Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.
When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they ain’t. What I’m calling “Protestantism” does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
Good! Are you starting to see the light? To claim the Catholic Church is the Word of God IS heresy.
“You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the Good Shepherd in the Gospel of John; they could hear it only muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thas miomxed in with a lot of other things. “When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn’t derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts.
“For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, ‘Let’s get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.’ I would say, ‘Thank you for nothing! We knew it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the canon.” Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, Ph.D.
Here is another reference to assess the "unbroken" line of Popes: 1 Timothy 1:
3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 4 nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which cause disputes rather than godly edification which is in faith.
Matthew 7:
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Concur. Believers focus on faith through Christ.
In regards to Church History, Catholicism had it’s place up until around Gregory circa 600AD, but too many birds entered their arena. His Church continues and those seeking to usurp His authority with theirs will reap little at the bema seat.
Human good and human evil are impotent in the face of Christ. Works through faith in Christ are far more valuable with eternal consequence.
“Actually, the translations are extremely good.”
Did I say they weren’t? Is a good translation less dependent on “what other believe” than a bad? Not really.
“There are also excellent commentaries available to discuss the various meanings possible where the Greek or Hebrew allow it.”
Again, doesn’t “what others believe” enter in commentaries? Seriously, did you even think about what you’re posting here?
“My study is not based on what others tell me to believe.”
I’m beginning to think that Protestants here at FR are just stupid. Seriously, how can somebody just get done talking about using commentaries and translations and a website and then say, “My study is not based on what others tell me to believe.”
“That is the Roman Catholic approach - don’t read for yourselves, just trust ‘tradition’.”
Buddy, again, you’re not reading for yourself if you’re using commentaries and translations and websites. Seriously, how can you not see that point when it is so obvious?
“Reading it into John 6 is simply bad reading. It takes it out of context. The CONTEXT comes immediately after the feeding of the 5000, and years before the Last Supper. Hmmmm...context. It is amazing how much easier it is to understand the scriptures when you accept the context, instead of pretending it doesn’t exist so you can read human theology into the text.”
No, the context makes it clear that Jesus was saying exactly what He meant and meant exactly what He said – the Eucharist.
“This is not a “Greek vs English” issue. Nor does using Latin as your authoritative version hellp.”
It wouldn’t hurt any either. I doubt you even understand the status or role of the Vulgate judging by what you written so far.
“I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6 UNLESS they were told to by people with an agenda.”
The one “reading into” something is you. When you say “I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6” you’re assuming from the start a couple of things:
1) That your limited experience means something
2) That someone must “read into” John 6 to see the Eucharist.
Scott Hahn, for instance, admits he became convinced that John 6 was about the Eucharist when he was still very much a Protestant. He’s not the only one either. The reading into the text seems to be done by you. You apparently have decided you don’t ever want to see Catholic doctrines in scripture and so you don’t. By your own standards you’re no different than the people you are attacking.
“It simply isn’t something a person reading on their own would do.”
Yes it is – as I mentioned about Scott Hahn. Now, you’ll probably discount Scott Hahn as so many anti-Catholics do. The point still stands, however. He came to believe that John 6 was about Jesus giving His flesh to eat BEFORE he came to believe in the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.
“And yes, there is ample evidence that Jesus and the Apostles accepted the Jewish canon for the Old Testament - as Jerome understood. The comments of Jesus, recorded in scripture, sets it out: …Those are the 3 sections used by the Jews as the Old Testament, as attested to by Josephus:”
Hilarious. You’re relying on Josephus to define the canon for you. This coming from you after saying you don’t rely on “what others believe”. Again, do you actually think about what you’re posting here?
And, quite frankly, your attempt to prove the “Jewish canon” this way just doesn’t work. The simple fact is Josephus is not a source to be relied on in that way.
“I have no objection to someone reading the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not refer to it as scripture.”
How do you know? The New Testament doesn’t contain all Christ said or did and Christ didn’t issue a table of contents. I’ve encountered anti-Catholics dumb enough to say the deuterocanonicals are not scripture because Jesus never cited them. They forget – actually they’re just too ignorant to know – that Jesus also never cited Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Solomon.
