JellyQuest
Active Member
i dont - i loathe it -but you knew that you just thought you'd misrepresent what i said .
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
i dont - i loathe it -but you knew that you just thought you'd misrepresent what i said .Glad you like it buddy
Was Protestantism ever justified?
Interesting video.
I say no because sola scriptura was the doctrine that launched 10000 schisms.
I put the following answer on a similar thread which focussed on luther, also anticatholicism. It is just a catholic view...mine!
"
When most denominations and non denominationals disagree with each other on almost all aspects of doctrine, it is suprising that so many unite in a hatred of catholicism. Indeed the accusation of "non christian" about catholics is simply not supportable. We clearly accept the Creed!
I am only too aware of the hatred and misinformation, as an anglican turned evangelical before coming home to Rome , a journey which took a couple of decades, I saw first hand the nasty things that were said about catholics, most of which were born of either illinformed or deliberate misinterpretation of what catholicism stood for. And in my (then) ignorance, sadly I believed what these evangelicals said. It was only when I researched it years later, all the evangelical arguments fell apart.
But there's the thing. Martin Luther is in essence responsible for the doctrine of sola scriptura, which in essence empowered every one to make up their own interpretation of the bible, and in that very act Luther launched 10000 schisms. Because without a source of authority - then from baptism, eucharist, salvation, clergy, morality, sacraments, divorce...each have many mutually exclusive interpretations. You name it, protestants disagree on it. If you don't like the present doctrine, schism to form yet another. None of these can be the true church: because truth is unique, and they all disagree on their version of truth.
The reality is sola scriptura is unsupportable every which way, either historically , biblically, evidentially, even logically as I will now show: If "sola scriptura" is a truth, then for scripture to contain all truth, scripture would have to say so and it does not, so it is self refuting in basic logic.
Indeed scripture itself says sola scriptura is false. It says "the pillar of truth is the CHURCH" which is the "household of God" and in OT speak that means the physical manifestation of the church, not just a spiritual association. Repeat..the pillar of truth is the church! If God had wanted to say scripture he would have done. He did not say scripture, he said Church!
It is fascinating that even reformationists / protestants dont agree with sola scriptura even though they say they do. Martin Luther recognised that "all milkmaids now had their own doctrine" so gradually "articles" and "confessions" and similar documents were added to scripture for reformationists to resolve ambiguities. Yet in doing so, they were adding the very "tradition" they sought to destroy! Except - in the case of reformationists - these traditions were definitely man made in the years after 1500! Somewhat hypocritical. The ones who belong to no denomination , blast the pope and magisterium for "infallible interpretation" , yet all claim the very same power for themseleves to discern truth from scripture: they all make themselves pope!
So why is it reformationists/ protestants disagree on all doctrine? What is the missing piece? The answer is two fold.
First Authority - that is of the apostolic succession to bind and loose, ie interprete doctrinal matters, as done at councils without which we would not even have the present bible, yet protestants dont seem to acknowledge how they rely on that very authority!
Second is tradition. As St Paul tells us the faith was "handed down" (which is the meaning of tradition) by "word of mouth and letter" indeed that was an inevitable fact, because there was no NT for early christians!" So sola scriptura is historically false as the basis of christianity. Jesus gave us apostles, not a book. The book came later.
So what it is that the early christians taught and handed down?
Easily visible in the early writings. eg read ignatius of antioch letter to smyrneans (polycarps church, disciple of john the apostle) and speaking in the decades after Christ (he lived AD 35-108.
You see clearly in the writings of that generation. A liturgical, sacramental church that believed in real presence, with a clergy of bishops in apostolic succession and that only they or their appointees could perform the eucharist, that believed in sacraments and infant baptism (see ireanus). In short the catholic church. There was no other. Until the easterns decided to schism, the only other sects got their names because of heresies eg "aryans" "gnostics" "donatists". There were no denominations. There was just one catholic church! It got the name Roman, only when easterns decided to do their own thing.
Sure it grew. It was an acorn that became a flourishing Oak.
The acorn sapling and oak tree dont look the same, but they are the same species! For sure bad people have done many bad things, and since RCC is so big, many catholics, indeed bishops, indeed popes have done bad things. Thats why we need saving! But the doctrine has barely changed in all that time. Whilst all others have descended in to moral and sexual populism, RCC has alone held on to the beliefs all shared less than a century ago!
So all need to consider two or three things.
1/ When jesus said his church would be one and the "gates of hell would not prevail" against it. Is that really consistent with total apostasyin year.. (pick a random number between year 0 and 1500). Do you really think Jesus cared so little for his church he would let it go off the rails for a millenium? Of course an apostasy needs a "bad guy" . Many vote for Constantine. Yet read the "life of anthony" by st anathasius (of aryan, creed council fame) whose ministry spanned constantines reign and you see nothing actually changed!. So it was the apostasy that never was!
