Questions For Protestants

[Undercover]

Even at the End of John's Gospel it states that not everything is written in this Book, we should rely on Sacred Tradition to learn more from the Apostles and Christs Church.

It doesn't say "rely on Sacred Tradition". It just basically says for brevity he left out some of the things of lesser importance.

[Paladin D]

It doesn't say "rely on Sacred Tradition".  It just basically says for brevity he left out some of the things of lesser importance.

Funny how you place yourself above the Early Church Fathers, the very first Christians... by not taking into account on what they have said in regards belief. They were the ones that canonized the Scriptures you have, making the Catholic Church... "Bible Masters" if you will.

I just can not understand how people can say "I believe in the Bible", yet seem to skip over the fact that the early Christians (who were Catholic, thus their beliefs being identical to that of the Catholic Church today), were the ones who spent years to finally canonize the Bible!

If we were the ones that canonized something that you place your trust fully upon, then why do you claim the Catholic Church to be wrong? Even before the canonization of the Bible (and also after), Sacred Tradition was taught just as important as the Scriptures.

I'm a former-Pentecostal, and I should know this. :o

Edited November 18, 2003 by Paladin D

[BLAZEr]

It doesn't say "rely on Sacred Tradition".  It just basically says for brevity he left out some of the things of lesser importance.

it doesn't say that either . . . why would you correct someone's interpretation with your own even poorer interpretation . . .

John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

This does not imply that it was of lesser importance. It just says that he couldn't possibly write everything. He's basically telling us "Jesus was more than just what we could write down." . . . Now, this comes at the end of a long discourse between Jesus and Peter. Jesus tells Peter to "feed his sheep" yet we don't have a gospel by Peter? Are we to assume that Peter didn't feed the sheep? Or that he did so orally? And funny how John uses Peter in this passage, the same one who was given the keys to the kingdom.

What's more. In John's Gospel, John uses himself to represent all of the Church. Following Christ in that chapter is Peter and peter turns and guess who is behind him??? John, in other words, The Whole Church, all believers! Are you behind Peter?

Edited November 18, 2003 by BLAZEr

[BLAZEr]

Paladin, go to bed!!

[cmotherofpirl]

Undercover if you take everything Jesus said and did its about several months worth of stuff.

Jesus peached for 3 YEARS.

He spent that time picking and teaching Peter and the other Apostles who were the foundations of the Church.

The New Testament is a glimpse of what Jesus was doing: books written with clear theological purpose and order. they were chosen from many possibilities by the Catholic Church to reflect Church at the time. Remember the Church had been in existance for 4 centuries before the canon was finalized.

Nowhere does it say the bible is the sole rule of faith, that is a tradition of man, spefically the heresy of Luther.

[Undercover]

my intention wasn't to prove Sola Scriptura or anything, just to point out that your line of questioning is wack. If you look at what I said, I actually don't agree with Sola Scriptura.

I just want to point out that I *did* answer one of your questions, and yet that doesn't prove a thing.

In any case, the argument for me isn't as much the roots of the Church, etc.. because the Jewish priesthood could claim roots farther back and such, and can claim the writing of the Old Testament and preservation of it. Yet they deny Christ, which is unnaceptable. The question for me is whether or not the Catholic Church would be the most beneficial to my relationship with Christ.

The problem for me is that I have seen far too many Catholics who aren't representing, and don't even know what their Catholic Church believes (or what they believe), let alone why.

I see imperfection in man's structural organization (just as there was imperfection in the Jewish Traditions). [i know you're gonna spit a bunch of references to me about the Holy Spirit leading the Catholic Church to perfection, but I see insufficient proof, in fact, I see proof otherwise, so save your breath]

I also find problems in Protestant Churches and belief systems, so I don't claim that they're exempt either..

My basis is on God, and my relationship with him, and what he shows me through scripture, and the fellowship I have with other believers.

[Paladin D]

I do agree with you, there are Catholics who do not know of their faith and/or don't practice it. Mainly because, the Catholic Church does not alter it's teachings just for people who don't want to live faithful lives.

The reason why many Protestants seem as if they're "truely serving God", is because there are many many different denominations and churches for them to choose from. If they don't agree with one church, they just find another one that best fits their needs.

And if they can't find one, they just start one.

[Undercover]

But what option do they have when it's not them that's at fault, it's the Church? I think there are two different scenarios, and you're leaving out the one where the Church is not doing it's job.

