Protestant Doctrine

[edie19]

Now, see, I find this to be rather condescending. It's not our fault we're not Roman Catholic, we're just ignorant of the gospel and what the true church is? I'm not ignorant of the Roman Catholic church and I reject it. Nor am I ignorant of the gospel or the true nature of Christ's catholic (universal) church. I know Christ and I know HIs church because I and every other believer are His church. The RCC limits Christ's church to itself, the Bible doesn't. I also reject the idea that I'm part of the RCC whether I like it or not. I'm not part of the RCC but I'm most definitely part of Christ's church.

you rock Lynn

The pope is not my spiritual head, the RCC is not my church. Jesus the Christ is the head (and foundation) of the universal Christian church of which I'm a member (thanks solely to God's mercy and grace!)

edie

 

[a_ntv]

e

I see no way to reconcile point 847 with this statement from Pope Eugene's papal bull:

Pope Eugene's papal bull list exactly who cannot become participants in eternal life:
"Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians; the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity."
And that indipendently whether they keep or not the apostolic succession (schismatic or heretic)

A document of 1440 could no speak of lutherans or other protestants

 

[edie19]

And thats where we realize you are wrong.
We aren't worried about our salvation. Even if the catholic church said we weren't saved, we'd still know we are.
And its not an imperfect way, we are fully saved(even?) and don't want to be in your church.

a hearty AMEN!

 

[tall73]

e

Pope Eugene's papal bull list exactly who cannot become participants in eternal life:
"Hence it condemns Sabellius who confuses the persons and completely takes away their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians; the Macedonians who say that only the Father is the true God, but put the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It condemns also any others whatsoever who place grades or inequality in the Trinity."
And that indipendently whether they keep or not the apostolic succession (schismatic or heretic)

A document of 1440 could no speak of lutherans or other protestants

I am quite aware of who it lists. And I am not speaking of Protestants either.

The catechism says those IGNORANT of the gospel can be saved. But then he specifically says that pagans and Jews etc. cannot be saved.

 

[a_ntv]

Is this thread on Protestant Doctrine or is on Catholic Doctrine?

Or the Protestant doctrine can be defined only as the contrary of catholic's one ?

Why Protestant dont explain something positive, while sometime they simply look like to say "We are right bc the catholics are wrong" ?

I ask in this tread to speak about protestant doctrine, not catholic one.

 

[tall73]

Is this thread on Protestant Doctrine or is on Catholic Doctrine?

Or the Protestant doctrine can be defined only as the contrary of catholic's one.

Why Protestant dont explain something positive, while sometime they simply look like to say "We are right bc the catholics are wrong" ?

This thread is on protestant doctrine. But the formulation of that particular understanding of protestant doctrine at the beginning gave rise to a number of discussions.

In particular, the position of protestants on biblical interpretation is called into question. It has been challenged by the Catholic view. The two are obviously not in isolation.

If the protestant view is challenged, then the alternative suggested is open to challenge as well as a natural part of the discussion.

Now my post is a particular point of that discussion. Is the Catholic view valid if authoritative statements disagree?

To me it seems these two statements do not agree.

There are a numbe of ways to challenge this I would think.

a. challenge that these are both authoritative statments
b. challenge my reading of it
c. challenge my understanding of tradition and the expansion thereof.

But at face value, I am looking at a contradiction. The Catechism says that those ignorant of the gospel may attain to eternal life in some cases.

The papal bull leaves no room for Jews, Pagans and a number of schismatics, outlined earlier in the document.

 

[Lynn73]

you rock Lynn

The pope is not my spiritual head, the RCC is not my church. Jesus the Christ is the head (and foundation) of the universal Christian church of which I'm a member (thanks solely to God's mercy and grace!)

edie

I find it sad that we even have to debate on the issue of the church when the Bible shows that being saved equalls being added to the church. Yes, Jesus is the head and foundation of His church, He hasn't given it to anyone else.

 

[a_ntv]

To me it seems these two statements do not agree.

