Laundry list for Protestants

[Asinner]

Jesus said "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise". The man wasn't baptised

He was baptized in blood.

God Bless

 

[Asinner]

Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me"

If this is all there is to Holy Communion, then I can partake in my home, outside of services, with my dh.

God Bless

 

[Melethiel]

Lord's supper is symbolic.

It isn't symbolic.

Baptism is unnecessary.

It is necessary.

OSAS

I don't believe this.

TULIP

I'm not Calvinist.

 

[JCrawf]

This exercise doesn't really work so well when applied to Protestants as opposed to Catholics and Orthodox. The significant difference being that Protestants don't really have an easily definable common set of doctrine.

Another thing to add to the list:

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

BTW, I was going to try and add more questions regarding other parts of your post, but the above questions pretty much ask the same general questions regarding the general relativity of Protestant thought.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[nephilimiyr]

If this is all there is to Holy Communion, then I can partake in my home, outside of services, with my dh.

God Bless

Many Protestants do, I know I do from time to time.

God Bless!

 

[JCrawf]

What??

Read the challenge in the OP.

Define "most standards of Sola Scriptura" and cite a source for where you draw these from.

That's not the way the thread works. The way the thread works is for you as a Protestant to define Sola Scripura or to defend your beliefs being questioned only utilizing Scripture. It's not for me to define your beliefs - that's a cop-out on your side of the challenge.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.​

And this defines/defends what?

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[nephilimiyr]

Only because the Protestant founders have little to no bearing to Protestant doctrines, which are as stable as building a house on sand. Which comes to another question to add to the list:

Why do Protestants change their teachings as often as they change their socks or underwear?



Prove it. Oh wait a minute, you can't do that without utilizing the Bible alone in this thread. So thus you can't show any historic examples of what you are saying - only percieved Scriptures and teachings of the Apostles in Scripture that you consider prove your point. No history because that is unbiblical, and therefore unacceptable by most standards of Sola Scriptura.

Pax Tecum,

John

I'm not putting you on ignor but until you lose the attitude you will not recieve any more responses from me after this one.

Besides, you still have not come up with the answers and or evidence showing that the Apostles themselves taught every doctrine that the Church now teaches. That was the issue and it is the issue you continue to ignor. If you insist on ignoring it I have no problem ignoring you.

 

[JCrawf]

I'm "protestant" (despite the fact that I'm really not protesting anything.) I don't mind the challange. Pick one. Try to keep it to one issue at a time, to avoid confusing the issue.

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?

So far, the questions are:

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

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

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

Why do Prots believe the following:

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


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

This list will do for now, but I'm sure it will grow as the thread progresses.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Bulldog]

Read the challenge in the OP.

I did. But what exactly do you mean when you say that Protestants can't use history? We can't use history in regards to what?

That's not the way the thread works. The way the thread works is for you as a Protestant to define Sola Scripura or to defend your beliefs being questioned only utilizing Scripture. It's not for me to define your beliefs - that's a cop-out on your side of the challenge.

Which won't work if we aren't on the same page regarding what sola scriptura actually is.

 

[JCrawf]

I'm not putting you on ignor but until you lose the attitude you will not recieve any more responses from me after this one.

And another question: Why do Prots threaten ignor and complain of "attitude" when their own type of retoric is used against them?

Besides, you still have not come up with the answers and or evidence showing that the Apostles themselves taught every doctrine that the Church now teaches.

The purpose of this thread is to show how futile it is even for Protestants to do so with their doctrines and to defend their faith without going to external things beyond the Bible, whether it be to a Protestant founder or to their personal opinions. If this is not so, then prove me wrong in this post. So far, you haven't.

That was the issue and it is the issue you continue to ignor. If you insist on ignoring it I have no problem ignoring you.

I am not ignoring it, I just think that your standards for providing proof are ridiculous. Therefore, I have imposed the same standards you imposed on us Catholics and Orthodox to defend our faith on you. But now you are the one complaining. So deal with it.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Bulldog]

..........

 

[Bulldog]

And another question: Why do Prots threaten ignor and complain of "attitude" when their own type of retoric is used against them?

What is "Prots"' "own type of rhetoric"?

Have you been reading Art Sippo lately?

 

[JCrawf]

I did. But what exactly do you mean when you say that Protestants can't use history? We can't use history in regards to what?

Read the post. It's quite clear on the whole thing. You can't use history to defend your faith - just Scripture Alone.

Which won't work if we aren't on the same page regarding what sola scriptura actually is.

But you as a Protestant are supposed to define it. It's not my fault if you guys don't have a set standard in regards to defining your doctrines. That's for you to deal with. Us Catholics and Orthodox get to ask the laudry list of questions this time and the challenge is for you to answer them under the said stipulations.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[CCWoody]

Since nobody seems to have noticed my previous post on the wonderful doctrine of Sola Fide, that great doctrine restored by the Reformation, I'll proceed with some more verses....

[bible]Romans 9:30-33[/bible]

Notice, again, Paul's, excellent use of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in establishing his Sola Fide point. I believe this completes my journey down the "Roman" road as the book of Romans is oft called on verses from the top of my head.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[gitlance]

I'm not putting you on ignor but until you lose the attitude you will not recieve any more responses from me after this one.

Besides, you still have not come up with the answers and or evidence showing that the Apostles themselves taught every doctrine that the Church now teaches. That was the issue and it is the issue you continue to ignor. If you insist on ignoring it I have no problem ignoring you.

Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

.

 

[JCrawf]

What is "Prots"' "own type of rhetoric"?

Prots = abbreviation for Protestants.

Own type of rhetoric = similar usage of a laundry list of questions that Prots often give to Catholics and Orthodox, so thus now the similar type of rhetoric being utilized against Prots. Only see this as fair.

Have you been reading Art Sippo lately?

No. Now are you going to try and answer the laundry list of questions?

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Bulldog]

Read the post. It's quite clear on the whole thing. You can't use history to defend your faith - just Scripture Alone.

Again you'll have to be a bit more specific. Scriptura alone forms the only infallible rule of faith in that it is what doctrine should be based upon - history is not infallible nor a rule of faith but there's nothing wrong with it.

But you as a Protestant are supposed to define it. It's not my fault if you guys don't have a set standard in regards to defining your doctrines. That's for you to deal with. Us Catholics and Orthodox get to ask the laudry list of questions this time and the challenge is for you to answer them under the said stipulations.

So you are going to allow sola scriptura as Protestants define it? That's wonderful, but then you can't claim that we are not correctly using sola scriptura when we are within the boundries we have set.

 

[JCrawf]

Since nobody seems to have noticed my previous post on the wonderful doctrine of Sola Fide, that great doctrine restored by the Reformation, I'll proceed with some more verses....

Romans 9:30-33

Notice, again, Paul's, excellent use of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura in establishing his Sola Fide point.

Sorry, but St. Paul does not state anything about faith alone in the scripture. Nor does he go by Sola Scriptura. In fact, there are places in St. Paul's epistles where he is quoteing from non-Scriptural sources. So how can it be said that St. Paul is exercizing sola scriptura if indeed certain parts of his epeistles do appeal to the gentiles and quotes some of their writings as well? But how can anyone know this wihout a historical context. Thus the limitations and error of sola scriptura.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[nephilimiyr]

.Beloved, while eagerly preparing to write to you about the salvation we share, I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Good, since you seem so eager to contend for your faith. I beg of you, be the first one here to bring forward the evidence that the Apostles did teach all the doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches now.

And perhaps you missed my earlier post where I did post some answers? Any further explanation will not be forth coming till I get some answers of my own. You all may want to play a one sided game here but I'm not playing your game.