A Baptist's Search For Historical Proof of St. Patrick Takes Her To Rome

CH Network ^ | Patty Patrick Bonds

[old and tired]

I still don't understand how you can accept that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and still reject the teachings of the first men that told us so.

However, I leave that go until I see those threads you've mentioned that have thoroughly hashed it out. I would also like to point you to a link I found by doing a google search.

It may be old news to someone who's already studied so much. I, however, found it helpful. It provides Biblical evidence for the Real Presence. I'm sorry I don't know how to make links work:

http://users.rcn.com/jcrobin/RealPresence.htm

[old and tired]

Fancy that! My link worked!

[ultima ratio]

The twelve were often wrong, as you say. But this was before Pentecost when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and had their eyes opened to much that had not been understood before that. They then imparted their understanding to the whole Church. The Church Fathers were the nearest generational beneficiaries of this wisdom and are especially important to us because they offer us insight into the early Church regarding key doctrinal matters.

[american colleen]

The church fathers were not inspired by God like the Bible is, so I really don't care what they said. In fact, in the Bible, Jesus often told the disciples they were not correct in their understanding of what Jesus was saying. If the disciples were wrong so often when they talked to Jesus in person every day, why trust someone who never talked to him?

It's unfortunate that Jesus Christ left his teachings in the hands of men who, according to what you must believe, messed up so badly, mangled the Truth so badly, that they couldn't pass on the faith correctly even to their own disciples. And less than one generation after the death and resurrection of Christ, to boot!

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

this interior illumination overwhelms you to the point that it encompasses your whole being

I would like to ask you a serious question. How much scripture did you know at the time of this interior illumination. God's Word is how He communicates with us. If you don't know his word, if you are not seeking his will, a sudden illumination will not happen. There has to be some bases for illumination. If it comes from God, it will be thru His Word. If it has now scriptural background it is not from God.

2 Cor. 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Do you think Satan has the power/want to to give an "illumination"?

Becky

[american colleen]

Quick reply as I have to sign off and do a few chores and then head to the danged dentist.

Although I had never (still haven't) memorized portions of the Scripture, having attended Mass every Sunday as a child and then young teenager (thereafter sporadically) I listened to every part of them many, many times. Also, in my hs, we studied the bible for 4 years. I'd say I know most of it, or at least am familiar with all of the Scriptures - some very in depth and some not so in depth.

The interior illumination I had took place during Mass and during the reading of one of the letters (after an old testament reading and before the Gospel). I wasn't really thinking of Him at all at the time. I do believe that Satan has the power to lure us the other way... but I know that Satan had nothing to do with my experience as I have come to a place in my life where I hunger for God and His Word and I desire, with the help of His grace, to live my life in accordance with His will. I don't think Satan would approve!

[drstevej]

***I still don't understand how you can accept that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and still reject the teachings of the first men that told us so.***

You would cannonize all the writings/teachings of those who were a part of the cannonization process?

Thanks for the link.

[RnMomof7]

I would not be a Catholic today if it were not for the solid and undeniable evidence from scripture and history. Meanwhile, I pray that someday you too come to know Him up close and personal in the Eucharist.

This former Irish Catholic would still be a catholic today if it were not for the fact it is a faith built on men and not on the Rock that is Christ.

One can not ignore the doctrines that diminish Jesus and elevate man

[ACAC]

No human could be expected to perfectly pass on the faith because every human makes mistakes. That is why I only rely on the Bible, which was written by God. I don't trust anyone else.

[old and tired]

**You would cannonize all the writings/teachings of those who were a part of the cannonization process? **

No, the early Church fathers are not infallible.

But do you know of an early church father who rejected the Real Presence? As you know, this belief is the central one for Catholics.

[drstevej]

***But do you know of an early church father who rejected the Real Presence?***

Irrelevant (btw, the doctrine of the real presence evolved over the centuries to its present form -- as did Marian theology). Many Fathers believed in baptismal regeneration as well.

Acts 17:11 Bereans searched the Scriptures not the Apostles and were commended by Paul for doing so.

Ad fontes

[old and tired]

**Irrelevant**

!!!??? Well, I guess this pretty much puts us back where we started. I do not understand how men that you admit were inspired by the Holy Spirit to define Sacred Scripture had a faith whose central belief was incorrect.

