Misconceptions about Protestants

[Meepy]

OR,... it means exactly what it seems to mean. and I am NOT the ethiopian who btw didn't have the Holy Spirit in him to help guide Him internally... (among other things)

“I tell you the truth, if you have faith and don’t doubt, you can do things like this and much more.
You can even say to this mountain, ‘May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and it will happen.
You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it.”

Yeah, the only stipulation here is IF you have faith and DO NOT doubt...

JESUS said I can pray for anything and I will receive it. I'm going with Jesus for the win, no offense to you Meepy

I think we need to be careful with trying to test God. Especially when someone doesn't have the proper understanding of prayer or the operation of the Holy Spirit. God won't grant things in prayer that are against his ordinances. Hence I don't think you properly understand the context of that verse.

And how do you know the Ethiopian didn't have the Holy Spirit? Obviously the Holy Spirit inspired him enough to ask questions about scripture and drew him ask the apostle Phillip for help. As Jesus says you can only come to him if He draws you. Obviously the Ethiopian was drawn by the promptings of the Holy Spirit to assent to the apostle Phillip. It seems quite positive he did have the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit precedes faith and prompts someone towards to respond to the faith. He would have not been able to ask the Apostle Phillip to be baptized if he had not been drawn by the Holy Spirit. He didn't exactly say to Phillip "Oh I don't need your help, I will ask God himself". Neither did the Jews say to Moses "Oh, I'm not listening to you, I will ask and pray to God himself". Timothy didn't say to St. Paul "sorry, I'm just going to ask God and thus I do not need to ask you anything or learn anything for you".

 

[Meepy]

Teach the same to faithful men. Hold to the traditions. By definition, things that came later were additions. What things qualify as coming after c100ad?



Some ECFS taught that tracing the bishops was one of two answers. The second was having the same gospel, teaching the truth. A church rises up and teaches the same, then it is by definition apostolic. The ones who taught that the physical lineage was all that was necessary fell into error.

Having said that, RC cannot prove its lineage (nor can any other group, except Polycarp).

As Christians, we are left with the "rule of faith". The scripture.

That kinda poses a large problem for the enormous amount of early Christians who did not have scripture at their bestowal as well as the problems arising from disputes regarding what is authentic during those times(like the epistle of Jude, Hebrews, John's revelation, and the Didache). I think a simple study on the history of paper will show you the rarity of someone during this time having their own bible.

To the lament of protestants and other independents, a nice full 1611 KJV complete with table of contents didn't fall out of the sky for them.

Problem is the scripture itself never says its the sole rule of faith. The oral traditions where handed down to the apostolic fathers. The canon of scripture comes from oral tradition.

and lastly, you are forgetting Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Linus, Anacletus, Eusebius's 'Church History', the 4 core ecumenical councils as well as the Lateran and Orange, Gregory the Great, Jerome, Cyprian of Carthage, the Liberian Catalogue, Hippolytus of Portus, and the Liber Pontificalis.

 

[Catherineanne]

Crime is crime and deserves punishment, some crimes should be punished not only in eternity by God but also on earth by the State.

I think it is important to distinguish between morality and crime. The state can and does legislate for crime, but not for morality, and the two are not the same.

If we established a legislature strictly by the words of Christ we would all be in prison. Therefore, we have to make a decision about what crime is, and what it is not, such that the vast majority of people do NOT end up in prison. To do this we use politicians to debate and decide what our laws are, on our behalf, and then a police and legal system to enforce those laws. The police and legal system is then not interested in morality, but strictly only interested in what is, and what is not, law, and rightly so. The moment anyone starts to get confused about the two, people are going to get oppressed and the law abused.

This is why, like it or not, using legal terms for moral judgements does not really have much meaning. It is the law that determines, for example, what murder is, and what it is not. If we then posit other behaviours as murder, which the law determines are not murder, then we muddle morality with law.

