Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[wmfights]

"This cry always reminds of the definition of a racist:

A racist is a conservative that is winning the debate with a liberal."
___________________________________________

Well said!

Don't forget that when confronted with SCRIPTURAL errors Roman Catholics will cry "Catholic Bashing, Catholic Bashing."

[Diego1618]

Whether the saints who have passed into their rest can or cannot hear us I don't know. Because of the uncertainty I am not going to entrust my needs to them.

Ecclesiates 3:19

Ecclesiates 9:5

Ecclesiates 9:10

Psalms 146:4

Matthew 10:28

[markomalley]

Well said!

Don't forget that when confronted with SCRIPTURAL errors Roman Catholics will cry "Catholic Bashing, Catholic Bashing."

---

And when some Protestants (thankfully not all are like you folks) are confronted with scriptural documentation that refutes their errors, they start sputtering. Or telling Catholics that they are going to hell. Or screaming "conspiracy theory"

The best one I liked on this thread was "poor exegesis of Matthew 16:18" without offering an alternative...Typical liberal (fact-starved) response.

Or the one cursing Catholics for saying that the Canon of the NT was fixed by the Church...all without demonstrating HOW it was fixed, if not by the Church.

Yeah, those ProtestantsLiberals are so whiny.

[gscc]

Before you state that those are only our prayers (or, I'm sorry, I guess I should say your prayers, since according to some of you, all Catholics are going to hell [which they look for with glee, apparently] and so obviously can't be saints), please look at Rev 6:9-11.

Don't be ignorant - I never said that never even implied it.   Your offer to alleviate me of my ignorance has still not been taken up.  Clearly we are told to pray for one another.  We are not told, however, to pray to each other. 

16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for (not to) each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

So teacher - please point to where any of the apostles prayed to someone who was deceased.  Please show me where they instructed others to pray to the deceased. 

[gscc]

all without demonstrating HOW it was fixed, if not by the Church.

Amazing how you can leave God out of the equation.  You believe that God needed your Church or any individual to convey his Holy Word to His people?  Did Peter and Paul, did Luke or John write without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?  Was the Catholic Church Paul's proof reader, his editor?

[jo kus]

Also, in reading John 6:53-54 I don't see anyone at the synagogue in Capernaum trying to actually eat the Messiah, or drink his blood as he stood there.

They weren't quite sure HOW Jesus was going to provide His flesh to eat. He answers His Apostles' questions on this at the Last Supper when He took a piece of bread in His hand and said "THIS IS my Body". They then, through faith, understood that by eating the bread, they were eating Christ. Certainly, they didn't fully understand this until after the Holy Spirit came to them on Pentecost. But we see another hint of this in the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. It was not until during the Breaking of the Bread (Eucharist) when the recognized the Lord. It is because we come closest to Him during the Eucharist - He abides in us.

BTW when did transubstantiation become dogma in the Roman Catholic Church?...etc.

Again, this is inconsequential. Here is why. When did the Church declare that Jesus was God as dogma? At the council of Nicea in 325 AD. Nearly 300 years after Christ's death, correct? Does that mean that the Church DID NOT already believe this? Of course it did! Jesus was worshiped during the liturgy. People prayed to Him during their daily prayers and through their actions. The Church already KNEW that Jesus was God - the Church DEFINES that He was God infallibly based on the guidance of the Spirit ALREADY AT WORK in the Church. The Church defines dogma to authoritative say what we believe, just like it did with the contents of Scripture. The Church already had a good idea of what it was, but now, they had an authoritative decision. Same with all of your other questions.

I would love to see your SCRIPTURAL basis for these positions the Roman Church takes.

You have been on FR for well over a year. You have certainly seen all the arguments... If you are seriously open to Catholicism and what it believes, then I will address it. Otherwise, I have no intention of writing several pages to a person who has no intention of considering our point of view. There are other people more open to God's Word that I can approach. Did Christ continue to argue with the Pharisees after they were proven to be closed-minded?

Regards

[gscc]

I would love to see your SCRIPTURAL basis for these positions the Roman Church takes.

Don't hold your breath - there is no scriptural basis for much of this mythology.  The early years of Christianity was marked by a battle with paganism and the early Church theologians understood that what they were fighting was not standing armies, but the spiritual hosts of darkness, paganism.  The early Church understood the nature of the Lord's supper as shown below.  As pagan custom crept into the Roman Church, beginning during the Constantine era, the ritual of transubstantiation crept in.