There are a numbe of ways to challenge this I would think.

a. challenge that these are both authoritative statments
b. challenge my reading of it
c. challenge my understanding of tradition and the expansion thereof.

.

Which one is the protestant one (they are in contraddiction one against the other)? or which is your denomination's one?
Protestants always agree to be against catholics (usually without even try to understand), but never propose a positive doctrine

But at face value, I am looking at a contradiction.

Now that you think to have found a contradiction in catholic doctrine, are you more steady in your protestant faith? I really hope it doesn't matter to your faith. So I really don't understand why you are so interested in that.

The Catechism says that those ignorant of the gospel may attain to eternal life in some cases.

The papal bull leaves no room for Jews, Pagans and a number of schismatics, outlined earlier in the document.

Ok, if we shall only to discuss on catholic doctrine, lets do it.

Catholics usually split two different levels:
- the level of justice
- the level of charity

The level of justice is perfectly right and correct. It is shown ad instance in Mark 10:19: You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"
The level of charity is introduced by Christ. It does not cancel the first level, but it is something more. It is shown ad instance in Mark 10:21 "And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

These two levels are hugely applicated:
- it is right (according the level of justice) that in the US there is the death penalty, but the death penalty is against the charity and shall be not appicated
- it is right (according the level of justice) that illegal immigrants are deported, but the charity asks us to welcome them.
- it is right (according the level of justice) the who don't believe in Christ or is heretic cannot go to heaven, but according the level of charity he can be saved by Christ.

The Church remembers us both these levels, that are both right.
It is dangerous if one of these two level is forgotten:
there is no charity without justice, but justice alone is dead.

 

[a_ntv]

double post

 

[tall73]

Which one is the protestant one (they are in contraddiction one against the other)? or which is your denomination's one?
Protestants always agree to be against catholics (usually without even try to understand), but never propose a positive doctrine

Now that you think to have found a contradiction in catholic doctrine, are you more steady in your protestant faith? I really hope it doesn't matter to your faith. So I really don't understand why you are so interested in that.

The protestant one is sola scriptura
The catholic one is the magisterium

Yes, the two are in opposition. This thread started with a statement of protestant doctrine.

Here are some of the responses to that original post:

No, confusion over it just goes to show the disunity amongst the different non-Catholic doctrines that are out there.

The disunitu between apostolic churches is not huge

There are differences, but really minor in comparison with Calvinist and Baptist Churches....think to Eucharistic, Penance, bishop role, Mary...

Now these statements show that there are in fact two contesting viewpoints here.

Since that is the case, both need to be analyzed. The issue is protestant theology. But since it is being critiqued by another competing standard, both standards need to be looked at.

Ok, if we shall only to discuss on catholic doctrine, lets do it.

Catholics usually split two different levels:
- the level of justice
- the level of charity

The level of justice is perfectly right and correct. It is shown ad instance in Mark 10:19: You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'"
The level of charity is introduced by Christ. It does not cancel the first level, but it is something more. It is shown ad instance in Mark 10:21 "And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

These two levels are hugely applicated:
- it is right (according the level of justice) that in the US there is the death penalty, but the death penalty is against the charity and shall be not appicated
- it is right (according the level of justice) that illegal immigrants are deported, but the charity asks us to welcome them.
- it is right (according the level of justice) the who don't believe in Christ or is heretic cannot go to heaven, but according the level of charity he can be saved by Christ.

The Church remembers us both these levels, that are both right.
It is dangerous if one of these two level is forgotten:
there is no charity without justice, but justice alone is dead.

To clarify, are you saying that

- The Catechism is an example of the charity level?
- The bull is an example of the justic level?

Here is the problem I have with that. He goes to great pains to show that there is no salvation outside of the sacraments within the unity of the church. There is nothing of exceptions. There is nothing of charity.

Within the framework you are speaking of, would there be anyway for him to rule out exceptions based on charity?

