catholic answers forum 4 dummies and more

**JonNC** · Today, 12:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by rinnie

I asked this on another site and its got me thinking!

Oh NO!
Okay here it is. What makes one Protestant Preachers version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant Preachers version.
Lets say I go to one Protestant Church and the Preacher teaches me that this is what the word of God is saying, and then the next says this, and so on and I go to 10 different Protestant Preachers and get ten meanings. Who do you feel is right?
And how do you know which one is right?

Hi rinnie, As you can see by my post to Randy, the issue of differences between communions is more than a protestant issue.
In Lutheranism, it isn’t pastors that have a version of the Truth. They are bound to the scripture and the confessions. As a Lutheran layman, I “feel” the confessions are a right reflection of scriptures. What other communions teach is up to them, but if they teach contrary to the confessions and scripture, we would be in disagreement.
Jon

**JonNC** · Today, 12:58 pm

Quote:

=Randy Carson;11310954]Yes, it is very simple. And not biblical.

I agree Randy, and it is a much older problem than the 1500′s.

Quote:

You see, Jesus did not tell us to take our disagreements to the “churches” because He only promised to build one Church.

Again, I agree.
Jon

Randy Carson · Today, 12:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonNC

The Filioque The Universal jurisdiction of the pope Dormition vs. Assumption.
Oh, wait. That’s differences between Orthodox and Catholic.
Sorry.

Jon

Correct, Jon. Those are issues that have created schism (though we’re closer on two of them than you might think).
But again, the person to whom I was responding asked for doctrines that Protestants disagree on…I don’t think he expected any responses.

**JonNC** · Today, 1:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

Correct, Jon. Those are issues that have created schism (though we’re closer on two of them than you might think).
But again, the person to whom I was responding asked for doctrines that Protestants disagree on…I don’t think he expected any responses.

And you are clearly correct. To claim that there are no differences, or that they are minor, or non-essentials, may be true in the Reformed churches and their “offspring”, but from a Lutheran perspective, the differences are huge, and for this Lutheran, insurmountable.
Jon

Randy Carson · Today, 1:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonNC

And you are clearly correct. To claim that there are no differences, or that they are minor, or non-essentials, may be true in the Reformed churches and their “offspring”, but from a Lutheran perspective, the differences are huge, and for this Lutheran, insurmountable.
Jon

Help me out here…differences between who/whom are huge?

**JonNC** · Today, 1:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

Help me out here…differences between who/whom are huge?

Lutherans and protestants, generally. Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
On your list, Infant baptism. Ordination of women. Real Presence v. Symbolic Commemoration. Baptismal Regeneration. Eternal Security. Predestination of the Elect. The Rapture, we are on opposite sides of most, if not all of these.
Jon

Atheling · Today, 1:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

When someone points out that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, it is generally meant to point out that A) our Church is there at the beginning and B) yours is not. Like Paul, we place a lot of importance on the idea of legitimate apostolic succession.

2 Timothy 2:1-2 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are five generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Those who came before Paul and instructed him, 2. Paul himself, 3. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 4. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 5. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

Age doesn’t equate to infallibility, nor does the idea that those in the hierarchy, tracing some ambiguous lineal “descent” from Paul, guarantee continuity when, in reality, there has been at least as much divergence between Popes through the centuries as there has been between Protestant sects since the Reformation.

Quote:

You are correct. Many religions are older than Christianity, and that does not make them infallible. Therefore, Apostolic Succession, not age, is important. Of course, your church has neither.

As aforementioned, age and Apostolic Succession are only as significant as the Catholic Church believes them to be – it’s equivalent to citing your own works in an academic paper. Again, superficial facets of the Catholic Church, outside of scripture, that the Church constantly relies upon to claims it’s the True Church. I prefer to defer as closely as possible to the word of God in spiritual matters, not “church history and tradition”, and so Biblical sources trump the baggage that Catholics attach to the faith.

Quote:

The Catholic Church is infallible. It is not perfect. If you learn the difference, you will have done well.

As the Catholic Church repudiates scripture as the sole source of the word of God – and elevates earthly clergy into positions of demi-god status – assertions of infallibility are laughable at best.

Quote:

Yes, it is very simple. And not biblical.
You see, Jesus did not tell us to take our disagreements to the “churches” because He only promised to build one Church.
Atheling, if you really stop and think about what you just said, I think you will come to the realization that you have just made one of the strongest arguments possible for Catholicism.
The multiplicity of the non-Catholic denominations was the

moment that brought my best friend back into the Church after a long evangelical walkabout.

You’re committing a fallacy in that you’re precluding the possibility that those administering the Church in the years and centuries after Christ’s proclamation fell into error – and given that the Church has dealt with a multiplicity of errors throughout history, we clearly see that isn’t the case. Declaring the Church to be infallible is a cop-out in this case. That the Church moved away from God, and that the Reformers brought it back, must be coupled with the notion, as much as it may be difficult for you to accept, that imperfect people administer these churches, and notions of infallibility prevent accepting the reality that we can and have corrupted Christ’s Church. I’ve conceded that our faith has its troubles and has been blighted by error, now why can’t you?

