Misconceptions about Protestants

[Tyndale]

I love the huge irony here that a Baptist Church (which lives and breathes by believers baptism) chose to cherry pick a quote from Martin Luther when he was speaking about the need for baptizing infants.

why belittle your brother?......why not correct him? there's not need to belittle him

 

[chilehed]

Tell me then chilehed,
where might i find every verse of the bible
interpreted by your church, so that i don't
have to try to read and understand God's
words myself (and be subjected to the name
calling above).

So then you concede my point.

And after your first reply to me, you're hardly in the position to talk about name-calling.

 

[sunlover1]

So then you concede my point.

I am asking you where i will find your churches interpretation of all verses in Scripture..

 

[chilehed]

You need to understand that the reformers were utterly convinced that the Catholic Church had erred in matters of doctrine.

You think something I said indicates that I don't know that?

Yes, they were utterly convinced that the Catholic Church had erred in doctrine, and yet they also saw the authority to determine doctrine as lying in the ecclesiastical community. These two ideas are mutually exclusive, because the Catholic Church is the ecclesiastical community that has existed since the time of the Apostles. There is not a single scrap of evidence that indicates that there was any other, which is why non-Catholics have had to invent the fiction of an invisible remnant. To say that it's invisible is to admit that there's no evidence for its existence, whereas the Church that responded to all the great heresies was, without a doubt, the Catholic Church.

A rational person cannot believe that the authority to determine doctrine is given by Christ to the government of the Church that He established, and be utterly convinced that it has erred in doctrine. It's a logical contradiction.

 

[chilehed]

I am asking you where i will find your churches interpretation of all verses in Scripture..

You're completely avoiding any attempt to deal with the logic of my first post, and my assertion that you proved it with your first response to me. This means that you're conceding that I'm correct.

You can try to muddy the water if you like, but I'm not playing that game.

 

[sunlover1]

You're completely avoiding any attempt to deal with the logic of my first post, and my assertion that you proved it with your first response to me. This means that you're conceding that I'm correct.

You can try to muddy the water if you like, but I'm not playing that game.

I'm sorry if i am lacking logic to see what you are talking about.
I am not playing any games in my question and it muddies no waters
in fact clears up quite a bit.
If I can't find the interpretation of a passage in your church, why dis me for
looking for it myself in Scripture? Where's the logic in that?

BTW I looked back and cannot see where i called you any names. nor would I, nor will I,
I wish you God's best.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

While a reasonable question, that's actually completely besides the point. Let's even go so far as to leave out the torture and MAIMING. (I mean, do you know the ghastly things they did to women?) Let's just pretend for the sake of civil discussion that the only penalty was a humane lethal injection, or bullet to the head.

Penalty for WHAT? Thought Police.

That's the objection. Your equal, for whom Christ died. Who committed no crime. Didn't even do anything wrong?! The US FF had a wonderful concept: "matters of private conscience." Ultimately these things come down to being btw us and G-d, but we should be able to discuss them with fellow believers w/o threat of punishment. That you choose to belong to a Church that infringes on those rights? I can respect your right to do so. How about a little consideration in return?

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.

If we justly execute murderers, who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul; how much more justly are heretics executed, who destroy both body and soul in hell?

With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.

A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.

It is good to have mercy on people who are in error. St. Paul says we should give them two chances to recant but after that, we are to give up on changing them directly and avoid them.

I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump? Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. Therefore let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Sometimes it is necessary not only to avoid these false teachers but to deliver them to the secular authorities to be tried and executed so as to save those who might follow them and be damned.

If your concern is with the manner of execution of those guilty of capital crimes or the means of executing information from them, that is certainly reasonable. There are also those (such as Pope John Paul II) who say that capital punishment is unnecessary today because it is just as reasonable to put them in prison for life.

St. Thomas says,

As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Now, only those who have authority can execute criminals. Vigilantism is forbidden:

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8]: "A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community's welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.

So, those who have been killed by mobs or other forms of vigilantism have been executed unjustly and those who kill them are guilty of murder. For example, there was a long attempt to build a legal case against the notorious abortionist George Tiller but then one day someone shot him down in the vestibule of his church. Although the chances of someone like Tiller recanting are slim, it is still sad that he was not given more time to do so (it happens) but it would have been just if Tiller would have been convicted of murder and executed but the man who killed him, because it was an act of vigilantism, is now guilty of murder as well because it was not his place to be judge, jury and executioner.

The Inquisition was established so as to avoid mob killings and to regulate, systematize and limit the use of torture and execution. Now, the issue of torture continues to this day over what means are legitimate to extract information from suspected terrorists and so does the issue of capital punishment. The question is at what point does the application of torture or capital punishment exceed the benefits that can be gained and become perverted into sadism and brutality?

