Toward understanding the Protestant heresy

[Joe]

The Protestant heresy, at least the way I have observed it in SM and
probably Brock, is based on a fallacy of association. Here is the way
I see it:

The Holy Spirit, to the individual believer, testifies of the absolute
truth of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is why
the Scripture says that it is only in the Holy Spirit that anyone can
say, "Jesus is Lord," and also, that it is the Holy Spirit in us that
cries out, "Abba! Father!" That is God giving testimony of Himself,
and it is this that makes a person a Christian. I do not think I am
overstepping my bounds when I say that Brock, SM, and myself are all
in agreement, that God is our Father, and that Jesus is Lord.

Here is a series of related propositions that seem to delineate a
journey of faith, for some.

1. Jesus Christ is Lord.

This proposition, and this proposition alone, is attested directly to
the individual believer by the Holy Spirit.

2. The Gospel is true.

This follows directly from 1.

3. The Scriptures contain the Gospel in written form.

4. Therefore the Bible is the sole rule of Faith.

This line of reasoning would make one a Protestant. But consider an
alternative line of reasoning:

3.a. The Apostles and the Apostles' successors are the source of the
Gospel, after Christ.

4.a. Therefore, their teaching is the sole rule of Faith.

This line of reasoning would make one a Catholic.

Now in point of fact, in the infant Church, there were no written
Gospels, there was only the Apostles' teaching, and in point of fact,
the whole Church looked to them as the authority in all matters
touching Faith. The Church had the OId Testament Scriptures, and the
Church wrote the New Testament Scriptures, under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit. In the Gospels, Jesus talks about establishing His
Church, and refers to His Church as the authority to whom all disputes
would be referred. (Matthew 18:17) The Book of Acts describes an
early Church who respected Christ's words, and revered the Apostles as
the source of the teaching they had received. (Acts 2:42) For a
thousand years, there was unity in Christ's Church. After that, Satan
was let loose to deceive the nations. (Revelation 20:1-3) But even
after the first thousand years, there was no source of the teaching of
Christ apart from the successors of the Apostles. That is why God's
Church is called Apostolic. No one before Luther ever dared to
propose the Bible as a rule of Faith by which private individuals
could pass judgment on Councils. Such a thing is, in reality, utterly
destructive of the virtue of Faith. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation
of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation
consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the
teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the
dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and
delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than
in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not
faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.
John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which
was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst
Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is
exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who
expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their
people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations",
Faith and Private Judgment). And in proof he advances the instability
of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro
and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they
would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if
unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish". Yet
upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is
held together to this day.

[e_space]

yep ... dont question what you are being told, just buy it hook, line
and sinker ... what a great path to truth! like i said, i have a
beautiful waterfront property in florida ... interested?

[e_space]

btw, im sorta tired of the topic of the month, protestant heresy ...
do you mind if we switch to catholic heresy for a while?

On Feb 23, 12:45 am, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Joe]

If you have anything on topic to say --- ever, for a change --- this
is a discussion forum, after all. You're free to discuss what you'd
like to discuss. But I don't think you've got any factual information
to share about what you claim to want to talk about, here. Just my
prediction --- go ahead and prove me wrong, if you think you can!

[e_space]

i said it son ... i dont think its a good idea to accept what you have
been told on face value ... i guess you have a hard time comprehending
my comments, so i will try to make them a bit simpler to understand
from now on, if thats possible ;-^)

[Joe]

On Feb 23, 7:01 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i said it son ... i dont think its a good idea to accept what you have
> been told on face value ...

Wouldn't that depend, to some degree, on the trustworthiness of the
source?

>i guess you have a hard time comprehending
> my comments, so i will try to make them a bit simpler to understand
> from now on, if thats possible  ;-^)
>

I have a hard time wading through your bullshit to get to your
thoughts on the topics, but I am getting better at it.

[e_space]

i question everything ... you can do as you will

ummm ... thats reflective bullshit, but i dont blame you if you dont
recognize your own odor ;-^)

[Joe]

On Feb 24, 2:35 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> i question everything ... you can do as you will
>

My main complaint about you is that you do not actually present
questions, very often. For example, what happened to the topic of
this thread? Did you only mean to derail it, because it seems, from
observation, that that's all you've really done.

> ummm ... thats reflective bullshit, but i dont blame you if you dont
> recognize your own odor  ;-^)
>

Don't blame your words on me. Own your own writing, at least. You
choose to type what you type.