“As for the New Testament, it was in common acceptance with minor variations very early on.”
Minor variations? Gee, and who solved that problem? Do tell.
“You will notice they were in common acceptance as scripture centuries before Augustine and Jerome argued about the canon, and some 1400 years before the Council of Trent.”
And you will notice that St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and the Council of Trent were all Catholic. This issue was resolved by Catholics.
“This is why I say were are not trying to be different than the Catholic Church.”
Yeah, that’s really working out well: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3089343/posts?page=23
“Our reasons for accepting the Old Testament as used by the Jews is that Jesus and the Apostles accepted it as such.”
You have yet to even come close to proving that Jews had a closed canon which didn’t include the deuterocanonicals.
“God’s Word is amazing..”
I think it is more amazing than you seem to realize. That is ultimately the saddest part of the Protestant rejection of the Bible’s proper role in the faith life of Christians. Protestants have no idea of what they’re missing in the Word they so often praise. Recently I was talking to a young couple – a Protestant couple. The husband is coming into the Catholic Church. He’s been studying and reading, learning everything he can about the faith. His wife, however, who – at least as of a few weeks ago – had no desire to come into the Catholic Church was amazed as how much she was learning in Catholic Bible classes. She said she had never learned so much about the Bible as a Baptist.
“And please notice I do not cite Luther as an authority, or Calvin, or any other Reformers. Take off the chains of human tradition, and simply read the Word of God.”
You cited Josephus. Look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary. You need to.
Now that's funny...I don't care who ya are...
I’ve heard that story sooooo many times. So much for long canned responses.
“Is a good translation less dependent on “what other believe” than a bad? Not really.”
Wrong. Translations can be objectively looked at. A translator doesn’t tell you what to believe, but what the text means. That is why we can translate languages...kind of like Jerome did in producing the infallible Vulgate.
“Seriously, did you even think about what you’re posting here?”
Yes. That is why I use reason, while you use insults. Again, a commentary discusses the meanings of words. It does not tell you what to believe, but what words mean, how they were used in other places, etc. Perhaps you could TRY doing some Bible study some time.
“Buddy, again, you’re not reading for yourself if you’re using commentaries and translations and websites. Seriously, how can you not see that point when it is so obvious?”
Really? Do I interpret it based on a catechism? Do I take any commentary at face value, or rely totally on one translation? No. But yes, I DO interpret scripture without asking a priest (who in theory should be using a Latin translation, or an English translation of the Latin translation). That is why I discuss passages, while Catholics refuse to examine them.
“Scott Hahn, for instance, admits he became convinced that John 6 was about the Eucharist when he was still very much a Protestant.”
I’ll call him a liar to his face if I ever see him. Or an idiot. There is no hint of the Lord’s Supper in a passage taking place BEFORE the Lord’s Supper - by years. Only someone fixating on ‘bread’, without reading about the feeding of the 5000 immediately prior could be that stupid. I’d bet on Scott Hahn simply being a liar.
“Hilarious. You’re relying on Josephus to define the canon for you.”
No. I’ve pointed out that Jesus defined the canon as the Law & Prophets and Poets. Those are the 3 sections the Jews accepted, and are NOT the Apocrypha. The Apostles also defined the canon, not as a list of books, but as a list of what SECTIONS were scripture. Thus they rejected those Jews who claimed only the Law was Scripture, or the Pentateuch.
Josephus listed specific books in those categories, but NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was included in the Law and Prophets.
“Minor variations? Gee, and who solved that problem? Do tell.”
Not the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t try to give an authoritative list until the 1500s. Yet the NT canon was known and accepted for 1300-1400 years before the Catholic Church decided to deal with it. And the Old Testament canon was known by Jesus and the Apostles...
“You have yet to even come close to proving that Jews had a closed canon which didn’t include the deuterocanonicals.”
Hmmm...seems Jesus Christ isn’t authoritative enough for you. I gave you multiple scriptures, and you...just deny.