2/ When the "pillar and foundation of truth is the church" which church did Jesus mean (and by the way it is a physical church, that is the meaning of "household of God"
3/ Jesus made Peter the rock of the church with an inheritied Davidic office (see the time of Hezekiah) similar to prime minister "keys of the kingdom" referred in OT. None of the exegetic cart wheels used to deny that make any grammatical or logical sense. Reformationists are obliged to find a way around Peters authority, but they have yet to come up with any interpretation that denies it, other than ignoring hermeneutic rules!
Jesus asked Peter to "tend his sheep". RCC can clearly say how that scripture is fulfilled in the church. How can others say that about theirs?
It was arguments such as those, that in the end brought me back to Rome.
I think all protestants should read "suprised by truth" Madrid. It is just a collection of anecdotes, by fundamentalists and others who came back to Rome. It presents The questions they could not find answers in reformationism, and how catholicism solves them. And they discovered that most of "anticatholic" stuff, is either deliberate or accidental misunderstanding. And in almost all cases takes the literal meaning of scripture.
absolutely it is justified and remains so .just because some modern day people have compromised everything and forsaken truth means nothing .
Of course it was justified. It was justified then, and it is justified now. Justified because of issues of justification, in fact.
How can there be unity of spirit with parties adhering to different gospels? Each thinks such of the other.
God is the one who preserves His word and His people. Granted there are many who claim to be Protestant who do not have the vaguest notion of what the Reformation was about and are simply Protestants of Preference rather than conviction, so for those, there will be a great falling away.
Roman Catholicism is the entity that has abandoned the Christian faith.
Yes. Recommend you do some serious study on what the Reformation was all about. Starting with Martin Luther's 95 Theses is a good place to begin.
So who do you think has the truth?
When almost all protestants and reformation groups disagree with each other , having many mutually exclusive variants of baptism, salvation, eucharist,other sacraments, clergy, morality, liturgy..you name it, they all disagree on it. Tens of thousands of versions of "truth" when truth itself is unique, so almost all reformationists preach one or more falsehoods - logically that must be true since they preach opposite things.
The problem IS sola scriptura introduced by Luther. A doctrine unsupportable either logically, historically, biblically or evidentially, so launching "customized" "choose your own doctrine" Christianity.
Yes it was. However the RCC went on the offence.
Early works[edit]
Ratio Studiorum, 1598.
The Jesuits were founded just before the Counter-Reformation (or at least before the date those historians with a classical view of the counter-reformation hold to be the beginning of the Counter-Reformation), a movement whose purpose was to reform the Catholic Church from within and to counter the Protestant Reformers, whose teachings were spreading throughout Catholic Europe.
Today most professed followers of Christ follow a counter reformation Jesuit teaching by Francisco Ribera called futurism, they also keep the counterfeit Sabbath which is a RCC teaching.
So in my book most of so called Protestantism has already capitulated to the teachings of the RCC.
I am proud to say I believe in Sola Scriptura.
Matthew 15:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Was catholicism ever justified?
There are impending changes to Lutheran and some other Protestant denominations doctrine during 2017 that could lead to the end of Protestantism as we know it. This you tube speaks for two hours on the changes to Lutheran doctrine to bring Lutherans back to Catholicism:
Was Protestantism ever justified?
I disagree. First being that, you're making it seem like the Catholic church is the only church that combines tradition with scripture and hierarchic structure, but that's not true. There are many such churches in the world. So a Catholic is in no different a situation as a protestant in regards to this question of "which is the right church?" If protestants have a "customized, choose your own doctrine" then so do Catholics since, you are "choosing" which traditional church body is rightly teaching through tradition, as opposed to the others that also do this. How do you know the Eastern church isn't the "right" church holding to tradition? There's no way for you to know this, and so you're in the same position of "customized, choose your own tradition/doctrine"
Second being that your proposition "the problem IS sola scripture" is based on an opinion without evidences to support. Just because many protestant churches disagree doesn't mean that is because of sola scriptura. It could be the problem; but it might not be. The problem could be that these protestant churches are also based on traditional doctrine which is not inline with the scripture. The same could be said of churches which mix opposing tradition/doctrine, and one would say "the problem IS tradition" it just isn't a reasonable statement.
I will stand by the bible and say "By sincere seeking, this book is all I need or require": I've never needed anyone to tell me what any other book I've read means; and, in the end, how would I know that what they are telling me is true, unless it's in the book to begin with? Just because they say so? What about the others that "just say so" while saying conflicting things, and, holding conflicting hierarchies and doctrine?
I'll take the book, the book alone, and the prayer of "God guide my understanding" and gladly leave everything else to anyone who wants it. I do think the reformation was justified in light of the worldliness clearly visible in the traditional churches (meaning, long robes, and worldly decoratings and all manner of things which appear to the eye to display righteousness) but I also do not believe the protestant churches are all exempt from this worldliness.
