Protestant Doctrine

[Lynn73]

Myth 3: A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences

.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina norm 1). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Now see, I have to disagree with this. Jesus was punished for, atoned for, paid for, died for (whatever word you want to use) all our sins. There's no punishment left. Jesus paid it all. I mean, it's like double jeopardy. Jesus took our punishment, but we have to also. Not Scriptural imho.

 

[JJB]

Just one tiny comment - and then I'll leave this whole issue to others...

The Belgic Confession is a Calvinist Confession.

While Calvinists are Protestants, most Protestants are not Calvinists.


I'll just politely excuse myself now...

Josiah,

Feel free to bring in other non-Calvinist confessions. I chose that one because it is one of the oldest, that's all. It wasn't intentional to limit confessions, it was just what I had been reading recently. Didn't mean to make this a Calvinist thread. Somebody else brought in an Orthodox confession.....

The point was, rather, to turn the tables here at CF because protestants do have doctrine that says we believe the RCC has gone astray. We continually are told we can't say that because we don't have doctrine to that affect. So, can we talk more freely now?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I have to disagree with this. Jesus was punished for, atoned for, paid for, died for all our sins.

So far, so good.

There's no punishment left.

Not, according to Holy Scripture, unless you repent of those sins.

 

[cathmomof3]

What exactly are you even talking about? The Bible makes it quite clear that A) Mary was a sinner in need of a Saviour and, therefore, B) Mary is not worthy of worship/being prayed to.

Concerning indulgences. When I see somewhere in the bible that you can buy your way out of something called purgatory (which is also a false doctrine), I'll believe it. Oddly, it's nowhere to be found.

However, this thread is concerning PROTESTANT DOCTRINE, not Roman Catholic Doctrine.

The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him.

To the glory of God,

Randy

We agree that Mary is in need of a saviour - She was saved however upon her conception...
Regarding indulgences - Please read my early post about the misonceptions about indulgences.
We can go round and round on these topice...Please refer to all the other threads on this website for the Catholic's scriptural support of them as I do not have time right now.
I realize that this thread is about Protestant Doctrine, but just about every post from a non-Catholic is an anti-Catholic post - Do we not have a right to defend ourselves.
I am taking a few days away from GT as my heart is hurting from all of the Catholic hate that is going on in here.

 

[cathmomof3]

Scriptures say all have sinned, Catholicism says Mary is sinless.

Purgatory, indulgences, penance, praying to saints and Mary?

You are incorrect.

 

[Lynn73]

I don't see any biblical evidence that Mary was saved at conception, sorry.

 

[cathmomof3]

I don't see any biblical evidence that Mary was saved at conception, sorry.

So? Do you believe in the Trinity?...Again, we can go round and round about where our beliefs come from etc. But quite frankly, I am tired of it. I already know you disagree.

 

[Lynn73]

We can go round and round on these topice...Please refer to all the other threads on this website for the Catholic's scriptural support of them as I do not have time right now.

Catholicism automatically interprets Scripture to support their doctrine. We're under no obligation to agree with their interpretation or consider it infalliblly correct. So I disagree with you conclusions.

I realize that this thread is about Protestant Doctrine, but just about every post from a non-Catholic is an anti-Catholic post - Do we not have a right to defend ourselves.
I am taking a few days away from GT as my heart is hurting from all of the Catholic hate that is going on in here.

Excuse me, but I'm anti-Catholicism, not anti-Catholic. And, yes, everyone has a right here to defend whatever it is they believe whether it's correct or not. It's not about hate cathmomof3. No offense is intended but it's about what the truth is. Catholics believe they have it. Non Catholics believe they do. So there's going to be some heated disagreement. I haven't meant to make you feel that I hate you and I apologize if I have. It's doctrine I try to go against if I believe it's wrong, not individual people.

 

[Lynn73]

So? Do you believe in the Trinity?...Again, we can go round and round about where our beliefs come from etc. But quite frankly, I am tired of it. I already know you disagree.

Hey, we agree on something! We're tired of it.

 

[cathmomof3]

Catholicism automatically interprets Scripture to support their doctrine. We're under no obligation to agree with their interpretation or consider it infalliblly correct. So I disagree with you conclusions.

This is my last post on this topic today, but I would like to note that we had our doctrines / beliefs before we had the New Testament. ..Protestants (since they don't accept Catholic "Tradition") read the bible and said "Hey here is what I think the Holy Spirit is telling me" and created doctrines from there (and thousands of different denominations, thus the Holy Spirit was telling people thousands of different things?). This is not meant to offend, it is just how I see it.

 

[Trento]

Why not? Paganism has been around for a lot longer than 2000 years. People who worship other "gods" have been around for longer than 2000 years.

Your problem is that you have not studied Historical Christianity.

There are no Pagans in the Christian Catacombs just as there are no Pagans Or Christians in the Jewish Catacombs of Rome.

 

[Lynn73]

How do you know? Were you there? Historical Christianity according to the RCC?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Nope - Nevermind.

 

[Trento]

Why assume that everything you read in the catacombs is automatically a doctrine of the early church of Christ? All it means is that someone believed those things. There were, no doubt, many sects besides Christianity, how do you know they didn't also use the catacombs and write on the wall. I wouldn't take writings on a wall as gospel truth of what the early church believed.

Read all the History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity by Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff if you don" believe me.