“You cited Josephus. Look up “hypocrite” in the dictionary. You need to.”
No. I cited Jesus and the Apostles. Josephus merely listed the books in the categories that JESUS called scripture. And NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was part of the “Law and Prophets”.
Let me use small words to help you out. I do not use the New Testament OR Old Testament based on Josephus. I use them because of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, who said what was in the Old Testament and who wrote the New Testament.
I use them by the authority of Jesus Christ. Josephus DOES tell us about the practice of the Jews, and that they held to what Jesus said - the Law & The Prophets & the Poets. Josephus agrees with what Jerome believed, although modern Catholics reject the judgment of Jerome. And why do they reject Jerome? Because they are DEFINING Catholicism to contrast with Protestants.
What the Reformers said about the Canon was in agreement with Jerome, and even Trent refused to contradict Jerome - but it requires some study to find that little fact out.
The Catholic Church has NEVER said the Apocrypha was good for doctrine. How they managed to claim it is scripture when they don’t know if it is good for doctrine or not defies reason, since “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
But then, someone who focuses on the Word of God will come into conflict with the Word of Man.
That is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years - because the more one studies the Word of God, the less Catholic one will become. Assuming, of course, it is a sincere study, and not the parsing of apologists.
Protestants do not define ourselves by ‘the opposite of Catholic”. We define ourselves by what Scripture says, and that makes it LOOK like we are the opposite of Catholics. If Catholics honored the Word of God, there would be no priests, Purgatory, Indulgences, or a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.
“For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”
The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not the Pope.
Sarah Palin: Billy Graham Transformed my Life
Dominic Gover - November 08, 2013 1:52 PM GMT
"Palin, a former republican governor of Alaska who spoke at the dinner, told USA Today: "His message transformed my mum's life. "In the 70s, she would tune into the Billy Graham crusades, televised. My mom was raised Catholic, and she ... was yearning for something more.
"His invitation for people to know that they could have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - my mom understood that from the way that he could articulate it. She became a Christian, led the rest of the family to Christ, and that I believe transformed our family."
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/520703/20131108/billy-graham-last-sermon-hope-american-sarah.htm
““ Translations can be objectively looked at.”
Not entirely. Look at the difference between how the Douay-Rheims and the KJV translate 2 Corinthians 2:10 and how ANY modern Bible does it. Choices were made. There’s no reason to believe they were entirely “objective”. You’ve never worked as a translator have you?
“A translator doesn’t tell you what to believe, but what the text means.”
The translator influences your understanding by the choices he makes. Anyone who has ever studied any foreign language knows this is true.
“That is why we can translate languages...kind of like Jerome did in producing the infallible Vulgate.”
Who here claims it is infallible?
“Yes. That is why I use reason, while you use insults. Again, a commentary discusses the meanings of words. It does not tell you what to believe, but what words mean, how they were used in other places, etc. Perhaps you could TRY doing some Bible study some time.”
Commentaries are not necessarily objective. Protestant commentaries certainly not since they so often leave out so much material.
“Really? Do I interpret it based on a catechism?”
Yes – the catechism of Mr. Rogers. When you make an magisterial pronouncement that John 6 has nothing to do with the Eucharist how are you any different than any catechism or any creed? This obvious fact will, naturally, be completely lost on you.
“Do I take any commentary at face value, or rely totally on one translation?”
Oh, so you rely on multiple opinions. And?
“No. But yes, I DO interpret scripture without asking a priest (who in theory should be using a Latin translation, or an English translation of the Latin translation).”
Your theory is wrong. I really wish anti-Catholics had a clue when they made comments about anything Catholic. Also, I TOO interpret the Bible and I don’t think I have ever asked a priest what a verse meant. I don’t have to. No Catholic does. What we do have to do is keep in mind Church teaching on scripture. Again, really wish anti-Catholics had a clue when they made comments about anything Catholic.
“That is why I discuss passages, while Catholics refuse to examine them.”