 

[a_ntv]

The protestant one is sola scriptura
The catholic one is the magisterium

As my friend Josiah taught me, Sola Scriptura is a normative principle, not a hermeneutic (= interpretation in his language) principle. (personally I don't agree on this sophistic distinction, but we are in a protestant thread so I will use your epistemology)

Here we are speaking of interpretation, so of hermeneutic, not of normative.
Magisterium (from the Latin 'to teach') is about interpretation, it is not a normative principle.

I never understood which is the hermeneutic principle in protestant doctrine (= who can interpreter the scripture?).

To clarify, are you saying that

- The Catechism is an example of the charity level?
- The bull is an example of the justic level?

You got the point

Here is the problem I have with that. He goes to great pains to show that there is no salvation outside of the sacraments within the unity of the church. There is nothing of exceptions. There is nothing of charity.

Yes the bull was a statement of justice.
Of course Christ is not compelled by the bull!!! He can save who He wants!!

Statements of justice are useful to remind us that we shall follow the justice. The pope cannot say: ok, you can became pagan: anyway the Lord saves you!
The pope is firstly a shepherd that shall take care of his sheepes. Statements of justice are made for prudence!

Statements of charity are more ecumenical, but are full of risks if misunderstood.

Within the framework you are speaking of, would there be anyway for him to rule out exceptions based on charity?

Of course Christ is not compelled by the bull!!! He can save who He wants!!
In this case it is only Him who can rule out exceptions.


We also shall alway remember that:
- it is right (according the level of justice) the we, sinner, cannot go to heaven, but according the level of charity we can be saved by Christ.

 

[tall73]

As my friend Josiah taught me, Sola Scriptura is a normative principle, not a hermeneutic (= interpretation in his language) principle. (personally I don't agree on this sophistic distinction, but we are in a protestant thread so I will use your epistemology)

Here we are speaking of interpretation, so of hermeneutic, not of normative.
Magisterium (from the Latin 'to teach') is about interpretation, it is not a normative principle.

I never understood which is the hermeneutic principle in protestant doctrine (= who can interpreter the scripture?).

I will let you two sort that out My point is that it is impossible in this setting to discuss the one without the other. Just the way it is. Because some on both sides will always make the issue about the competing ways of viewing things.

You got the point


Yes the bull was a statement of justice.
Of course Christ is not compelled by the bull!!! He can save who He wants!!

Statements of justice are useful to remind us that we shall follow the justice. The pope cannot say: ok, you can became pagan: anyway the Lord saves you!
The pope is firstly a shepherd that shall take care of his sheepes. Statements of justice are made for prudence!

Statements of charity are more ecumenical, but are full of risks if misunderstood.


Of course Christ is not compelled by the bull!!! He can save who He wants!!
In this case it is only Him who can rule out exceptions.


We also shall alway remember that:
- it is right (according the level of justice) the we, sinner, cannot go to heaven, but according the level of charity we can be saved by Christ.

I understand that the force of a proclamation can be lost if one starts putting in too many ecumenical concessions.

What I don't understand is that Christ is not compelled by the bull. In my opinion, Christ is not compelled by anything man does. But then the whole point is that the pope in certain circumstances is protected from error. Therefore Christ and he should not be at variance.

 

[a_ntv]

What I don't understand is that Christ is not compelled by the bull. In my opinion, Christ is not compelled by anything man does.

You are 100% right.
Bulls are for teaching purposes, not to set down the Truth !!
Infalibility is not to set down the Truth!!

But then the whole point is that the pope in certain circumstances is protected from error. Therefore Christ and he should not be at variance.

Consider that in any human statment there are:
- the doctrine, and
- the philosophy (or language in a wide meaning) used to express the doctrine, and
- the contest (cultural heritage)
Ad instance 'Trasubstantation' is a doctrine expressed with an aristotelic language in a 500 years old contest.

Philosohpy and contest are never infallible!!! They can be changed, and shall be changed (well, with a little of prudence). It was ad instance what CVII made.
So papal statments, even in the rare case ex-cathedra, are not made of magic words!

To prevent these problem Jesus spoke in metaphoras...it was when Paul started to spoke without metaphoras that proplems arose....(years later by someone that had a different philosophy and a different contest)...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As my friend Josiah taught me,

Sola Scriptura is a normative principle, not a hermeneutic (= interpretation in his language) principle.