God does not punish crime, because he is neither police nor legal system. God's only interest is morality. Clearly, if someone has broken the law then the chances are that is going to be immoral, but the opposite does not pertain. I can be immoral without ever breaking the law. And as a third level, by Christ's definitions, I can also be a sinner without ever being immoral.

 

[MKJ]

So, how did you determine the authority of your police force, judiciary and legislature, exactly? When you went to school, how did you determine that the teachers deserved their authority? Or did you not accept them because you were brought up knowing them, and came to a gradual understanding of how they worked?

In the majority of cases Roman Catholics trust the church because they are brought up in the church. It is the same for Baptist children, and evangelicals and all other denominations; Christian children are taught to believe in the church as part of growing up.







The majority of RCs are RC because they are born into the faith, and brought up in it. They accept that it is legitimate long before they even know what legitimacy is and so they believe it. And why not? It makes no difference if Mormon children are brought up the same way.

But you can continue to consider it a matter of decision if you prefer. Doesn't bother me.



Telling the future is not so hard. If you want to know what someone will do tomorrow, just look at what he did yesterday.

Do you post just to argue? None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion that my comments were a part of.

And yes, accepting authority without thinking about it is a decision, and sometimes a wrong, and culpable one.

 

[Catherineanne]

“I tell you the truth, if you have faith and don’t doubt, you can do things like this and much more.
You can even say to this mountain, ‘May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and it will happen.
You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it.”

Yeah, the only stipulation here is IF you have faith and DO NOT doubt...

JESUS said I can pray for anything and I will receive it.

God as ATM.

This is pagan prayer; an attempt to manipulate the deity by means of incantation and magic; man pulling the strings.

I think you will find that the Lord did not teach us magic. He taught us to pray like this;

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, THY will be done, THY kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.

No mention that I can see of MY will taking over. Therefore, it is NOT the case that I can get God to do anything I like. It is the case that if I align my will with his, and then pray according to his will, then my prayers will be answered every single time. But not always the way I want them to be; I am not God.

 

[Catherineanne]

Do you post just to argue? None of this is particularly relevant to the discussion that my comments were a part of.

You have a particularly endearing habit of slipping snide comments into your replies. I rather enjoy their irony, so I do hope you carry on.

And yes, accepting authority without thinking about it is a decision, and sometimes a wrong, and culpable one.

I disagree. It is part of life, and perfectly normal.

 

[MKJ]

I disagree. It is part of life, and perfectly normal.

And when the authority directs or supports evil or immorality...? You should suspend your judgment and obey?

We are responsible when we choose not to judge, just as we are responsible when we do. We can't escape our moral responsibility as easily as that.

 

[Catherineanne]

I think we need to be careful with trying to test God. Especially when someone doesn't have the proper understanding of prayer or the operation of the Holy Spirit. God won't grant things in prayer that are against his ordinances. Hence I don't think you properly understand the context of that verse.

And how do you know the Ethiopian didn't have the Holy Spirit? Obviously the Holy Spirit inspired him enough to ask questions about scripture and drew him ask the apostle Phillip for help. As Jesus says you can only come to him if He draws you. Obviously the Ethiopian was drawn by the promptings of the Holy Spirit to assent to the apostle Phillip. It seems quite positive he did have the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit precedes faith and prompts someone towards to respond to the faith. He would have not been able to ask the Apostle Phillip to be baptized if he had not been drawn by the Holy Spirit. He didn't exactly say to Phillip "Oh I don't need your help, I will ask God himself". Neither did the Jews say to Moses "Oh, I'm not listening to you, I will ask and pray to God himself". Timothy didn't say to St. Paul "sorry, I'm just going to ask God and thus I do not need to ask you anything or learn anything for you".

Quite right.

 

[Catherineanne]

And when the authority directs or supports evil or immorality...? You should suspend your judgment and obey?

An adult can choose. Children won't be able to tell the difference, and cannot be said to have made any choices for themselves. This is why the abuse of children is always a worse behaviour than the same abuse of an adult; children are incapable of protecting themselves from evil.

