Protestant errors and inventions

[JacktheCatholic]

But that they belong to Him.

The way I see it, once you're baptized, you're in the family.

Sure, part of Israel.

But I do not think it appropiate to say everyone else is not a child of God and that is what I have a problem with.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It doesn't particularly worry me if you believe what you want to about communion or whatever else, but I would prefer it if you would stop going around saying how it is a Protestant error when an analysis of the Bible and the culture of the day gives general support to our position (on communion in particular).

It's just like with how Catholics have such a high regard for Mary and the saints and even believe that these dead people can intercede on their behalf (no... they're dead), particularly when the veil was torn and it is Christ who intercedes on our behalf (why would you want to go through a fellow beggar?), while I disagree with that Catholic doctrine it doesn't particularly worry me if you do or not, except when you move to enspouse that as truth (i.e. as the 'Christian position') that it annoys me and must be countered. The same is true of other Catholic doctrines like purgatory.

No one has all the answers or has it right on every theological issue, particularly the Catholic church, but also the various Protestant denominations, the Baptists, for example, place an unhealthy (IMO) importance on baptism, the SDAs on the sabbath, and the Calvinists on predestination.

I guess what I'm saying is that we are all Christians and that it is proper and right to comment on the core-doctrines as truth, but it is possibly deceitful to present secondary (subjective) doctrines as truth, when the Bible viewed through objective glasses simply doesn't support it. I believe it's okay to say, "We think..." or "We believe..." but not alright to say "The Bible says..." on such doctrines or beliefs, especially when, to be blunt, it doesn't. You can twist it anyway you want (i.e. intentionally or out of ignorance) but that doesn't make it true and disgraces God's Word.

The fact is that the Eucharist has been taught as the body and blood of Christ since Christianity started. That teaching did not change until Calvin decided it was symbolic. Luther who was with Calvin strongly opposed Calvin on this.

I would suggest reading some of what Justin Martyr wrote since it dates to the earliest of Christianity and addresses the Eucharist. But scriptures also hold this truth for those that see, "This IS my body". Jesus was holding the bread and spoke these words "this is my body" and there was no hint of symbolism for he says "is". Paul even says that some are ill ebcause they fail to rcognoize this and in John 6 Jesus foretells of the Eucharist when he says it is a hard teaching.

So I fail to see where your claim of the Eucharist not being the Real Presence has any merit. Care to share with us on your truth?

 

[sunlover1]

Sure, part of Israel.

But I do not think it appropiate to say everyone else is not a child of God and that is what I have a problem with.

John 8:38

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.
Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the
works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told
you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father.
Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one
Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father,
ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God;
neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand
my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your
father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=48825398#_ftn1
http://christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=48825398#_ftnref1

 

[chestertonrules]

John 8:38

38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father.
Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the
works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told
you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father.
Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one
Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father,
ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God;
neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand
my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your
father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.

Do you doubt that these men were capable of repentence? Do you think that God wants them to turn away from him?

I think this applies to everyone:

1 Tim 2

3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

 

[sunlover1]

Do you doubt that these men were capable of repentence?

ME? Heck if I know. I was just trying to help Jack out with
why mama said what she said. That's the verse she was
(Im guessing) referring to.

Do you think that God wants them to turn away from him?

Does God always get what He wants?
If so, then it must have been His will that
they turned away from Him.
Hmmmmm ...

I think this applies to everyone:

1 Tim 2

3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

[/QUOTE]
So all will be saved?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Do you doubt that these men were capable of repentence? Do you think that God wants them to turn away from him?

I think this applies to everyone:

1 Tim 2

3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

But what if some men do not desire to be saved or come to the knowedge of Truth?


Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be thou merciful to-me! and send Lazarus!, that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--that I am being pained in the Flame, this."

Matthew 3:9 "And no ye should be thinking to say in yourselves 'a father we are having, the Abraham'. For I am say unto ye, that is able the God out of the stones, these, to raise-up children to the Abraham.

 

[chestertonrules]

But what if some men do not desire to be saved or come to the knowedge of Truth?


