Six Early Christian Controversies That Protestantism Can't Explain

Shameless Popery ^ | 150323 | Joe Heschmeyer

[Arthur McGowan]

In an article entitled Saint Patrick the Baptist?, Stephen R. Button tries to claim St. Patrick for Evangelical Protestantism... or at least disassociate him from Roman Catholicism. Button is hardly alone: you can find similar attempts by Don Boys and others, some of them dating back several decades.

The argument tends to work like this. From Patrick, we have (in Button's words) only the “84 short paragraphs that make up both his Confession and his 'Letter to Coroticus.'” Baptist authors then mine these texts for any doctrines that Patrick doesn't mention explicitly, and then claim that he must have held the Baptist view.

[BipolarBob]

No, you see, the Church declared them married for life at one point

Now this is The One True Church you're talking about, right? The one that doesn't make any mistakes. They've got that Petrine Authority going for them and keeps them from error but somehow . . . somehow they mistakenly married somebody accidentally and didn't mean to. I would have thought such an error free Church would ask a few questions before marrying somebody. Like are they already married. But I guess not.

[AppyPappy]

“they mistakenly married somebody accidentally”

No. The wedding they did, it never happened. It’s like the Priest says “Listen to me. I did not have marriage with that couple. Those allegations are false”.
It’s too bad funerals don’t work like this.

[metmom]

Good thing no Catholics spend their days posting anti-Protestant hit pieces...

Oh wait a minute......

[metmom]

Well, this is an improvement.

At least Catholics have now moved away from the claim that Jesus never told anyone to write anything down and leave us a book.

They’re getting there.

Maybe someday they’ll go as far as recognizing the importance of Scripture as te Holy Spirit, God breathed word of God as it is, instead of the writings of men.

Then they can move away from the tactic of the enemy who continually questions.... “Did God REALLY say.....?”

[Petrosius]

What you said was that Jesus left us the Bible. The plain meaning of this would be that when he Ascended he left behind a completed Bible. If you meant that after he ascended that he used the instrumentality of the Apostles to give us the Bible, fine. But then you would have to accept the action of the church to authenticate what is and is not a part of the Bible. The apostolic authorship of some of the books of the New Testament was disputed in the early church. Hebrews does not even indicate that it was written by an apostle. There were other books that did claim the authorship of an apostle that were not included in the Bible. Even Luther disputed the inclusion of some of the New Testament books.

The Bible and the visible Church go together. Nor does God inspiring the writing of the Bible contradict him also establishing a visible church. Indeed you cannot have one without the other.

You are right that Jesus did not leave behind a denomination. The division of Christianity between denominations would be the work of the Reformers. What our Lord did establish was one visible church lead by the apostles and their successors.

[af_vet_1981]

Essentially assumes what you are trying to prove, as well as assuming facts not in evidence.

Explanation: Your whole case rests on Catholicism being a corruption of authentic, original Christianity. Our whole case rests on it being an authentic development of authentic, original Christianity. Baldly asserting one position or another is not actually proving anything.

Yes, this is the issue plainly addressed.

[Jim Noble]

Read Mark 9:38-41 to know what the Boss thought about this divisive crap. And on Easter!

[Petrosius]

Maybe someday they’ll go as far as recognizing the importance of Scripture as te Holy Spirit, God breathed word of God as it is, instead of the writings of men.

Perhaps you should read the Catechism of the Catholic Church to understand what Catholics truly believe:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

Catholics accept Sacred Scripture as the Word of God. What we do not accept is Protestant interpretations of Scripture. Big difference.

[Kandy Atz]

John 4:21-26 (NLT)

21 Jesus replied, “Believe me, dear woman, the time is coming when it will no longer matter whether you worship the Father on this mountain or in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans know very little about the one you worship, while we Jews know all about him, for salvation comes through the Jews. 23 But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. 24 For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” 25 The woman said, “I know the Messiah is coming—the one who is called Christ. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26 Then Jesus told her, “I AM the Messiah!”

The woman from Sychar was a hated Samaritan living with her 6th man after 5 husbands. At first, she attempted a theological debate with Jesus. Then something wonderful happened - she listened to his Words. She was EXPECTING the Messiah and confessed it. It did not happen often, but Jesus confirmed his identity to this sinful Samaritan woman. Like Peter's confession, flesh and blood did not reveal this to her, but it was revelation from the Father. She evangelized her whole village by her testimony of Jesus! And Jesus stayed there and taught for two whole days. God will always water thirsty ground.

There is another staggering truth in this passage. God is Spirit, those who worship Him MUST worship in spirit and in truth. I challenge you to find that in your average church of any denominational flavor these days. They have a whole lot of things to amuse the senses, but very little Truth, and even less spiritual worship.