There are also doctrines which are outright contrary to scripture. Many reasons to justify the departure even such departure needed justified to begin with. One could ask the question, "Was the Catholic church ever justified to begin with?"
Note I don't say these things to condemn or any such thing; but only to address these things.
yeah they are ,but they are also defeated powers .The forces at work are great and are spiritual, it is not just the Papacy.
nahh .they protested romes church and the errors of men -i mean come on lol your "church " was teaching people they could BUY$$ their ancestors salvation long after they had died in their unrepentant sin and 98 other atrocities for $funds $ - .. not the church of Jesus . his ones not based in any one place -he dwells by his spirit in the hearts of all those who have his spirit in themarrogant and rebellious people have protested the Church in favor of their own teaching since the first century and that will never stop because the root cause of all heresy is pride and there will always be pride among the unregenerate.
Where does the NT speak about infant baptism? The Apostle Paul wrote that all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching and equipping Christians to serve God. How is that NOT placing emphasis on scripture as our sole guide? If the letters and the Gospels to the churches were in circulation among the churches and being copied for distribution, during the first century, how is it that you say they did not have the NT?
nahh .they protested romes church and the errors of men -i mean come on lol your "church " was teaching people they could BUY$$ their ancestors salvation long after they had died in their unrepentant sin and 98 other atrocities for $funds $ - .. not the church of Jesus . his ones not based in any one place -he dwells by his spirit in the hearts of all those who have his spirit in them
But I do know which is right
The answer is very easy.
Jesus clearly gives the "keys of the kingdom" to Peter Alone - a role we know from the OT is a "prime minister" type role with succession. A role in a Davidic kingdom given to a single person not a group. Jesus makes him alone the rock on which he built his church, and asks him alone to "tend his sheep".
So wherever Peter and his successor is, there is the true church.
Orthodox has a similar problem all others do - it is the name for a group of denominations, (not a single denomination ) of many both autocephalous and autonomous churches that do not accept a primary authority, so do not agree with each other on some issues. Some accept some councils, others accept others eg Chalcedonian/non chalcedonian. All have made their own "popes" Some are larger than others.
The point is when you lose the source of ultimate authority, there is bound to be drift. Because orthodox did not lose tradition, or lose the teaching of early councils, it has not become as wayward as Luther and all the reformers that followed. But it cannot be the true church for the first reason given.
The exegetical cart wheels used to deny the rock of the church was Peter would be laughable, were they not so serious. All hermeneutic rules are broken by those seeking to pretend it was "peters confession" or such errant nonsense, to avoid the obvious truth. Peter was the Rock!. God has chosen a variety of others in different eras to lead and represent his church on earth: for example Abraham was made "father" of the church given that name by God! Moses led - indeed we see that "moses seat" referred in the NT was a source of truth.
And in taking "the book alone" you are taking the path that launched 10000 schisms. Sola scriptura, is neither logical, biblical, historical or evidential. In short it is a reformation falsehood.
If Protestants granted that Peter was given the "keys of the Kingdom", that does not mean that the RCC is *the* church, and it certainly doesn't mean that its practices are not errant, most grievous its "gospel" of salvation by sacrament/works.
Go ahead, do what Christ does not do and call Peter a "pope". It changes nothing.
And when scripture tell us "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life , and I will raise him up on the last day" or "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man you have no life in you".. We do as we are commanded, because we want eternal life!
But then we don't believe in salvation by works. So the normal "anti catholic" caricature is wrong! One of these days anti catholics will actually research what we do believe!
None are sufficient. We are saved by Grace having endured in faith.
we certainly dont believe that the wholly unbiblical "asking Jesus into you life" is either necessary or sufficient for salvation forever as many evangelicals would have you believe.
Thats why there is FAR MORE scripture read in a catholic mass, than any other denomination I have ever been to.
I would argue that you don't. Jesus' body is part of His human nature, not His Devin nature, which means that He can't physically be in more than one place at a time, and He certainly forbids drinking blood.
It's a metaphor. We don't think that men are literally sheep, or that Christ is literally a wooden gate, right?
Jesus is with us spiritually in the bread and cup.
Catholics, I would argue, miss the entire point of Jesus said in John 6. Reading the entire chapter help, as almost all heresy stems from ripping verses out of context.
You can't pull hat one on me. I was a Roman Catholic. From birth I was in her pews. . . I know from first-hand experience and from the doctrines.
You play with words there. That's not grace. That's works + grace, which, as we know from Paul, is no grace/gospel at all.
Neither do many Protestants. I certainly don't.
You've never been to my church. We conservative Presbyterians read large chunks of scripture weekly in service.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?