I agree with what you said above, and it's a shame that people think it's the Churches fault when it is them with the fault, but this isn't always the case. And sometimes a lot of hurt can happen while a person doesn't realize that the Church is imperfect, and that only God is perfect.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I dont remember reading in the Gospels anywhere where Jesus said "Upon this Rock I will build a PERFECT Church"...The errors that the people in the Church have done in no way cast's out the mere fact that you can trace its History back to Christ. You cannot do that with any other Christian Church. Except maybe the Eastern Rite Church but they are closer to Catholic than any prot hopes to be.

If you would rather look at the people in the Church who are sinners rather than the actual Teachings of the Church then the sin is on you. You cannot have a relationship with Christ if you deny His Church.

What did Christ say to Paul before His convertion? Paul was killing Christians, who were Catholic. Christ knocked him off his horse and said "Saul...Saul..why are you persecuting ME" If you deny the Church He built, you deny Him who created it.

Also, as far as Jewish Religion, dont bash em, they are God's chosen people, God has a convenant with the Jewish people, he will never go against that Convenant with them..never.

What some Prots like to say is that Jewish people are some how damned because they 'killed' Jesus..so far from the truth.

Jesus didnt come to earth to die an old man. He came here to Die when it was His time to die. The Romans and Jewish leaders just did what God called them to do. Doesnt take away from the fact that Jews are Gods chosen people, we should respect that.

CatholicAndFanatical

[Jake Huether]

I dont remember reading in the Gospels anywhere where Jesus said "Upon this Rock I will build a PERFECT Church"

Your following sentences clarify your point. However, I wanted to point out that Christ did, in effect say, "upon this Rock I will build a [Perect] Church." Because he followed with, "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

The Church is perfect. It's members are not.

I know you already said that, and meant it. But just to be clear...

Also,

The Romans and Jewish leaders just did what God called them to do.

I don't know about that. God "calls" all people to worship and glorify Him. He didn't pre-destine these folks to kill His Son and die a burning death in hell. God knew that they would choose this, in their free will - the will of Satan ultimately, and that is how it happened. God let it happen, he didn't command it to happen. He engineered the outcome, not the "means".

Christ is out of Time, becaue He is God. We continue to nail him to the Cross at Calvary. We are the Jews and Romans. Are sins are just as horrible as theirs. Even worse if you ask me. They might not have known he was the Son of God. WE do, yet we still keep on pounding away at the nails. Yet, God isn't calling us to do that. He's calling us away from it.

The Jews now a days shouldn't be so up tight about the historical Jewish leaders who had Christ killed. Anymore than white folks now should feel culpable for slavery. Or Germans for the holocaust.

Jews are God's chosen people. "Chosen by him", but they also must "Choose him". The Jews who swing the hammers didn't choose him.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Your following sentences clarify your point. However, I wanted to point out that Christ did, in effect say, "upon this Rock I will build a [Perect] Church." Because he followed with, "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

The Church is perfect. It's members are not.

I know you already said that, and meant it. But just to be clear...

Point taken, however I know the Church Herself is Perfect, I was referring to the people in it, I could of used a different way of saying it..my bad.

The reason why I said that the leaders were doing what they were called to do is the fact that God knew this would happen, like you said. It was in His divine plan for this to happen. Jesus didnt come here to live until he was 80, God's Divine plan meant for Him to die when He chose it was right.

I guess a good example would be when the Holy Father was shot back in the 80's. His attacker went to prison, but when the secrets of Fatima came out it mentioned something about the Pope being shot.

Based on this evidence they said this gentlemen was obeying a divine call, if you will..and therefore let him out of prison.

Im sure God didnt WANT the Pope to be shot, but allowed it to happen for our better Good. The same with the Jewish and Roman Leaders I was speaking of..

[Undercover]

Yo, I don't deny God's Church, I just deny that the Church is the Catholic traditions, rather I see the Church as all believers and followers of Christ. I just don't agree that Christs purpose was to throw away all the Jewish traditions just to start up a new system of traditions, instead I see that he came here to show his grace and make one sacrifice to do away with the old way of sacrifice. And the reason he came in person was to show the importance of relationship, which was what was really missing in the old system at that point.

This is a bit off topic from the Sola Scriptura topic that this was started on, so I won't continue it here. Maybe later I'll start a new topic.. but I'm just not ready to start something so controversial yet.. so please leave that topic alone for now.

[littleflower+JMJ]

its not controversial and its not anything new

we have a nicely handy search engine button for the phorum if you want to try it out...

it works i used it! B)

:)

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Nothing controversial about that topic at all. The Church Christ founded is a fullfillment of the Jewish religion. If Catholics werent Catholics, we'd be Jewish.

and this does have something to do with Sola Scriptura, although probably a minor relationship but how did you get to the point to where you can say you dont need the Church? You are trying to have a relationship with Christ, which is very important, but you dont want to go through the means that Christ laid out for us to have a relationship with Him.

