in the study. You see, it is the study of God's Word that unites us regardless of what church you attend. This is key. It is the Holy Spirit who guides as Scripture is studied and leaders are mature Christians who must all agree to what essentials are regarding Christian doctrine at the time of discussion with the Teaching Leader.

I am a children's leader and recently recommended a Catholic as a children's leader for her faithful attendance by her and her family. It is irrelevant to me she is Catholic, she is first and foremost Christian and has proved it and recommended for leadership.

How, then do Protestants unconfuse and inform so as to allow for true study of God's Word? In other words, how do you teach faith and morals without some type of tradition?

It is always personal disciplined study for devoted believers during the week. Discussion with other believers who are more mature than you and correction by the Holy Spirit. And finally, a willing spirit to bend to the truth by submitting to the Word of God.

Indeed, but the question more was along the lines of why do some Protetants not believe in the True Presence/Transubstantiation?

Again, a internal debate among protestants. It is not something to divide over and sever fellowship, it is not an essential chrisitian doctrine.

However, Scripture says:

"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." (Romans 6:3-8)

Doesn't this Scripture seem to indicate some importance, and even necessity to be Baptized into Christ in order to have newness of life? So how can it be said that Baptism is not necessary when Scripture seems to say that it is?

Baptism by what? Or more correctly who? If you understand what I am asking then you will see it is clearly not water baptism. However, it is clearly a spiritual baptism by the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying, then that Catholics and Orthodox are among those expressing the orthodox teaching (which is that OSAS is not taught in Scripture, though it may be possible to have a certainty if one continues in the faith)?

Not necessarily. OSAS is an internal debate in Christendom. It is nothing to divide over and sever fellowship with other believers.

But it is still held by Protestants, regardless of if all Protestant agree. How can it be true if most Protestants do not believe it?

You are basically asking about age old debate of predestination vs. free will. It will not be settled on earth. Personally, I truly believe both are true. I do not comprehend it, I apprehend it. See?

What about the Protestants that don't believe in Sola Scriptura? Are they wrong?

I have never met a true protestant who did not believe in Sola Scriptura. Wrong? Maybe. Misguided, definitely.

If so, then how is this different from faith and works, as is the proper teaching of Catholics, and even the Bible, as St. James makes clear in his epistle in Scripture.

Earlier Post: Why do Prots seem to believe nothing in particular?



Yes, and you have pointed out that some Protestants believe some things, when some Protestants believe other things. For instance, maybe Baptism in general is not percieved as important, yet there is still the question among Protestants over sprinkling, pouring, full immersion of water, or if it entails water at all. The "nothing in particular comment" (not mine, but from an earlier post and incorporated into the list) stems from that whole confusion caused by so many different, and even contrary beliefs in Protestant as a whole. So it's kind of the whole question over why is there this multiplicity of beliefs and no aparent universality and unity among Protestants on "the essentials" or "mere Christianity"?

As long as you have humans, you will have a wide range of opinion, just like you have on this board. It should not surprise you that protestants have broad opinions too, just like Catholic and Orthodoxs do. Like I said protestants do agree on the essential christian doctrines, don't ever doubt that.

P.S. I just had to say that I respect you for going through with answering the questions. Though we may disagree, we can disagree respectfully and, hopefully learn from each other about our faith in civil discussion. Thank you for taking the time and effort to go through the questions and not become offended. Very much appreciated.

I am not offended and we can indeed learn from each other. Remember, not all protestants agree with each other either! Surprise! But if you know the LORD Jesus, then all who know him love and serve him as we are called accordingly regardless if you are Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox -- that is the realm of Christendom. We may not be in total agreement on earth but by the Holy Spirit who gives eternal life unites us all in one spirit.

 

[good4u]

Earlier Post: Why don't Protestants have an easily definable and common set of doctrine?

I think much of the questioning here is as posed in my last post: "why is there this multiplicity of beliefs and no aparent universality and unity among Protestants on 'the essentials' or 'mere Christianity'?" Even with Sola Scriptura, it often seems like solo interpretation, being that there are multiple views by Protestants regarding what any particular passage of Scripture says. Not that personal interpretation is bad, but often there seems to be no authority to say, when there are contrary interpretations, which version is right. You can say "take it to the Bible," but that seems to be where the dilemma is, being that both parties have read the Bible and come to two completely contrasting interpretations. Moreso, where does the Bible, even Christ Himself say to take such disputes? Does He say to rely on Scripture alone? No, He says:

"If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the Church." (Matt. 18:15-17a)

It would seem Scripture, nay, moreso, Christ Himself as the Word of God made flesh says that the final "court of appeals" is indeed the Church. Why does He say that instead of rest on Scripture alone if indeed Sola Scriptura is the teaching of the Word of God?

And if the Church, what does the Church rely on for its authority to settle disputes? Itself or God's Word?

As far as personal understanding of Scripture and why so many protestants have lively discussions regarding it. It is because we are human beings who are at differing spiritual levels of spiritual maturity. There are baby believers, toddlers, small children, teens, young adults, middle-agers, and seniors in the spiritual maturity growth levels. That is why there "appears" to be disagreement amoung believers. It is not that they are disagreeing, it is that spiritual maturity takes a lifetime to achieve and we are never fully complete this side of earth.

All these are believes by Catholics and the Orthodoxy as well. However, considering a recent thread where the teachings of Arius were practicaly being defended by a few Protestants, as well as knowing of the sect called "Oneness" Pentecostalism that denies the Trinity, what say you of those that claim to be Protestant and deny the Trinity, the virgin birth, or any other aspects of Protestant doctrines that are considered the essentials?