I don’t think that’s what you do and I don’t think that’s what Catholics do. I think you think you discuss passages when in reality all you do is insist your “magisterial pronouncement” is correct while ignoring what Catholics say in response.
“I’ll call him a liar to his face if I ever see him. Or an idiot.”
And there you go. I point out what Scott Hahn has said – and he isn’t the only one – and you must call him a liar or idiot because it destroys your previous claim. Great.
“There is no hint of the Lord’s Supper in a passage taking place BEFORE the Lord’s Supper - by years.”
Yes, there is. And what has time got to do with God? Christ is telling us what He would later give us. It doesn’t matter if it came two years later.
“Only someone fixating on ‘bread’, without reading about the feeding of the 5000 immediately prior could be that stupid. I’d bet on Scott Hahn simply being a liar.”
No. I see the feeding of the 5,000 and it doesn’t stop John 6 from being about the Eucharist. And there’s no fixation on bread needed. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that the bread is important.
“No. I’ve pointed out that Jesus defined the canon as the Law & Prophets and Poets.”
No. Jesus did not define the canon. His statement in no way defined what books belong in the Bible.
“Those are the 3 sections the Jews accepted, and are NOT the Apocrypha.”
So say you. That is not necessarily the conclusion of others. Also, I am not talking about any Apocrypha. I am talking about the Deuterocanonicals which are not Apocrypha.
“The Apostles also defined the canon, not as a list of books, but as a list of what SECTIONS were scripture.”
Again, no.
“Josephus listed specific books in those categories, but NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was included in the Law and Prophets.”
I’m not talking about the Apocrypha.
“Not the Roman Catholic Church, which didn’t try to give an authoritative list until the 1500s.”
False. There were authoritative lists from the Catholic Church already in the 4th century. What you are confusing is authoritative with infallibly defined. The two are not the same. Again, I wish anti-Catholics actually knew about the Catholic faith before they attacked it.
“Yet the NT canon was known and accepted for 1300-1400 years before the Catholic Church decided to deal with it.”
Again, false.
“And the Old Testament canon was known by Jesus and the Apostles...”
Prove it. Show which books they said were canonical. Cite them by name and verses.
“Hmmm...seems Jesus Christ isn’t authoritative enough for you.”
Sure He is. Cite the exact verse where He gives us a complete table of contents. When you fail to do so – and you will – what will that tell us about the truthfulness of your comment there?
“I gave you multiple scriptures, and you...just deny.”
Because your merely putting your spin on those verses – and relying on Josephus when you say you don’t rely on “what others believe”.
“No. I cited Jesus and the Apostles. Josephus merely listed the books in the categories that JESUS called scripture.”
Actually no. You’re assuming – without any evidence – that Josephus and Jesus believed in the same things in the same way. That’s just an assumption.
“And NO ONE claims the Apocrypha was part of the “Law and Prophets”.”
No one defined “the Apocrypha” and I am not talking about the “Apocrypha” anyway.
“Let me use small words to help you out. I do not use the New Testament OR Old Testament based on Josephus. I use them because of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, who said what was in the Old Testament and who wrote the New Testament.”
No one in scripture – not even Jesus – defined the Old Testament. No one.
“I use them by the authority of Jesus Christ. Josephus DOES tell us about the practice of the Jews, and that they held to what Jesus said - the Law & The Prophets & the Poets.”
So you say – but you have yet to prove that these later Jews – all of whom rejected Christ – believed in things the same way in every detail as Christ did regarding the canon. And on that you will fail.
“Josephus agrees with what Jerome believed, although modern Catholics reject the judgment of Jerome.”
Nope. We just realize – unlike Protestant anti-Catholics – that Jerome did more by his later actions than by his early words. You might want to read this:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html
“And why do they reject Jerome? Because they are DEFINING Catholicism to contrast with Protestants.”
No, and we don’t reject Jerome. Again, read that article.
“The Catholic Church has NEVER said the Apocrypha was good for doctrine. How they managed to claim it is scripture when they don’t know if it is good for doctrine or not defies reason, since “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.””
The Deuterocanonicals are not Apocrypha.
