Protestant errors and inventions (3)

[Albion]

They've missed the part where Christ is sitting now at the right hand of God. He's not standing with the priest sacrificing again.

More to the point, the priest is not Christ. Even if Root wants to see him standing in Christ's stead at the altar, the whole thing still has its place in time and space.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, he was.

Did you have some specific content from the 1967 confession that you believe ought to be in the list?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Albion,

When the Israelite nation was making ready to enter the promised land Moses addressed them saying, "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day." (Deuteronomy 5:2-3) yet the people to whom those words were spoken were not alive when the covenant was made in Horeb, it was their parents and grandparents who were. There was a time and a place where God made covenant with Israel, the time was 40 years (give or take) before and the place was the foot of Mt Sinai. Neither of those were the direct personal experience of the people listening to Moses when he spoke the above words. All of that generation, the one at Horeb with whom the covenant was made, were dead.

Then I said to you, 'Do not be in dread or afraid of them. The LORD your God who goes before you will himself fight for you, just as he did for you in Egypt before your eyes, and in the wilderness, where you have seen how the LORD your God bore you, as a man bears his son, in all the way that you went until you came to this place.' Yet in spite of this word you did not believe the LORD your God, who went before you in the way to seek you out a place to pitch your tents, in fire by night, to show you by what way you should go, and in the cloud by day. And the LORD heard your words, and was angered, and he swore, 'Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land which I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephun'neh; he shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land upon which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the LORD!' (Deuteronomy 1:29-36)

How does your theology deal with that?

 

[Stryder06]

And this rules out a head of the visible church...how?

Because one was never established. Only Christ could have done that, and He didn't. He left Himself as the Head.

If said individual ignores the sign and goes around, he's on his own.
The Holy Spirit gave the Church 72 books...who made the decision to change it to 66? A man. This is the perfect example of men not following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. That happens a lot, by the way. But never to the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

No, a perfect example of men not following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can be found in doctrines that go contrary to the word of God. Doctrines that elevate the traditions of man over "Thus saith the Lord."

Trying to limit how the Holy Spirit works is not a point worth arguing? A Biblical manifestation of the Holy Spirit at work? Too funny. Your determination is not such a manifestation, though.

I was actually saying that I wasn't going to split hairs behind casting lots, and how your church chooses currently. It wouldn't be profitable. That said, there is no biblical manifestation at work when your church selects a Pope given that that office is not one sanctioned by God.

Read the first part of the first letter. To Timothy, my child in faith...then he instructs him to remain in Ephesus. Chapter 4 gives Timothy instructions about how to be a good bishop. Earlier, he was taught how to choose a good bishop. Paul named Timothy head of the Church where he left him.

Paul does no such thing in the his letter. Telling Timothy to stay where he was so that he could instruct individuals in proper doctrine does not make him a bishop. As already stated, the disciples were evangelists. If Timothy was following after Paul, it would have been in the same vein.

Well, we don't confine ourselves to only Scripture.

Wasn't saying you had to. It would however be in your best interest to confine yourself to teachings that don't go contrary to what the scriptures say. That's where the problem is.

It doesn't matter? There's no distinction in Aramaic between pebble and boulder. For one.

Maybe not linguistically, but I'm certain no one would mistake a pebble for a boulder. It would be understood based on the context in which the word was used. Thus one could tell that the Rock Christ would build His church upon wouldn't be a movable one, but an immovable one.

Christ is certainly the Rock, but that does not preculde Peter from being the Rock, as Christ named him. Jesus didn't make Peter head of the Church while Christ was still walking the hills of Galilee. And Christ chose fallible men to further his ministry. Peter took the position at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit manifested in him and the other apostles. The Early Church knew what Christ did with Peter. Why did it take a thousand years for anyone to question it?

I'm not saying that Peter didn't have a prominent role among the apostles, even one of leadership in some sort of way. I wouldn't doubt that at all. What I'm saying is that he is not the Rock, nor was he the first pope or the visible head of Christ in the church.

Who says it can't refer to Christ and Peter? You? By what authority?

The text makes itself clear. God does not share His glory. Such logic is the reason why the scriptures have been pushed to the wayside in favor of man's words. You don't need to look for any "authority" to explain the text. Line upon line. Precept upon precept. How many prophecies were there that pointed to the apostles? Each prophecy in that book pointed to the coming Savior so that we would know who He was. Trying to apply that to Peter is down right...well it's just wrong, and if you're going to base your understanding on "authority" than base it upon the inherent authority of the word of God.