Justin Martyr (110-165 AD)

"Now it is evident, that in this prophecy allusion is made to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks."   Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, cap. lxx

Tatian (110-172 AD)

"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis."  Tatian, Address to the Greeks, cap. xxv

Theophilus of Antioch (115-181 AD)

"Nor indeed was there any necessity for my refuting these, except that I see you still in dubiety about the word of the truth. For though yourself prudent, you endure fools gladly. Otherwise you would not have been moved by senseless men to yield yourself to empty words, and to give credit to the prevalent rumor wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us, who are worshippers of God, and are called Christians, alleging that the wives of us all are held in common and made promiscuous use of; and that we even commit incest with our own sisters, and, what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh."  Theophilus, To Autolycus, Lib. III, cap. iv

Eusebius (260-341 AD)

"And there was one energy of the Divine Spirit pervading all the members, and one soul in all, and the same eagerness of faith, and one hymn from all in praise of the Deity. Yea, and perfect services were conducted by the prelates, the sacred rites being solemnized, and the majestic institutions of the Church observed, here with the singing of psalms and with the reading of the words committed to us by God, and there with the performance of divine and mystic services; and the mysterious symbols of the Saviour's passion were dispensed. At the same time people of every age, both male and female, with all the power of the mind gave honor unto God, the author of their benefits, in prayers and thanksgiving, with a joyful mind and soul. And every one of the bishops present, each to the best of his ability, delivered panegyric orations, adding luster to the assembly."  Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Lib. X, cap. iii-iv

[Conservative til I die]

They don't actually want to know they just want spout Boettener and Chick. This cry always reminds of the definition of a racist:

A racist is a conservative that is winning the debate with a liberal.

I'm sorry my friend, he speaks the truth. There are too many Evangelicals that think the same things and express them in an almost absolute uniform fashion for me to think they aren't all regurgitating from the same playbook, usually something along the lines of scum like Jack Chick.

I have respect for any Protestant who has examined the Catholic Church objectively and finds themselves in disagreement. I can respect that. I have even more respect for the Protestant that takes his views seriously enough to get some hands-on experience with the Catholic faith (attend a Mass, talk to a priest, even watching some EWTN) so that he can make a truly informed judgment about our faith.

I have little to no respect for slack jawed clowns that verbally fart out statements like "Just some more Catholic idolatry" or "Look at the Papists worship their goddess Mary".

[Conservative til I die]

NONE of the unrecorded acts of Jesus can be a foundation for the doctrine of tradition. No one even knows what the acts were!

The Apostles did. And they passed on their knowledge to their followers, and so on and so forth.

Too many Protestants make the mistake of thinking that Christianity was born in a vaccuum, as if early Christianity only exists on the pages of the New Testament.

The early Church and all its members were real people. It's living, breathing history, and it has existed continuously since the time of Christ.

Christ didn't turn water into wine on page 764 of your Bible or in Matthew "Chapter x, verse so-and-so". He did it in Cana, at a wedding, with His friends and family in attendance, in the year 30 or so.

[Conservative til I die]

Point to the facts. Show me historically or scripturally your proof.

We can't since you've made it clear that you will not accept an extra-biblical source written by one of the Catholic Fathers from either a scriptural *or* historical standpoint.

What makes the writings of an Ireneaus or a Clement inadmissible as even a historical source but any number of ancient writings about Caesar or Plato or Socrates acceptable?

And might I add, the bias against Catholic historical tradition is rather transparent. If one or two or three sources said Peter died in Rome, that apparently is not enough proof that he did so. However, the fact that there is no other place where he is said to have died is disregarded. So it's not even like Protestants are employing the fallacy of argument by omission. They're just disregarding whatever texts don't agree with their pre-conceived notions.

[Conservative til I die]

i'm quite the opposite. I grew up wanting to be Catholic. I had a great aunt who married into the Bruno family. She was my grandfather's baby sister, so her children were older than me by 15-5 years. I watched all of them get confirmed, and be married in the Catholic church. I thought it was lovely and beautiful.

But after I became a believer in jesus Christ, I started reading and understanding the Bible.

What kind of a crummy, lazy Catholic were you that you didn't start reading the Bible until after you left the faith!?!?

Ever notice that a lot of anti-Catholics that were once Catholic didn't do squat with their faith? But hey, they liked the lovely and beautiful candles and incense.

[Conservative til I die]

I can sleep well with the fact that Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc. disagree with me. Jesus was crucified by consensus and 48+% of our country voted for John Kerry. What I care about is what the Bible actually says.

Yeah, and Hitler was elected and Reagan won 49 states. What's your point? Being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you right, either. Sometimes people get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.

The vast majority of scripture says precisely that the "dead know not anything". A person cannot exist apart from a body.