Ah yes.... the abberent "Chrisitian" groups who deviate from the essential doctrines. Unfortunately, it does happen and false teaching is everywhere. That is why you must diligently study God's Word to be constantly reminded of essential doctrine. So that if you know the truth you can immediately recognize error and run!

Yet, are you saying God like variety even when there are teachings that might be considered false in one denomination are considered the truth in another? Is God the author of confusion then?

Not at all. False teaching is not variety. God abhors it and he will judge it someday. Variety in emphazing different aspects of essential doctrine, IMO is fine as long as it does not deviate from God's Word.

So, in other words, and hypothetically posing that you're right that Catholics and Orthodox do err in certain doctrines? Are you saying that such errors are acceptable? If so, that errors in the Church as a whole could be acceptable to God, then why the Reformation? Wasn't the Reformation supposed to have been to correct errors percieved to be in the Church? Wasn't splitting from the Catholic Church supposed to be because the Reformers were right and teaching correct doctrine compared to the Catholics that were percieved to have fallen into apostacy? Yet, if god allows errors within the Church anyways, why the necessity of the Reformation?

To err is human. Humans are faliable beings. The Reformation was allowed by God as a result of the corruption of the church at the time. The reformation was a call back to the church to return to essential christian doctrine and to allow the Bible to be in the hands of the laity for their edification.

Yes, we do have to, as the Apostle says in Scripture, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 12b-13).

And the Apostle said earlier in the same Chapter:

"e of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:2-8)

So the question is still regarding unity. Form the last Scripture I posted above, we regard this as speaking of the selfless love that we are to imitate in the image of Christ. Why? Because it is the love of God we call agaph/charitas - the sacrificial love, and even the love of God for Man and Man for God. It is something that we empty out our pride and selfish interests in order to be cooperate in the unity of God in His love. For the is what we are all predestined to if we accept the salvation of our Lord through His grace. Thus, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10). Do you not agree? So should not Christians in general (en catholicus) seek this unity that the Apostle speaks of in Scripture?

Pax Tecum,

John

Ecumential unity between the protestants, catholics, and orthodoxy probably will not be achieved, sad to say. But it doesn't mean we should not have dialog and understand each other for who they are and what God has called us to for his glory.

 

[nephilimiyr]

CaliforniaJosiah

I'm amazed at just how much you have straighten me out on a few things here about Protestantism.

You truely are an asset to this forum!

God bless

 

[Uphill Battle]

CaliforniaJosiah

I'm amazed at just how much you have straighten me out on a few things here about Protestantism.

You truely are an asset to this forum!

God bless

Agreed... Josiah truly does speak with wisdom... he fills in the gaps that other prots can't find the words for.

 

[vrunca]

good4u, very nice post by the way, really everything you said was very informative and said in a very Christlike manner!! I love learning about people and what they believe and why they believe what they believe, but only when it is done in a loving manner, like this. I would like to share my own personal thoughts and a question too...

No. But having said this, I have seen with my own eyes Catholics who pray with their rosaries, prayers to Saints, I have seen their liturgies to them. Maybe you personally do not pray to saints, but I have seen personally otherwise. Those Catholics, IMO, are misguided.

(please don't take this as an attack, it's not intended to be...) Have you ever talked to these people whom you have seen with your own eyes? I too recall seeing people who seem to really be worshiping a statue of a saint...and have had my doubts then about what I am doing myself. I have talked with a few different people now who are devoutly praying (asking, or requesting for that saint to pray with them to God), to saints. Praying to a statue is wrong and silly to even do, what is a statue going to do for you? But looking at that statue while in prayer does help people (especially people like me) to keep focused on prayer, and not wander off to wonder why the girl walking by has her hair done up, when it would look so much better pulled down, or wonder how you will cook the chicken tonight for dinner.

Praying the rosary can be a lot the same thing as that. It helps us to keep on the prayer that we are meant to be on, without the need to sit there and count. It also allows us to keep our main focus on Jesus, which is right where it always should be. We meditate on mysteries as we pray the rosary and the mysteries focus on the life of Jesus as it was written about Him in the bible.

If you were to talk with someone and they say they are worshipping Mary or one of the saints....then you are absolutely right, they are a very misguided person indeed. And there are certainly people like that, if they are Catholic, they are not following the Catholic faith as taught through the Catechism of the Catholic Church at all. I have been to lots of Catholic churches and have never been told that we are to worship anyone but God. I also am a teacher of Catechism and Director of Religious Ed. at our parish and if any of the other Catechists were to say we are to worship anyone other than God, well, they would have a lot of serious explaining to do and they would probably be told that their services are no longer needed.

I have never met a true protestant who did not believe in Sola Scriptura. Wrong? Maybe. Misguided, definitely.

Now my question, (sorry for the length of all this!!) I have read many times on the forum that different people (mostly Catholic) are wrong on the meaning of what most Protestants believe Sola Scriptura to mean. You have such a nice and kind way of explaining things, could you please explain what this means then. This way as a Catholic, I will be able to understand it better what a Protestant beleives Sola Scriptura to mean.

From a few Protestants saying that we don't understand what Sola Scriptura means to them, I am starting to wonder if it could possibly be the same as what the Catholics complain about how the Protestants don't understand how we use the word pray, which we use it meaning to ask...not to worship. Worship is worship to us, pray is to ask...but you can do both at the same time...but the worship part is to be only to God. So, maybe if you explain Sola Scriptura to me as it is to you...this Catholic will understand more (hopefully, sometimes I'm a little dim about things !)

Thanks for your help!!