Then that is their problem, not God's.

I was refuting the idea that God wants men to remain in their sin.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But what if some men do not desire to be saved or come to the knowedge of Truth?


Then that is their problem, not God's.

I was refuting the idea that God wants men to remain in their sin.

Seems like those in Reve 9:21 do not want to repent even though God appears to be giving them the time to do so.


Revelation 9:21 And not they reform/metenohsan <3340> (5656) out of the Murders of them, nor out from their sorceries

Reve 2:5 Be thou remembering then! , whence thou hast fallen and reform/repent/metanohson <3340> (5657) thou! And the first acts thou do! If yet no, I am coming to thee quickly, and shall be removing the Lamp-stand of thee out of the Place Her, if ever no thou should be reforming.

 

[The Princess Bride]

These errors and inventions are not Biblcal and are not part of historic Christianity.

Total Depravity of Man
Enthroning the Bible in your Heart
Ask Jesus into Your Heart
The Rapture
Altar Call
Eternal Security
"Once Saved Always Saved"
Sola Fide - Salvation by "Faith Alone"
Sola Scriptura - "Bible Alone"

Prove it. Where is your evidence of this claim?

(Granted, I don't believe in the "Rapture" and have never even heard of the "Total Depravity of Man" but I feel like playing opposing advocate )

[NOTE: If it isn't Biblical, show where and how]

 

[chestertonrules]

ME? Heck if I know. I was just trying to help Jack out with
why mama said what she said. That's the verse she was
(Im guessing) referring to.


Does God always get what He wants?
If so, then it must have been His will that
they turned away from Him.
Hmmmmm ...

So all will be saved?
[/quote]

God wants us to choose him, but he won't force us.

He didn't create robots.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So all will be saved?

God wants us to choose him, but he won't force us.

He didn't create robots.

Interesting. I would say in my case, He forced me to choose Him, as He chose me, I did not choose Him.

John 15:16 `Ye did not choose out Me, but I chose out ye, and did appoint ye, that ye might go away, and might bear fruit, and your fruit might remain, that whatever ye may ask of the Father in my name, He may give you.

 

[archierieus]

Spare me the bush league attacks

That kind of comment detracts from carrying on a dispassionate discussion. Better to practice courtesy and respect toward others, even if you disagree with them.

Dave

 

[archierieus]

No. I think it is used as a substitute for all the things Christ commanded us to do, as when some people will say, "Awww, you don't need to do all that stuff. Just ask Jesus into your heart and you're saved!" This is where the error lays.

Error? that's not error. It is true. The prayer of salvation:

1) God, I realize I am a sinner and need a Savior.
2) Oh God, I hate the sins I have committed, in my heart I renounce them, and instead I want to do right. Help me, Lord, to be willing to make a complete sacrifice, to surrender all my sins to Your Lordship. All to Jesus I surrender, all to Him I freely give.
3) Father, I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior, His perfect life to stand in place of my sinful life, His death on the cross to pay the price for all my sins. Come into my heart, Lord Jesus.

Someone who has that experience has passed from death into life, and is right with God. He or she has experienced salvation.

A book cannot excersise authority. A book can only be read and interpreted. Christ gave authority to men, to be able to "bind and loose." The scripture is plain and clear on that.

While Jesus did say to His people, His followers, that 'whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,' He said nothing there about any man having authority or exercising authority to tell others what the Bible says. We all are called upon to study the Bible for ourselves. What Jesus DID promise is to send the Spirit of truth to guide His people into all truth. (Jn. 16) This is part of the 'priesthood of all believers.'

Dave

 

[archierieus]

Do you not realize that this same Church under then Pope Damasus I decided which books go into the New Testament?

But that isn't what happened, on several counts. First, if you are referring to the 'Roman Catholic church' with the pope supreme over all the churches, that did not occur until the 6th c. Church councils in the 4th c. consisted of representatives from the various Christian churches. They were NOT Roman Catholic! But the Church at Rome was one of the churches represented.