**JonNC** · Today, 1:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheling

You’re committing a fallacy in that you’re precluding the possibility that those administering the Church in the years and centuries after Christ’s proclamation fell into error – and given that the Church has dealt with a multiplicity of errors throughout history, we clearly see that isn’t the case. Declaring the Church to be infallible is a cop-out in this case. That the Church moved away from God, and that the Reformers brought it back, must be coupled with the notion, as much as it may be difficult for you to accept, that imperfect people administer these churches, and notions of infallibility prevent accepting the reality that we can and have corrupted Christ’s Church. I’ve conceded that our faith has its troubles and has been blighted by error, now why can’t you?

I suspect Randy’s first question will be, which Reformers?

Jon

Porknpie · Today, 1:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by dronald

This [my insert: the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist] is the only relevant one imo.

DRonald –
When Jesus himself says

“Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

How can the Eucharist be the only relevant one? Why wouldn’t you say first that a dispute over a condition of salvation would be first??
PnP

Randy Carson · Today, 1:44 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheling

Age doesn’t equate to infallibility, nor does the idea that those in the hierarchy, tracing some ambiguous lineal “descent” from Paul, guarantee continuity when, in reality, there has been at least as much divergence between Popes through the centuries as there has been between Protestant sects since the Reformation.

Wow. Where to begin?
1. I agree that age has nothing to do with infallibility. 2. The lines of Apostolic Succession are not ambiguous. 3. The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, not Paul. 4. Divergence between popes? Clearly, you are ignorant about Catholic doctrine.

Quote:

As aforementioned, age and Apostolic Succession are only as significant as the Catholic Church believes them to be – it’s equivalent to citing your own works in an academic paper.

I wouldn’t expect you to say anything less since your Church has neither.

Quote:

Again, superficial facets of the Catholic Church, outside of scripture, that the Church constantly relies upon to claims it’s True Church. I prefer to defer as closely as possible to the word of God in spiritual matters, not “church history and tradition”, and so Biblical sources trump the baggage that Catholics attach to the faith.

Oh? The Bible teaches that Scripture Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer? You have a verse for this? (Hint: I wouldn’t be asking if I knew you did.)

Quote:

As the Catholic Church repudiates scripture as the sole source of the word of God

God is the sole source of scripture, if that’s what you were trying to say. No Catholic would repudiate that. However, the Word of God is contained in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. I think you may be unfamiliar with that idea.

Quote:

- and elevates earthly clergy into positions of demi-god status – assertions of infallibility are laughable at best.

What actually has me chuckling is your assertion about theological concepts about which you are clearly ignorant.

Quote:

You’re committing a fallacy in that you’re precluding the possibility that those administering the Church in the years and centuries after Christ’s proclamation fell into error – and given that the Church has dealt with a multiplicity of errors throughout history, we clearly see that isn’t the case. Declaring the Church to be infallible is a cop-out in this case. That the Church moved away from God, and that the Reformers brought it back, must be coupled with the notion, as much as it may be difficult for you to accept, that imperfect people administer these churches, and notions of infallibility prevent accepting the reality that we can and have corrupted Christ’s Church. I’ve conceded that our faith has its troubles and has been blighted by error, now why can’t you?

Can you define for me what infallibility means in Catholic theology?
You have to be able to do this in order to accurately argue with the doctrine. Otherwise, you are knocking down a straw man.

**JRKH** · Today, 2:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheling

As the Catholic Church repudiates scripture as the sole source of the word of God – and elevates earthly clergy into positions of demi-god status – assertions of infallibility are laughable at best.

Two points here if I may…. 1) How does the Church “repudiate” something that did not exist until 1500 years after the founding of the Church? Now maybe I’m not fully understanding the meaning of “repudiate”….but to me, I see the Church not buying into a novel and unbiblical “new” idea. During the first 1500 years of Christianity – both East and West – there was no Sola Scriptura….
2) As a Sola Scripturist – what do you then do with the fact that the Scripture itself points to the Church as authority? Even if one starts from a position of Scripture being the “sole source” of the word of God, one is left with Christ’s own words saying that whatever the Church binds is bound and whatever the Church looses is loosed. You have Jesus saying that we should “tell it to the Church”, and listen to the Church. You have Jesus praying that we be one – and you see the Apostles in their letters exhorting the faithful to a profound “oneness of mind”.
Bottom line – Looking at the bible alone I can easily see the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Church….
Peace James

Per Crucem · Today, 2:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonNC

Lutherans and protestants, generally. Sorry, I wasn’t clear.
On your list, Infant baptism. Ordination of women. Real Presence v. Symbolic Commemoration. Baptismal Regeneration. Eternal Security. Predestination of the Elect. The Rapture, we are on opposite sides of most, if not all of these.
Jon

I would second that.
The differences between Lutherans and other Protestants is far greater than the differences between Lutherans and Catholics/Orthodox in general. The closest to us would be the Anglicans, but even that depends on whether the Anglican is more Catholic on the sacraments or Reformed.

Per Crucem · Today, 2:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

Correct, Jon. Those are issues that have created schism (though we’re closer on two of them than you might think).

After seeing your interaction with some of the lovely Orthodox posters around these parts, we’re probably closer to you than they are

catholic answers forum 4 dummies and more

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

catholic answers forum protestants — how do you know 1working4christ

catholic answers forum protestants — how do you know 1working4christ

No comments:

Post a Comment