[e_space]

why dont you reflect on my commentary about catholic heresy? the very
fact that you think catholicism is perfect, and that anything that
doesnt agree with it is heresy, is not considered a worthy topic from
my viewpoint ... especially since you are not talking about factual
truth, but belief ... using your definition of heresy, those who
disagree with you could just as rightly accuse you of heresy ... and
there ya have it!

im not blaming anything on anybody sonny ... if you think i am, please
point it out ... the fact that your commentary is often quite stinky,
and i reflect on it, does not indicate that what i say is
bullshit ...

btw, wasnt it you who made a comment about the use of language here?
it seems to me that you are the one who is using the most
expletives ... please start practicing what you preach mr prophet ...
thanks in advance ;-^)

[Joe]

On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why dont you reflect on my commentary about catholic heresy?

Lack of any commentary, mostly.

Like I said, if you EVER have ANYTHING on-topic to say, I will be very
surprised. Still waiting for that.

[e_space]

sorry .. cant help you with your lack of ability to comprehend how my
comments are on topic ... you sure dont get tired of beating that old
drum do you?

[Joe]

Nothing on topic here. move along!

[e_space]

go ahead and move if you like ... im okay here ... thanks for the
suggestion though ;-^)

btw, just in case you missed it, if i wasnt commenting on your
pathetically titled topic, there would only be one post in this
thread ... yours ... if you want to talk to yourself, go ahead ;-^)

[Joe]

I'd rather see no replies than your inane, off-topic ones. Just my
cup of tea, trust you get the gist?

[e_space]

yeah, i get your gas

> ...
>
> read more »

[Joe]

get out of my ass and you won't have my gas!!! lol

> ...
>
> read more »

[e_space]

the gas you were emitting when you posted this thread had nothing to
do with me ... and because of its nasty gastric nature, you have not
received one comment from those you hoped to get a response from ...
am i somehow to blame for that?

> ...
>
> read more »

[Chris]

On Feb 23, 12:45 am, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Protestant heresy, at least the way I have observed it in SM and
> probably Brock, is based on a fallacy of association.  Here is the way
> I see it:
>
> The Holy Spirit, to the individual believer, testifies of the absolute
> truth of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  That is why
> the Scripture says that it is only in the Holy Spirit that anyone can
> say, "Jesus is Lord," and also, that it is the Holy Spirit in us that
> cries out, "Abba! Father!"  That is God giving testimony of Himself,
> and it is this that makes a person a Christian.  I do not think I am
> overstepping my bounds when I say that Brock, SM, and myself are all
> in agreement, that God is our Father, and that Jesus is Lord.

L
Well I'm not so sure. If a person is truly regenerate or born again,
does that necessitate an immediate understanding of doctrinal issue?
If a person has repented before God and likewise trusts in Christ's
sacrifice, does that automatically mean they understand the notion of
Christ's deity? Can a person waiver on that issue, say temporarily,
and automatically lose their salvation?
People need a proper understanding of those passages. It gets misused
all the time. What John is saying is that amidst the plethora of
prophetic voices and utterances of those days, some would be anti-
Christ, meaning they would actually oppose Jesus/the Apostle's
teachings, and attempt to create dissent, and ultimately confusion. Or
just bad doctrine. The reader was told to "test the spirits" to see if
they were truly delivering messages from God. If they cursed or
belittled Christ, then it most certainly was not.

> Here is a series of related propositions that seem to delineate a
> journey of faith, for some.
>
> 1. Jesus Christ is Lord.
>
> This proposition, and this proposition alone, is attested directly to
> the individual believer by the Holy Spirit.
>
> 2. The Gospel is true.
>
> This follows directly from 1.
>
> 3. The Scriptures contain the Gospel in written form.
>
> 4. Therefore the Bible is the sole rule of Faith.
>
> This line of reasoning would make one a Protestant.  But consider an
> alternative line of reasoning:
>
> 3.a. The Apostles and the Apostles' successors are the source of the
> Gospel, after Christ.

Absolutely.

> 4.a. Therefore, their teaching is the sole rule of Faith.

Also true.

> This line of reasoning would make one a Catholic.

No it wouldn't necessarily. Any extraneous beliefs, often rooted in
paganism and whatnot, would make someone a Catholic, in the purest
sense. It's one thing to say we hold to Christ's/the Apostles
teachings as delivered. It's another thing to tack all sorts of stuff
onto that (and detract in some cases even) and just state that you're
holding to Apostolic teaching. Way way way way way way way different.