Secondly, as someone else has already pointed out, a Church Council did not 'decide' what was to go in the Bible. One student put it this way:

"The canon of Scripture was NOT formed by the declaration of a church council any more than Isaac Newton created the law of gravity. Rather, as written revelation came from God through God's chosen writers, the people of God recognized God's voice and affirmed that the writing was indeed the word of God."

The link follows:

http://www.new-life.net/faq000.htm

Dave

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But that isn't what happened, on several counts. First, if you are referring to the 'Roman Catholic church' with the pope supreme over all the churches, that did not occur until the 6th c. Church councils in the 4th c. consisted of representatives from the various Christian churches. They were NOT Roman Catholic! But the Church at Rome was one of the churches represented.

Try studying about the Vulgate which was put together in the 4th century. This is when the New Testament was finally put together and decided on fully. It was also under the direction of the Pope and Magesterium. Check your "facts".

 

[archierieus]

Try studying about the Vulgate which was put together in the 4th century. This is when the New Testament was finally put together and decided on fully. It was also under the direction of the Pope and Magesterium. Check your "facts".

I have. But as for the Vulgate, that was translated from Greek (and Hebrew) to Latin specifically for the church of Rome, in order to have a Latin version of the Bible. It was not in general use throughout the Christian world, although after the papacy had succeeded in establishing dominance, then for some centuries it achieved more common usage--until the Church forbade possession of the Bible by the laity in around the 11th c., that is. No doubt Jerome relied on the recognition by the Christian world of Bible books which had been inspired by God.

Dave

 

[katholikos]

But that isn't what happened, on several counts. First, if you are referring to the 'Roman Catholic church' with the pope supreme over all the churches, that did not occur until the 6th c....

That is false history. It occured when Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. And Papal supremecy is documented long before the 6th century. And only non-Catholics refer to the Church as "Roman Catholic." The Church is called the Catholic Church - period. Roman Catholics are merely Catholics of the Roman Rite, one of many Rites in the Catholic Church

Secondly, as someone else has already pointed out, a Church Council did not 'decide' what was to go in the Bible.....

Well "someone else" is wrong. The Pope and the Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, canonized the New Testament by the power vested in them by Christ



Irenaeus in 189 AD:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

 

[katholikos]

Interesting. I would say in my case, He forced me to choose Him, as He chose me.....

God forces nobody. To say otherwise is to embrace Calvinism, the theology that makes God the author of evil. For if God forces you to choose him, one must conclude that God forces others to reject him, thus making God the reason that people go to hell. That is unacceptable

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I have. But as for the Vulgate, that was translated from Greek (and Hebrew) to Latin specifically for the church of Rome, in order to have a Latin version of the Bible. It was not in general use throughout the Christian world, although after the papacy had succeeded in establishing dominance, then for some centuries it achieved more common usage--until the Church forbade possession of the Bible by the laity in around the 11th c., that is. No doubt Jerome relied on the recognition by the Christian world of Bible books which had been inspired by God.

Dave

But you are overlooking that the Vulgate was the first to compile the 27 books that were chosen for the New Testament. It is this book that Luther and others would use during the Protestant reformation. It is also from the Pope's and magesterium's decision on which books went in to the New Testament that every other man would use for the Word.

Otherwise why haven't you gone through the more than 200 books that were being used by Christian churches in the first few centuries and decided for yourself which ones are proper for the Liturgy? Or if not the Liturgy then for wahtever you see Christianity as ?

 

[katholikos]

But you are overlooking that the Vulgate was the first to compile the 27 books that were chosen for the New Testament. It is this book that Luther and others would use during the Protestant reformation.....

Yes. And we won't even go into the fact that Luther tried to rip several books out of the NT the way he did with the OT.

....It is also from the Pope's and magesterium's decision on which books went in to the New Testament that every other man would use for the Word.

Binding and Loosing. Here, he is "Binding".

Otherwise why haven't you gone through the more than 200 books that were being used by Christian churches in the first few centuries and decided for yourself which ones are proper for the Liturgy? Or if not the Liturgy then for wahtever you see Christianity as ?

Yes. Why?