As for evolving doctrines, Christ will continue to reveal himself (and his Mother) to his Church.

AMDG

[american colleen]

No human could be expected to perfectly pass on the faith because every human makes mistakes. That is why I only rely on the Bible, which was written by God. I don't trust anyone else.

I understand what you are saying, however mere men decided which scripture would be contained in the Bible. Lots and lots of scriptures were circulating at the time (@400 AD) and therefore, men (what the Catholics would call the Church) had to codify, decide what was in and what was out, decide which were inspired and which were not and then choose between scriptures that were supposedly written by say, Paul, but there were several slightly different versions of the same letter around.

I'm hearing that you trusted those men who put together what we call the Bible, I think. Now, if you think that God inspired those men who codified the bible, then you must believe that God can inspire and lead to truth, right? Did He stop with the apostles and start again about 400 years later for a few years while the bible was codified and stop again after that? And then we are left on our own with the Bible (codified by men in the 400s) as our only source of Truth? And if the Bible is our only source of Truth, how did the JWs or the Mormons or the Calvinists or the Pentecostals or the Lutherans or the Anglicans or the Fundamemtalists or the Baptists arrive at sometimes very different understandings of God and his plan of salvation?

And I keep coming back to "I will be with you until the end" when I read your "No human could be expected to perfectly pass on the faith because every human makes mistakes." Was He kidding around?

[fishtank]

The Real Presence may or may not be true.

Where Rome went wrong is when they defined the Mass as a re-sacrifice of Calvary.

[american colleen]

You might want to check this short explanation of the Mass - you are misinformed when you say: "Where Rome went wrong is when they defined the Mass as a re-sacrifice of Calvary."

"There was some controversy, during the period of the Reformation, over the idea that the Mass is supposed to repeat the events it describes. This was probably due to the Catholic habit of speaking of the Mass as a sacrifice, and was quickly corrected by official Catholic teaching. Christ's death and resurrection were once-and-for-all, never to be repeated. The Mass does not repeat them, it re-presents them -- it makes them present and effective here and now amongst us. The Mass is a sacrifice insofar as it unites us with the one and only sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and in the sense that -- in a manner of speaking -- we offer to the Father all that Christ did on our behalf."

[Patty Bonds]

I am completely baffled by the comments I get like yours. Having been fervently protestant all my life I can honestly say I have never seen Christ so lifted up and honored in any protestant tradition as I have in the Catholic Church. What is tragic is when nominal Catholics are attracted to something that protestant groups offer (maybe a Bible study or livlier music or whatever) and rather than studying their own faith thoroughly, they run off to what attracts them and seems to fill their needs. They have itching ears and are not interested in whether or not they are abandoning the faith of the original Christians, they just feel better as a protestant. I would challenge you to read about the Catholic faith from Catholic authors. I would also challenge you to read the first few centuries of the Christion faith. I think having seen both sides, you will readily recognize the obvious Catholicity of the Early Church.

[drstevej]

***They have itching ears and are not interested in whether or not they are abandoning the faith of the original Christians, they just feel better as a protestant.***

A grotesque generalization, Patty.

I could introduce you to dozens of exceptions to this stereotype -- a number of whom are elders in churches where I have served.

[Patty Bonds]

I think this is the saddest post yet. You realize that what you are saying is that Jesus failed. He is the one the promised to lead His Church into all truth. Did he fail? The Church is His bride that He said he would preserve blameless for eternity. Did He fail?

While the Church Fathers may not have been inspired, they were those who learned the faith from the Apostles. The Christian faith was from the beginning oral Tradition. If we were to operate from your point of view, then four centuries of Christans would not have any chance to be saved, since they had no New Testament. And then an additional thousand years went by before any of them could afford one because the printing press was not invented yet. Only 10% were literate, so even if they had one they could not read it. Those who did read, read Latin, which is why the Bible was translated into Latin. And if reading the Bible is the only way to learn of God and become a Christian, there are millions of people of the face of this earth who will burn in hell simply because they cannot read. God NEVER intended Christianity to be the faith of only the rich and the literate. That is why from the beginning the use of images and statues asisted parents in teaching their children through visual aids about the stories of the Bible and the life of Christ. They were three dimentional words for the illiterate. Tradition and ritual allowed us to learn prayers and creeds so that without having a Bible in our hands we could pass on the faith and commit it to memory. Now those who have long been in possession of the scritures and the ability to read them turn in disgust at the Tradition that delivered to their ancestors the truth about Christ's love for us.