> Now in point of fact, in the infant Church, there were no written
> Gospels, there was only the Apostles' teaching,

which differs significantly from what the RCC espouses today. In fact
most if not all of the early church fathers up through the 6th
century, easily, and beyond, would balk at what the RCC teaches today.

and in point of fact,
> the whole Church looked to them as the authority in all matters
> touching Faith.  The Church had the OId Testament Scriptures, and the
> Church wrote the New Testament Scriptures, under the inspiration of
> the Holy Spirit.  In the Gospels, Jesus talks about establishing His
> Church, and refers to His Church as the authority to whom all disputes
> would be referred. (Matthew 18:17)

Let's be clear Joe. It doesn't state that at all Joe.

In fact, didn't Paul oppose Peter to his face on the issue of Mosaic
observances? (Acts and Galatians).

Who was this authority from the getgo? Wasn't Peter...

 The Book of Acts describes an
> early Church who respected Christ's words, and revered the Apostles as
> the source of the teaching they had received.  (Acts 2:42)  For a
> thousand years, there was unity in Christ's Church.  After that, Satan
> was let loose to deceive the nations.  (Revelation 20:1-3)  But even
> after the first thousand years, there was no source of the teaching of
> Christ apart from the successors of the Apostles.  That is why God's
> Church is called Apostolic.  No one before Luther ever dared to
> propose the Bible as a rule of Faith by which private individuals
> could pass judgment on Councils.  Such a thing is, in reality, utterly
> destructive of the virtue of Faith.  From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

A church can only be deemed Apostolic if it's adheres to the actual
teachings of the Apostles.

The Catholic church is riddled w/nonsense, squirting holy water on
immature fetus' insuring their entry into heaven. Praying to Christ's
mother, who they often blasphemously call "the Mother of God". Where
is anything even close taught in the bible Joe?

> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
>
> Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation
> of a book.

There are always "private interpretations", even before the book was
written. It's only a danger when it's errant.

For faith consists in submitting;

In Islam no doubt!

private interpretation
> consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the
> teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the
> dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and
> delivers a verdict without appeal:

who does the Catholic church appeal to? If the book is worthless, the
essence of what you're saying, what is the sacred foundation of faith,
such that the RCC has some authority to rule on???

he believes in himself rather than
> in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not
> faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.
> John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which
> was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst
> Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is
> exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who
> expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their
> people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations",
> Faith and Private Judgment). And in proof he advances the instability
> of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro
> and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they
> would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if
> unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish". Yet
> upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is
> held together to this day.

The utter vast majority of Catholics have a simple mental assent to
the truth of scripture. Do not the devils believe and tremble? You
first have to delineate simple mental assent, and true faith and
devotion.
Faith needs a foundation. The Catholics will allude to the bible when
it suits them (why bother???), but denigrate it when it steers one
away from the errancy of Catholic doctrine.

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 9, 2011, at 18:16, Chris <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> ...

Excellent!

Chris, I'll be surprised if we receive a response to your post from Joe...I think he's moved on. Nevertheless, your contribution is appreciated.

[SM]

Part of my current study right now has me in the letter to the Colossians.  I see considerable similarity between the heresy that Paul was addressing when he wrote the letter, and that which is manifest in modern Catholicism.  For example:

Ceremonialism (2:16-17, 2:11, 3:11) - modern Catholicism places heavy emphasis on ceremony on ritual.

Asceticism (2:21, 2:23)  - modern Catholicism considers the practice of asceticism a necessary requirement for the clergy, and it is likewise encouraged in the laity.

Veneration of humans rather than Christ (1:15-20, 2:2, 3:9) - modern Catholicism has a similarly faded view of Christ due in part to their veneration of Mary, "saints", and the papal order.

Reliance on human wisdom and tradition (2:4,8) - modern Catholicism places greater reliance upon the teachings of the Magesterium than on the clear and explicit interpretation of Scripture.

I submit that the very reason that the Colossian heresies are manifest in Catholicism today is because of the very points Joe makes about what he refers to as "private interpretation".  I believe he accurately represents Catholicism with the view that Catholic dogma is sacrosanct above all things, including even Scripture (as you've noted in your response, Chris).  This misplaced reliance on the teachings of man rather than the manifest revelation of God through the Scripture is the basis for the deviations from that truth articulated in Catholic doctrine, much the same as was seen in first century Colosse.

I believe the advice Paul would give to modern Catholics is found in the eighth verse of chapter 2: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends upon human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

[Brock Organ]

Nice summary, SM! :)

Regards,

Brock

[SM]

Thanks Brock!  After posting this however, I noted something that I would have liked to state a little differently.  I logged into the groups.google.com site so as to edit my post (I usually read from and post to the forum via an email client), but found that an 'edit' option was not available to me.