Hermaneutics is how something is intepreted and applied. It's a very important issue in Bible study, but I've never seen a single thread here at GT about that.

Norming is a different issue in epistemology. It addresses the issue of how do we know if it's correct?

Magisterium (from the Latin 'to teach') is about interpretation, it is not a normative principle.

I see your point, however I learned from my Catholic Information class that the final authority in the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church is the Magisterium of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church. It doesn't just interpret Scripture and Tradition, it does so Authoritatively, and ultimately, infallibly. Thus, it does have a normative role. This is especially evident when we remember that in Catholicism, Magisterium + Tradition + Scripture are all 3 sides of the same thing, equal and inseparable.

I never understood which is the hermeneutic principle in protestant doctrine (= who can interpreter the scripture?).

Actually, the question of how a principle of norming can be used is not hermeneutics, but anyway...

Some of us have addressed this issue many times. WHO may use the principle or HOW it may be used are, of course, separate from the principle itself - and we seem to have had our hands full just defining the principle - without getting into the issue of application of it. Principles can always be misused; they are simply tools. But, in short, to address the issue, SOME Protestants embrace private interpretation just as Catholics do - but never to the same extreme so as to declare their private interpretation to be infallible, and of course, they embrace the principle of Sola Scriptura, they consider their views accountable to Scripture, but like Catholics, they teach that they are the ones to apply the principle. But many embrace public interpretation rather than the private insisted upon by Catholics, Mormons and some Protestants. The process is similar for Protestants - regardless of whether they embrace it as private like Catholics or public. They look to Scripture and are patient and prayerful as they study it and discuss it - using sound principles of hermeneutics, looking to the Holy Spirit for guidance. Those who hold to a 'private interpretation' have the goal of convinction. Those who hold to a 'public interpretation' stress conversation, discussion even debate, which in time, may lead to consensus (which is the goal). Those who hold to private interpretation embrace the Bible individually, those who do so pulbicly embrace it corporally, collectively, as the whole church catholic. But there are already several posts about this, we've been all over it, I won't go all over that again here. Most of our conversations here rarely get past the misconceptions about the principle itself and don't even get into these issues.


MY views...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just the way it is. Because some on both sides will always make the issue about the competing ways of viewing things.

We OFTEN talk past each other because of our various assumptions and epistemologies. It's made worse because our words are often defined differently or with different connotations, and years of urban myths on all sides - not easily dispelled. And then some, for many reasons (some valid, some not) will not permit themselves to consider other views. I can understand that.


Open, honest, humble discussion CAN be scary to some people... And because our faith is often the most treasured, intimate and sensitive part of ourselves, I can appreciate that, too. We're all "there" to some degree.


That's why the goal should be discussion and not debate, mutual understanding rather than conversion or defending.


IMO, we ARE of one faith, one Lord, one baptism. We ARE one church. We ARE all FULL, UNseparated brothers and sisters in Christ - all embraceing the same true faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. We may "understand" and articulate that faith differently but it's the same faith. That 18 inches between our head and our heart is the source of considerable difficulty and pain - much of it inflicted by our brothers and sisters in Christ.


Being in an INTERdenominational forum like CF requires much from us (including some openness, humility and guts). General Theology probably requires more than any other of our forums. We all fall short some times (more than we realize, I'm sure).


MY thoughts...


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[icedtea]

Protestants always agree to be against catholics (usually without even try to understand), but never propose a positive doctrine

You haven't been paying attention!
Our positive doctrine-

Jesus died for our sins.
We accept him into our hearts as Lord and Savior (He stands at the door and knocks)
We read the Bible.
We understand the Bible (yes, we do!)
We live for Jesus, only by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We think for ourselves, and don't need someone to tell us what the Bible means.
We go to Jesus directly with our sins, no priest is needed, thats against the Bible.
Our rules are to act like Jesus did.

Thats pretty positive!