“But then, someone who focuses on the Word of God will come into conflict with the Word of Man.”
Maybe you should get your focus on the Word of God then. Try.
“That is why the Catholic Church opposed vernacular translations for hundreds of years - because the more one studies the Word of God, the less Catholic one will become.”
Comments like that just make the poster of them look pathetic. The Church did not oppose vernacular translations.
“Assuming, of course, it is a sincere study, and not the parsing of apologists.”
Oh, and of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be relying on “the parsing of apologists.”
“Protestants do not define ourselves by ‘the opposite of Catholic”.”
Look at that other thread I linked to. You apparently don’t speak for all Protestants.
“We define ourselves by what Scripture says, and that makes it LOOK like we are the opposite of Catholics.”
Actually no. You define yourselves by your Protestant doctrines.
“If Catholics honored the Word of God, there would be no priests, Purgatory, Indulgences, or a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus in contradiction to the teaching of Scripture.”
Actually priests, purgatory, indulgences, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are all perfectly scriptural. Protestant theology, however, can’t allow them. Thus, one by one, they were ditched. This is why it took Martin Luther until 1529 for him to get rid of Purgatory from his beliefs. He was making it up as he went along.
“The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ, not the Pope.”
No, the pope is the vicar of Christ, but he is guided and protected by the Holy Spirit as is the Church.
And?
Sarah Palin’s mother gave up the Eucharist. That tells me they never were devout Catholics to start with.
“Sarah Palin: Billy Graham Transformed my Life”
Here’s some comments for Sarah Palin on Billy Graham and what he thought of Pope JP2 and Catholicism in general.
“Pope John Paul II was the most influential voice for morality and peace in the world in the last 100 years”
~ Billy Graham speaking on the death of JP2
1967: Graham on his graduation speech from Catholic Abbey he stated: “Finally, the way of salvation has not changed. I know how the ending of the book will be. The Gospel that built this school Catholic] and the Gospel that brings me here tonight is still the way to salvation” (”Belmont Abbey Confers Honorary Degree,” Paul Smith, Gazette staff reporter, The Gastonia Gazette, Gastonia, North Carolina, Nov. 22, 1967).
1972: Graham received the Catholic International Franciscan Award for “his contribution to true ecumenism” and “his sincere and authentic ecumenism” (4/22/72 Minneapolis Star). In acknowledging the award, Graham said, “While I am not worthy to touch the shoe laces of St. Francis, yet this same Christ that called Francis in the 13th century also called me to be one of his servants in the 20th century” (2/86 The Gospel Standard).
1973: Graham recommended Roman Catholic literature in the ecumenical Key ‘73 meetings held across North America; he especially recommended a biography of the Pope John XXIII containing hundreds of pages of devotion to Mary and the Saints, worship of the host (wafer) at the Mass, and his [the Pope’s] trust in the sacraments as the means of salvation. Graham advertised this book as “a classic in devotion” (2/86 The Gospel Standard; Key ‘73: Congregational Resource Book).
1979: “The visit of Pope John Paul II to the United States is an event of great significance not only for Roman Catholics, but for all Americans as well as the world. In the short time he has been the Pope, John Paul II has become the moral leader of the world. My prayers and the prayers of countless other Protestants will be with him as he makes his journey” (Billy Graham, 9/27/79 Religious New Service dispatch; quoted in New Neutralism II, p. 40).
1979: Billy Graham appeared on the Phil Donahue show on 10/11/79, and in discussing Pope John Paul II’s visit to the U.S.A., said: “I think the American people are looking for a leader, a moral and spiritual leader that believes something. And the Pope does. … Thank God, I’ve got somebody to quote now with some real authority.”