Really, so no one goes to Heaven? Or Hell? Jesus sure talked a lot about storing up treasure in Heaven and suffering in Hell. Not sure how a un-conscious non-entity can have treasure or suffer eternally. Are you a Jehovah's Witness or a Christadelphian? If so, you're a heretic.

Believing that people don't actually die, but that their "spirits" leave them after death is pagan, misguided, and leads to retarded doctrines like thinking there are suicide bombers in heaven, each with 72 virgins, and they are rooting bin Laden on like the "dog pound" on the old Arsenio Hall show.

I though we were talking about Catholicism here, not Wahabbi'ist Islam. Speaking of retarded, are you that retarded that you can't discern for yourself whether a particular belief in the afterlife is well-founded and another is un-founded, or do you feel you must group all of them together because some Muslims act insane.

[Conservative til I die]

If the Pope's doctrinal abilities are as you say, then explain the need for Vatican II?

Why should he? You're the woefully ignorant one who needs to do some research on how Catholicism works.

[Conservative til I die]

I suppose that it is all relative. Our pastor preached from Jeremiah for almost a year with each sermon lasting 45 minutes. That you have two, three or four passages read from the Bible at every Catholic Mass in the entire world does not seem all that impressive when it comes to equipping the faithful.

I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week. Judging by the idiotic clowning around I see from some of these preachers on TV, sounds like a lot of hot air.

[Conservative til I die]

That you believe your church decided what was Scripture and what was not is just another example of the arrogance of a church that worships itself. This is the best line posted all week. Good job! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps then you could provide an historical account of the formation of the formation of the Canon of the New Testament?

Why should they bother. This is apparently one of those 8 Mile style diss contests.

It only matters who has the best one-liners.

[Conservative til I die]

The best one I liked on this thread was "poor exegesis of Matthew 16:18" without offering an alternative...Typical liberal (fact-starved) response

My favorite is the circular (more like a pinpoint) reasoning of "It is obvious from the Scripture that...."

[Conservative til I die]

Amazing how you can leave God out of the equation. You believe that God needed your Church or any individual to convey his Holy Word to His people? Did Peter and Paul, did Luke or John write without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Was the Catholic Church Paul's proof reader, his editor?

Enough fillibustering, answer the question like you have a mind. We all accept that there were various Councils called in the early Church. The Canon of the New Testament was established at one of these Councils. Coincidentally, all major Protestant sects accept the same Canon (minus 7 books) as was established at this Council. While the Holy Spirit surely influenced these men, it was not as if God sent the Bible down in a bolt of lightning. Provide an answer as to why this Council of men's decision on the Canon is exactly the same as all major Protestant sects' Canon (minus in most cases 7 books)? Extra points if you can relate historical context, reasons why other books are not acceptable as Canon though covering the same topics, the development of authoritarian and hierarchical structures in early Christianity, the role of Councils.

Mind you, I am not asking you about the writing of these books - many Protestants confuse the issue of the Canon by talking about how God-breathed the Scriptures are. We understand that. But we're talking about how to discern which of these previously written books were God-breathed or not.

My guess is you'll just ignore me and move on to the next subject, such as "Oh yeah, well, well, uh, you guys worship Mary!"

[Conservative til I die]

"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis." Tatian, Address to the Greeks, cap. xxv

Without even reading before or after this paragraph, I am sure that Tatian is addressing accusations by the Greeks that Catholics were cannibals that ate skin and sinew, rather than how Catholics actually view the Real Presence. (ANd no, Virginia, we don't believe we're eating flesh off of a corpse or drinking blood out of veins.)

[Conservative til I die]

"...It is not we who eat human flesh - they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses; it is among you that Pelops is made a supper for the gods, although beloved by Poseidon, and Kronos devours his children, and Zeus swallows Metis." Tatian, Address to the Greeks, cap. xxv

Without even reading before or after this paragraph, I am sure that Tatian is addressing accusations by the Greeks that Catholics were cannibals that ate skin and sinew, rather than how Catholics actually view the Real Presence. (ANd no, Virginia, we don't believe we're eating flesh off of a corpse or drinking blood out of veins.)

[wmfights]

"I have no intention of writing several pages to a person who has no intention of considering our point of view."
________________________________________
In reading these threads and checking SCRIPTURE against the various positions taken it is the Roman Catholic posters that seem to be the one's with the closed minds.

Ask yourself if you would honestly consider your church to be wrong or fallible when seeing its positions contradicted by SCRIPTURE? The most common response I've seen is "Tradition" or the "Magisterium" resolved that. As a Christian I rely on SCRIPTURE to guide me.

Regards to you as well