 

[icedtea]

Those aren't doctrines though, they are practices. There is a huge difference.

Okay then. Catholic Practices are against the Bible.

 

[cathmomof3]

Okay then. Catholic Practices are against the Bible.

No they are not.
Here is support for celibacy. What was the other one?

IV. Celibacy is Church Practice, Not Dogma
Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.
Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.
1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.
1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.
1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.
1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.
1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).
1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.
2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.
Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.
Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven. Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.

 

[cathmomof3]

Okay then. Catholic Practices are against the Bible.

Oh yeah, the other one was fasting. Here is the scriptural support for that:

FASTING

Back · Home · Next
​

Matt. 9:15; Mark 2:20; Luke 5:35 - many non-Catholics frown upon the Church's pious practice of fasting, and say that fasting went away after the resurrection of Christ. But Jesus Himself says that His followers will fast once He is gone and does not object.

Matt. 6:16-18 - in fact, Jesus even gives instructions on how to fast. Jesus says, "Do not look dismal like the hypocrites, but look clean and refreshed."
Matt. 17-21; Mark 9:29 - Jesus teaches that only prayer and fasting had special power to cure a man possessed by a demon. Jesus teaches about the efficacy of fasting and how fasting, coupled with prayer, is acceptable and pleasing to God.
Luke 2:37 - Anna the widow worshiped God with fasting and prayer night and day. The Church has always taught that, by virtue of our priesthood conferred in baptism, our fasting participates in the priesthood of Christ by atoning for the temporal punishments due to our and other people’s sins.
Acts 13:2-3; 14:23 - the apostles engaged in prayer and fasting in connection with ordaining leaders of the Church. Prayer and fasting have always been the practice of the Church.
1 Tim. 4:3 - when Paul refers to doctrines that require abstinence from foods, some Protestants refer to this verse to condemn the Catholic Church's practice of fasting. But Paul is referring to abstinence and any other practice that is performed apart from Christ's teachings. Fasting, on the other hand, is done in obedience to Christ's teachings of taking up our cross and following Him, by participating in His sufferings so we can share in His glory. When citing this verse, these Protestants do not explain why Jesus prophesied that his followers would fast and why Jesus gave instructions on how to fast.
Ez. 8:21-23 - Ezra proclaims a fast as a prayer for humility and self-mortification and God responds. Our fasting is performed to remind us of our absolute reliance upon God.
Neh. 1:4; 9:1 - these texts also show the historical practice of fasting. Fasting atones for temporal punishment due to sin and repairs our relationship with God.
Tobit 12:8 - prayer is good when accompanied by fasting. Throughout salvation history, God has encouraged fasting to be coupled with prayer.
Judith 4:9-13 - the people of Israel humbled themselves with fasting and the Lord Almighty responds.
Esther 4:3,16 - people fasted for days to atone for sin. Although Jesus remits the eternal penalty of our sin, we can atone for temporal penalties due to our sin.
Psalm 35:13 - David says, "I afflicted myself with fasting." David recognized that fasting drew him closer to God. Fasting makes us aware of our dependency on God.
Psalm 69:10 - the Psalmist writes, "I humbled my soul with fasting." Fasting helps us become humble, and in our humility we unit ourselves with our humble God.
Jer. 36:9 - the peoples of Jerusalem and Judah declared a fast before the Lord.
Baruch 1:5 - they wept, fasted, and prayed before the Lord.
Dan. 9:3; 10:2-3 - Daniel sought God through fasting, and abstained from choice foods and wine for three weeks.
Joel 1:14; 2:12,15 - fasts are called to sanctify and turn oneself toward the Lord. Jonah 3:5,10 - people of Nineveh proclaim a fast to appease God and God responds favorably. 1 Macc. 3:47; 2 Macc. 13:12 - Judas and his army fasted in prayer.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Quoting from scripturecatholic hasn't impressed me at all. I looked up a lot of the verses in regards to a topic that they were suppose to support - and in context, they didn't support it. Didn't relate to the here in now as in being in the New Covenant vs. the Old Covenant, didn't promote the view as spun at all.