If you dont use the Church as the Sole Authority, then you must be using the Bible as the Sole Authority. But then again, even in the Bible it states that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not Scriptures.

You could use the argument that all the believers are considered the Church..but then that would not make any sense when Christ says in Matthew 18:17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.".. because if he is already telling them, meaning two or more believers..wouldnt he already be telling the 'church' if the 'church' is a body of believers?? Who then would be the Church that Christ was referring? The Apostles of course, the Authority that was laid down by Christ to be passed on for all generations just like in Acts 1:20 " … His office let another take."

so what He was saying is that If he doesnt listen to a believer on whatever, take him to the Authority of the Church, a Priest, Bishop, etc..and if he chose's not to even listen to the Church (Authority) then cast him out.

So you cannot discount the Church and go off on your own expecting to have a relationship with Christ. You are fooling only yourself.

CatholicAndFanatical

[cmotherofpirl]

Yo, I don't deny God's Church, I just deny that the Church is the Catholic traditions, rather I see the Church as all believers and followers of Christ.

THen you deny the scriptures. Because the Scriptures came from the Church, and it is the Church that guarentees Scripture.

Scripture is reliable because the Church is reliable and the Holy Spirit guarentees the Church is reliable.

We have one faith, one baptism, not 32,000 and counting...

[Anna]

The Church is a body of believers...but its a body of people who believe in the doctrines established by Jesus Christ and passed down by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers.

How can you call the Church a body of believers, when some of those "believers" believe in doctrines they created themselves?! They believe in their own ideas, not the Sacraments instituted by Christ to give grace to his followers...

And regarding judging the Church by some of its (lukewarm) members, remember that many who rejected Christ, rejected Him because of the company He kept; tax collectors and prostitutes, etc.

You should take care not to reject His Church for the same age-old reasons.

The Church is the spotless Bride of Christ. He doesn't have more than one bride. He has the One, which He Himself chose and founded. There is no other Bride of Christ. (Ephesians 5:25 Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her

26

to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,

27

that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.)

[Norseman82]

Yo, I don't deny God's Church, I just deny that the Church is the Catholic traditions, rather I see the Church as all believers and followers of Christ.

Ahh......but.....

Did not Christ set up an earthly head who was given the "keys to the kingdom"? (Matthew 16:19)

When there was a dispute in Acts 15 did not the apostles (from whom the present-day Roman Catholic bishops get their authority in an unbroken line of apostolic succession) render a binding decision?

As you can see Christ DID found an organized religion!!

[Anna]

And one must wonder, what oral traditions do the protestants possess, which are spoken of in Scripture??

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it...

Edited November 18, 2003 by Anna

[Katholikos]

It doesn't say "rely on Sacred Tradition".  It just basically says for brevity he left out some of the things of lesser importance.

The mistake Protestants make is in believing that the Bible is an instruction book in Christianity. It is not.

The Old Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of ancient Israel. It was written over a period of about 1,000 years. The New Testament is the literary expression of the religious life of the New Israel -- The newborn Catholic Church (Romans 11:26, Galatians 6:16, James 1:1). It was written over a period of about 100 years.

Christianity is based on the teachings of the Catholic Church founded by Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). It is not based on The Bible. That idea was born in the 16th century with Martin Luther and his false notion of Sola Scriptura. It's less than 500 years old.

The Church is 400 years older than the Bible as we know it. She inherited the Greek Septuagint from Jesus and the Apostles, which she named the "Old Testament." The Church wrote the New Testament and collected, canonized, and preserved both the NT and the OT, which she named ta Biblia" -- the Bible. The NT is a "snapshot" -- a record -- of the life of the Church at a particular point in time -- the first half-century or so of her existence.

Christian and Catholic are synonymous. It's the Protestants who are divorced from history and pretending that the Bible is an instruction book. It never was and never will be, no matter how it's twisted (2 Peter 3:16).

The role of Sacred Apostolic Tradition in the life of the Church is evident in the writings of St. Paul, the earliest writings in the New Testament.

Ave Cor Mariae, Likos

[Katholikos]

I'm pentecostal. Don't bother tailoring a list. I don't have the time to answer them.

Of course, you don't. Protestants on this phorum never have time to answer questions -- because their beliefs are indefensible, and if they've been at phatmass very long, they know it! How can anyone defend a man-made religion against the religion founded by Jesus Christ, True God and True Man?

Question #1 Considering that Christianity is 2,000 years old, why do you belong to a "church" that was founded on the beliefs of a group of preachers meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas in 1914?