 

[Lynn73]

This is my last post on this topic today, but I would like to note that we had our doctrines / beliefs before we had the New Testament. ..Protestants (since they don't accept Catholic "Tradition") read the bible and said "Hey here is what I think the Holy Spirit is telling me" and created doctrines from there (and thousands of different denominations, thus the Holy Spirit was telling people thousands of different things?). This is not meant to offend, it is just how I see it.

No offense taken. But I don't create my own doctrines. I was raised in church and vacation Bible school and was taught the Scirpture by mature Christians. Of course, I read the Bible myself now and believe what it says. I don't make up something I want to believe and then make the Bible fit it, if that's what you're talking about. No offense intended but it seems to me that's what Catholicism does. As far as the different denominations:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm

This will be helpful also:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a10.htm

Not to change you mind, because that's not something I can do, but to give you a Protestant perspective on the subject since you all are always bringing it up. Also, I'll have to disagree with your first statement since I disagree that the early church was Roman Catholic.

 

[Lynn73]

Read all the History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity by Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff if you don" believe me.

I believe you that the writings are in the catacombs, I just don't draw the same conclusion that you do from that.

 

[Trento]

Yes, there was a problem VERY early in the church - gnostics, Judiazers to name two.

I personally shake my head at the claims that we Protestants don't have beliefs that are from the beginning of the church - after all, we follow what is written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul....are there earlier church fathers?

Without the Fathers that came after the Apostles Protestant Schoff who has studied historical Christianity all his life says--

Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity (A.D. 311-600), Chapter IX, section 118:

The early Church fathers steered this young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So according to Protestant Schoff without the later Fathers you could not defend the Christian faith nor would you have a credible New testament. Without primary evidence you would not even know of a New Testament.

 

[Trento]

Also, I'll have to disagree with your first statement since I disagree that the early church was Roman Catholic.

So you agree with Luther here.


Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.-Martin Luther

But you disagree with him here .

Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522.

Luther remarked several years later:

"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

You seem to be having a private discussion here with this member, but perhaps since you're making it public and doing so in this particular thread...

I was responding to a particular post as you yourself are doing.

Is there a particular tie to the issue of the thread? If so, I think I'm not following it.

The title of this thread is Protestant Doctrine, this particular conversation happens to be about the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Just to avoid confusion, Here are the quotes thus far:

1. And this has WHAT to do with this thread?.

Now you know very well that it was a reply to a previous post since I quoted his post in my reply.

I'm a Protestant. My doctrines all come from the Bible

Lets discuss Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is a false man made doctrine first invented in the sixteenth century. Sola Scriptura is not Biblical. The bible says that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training. That doesn't even come close to saying only scripture alone.

2. The poster said that his/her beliefs are from the Bible. No statement about epistmological principles of norming was made . . .

Actually, Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Doctrine, not an epistemology. As the Protestant writer J.F. Foster points out, "the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura" is successfully articulated and defended in the book Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Reformation Theology Series) by Don Kistler.
No less an authority than AA Hodge himself states that it is the 1st Protestant Doctrine.
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, DD, President of the Westminister Theological Seminary gives a detailed and working description of the "definitive Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura" in his treaties on the same subject.
There are endless citations indicating that Sola Scriptura is a Protestant Doctrine, which is the title of this thread.

3. Do you deny that his/her believes are from the Bible? Is that your point? Or is your point that it's irrelevant what the Bible says? Or is your point that it's irrelevant if theology comes from the Bible or from some unnamed other sources?

My point is that, since "Scripture Alone," sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. That is, everything that is necessary for our faith is contained within the pages of scripture. No extra-scriptural doctrines are valid. If this is the case, then the Bible must state that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith and contain everything that is necessary for our faith, inclding the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
However, I find that the Bible states that Scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training. That is a long way from stating that the bible is the sole rule of faith and criterion regarding what is to be believed.
My question: Where in the Bible can I find the statement that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, criterion regarding what is to be believed and that everything that is necessary for our faith is contained within the pages of scripture?

4. It seems to ME that if you want to discuss epistemological principles of norming in theology or the evaluation thereof, there are several threads currently open in GT for that purpose. If you want to question the beliefs of the poster as to whether they are biblical or not, you might be more specific as to what dogma you are questioning and your biblical support for that questioning.

As I pointed out in my reply to #2 above, Sola Scriptura certainly is a Protestant doctrine. A doctrine is a teaching or principal, clearly that is what Sola Scriptura is. Also, the well known Protestant site Bible.org's second lesson states "This lesson will center on the doctrine of Christian authority. Here, focus will be on the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura "


Grace and peace to you.

 

[cathmomof3]

No offense taken. But I don't create my own doctrines. I was raised in church and vacation Bible school and was taught the Scirpture by mature Christians. Of course, I read the Bible myself now and believe what it says. I don't make up something I want to believe and then make the Bible fit it, if that's what you're talking about. No offense intended but it seems to me that's what Catholicism does. As far as the different denominations:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm

This will be helpful also:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a10.htm

Not to change you mind, because that's not something I can do, but to give you a Protestant perspective on the subject since you all are always bringing it up. Also, I'll have to disagree with your first statement since I disagree that the early church was Roman Catholic.

Just curious - Are you Church of Christ? I have a friend who was Church of Christ (she is now Catholic) and she said that they believed that they were the true Church and that Catholics were going to Hell along with many other beliefs that differ greatly with mine...I was just curious if this is the case for all members of the Church of Christ denom or if it is just some that are misguided?

BTW, I would not count the websites that you cited to be worth much as their intent is to attack the Catholic Church with their fallacies on what we believe.