In Rodney Stark's book "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades", he writes:

This is not to say that the Muslims were more brutal or less tolerant than were Christians or Jews, for it was a brutal and intolerant age. It is to say that efforts to portray Muslims as enlightened supporters of multiculturalism are at best ignorant.

What he says here about Muslims is true about Christian heretics as well. It was a brutal and intolerant age. It is not as though the heretics judged by the Inquisition -- from the Cathars to the Calvinists -- were "enlightened supporters of multiculturalism", promoters of a peaceful and open-minded liberalism but rather they were often just as brutal in their tortures and killing of Catholics as they were with killing other Protestants, who they considered to be heretics (e.g. Michael Servetus, the Anabaptists).

The brutality of execution was actually intentional. The idea of a "humane execution", I believe, begins with the invention of the guillotine in the French Revolution (to justify their horrible brutality). Think about the execution of people convicted of treason in England -- they were "drawn and quartered". That is, they were drug behind a horse through town, hung for a short period (not snapping the neck, as with more modern hanging but strangled), then emasculated and disembowled (their intestines ripped out on a winch while still alive). The heart was the last to go, to keep the victim alive as long as possible. Then they were decapitated and cut into four pieces (quartered) with their body parts displayed around town (particularly on London Bridge) as a warning to others. This was all done, not simply to kill the person (a simple decapitation or hanging would have sufficed) but as a deterrent to other who might have thought about conspiring against the king.

These days people are much more squeamish. They want push-button warfare, execution of criminals by lethal injection and they don't even want to think about their dinner having been a real animal. We live in a different age. But really, is dropping a bomb on a town any more humane than cutting people apart with a sword? Is lethal injection really any more humane than cutting a person's head off? Is buying a frozen chicken from the store any more humane than going to the backyard with a hatchet? We just like to think of ourselves as more evolved and enlightened than earlier ages because we have distanced ourselves from the killing. But it seems to me that the efficiency of the French Revolution or the Soviet/Chinese executions or even industrialized meat production is more dehumanizing because of its mechanization than the alleged brutality of our ancestors.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Misconceptions about "Protestants"

"Protestants worship the bible

technically that could be correct. no need for a Vatican wordsmith as of yet, but Christ is described in Rev as 'the word', and the word is the bible

The Bible is called God Breathed Word.
God=Check
Breathed=neuma=Spirit=Check
Word=Christ=Check

Worthy of worship indeed.

Wait, what? You worship the Bible as God? Is that a misconception or true?

And you worship it by thumping it, right?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Non Catholics don't think like Catholics. Saying one is thier own Pope must be a catholic phrase for a person asking for God's salvation, praying, and living through Jesus Christ, Not the Pope.

It just means that Protestants are their own leaders, just like saying that a man acts like "he is his own king" and is not really a reflection of Catholicism's relationship to the pope. Protestants believe whatever they want to believe about God and morality and then try to justify it using the Bible (which is why there are so many different kinds of Protestants, holding every possible position on every possible issue). Only following their own interpretation of the Bible ultimately means only following their own opinions.

In those days there was no king in Israel, but every one did that which seemed right to himself.

Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James: to them that are beloved in God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called. Mercy unto you, and peace, and charity be fulfilled. Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto this judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:

And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.

Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain [read: murders of souls -- Gen 4]: and after the error of Balaam [read: cause of scandal for gain -- Num 22] they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core. [read: rebellion against Church govt. -- Num 16] These are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water, which are carried about by winds, trees of the autumn, unfruitful, twice dead, plucked up by the roots, raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. Now of these Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying: Behold, the Lord cometh with thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to reprove all the ungodly for all the works of their ungodliness, whereby they have done ungodly, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against God.

These are murmurers, full of complaints, walking according to their own desires, and their mouth speaketh proud things, admiring persons for gain's sake. But you, my dearly beloved, be mindful of the words which have been spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, who told you, that in the last time there should come mockers, walking according to their own desires in ungodlinesses. These are they, who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit. But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto life everlasting. And some indeed reprove, being judged: but others save, pulling them out of the fire. And on others have mercy, in fear, hating also the spotted garment which is carnal. Now to him who is able to preserve you without sin, and to present you spotless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power, before all ages, and now, and for all ages of ages. Amen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Wait, what? You worship the Bible as God? Is that a misconception or true?

And you worship it by thumping it, right?

Biker Bible thumpers

NKJV) Psalms 23:4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil;
For You [are] with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

YouTube - Any Which Way You Can The Black Widows Bald2

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=PilgrimToChrist; Wait, what? You worship the Bible as God? Is that a misconception or true?