1980: “Since his election, Pope John Paul II has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of this century … The Pope came [to America] as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist. … The Pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age-by pointing people to Christ” (Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980). [In this same article Graham was quoted as saying, “Recently I learned the word ‘Pontiff’ comes from the Latin words which originally meant ‘bridge builder.’ … Pope John Paul II [is] indeed a bridge builder, and that is something our divided world desperately needs.” Historically, “pontiff” does not mean bridge- builder, but refers to the papal title of Pontifex Maximus, which was handed down to the early popes from the high priests of ancient heathen religion in the Roman Empire; “Pontiff” in Italian and Latin means “bridge,” and clearly points to the Pope’s blasphemous claim that he himself is that bridge between man and God.] (Billy Graham, The Saturday Evening Post, Jan.-Feb. 1980).
“The Deuterocanonicals are not Apocrypha.”
When was the term “Deuterocanonical” invented?
When was “transubstantiation” invented?
Heck, when was “Purgatory” invented?
Was the Apostle Paul lying when he said, “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them.”?
If someone believes the Word of God is precious, let them follow it. Let them read, and study, and follow.
The Catholic Church spent hundreds of years hiding the Word of God and suppressing vernacular translations meant for commoners. It was a shameful activity. But those who try to follow Scripture WILL seem anti-Catholic, for the same reason those who try to follow the US Constitution will seem “anti-Democrat” - because the Word of God will compel them to reject the teachings which are obviously and blatantly in conflict with it.
There are no Christian priests in the New Testament. There is no Purgatory. There is no Pope, and no Apostle set above the other Apostles. Peter was not the leader of the Council in Acts 15, and Paul felt free to rebuke him (as noted in Galatians 2).
Jesus COULD have given Peter authority as Vicar, yet did not. When Peter wrote of how to be on guard against heresy, he placed scripture in that role, not himself. (2 Peter 1, 2)
Protestants define ourselves by what the Scripture says. It is not possible to take scripture seriously and also believe in indulgences, or Purgatory, or priests offering Jesus in a perpetual sacrifice. We do not reject those because they are Catholic, but because they are contrary to scripture - and “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
I cannot make you believe it, and God will not make you believe it - in this life, at least. But anyone treating the Word of God the way Democrats treat the US Constitution deserves an ample reward...which WILL come.
AMEN!!!
Preach it, brother.
I constantly here about how Protestants are supposed to be so fixated on attacking Catholicism and yet I have rarely heard even mention of Catholicism from the pulpit.
We have more important issues to deal with, and it does revolve around what God says through the Bible about how we should live and developing the character of Christ in our lives.
I would be thrilled and delighted if every Catholic in this nation fully practiced their faith. Imagine how much better off we ( Catholics and non-Catholics) would be. There would be more prosperity, less crime, fewer in prison, more intact families, less addiction, and a more wholesome culture in the media and schools.
I testify that in any Protestant church I have attended Catholics are never mentioned. Protestants who are fully practicing their faith are focused on Christ, doing His will, and the bible.
“When was the term “Deuterocanonical” invented? When was “transubstantiation” invented? Heck, when was “Purgatory” invented?”
Long after God created those things. Much like we knew nothing about the Trinity - and had no term for it even in Jesus’ day when He reveled it.
Again, do you ever think about the things you post before you post them?
“The Catholic Church spent hundreds of years hiding the Word of God and suppressing vernacular translations meant for commoners.”
Nope.
“There are no Christian priests in the New Testament. There is no Purgatory. There is no Pope, and no Apostle set above the other Apostles.”
Sure there is an all the ancient Churches agreed that there were priests, purgatory (final theosis) and a pope in the Bible. Only the Johnny-come-lately Protestants believe otherwise.
“But those who try to follow Scripture WILL seem anti-Catholic, for the same reason those who try to follow the US Constitution will seem “anti-Democrat” - because the Word of God will compel them to reject the teachings which are obviously and blatantly in conflict with it.”
Your premise is wrong. Following scripture means being Catholic. Christ did not establish your sect. He did establish the Catholic Church.
“I testify that in any Protestant church I have attended Catholics are never mentioned.”
That was never my point. It’s a shame so many Protestants have problems reading and thinking.
“Protestants who are fully practicing their faith are focused on Christ, doing His will, and the bible.”
Only in a Protestant way, not in an orthodox way. That’s at least something, but it isn’t what Christ wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.