 

[Stryder06]

"His Holiness" or "Your Holiness" was the title in question, dear brother Stryder06.

Now, I prefer to call folk "Your worship" at times. Or "Your Highness". But if you prefer some other title, for example "Mister" then have at it

Double talk. The Pope is no holier than you. That title is undeserved.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Double talk. The Pope is no holier than you. That title is undeserved.

Well, being no more holy than I is no great achievement nevertheless I am sure he has achieved it. He may even exceed your holiness

 

[Hentenza]

That's rewriting history. The Catholic Church was in need of reform, and was in the process of reforming. Not to Luther's liking, so he, and the others revolted.

I'm not rewriting history. Should we look at the popes for the century before the reformation? How about the abuses on peasants? How about the oppression of the yeoman?

Secondly, Luther posted his 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg in hopes of eliciting discussion, however, because of the printing press, the theses were printed and distributed, which is what led the masses to protest. Luther voiced what many were afraid to voice for fear of prosecution or death.

 

[Stryder06]

Nothing is impossible with God. That you choose to limit Him is very telling.

You'll have to do better than that. Nothing is impossible with God, but there are things that He simply won't do. Sharing His glory is one of them. Lying is another.

I also find it very telling when people insist that the "fullness of salvation" can be only found in their particular denomination and that God does not recognize other denominations as being branches of the same vine, Jesus Christ.

What's actually telling is the "God will work it out" attitude that many among His professed believers have, as if God isn't concerned about what is taught and believed among His people. There isn't a desire for truth the way there needs to be.

 

[Hentenza]

The Protestant Reform saw something that wasn't there, pretty much. The Catholic Church was not selling indulgences, had already said that selling indulgences was error, and was in the process of changing what needed to be changed.

And man never landed on the moon.

 

[Albion]

You'll have to do better than that. Nothing is impossible with God, but there are things that He simply won't do. Sharing His glory is one of them. Lying is another.

Well, you understand, I hope, that that was a reasonably accurate exposition of a certain theological system, i.e. If it's not expressly ruled out by the Bible, it's fair game for being made into a must-believe dogma by the church leaders (and then called correct because "the Holy Spirit made us do it."

 

[Stryder06]

Well, being no more holy than I is no great achievement nevertheless I am sure he has achieved it. He may even exceed your holiness

Not even remotely funny. It's really sad that you see him as a "Holier than thou" individual.

 

[shturt678]

Well, being no more holy than I is no great achievement nevertheless I am sure he has achieved it. He may even exceed your holiness

I'm just separated unto a different God (IIThess.2:4), ie, not stating that my devotion is to the Genuine God (Rev.13:14b). Coffee is cold, going to nuc my cup to heat it up. Just your ol' old friend Jack

 

[MoreCoffee]

Not even remotely funny. It's really sad that you see him as a "Holier than thou" individual.

I reckon a lot of people are holier than me. It's no big deal to admit that some other folk have walked with God longer or closer than I. It's certainly nothing to get depressed about.

By the way, pope Francis is 76 years old, he's had more time to walk with God. I say God bless him.

 

[Stryder06]

I reckon a lot of people are holier than me. It's no big deal to admit that some other folk have walked with God longer or closer than I. It's certainly nothing to get depressed about.

By the way, pope Francis is 76 years old, he's had more time to walk with God. I say God bless him.

Saying someone may be holier is not the same as calling them "Your Holiness". I think you know that though.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Saying someone may be holier is not the same as calling them "Your Holiness". I think you know that though.

Oh, is it the title you are unhappy about?

He also bears the title "servant of the servants of God", is that good or what?

 

[Stryder06]

Oh, is it the title you are unhappy about?

He also bears the title "servant of the servants of God", is that good or what?

It's the unwarranted recognition given to him. Seated on a throne between two cherubim. Allowing people to kneel before him and kiss his hand. Responding when someone calls him "Holy Father". No man should ever allow such honor to be shown to him when he calls himself the "Vicar of Christ".

 

[Albion]

It's the unwarranted recognition given to him. Seated on a throne between two cherubim. Allowing people to kneel before him and kiss his hand. Responding when someone calls him "Holy Father". No man should ever allow such honor to be shown to him when he calls himself the "Vicar of Christ".

Pope Francis doesn't appeal to me in some ways, but on this issue I think he deserves patience. If he doesn't wind up being killed for it, he may well move some of this stuff in the direction you are advocating.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's the unwarranted recognition given to him. Seated on a throne between two cherubim. Allowing people to kneel before him and kiss his hand. Responding when someone calls him "Holy Father". No man should ever allow such honor to be shown to him when he calls himself the "Vicar of Christ".