I am with Webber in one area, there can be spiritual unity in the Body, even if not doctrinal. I have met and worshiped with Spirit-filled Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, and Believers from many denominations at various events - I know they are out there. That should be the goal. Find those things IN CHRIST, that we all embrace and believe. And set aside all the man-made fluff and stuff. Follow Paul's advice to seek Christ as laid out in the books written specifically to the Body of Christ in the current dispensation of Grace. This was the Truth that Jesus promised would come through the Holy Spirit, who revealed the Mystery, hidden in God before the foundation of the world. Paul taught this revelation the latter years of his ministry to the Gentiles, and recorded it for us in his prison letters.

Colossians 2:4-10 (KJV)

4 And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words. 5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. 6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: 7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Colossians 3:1-4 (KJV)

1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Excellent advice for all Believers.

[BipolarBob]

Catholics accept Sacred Scripture as the Word of God.

Sounds like a ringing endorsement for Sola Scriptura. But no, alas, no.

[Elsie]

Six Early Christian Controversies That Protestantism Can't Explain

Uh...

Why should we?

[af_vet_1981]

Really, I have MANY good Catholic friends.

This reminds me of another common shield people put up before they do something wrong.

If we concentrate on our unity, I never bring this stuff up. But every so often on here SOMEBODY wants to stir the pot. As I have said, I'm done here.

Apparently not ...

I am too old to go on the thousand FlameWar responses that this Shameless Troll will evoke.

calling a brother a name like that reminds me of a certain scripture;

And instead of wasting your time deciding brother from brother...why don't YOU go out and take the effort used to divide us and WITNESS ABOUT JESUS CHRIST'S FORGIVENESS AND GRACE TO SOME LOST PEOPLE.

Which is quite contrary to what you have written here;

Because at the Great Debriefing, My Lord is going to ask me not how many people I got to walk away from Him by acting like petty bickering pagans, but rather how many of my fellows I showed Christ's love to and convinced them, by my reflecting the light and grace of God's free gift, to accept him.

It is a Judgement, not a Great Debriefing.

You sad troll.

Public sin cries out for public repentance.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matthew, Catholic chapters five and twenty five,
Protestant verses twenty two, and thirty one to forty six, respectively,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[BipolarBob]

I am with Webber in one area, there can be spiritual unity in the Body, even if not doctrinal.

The problem is twofold. #1 we are supposed to meet spiritual error head-on. Not dismiss it. #2 Eventually to achieve any reconciliation there will have to be compromises. The problem with Catholicism it is so all encompassing that the Church becomes their god. Of course there are sincere Catholics who do good. The same for most denominations. But God has a path not devised by man. The Law is still in effect. We would not know sin if not for the Law. The Law cannot save (that is not its purpose). Jesus mournfully questioned whether there will be any faithful left when He returns. Why? Because of apostasy and compromise.

[ravenwolf]

Luke 10:16 cannot be clearer:

---

Does it disqualify Matthew 18:20?

[ravenwolf]

Jesus left us the Bible (His Word) not a denomination.

---

True.

[Petrosius]

Sounds like a ringing endorsement for Sola Scriptura. But no, alas, no.

And why would the acceptance of Sacred Scripture as the Word of God require belief in sola scriptura? Between Scripture and the Church it is not either/or but both/and. Indeed Scripture itself requires belief in the existence and teaching authority of a visible church.

[ravenwolf]

In the LCMS, each church is independent. Every head pastor of a church is a bishop (overseer). All bishops are equal and have no authority over other bishops.

---

That is also true of the Church of Christ although I prefer a non denomination myself.

[ravenwolf]

Given that the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t claim Luke to have been a Pope, this passage would seem to refer to the teaching of the original Apostles.

---

But actually about the only teachings we have from the original apostles are the epistles of Peter and John plus revelation and the gospels of Mathew, Mark and John.

And I believe any thing which teaches contrary to these are dubious.

[ravenwolf]

Indeed Scripture itself requires belief in the existence and teaching authority of a visible church.

---

That could be but if the teachings of the Church are contrary to the written word, what then? shall we just say that Jesus did not know what he was talking about?

[Petrosius]

That could be but if the teachings of the Church are contrary to the written word, what then? shall we just say that Jesus did not know what he was talking about?

A non-issue since the teachings of the Church are not contrary to the written word. Do not confuse Protestant interpretations of Scripture with Scripture itself. The many debates here on FR about the meaning of individual passages illustrates that our differences are over interpretation, not over whether or not Catholics accept the written word of God.