We are responsible when we choose not to judge, just as we are responsible when we do. We can't escape our moral responsibility as easily as that.

Accepting authority predates our capacity to judge. Moral responsibility starts with the capacity to judge, but in a very wide range of contexts, our acceptance of authority will be very well established long before we achieve our majority.

 

[MamaZ]

IF we pray believing we have recieved then we shall recieve. No God is not an ATM. But He does own all that is in this world. It is His and if His children need something He grants it for He is our provider. IF we ask for bread will He give us a stone?

 

[MKJ]

An adult can choose. Children won't be able to tell the difference, and cannot be said to have made any choices for themselves. This is why the abuse of children is always a worse behaviour than the same abuse of an adult; children are incapable of protecting themselves from evil.



Accepting authority predates our capacity to judge. Moral responsibility starts with the capacity to judge, but in a very wide range of contexts, our acceptance of authority will be very well established long before we achieve our majority.

Undoubtedly the capacity to make a judgment is required to make a judgment. But how do you see that as supporting your argument that individuals are not called on to make decisions about what authorities they accept. Do you think adults with normal mental capacities are excused from such judgement. If not, how is that different from an obligation to judge the truth claims of a religious organization one submits to.

 

[Catherineanne]

Undoubtedly the capacity to make a judgment is required to make a judgment.

Excellent. Good start.

But how do you see that as supporting your argument that individuals are not called on to make decisions about what authorities they accept.

I did not say that. I said that decisions about religion are often not the route into faith, particularly for RCs.

Babies accept a lot without having to make any decisions. They accept their parents and other relatives, their medical team, their school, their neighbours and friends, eventually the police and other authority figures etc etc. It is a long time before any child starts to learn to question any of this.

Most of us learn about our church at this very early age, in the same way. And when we do, we accept it as part of our cultural heritage, and as such it is in a privileged position. We find it far easier to question counter cultural elements of life than those which we feel to belong to us.

Do you think adults with normal mental capacities are excused from such judgement. If not, how is that different from an obligation to judge the truth claims of a religious organization one submits to.

You seem to assume that most people know nothing of religion, and then at the age of 18 start to consider it, and then make a choice. This may happen for some people, but for the majority, and certainly for most apostolics, it is the other way round. Religion plays some part in our lives, long before we even know what a decision is, let alone make one for ourselves.

 

[Standing Up]

That kinda poses a large problem for the enormous amount of early Christians who did not have scripture at their bestowal as well as the problems arising from disputes regarding what is authentic during those times(like the epistle of Jude, Hebrews, John's revelation, and the Didache). I think a simple study on the history of paper will show you the rarity of someone during this time having their own bible.

To the lament of protestants and other independents, a nice full 1611 KJV complete with table of contents didn't fall out of the sky for them.

You might be projecting. Trent didn't establish scripture either.

Long ago they passed it around. It was handed down as divine. Even RC agrees with this.

Problem is the scripture itself never says its the sole rule of faith. The oral traditions where handed down to the apostolic fathers. The canon of scripture comes from oral tradition.

Even if I agree, this is not to say that the rest of oral tradition is valid.

and lastly, you are forgetting Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Linus, Anacletus, Eusebius's 'Church History', the 4 core ecumenical councils as well as the Lateran and Orange, Gregory the Great, Jerome, Cyprian of Carthage, the Liberian Catalogue, Hippolytus of Portus, and the Liber Pontificalis.

Not at all. I remember Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, Firmilian, Leo the Great, Proterius of Alexandria, and others.

 

[Standing Up]

God as ATM.

This is pagan prayer;-snip-

Yikes, glad we're in different rooms. Those were Jesus' words.

 

[sunlover1]

OR,... it means exactly what it seems to mean. and I am NOT the ethiopian who btw didn't have the Holy Spirit in him to help guide Him internally... (among other things)

“I tell you the truth, if you have faith and don’t doubt, you can do things like this and much more.
You can even say to this mountain, ‘May you be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ and it will happen.
You can pray for anything, and if you have faith, you will receive it.”