He kneels to kiss the feet of the poor and the dispossessed but does anybody complain that those poor and dispossessed people are receiving more than any man (or woman) ought to ever be given by way of honour? Jesus washed the feet of the apostles, imagine the implied honour of having the Son of God kneel before Peter and washing his feet and here you write how bad it is that some bow or kneel before the pope and that is too much for him?

I wonder what sort of scales of justice are applied when decrying the pope and praising the apostles.

 

[tadoflamb]

Ah, so there are "protestant denominations" now! Perhaps we are getting somewhere and will hear no more about a mythical "the Protestant Church" from you

Absolutely there are protestant denominations! I've got a dozen of them within a ten minute walk from me. What has been left undecided is whether there is a Protestant Church or not. At this point, I've heard protestants call it both ways. However, if we are going to toss out the mythical Protestant Church, we might also toss out the myth of protestant unity or the myth that protestant denominationalism is a good thing, similar to Baskin Robbin's 31 flavors.

Hmm. No such luck. You just don't seem able to understand this, despite many explanations that have already been given.

Or, the myth that there actually is a protestant explanation for protestantism.

What are you talking about? None of that makes any sense. Or it is that you just want to taunt us with gibberish?

I'm just saying that if you're going to toss the imaginary entity of the protestant church you're going to have to toss out all the errors and inventions that have come with it. They're just products of the imagination as well.

Now, there should be no more complaining about anything on the list not being an authentic protestant doctrine/practice/ideology. If perhaps you were able to define yourselves better we wouldn't be having this disparity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because one was never established. Only Christ could have done that, and He didn't. He left Himself as the Head.

We know Christ is the head. But he also left a visible head, Peter, and His successors. Isaiah 22, which Christ referenced in Caesarea Philippi, shows that the office was meant to be generational.

No, a perfect example of men not following the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can be found in doctrines that go contrary to the word of God. Doctrines that elevate the traditions of man over "Thus saith the Lord."

But there are no Catholic doctrines which contradict the Word of God, which, by the way, includes the written Word, and the oral Word.

I was actually saying that I wasn't going to split hairs behind casting lots, and how your church chooses currently. It wouldn't be profitable. That said, there is no biblical manifestation at work when your church selects a Pope given that that office is not one sanctioned by God.

Actually, we do it the same way. We pray, and then they vote. The Holy Spirit is the one who chooses, whether you see it or not.

Paul does no such thing in the his letter. Telling Timothy to stay where he was so that he could instruct individuals in proper doctrine does not make him a bishop. As already stated, the disciples were evangelists. If Timothy was following after Paul, it would have been in the same vein.

The purpose of a bishop is to instruct the flock in proper doctrine. Timothy is a bishop.

Wasn't saying you had to. It would however be in your best interest to confine yourself to teachings that don't go contrary to what the scriptures say. That's where the problem is.

Again, there is no Catholic doctrine which goes contrary to what the Word of God tells us.

Maybe not linguistically, but I'm certain no one would mistake a pebble for a boulder. It would be understood based on the context in which the word was used. Thus one could tell that the Rock Christ would build His church upon wouldn't be a movable one, but an immovable one.

The context was in front of a huge rock outcropping, which is, to this day, unmoved.

I'm not saying that Peter didn't have a prominent role among the apostles, even one of leadership in some sort of way. I wouldn't doubt that at all. What I'm saying is that he is not the Rock, nor was he the first pope or the visible head of Christ in the church.

But he was, as the writings of the Early Church prove.

The text makes itself clear. God does not share His glory. Such logic is the reason why the scriptures have been pushed to the wayside in favor of man's words. You don't need to look for any "authority" to explain the text. Line upon line. Precept upon precept. How many prophecies were there that pointed to the apostles? Each prophecy in that book pointed to the coming Savior so that we would know who He was. Trying to apply that to Peter is down right...well it's just wrong, and if you're going to base your understanding on "authority" than base it upon the inherent authority of the word of God.

Well, you're wrong there. There's a dispute-my interpretation vs your interpretation. My authority is the weight of 2000 years of Church teaching. It's not my say-so. Yours is you. The authority teaches us when we just want to trust ourselves. The same way a teacher has authority based on his/her education, the Church has the authority to teach and uphold the Word of God. By the authority vested in the apostles and their successors by Christ Himself. The spoken Word came before the written Word, which provides context for us to determine what was meant by what was written.