Not really, we just "venerate" & "reverence " it. "Dulia, not latria. Not even the "hyperdulia" worship y'all give Mary.

And you worship it by thumping it, right?

The thump of a righteous man availeth much.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not really, we just "venerate" & "reverence " it. "Dulia, not latria. Not even the "hyperdulia" worship y'all give Mary.

The thump of a righteous man availeth much.

QFT!

 

[chilehed]

I looked back and cannot see where i called you any names. nor would I, nor will I,
I wish you God's best.

You made snarky comments about me not reading the bible, and strongly implied that I'm not a christian at all by speaking of those who teach another gospel. Where I come from that's considered name-calling, and it's highly offensive.

I'm sorry if i am lacking logic to see what you are talking about....If I can't find the interpretation of a passage in your church, why dis me for looking for it myself in Scripture? Where's the logic in that?

I'm not dissing you for reading scripture, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy you've fallen into.

You insist that you're neither ignorant or unstable, that you have the mind of Christ, and you can probably cite any number of passages of scripture that you believe show that you're correct. And yet you ignore the fact that you'd be just as certain of this if you were ignorant and unstable.

In matters of natural revelation you can rely on human reason; the objective rules of mathematics and physical science can give you certainty that you've built a bridge correctly even if you look at it and swear to yourself that it'll collapse, and the objective rules of historical evidence can give you certainty that some historical event happened.

But human reason is absolutely insufficient to come to certainty about matters of divine revelation, and you reading scripture gives you no objective certainty of the truth of your doctrine because in attempting to understand its meaning you're relying on your own intellect which you haven't proven is reliable. You're merely assuming that you're not one of the ignorant and unstable.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=chilehed;... in attempting to understand its meaning you're relying on your own intellect which you haven't proven is reliable.

I'll vouch for her.

You're merely assuming that you're not one of the ignorant and unstable.

Can we assume you're not either?

 

[TomCS]

You made snarky comments about me not reading the bible, and strongly implied that I'm not a christian at all by speaking of those who teach another gospel. Where I come from that's considered name-calling, and it's highly offensive.

I'm not dissing you for reading scripture, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy you've fallen into.

You insist that you're neither ignorant or unstable, that you have the mind of Christ, and you can probably cite any number of passages of scripture that you believe show that you're correct. And yet you ignore the fact that you'd be just as certain of this if you were ignorant and unstable.

In matters of natural revelation you can rely on human reason; the objective rules of mathematics and physical science can give you certainty that you've built a bridge correctly even if you look at it and swear to yourself that it'll collapse, and the objective rules of historical evidence can give you certainty that some historical event happened.

But human reason is absolutely insufficient to come to certainty about matters of divine revelation, and you reading scripture gives you no objective certainty of the truth of your doctrine because in attempting to understand its meaning you're relying on your own intellect which you haven't proven is reliable. You're merely assuming that you're not one of the ignorant and unstable.

Sophistry and horse manure. God gave us His written Word so that we can know His thoughts. He spoke plainly for every man to understand His Word. It is only clever religionists, with size 12 brains, who can't see this.

 

[sunlover1]

You made snarky comments about me not reading the bible, and strongly implied that I'm not a christian at all by speaking of those who teach another gospel. Where I come from that's considered name-calling, and it's highly offensive.

Not quite sure what to do.
Does one apologize when someone else misunderstands them?
One issue at a time here, I will deal with this.
I am going to go BACK and retrieve this post of yours and you will
see that you assumed i was being "snarky"
Dang this is such fun discussing stuff today!

 

[razeontherock]

Catholics and Protestants, for all practical purposes, are brothers in Christ. The Lord knows his own. Our differences are human differences, and I doubt they matter one whit to Him who loves us each.

How refreshing to read this! I'm actually amazed to see it

 

[razeontherock]

Going back to post #365:

you missed what Peter wrote in the scriptures about being established in the "present truth"

Michael I respect your opinion but I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to flesh out what you mean a tad more than that?

 

[razeontherock]

technically that could be correct. no need for a Vatican wordsmith as of yet, but Christ is described in Rev as 'the word', and the word is the bible

Now this is interesting! EO (and RC?) actually worship the elements of Eucharist as Christ Himself - why would we not worship the Word?

What gets more confusing is many Pr's will say "the Word" does not mean the Bible.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The early letters speak of baptizing in the Name of Jesus in parting with Jewish tradition to baptize in the Rabbi's name.

The later letters and Gospels speak of the trinity.

another letter speaks of the day being upon us and the night having passed, implying a period when things were obscure .