Yeah, the only stipulation here is IF you have faith and DO NOT doubt...

JESUS said I can pray for anything and I will receive it. I'm going with Jesus for the win, no offense to you Meepy

I think we need to be careful with trying to test God. Especially when someone doesn't have the proper understanding of prayer or the operation of the Holy Spirit. God won't grant things in prayer that are against his ordinances. Hence I don't think you properly understand the context of that verse..

And what did Jesus "really" mean?

God as ATM.

This is pagan prayer; an attempt to manipulate the deity by means of incantation and magic; man pulling the strings.

I think you will find that the Lord did not teach us magic. He taught us to pray like this;

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, THY will be done, THY kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.

No mention that I can see of MY will taking over. Therefore, it is NOT the case that I can get God to do anything I like. It is the case that if I align my will with his, and then pray according to his will, then my prayers will be answered every single time. But not always the way I want them to be; I am not God.

Hogwash.
I'll go with what Jesus said, thanks anyhow.

I copied it word for word, from HIS mouth to OUR ears/eyes.
smh

 

[sunlover1]

Yikes, glad we're in different rooms. Those were Jesus' words.

See, you're acting just like Jesus!:

5And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

 

[MKJ]

Excellent. Good start.



I did not say that. I said that decisions about religion are often not the route into faith, particularly for RCs.

Babies accept a lot without having to make any decisions. They accept their parents and other relatives, their medical team, their school, their neighbours and friends, eventually the police and other authority figures etc etc. It is a long time before any child starts to learn to question any of this.

Most of us learn about our church at this very early age, in the same way. And when we do, we accept it as part of our cultural heritage, and as such it is in a privileged position. We find it far easier to question counter cultural elements of life than those which we feel to belong to us.



You seem to assume that most people know nothing of religion, and then at the age of 18 start to consider it, and then make a choice. This may happen for some people, but for the majority, and certainly for most apostolics, it is the other way round. Religion plays some part in our lives, long before we even know what a decision is, let alone make one for ourselves.

I don`t agree with everything you say here: But in any case, how does this fit into the context of the conversation I was having which deals with adult conversion and Catholic apologetics to non-Catholic adults.

 

[Meepy]

You might be projecting. Trent didn't establish scripture either.

Long ago they passed it around. It was handed down as divine. Even RC agrees with this.



Even if I agree, this is not to say that the rest of oral tradition is valid.



Not at all. I remember Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, Firmilian, Leo the Great, Proterius of Alexandria, and others.

yes true, it was handed down. Mostly by bishops and companions of the apostles like Luke and Mark. However your average joe didn't likely have access to all of the books of the NT, and there were many erroneous and gnostic ones floating around during the time too. Paper was super expensive and came from sheep skins or papyri. I had read once that a full book similar to the bible would cost around a years wage of sheep skins for paper. That was one reasons why the Church chained bibles in their buildings. They were rare, expensive, hard to make, and extremely valuable.

 

[Standing Up]

yes true, it was handed down. Mostly by bishops and companions of the apostles like Luke and Mark. However your average joe didn't likely have access to all of the books of the NT, and there were many erroneous and gnostic ones floating around during the time too. Paper was super expensive and came from sheep skins or papyri. I had read once that a full book similar to the bible would cost around a years wage of sheep skins for paper. That was one reasons why the Church chained bibles in their buildings. They were rare, expensive, hard to make, and extremely valuable.

Yeah, God "raised up" the printing press inventor, some argue. Kinda like the Roman roads and Roman pax that permitted the early dissemination of the Gospel. Over time, it was corrupted (indulgences and stuff), so the Reformation coincides with the printing press.

 

[Catherineanne]

I don`t agree with everything you say here: But in any case, how does this fit into the context of the conversation I was having which deals with adult conversion and Catholic apologetics to non-Catholic adults.

You assumed as the norm a route into Catholicism which is atypical. I am simply trying to say so.