Where in the Bible does the Bible say it is the only authority for faith and practice? And where in the Bible does it say what books should be in the Bible?

The Bible never claims to be the sole rule of faith and practice. In fact, 2 Thes 2:15 tells us that we should hold fast to the Traditions the Apostles passed down whether they be written or oral. Is this verse not authoritative? Can you find a verse that says it is no longer in effect? No, we are still be be obedient to the Sacred Traditions we were left by the Apostles and that the Early Christians guarded as carefully as they guarded the scriptures.

Don't settle for a truncated faith. Investigate the history of the Christian faith, and then read your Bible again. If it doesn't read differently, you are afraid to see what is there in all it's glory.

[american colleen]

!!!

You do realize that my post was sarcastic! If I could write, I would have written what you wrote!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

• A former professor (Dr. John Walvoord) told us in seminary. "The difference between a debater and a theologian is: a theologian seeks truth while a debater seeks to win an argument." 61 posted on 07/12/2003 7:18 AM PDT by drstevej
• Walvoord was right, of course. ~~ 63 posted on 07/12/2003 8:16 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid

Oh, Hell's Bells and Bull's Bollocks -- NO!!

Walvoord was absolutely not right. The Debater seeks PRECISION, whereas the typical Arminian Pre-Mill Dispensationalist of Walvoord's ilk only creates CONFUSION.

You wanna talk about "Confusion"? How about the fact that Arminian Protestant Dispensationalists of Walvoord's ilk are largely reponsible for the "division" of Protestantism into our much-reviled "25,000" denominations?

In fact, even counting the ethno-lingustic "divisions" between Swiss Calvinists and Dutch Reformed and Scot Presbyterians, (and of course, Anglicans versus English Baptists), the Western Protestant Confession would be (despite Roman criticisms) very nearly as Fraternal as the Eastern Orthodox, were it not for Arminian Dispensationalists such as Walvoord.

I'm an Orthodox Scot Presbyterian, myself. But I'll gladly take Communion with a Swiss Calvinist or a Dutch Reformed without hesitation, or even (God help me) a London-Confession English Baptist... and they'll take Communion with me. Call me "Orthodox" -- that is, Western Protestant Orthodoxy.

But Walvoord?? For the Love of Christ, he has made Dispensationalism a TEST OF FELLOWSHIP amongst Protestants...

• Do you imagine for one second that the Chiliast Romans would ever make their Eschatology a TEST OF FELLOWSHIP in the Roman Confession?
• Or that the Chiliast Orthodox would ever make their Eschatology a TEST OF FELLOWSHIP in the Greek Confession?

But this is exactly what the Dispensational Protestants have done among the Orthodox Protestant Confession. Which rancorous division largely accounts for our "25,000 denominations", considering that Swiss Calvinists and Dutch Reformed and Scot Presbyterians (and yes, Old-School English Baptists) are willing to trade Pastors like baseball cards.... almost like we're not really much divided AT ALL, aside from Walvoord and his Dispie Brigade.

• I have said before: In order to take on Scott Hahn in formal Debate -- My opinion is that I'd need at least three weeks, and the help of some of the better Minds in Protestantism as "Prep Coaches".
• Of course, there's also Matatics: IMHO, in order to take on Gerry Matatics -- My opinion is that I'd need at least... three months.

But to take on WALVOORD?

• Good grief. His "literal" approach to Revelation is hopelessly flawed, even he is not true to a "literal" reading of Revelation (at all), Rome is NOT Babylon, the Pope is NOT the False Prophet, the Beast has ALREADY COME, most of Revelation was fulfilled in 66-70 AD, and if I had three days to prep, I'd spend most of the time drinking.

"Walvoord was right, of course" -- No, Patrick, he wasn't.

Debaters strive for Precision; Walvoord strives to sell a lot of books (many of which repeat the embarassingly-bad Prot arguments against the Papacy which we have encountered before).

Best, OP