Is it only possible to edit posts that have been submitted directly through the groups.google.com site?

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:20 PM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Brock!  After posting this however, I noted something that I would
> have liked to state a little differently.  I logged into the
> groups.google.com site so as to edit my post (I usually read from and post
> to the forum via an email client), but found that an 'edit' option was not
> available to me.
> Is it only possible to edit posts that have been submitted directly through
> the groups.google.com site?

I don't think so, SM. If there is a way to edit online posts I
haven't used it myself.

Regards,

Brock

[14SM.jcil]

On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:56, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think so, SM. If there is a way to edit online posts I
> haven't used it myself.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

Thanks Brock.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 9, 3:16 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Faith needs a foundation. The Catholics will allude to the bible when
> it suits them (why bother???), but denigrate it when it steers one
> away from the errancy of Catholic doctrine.

We formed the Bible remember. To us it's not the only thing, it's
good, but there are other things to consider in life. I'm interested
in knowing or discussing the errancy of Catholic doctrine. Let's
discuss them one at a time so as to avoid confusion. Create subjects
for each one and I'll be looking for them.

[SM]

I suggest one place you guys can start (and I'd like to join as well) is with the concept of Sola Scriptura.  Both sides could probably agree that this is central to the cause for the heresies each side perceives are maintained by the other.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 14, 7:36 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

I agree, but where is Chris now?

It's all about using common sense and reason, that's what Catholics
are. We cannot just use the Bible in our day to day living, we also
use reason, common sense, love, faith, works, current technologies,
science, teachings and traditions of Paul and the apostles and
successors, both in writing and oral.

[SM]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree, but where is Chris now?

I'm still optimistic we'll hear from him again and receive his contributions (and others?) to this thread.

 

It's all about using common sense and reason, that's what Catholics
are. We cannot just use the Bible in our day to day living, we also
use reason, common sense, love, faith, works, current technologies,
science, teachings and traditions of Paul and the apostles and
successors, both in writing and oral.

I observe that 'Protestants' are likewise familiar with common sense, reason, etc., and acknowledge the importance of the same in all areas of life.  I suggest that an aspect of the essence of the difference in our approaches is that 'Protestants' don't believe that extra-Biblical sources of information should be regarded as 'inspired' (literally 'God-breathed'), as the Bible clearly claims itself to be.  Consequently, it's thought that any ideas resulting from good sense, reason, etc., should be subordinate to the authority that only Scripture claims to have in the life of a believer.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 14, 11:36 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > I agree, but where is Chris now?
>
> I'm still optimistic we'll hear from him again and receive his contributions
> (and others?) to this thread.
>
> > It's all about using common sense and reason, that's what Catholics
> > are. We cannot just use the Bible in our day to day living, we also
> > use reason, common sense, love, faith, works, current technologies,
> > science, teachings and traditions of Paul and the apostles and
> > successors, both in writing and oral.
>
> I observe that 'Protestants' are likewise familiar with common sense,
> reason, etc., and acknowledge the importance of the same in all areas of
> life.  I suggest that an aspect of the essence of the difference in our
> approaches is that 'Protestants' don't believe that extra-Biblical sources
> of information should be regarded as 'inspired' (literally 'God-breathed'),

> as the Bible clearly claims itself to be.  Consequently, it's thought that *
> any* ideas resulting from good sense, reason, etc., should be subordinate to

> the authority that only Scripture claims to have in the life of a believer.

Catholic Answers, "Scripture and Tradition"
San Diego, California

Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read
in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s
reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy
take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately
before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned
and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how
from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which
are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ
Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons:
first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and
second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of
these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching
which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2
Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola
scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear
that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith.
Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition
which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to
"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,
either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted
the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his
disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects
me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was
given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his
representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

[SM]

Excellent.  I'd like some time to research that response a bit.  In the meantime, I wonder if you (Catholicism) would say that the 'tradition' that Paul makes reference to includes all of the ideas espoused in modern Catholicism...including those which were not articulated in written form until the 16th century and following?  If so, what specifically gives you (Catholicism) reason to consider that Paul would believe the same?

[SM]

Tracey, as evidence for the authority of modern believers to rely on words other than what is in Scripture, this article (is that the proper term?) appeals to 2 Tim. 2:2, and 2 Thess. 2:15.  I note that both of these verses clearly reference the established teachings of the early church fathers (e.g., "...the teachings we passed on to you", "...things you heard me say...").

I know of no verse in Scripture that even implies, much less clearly states, that believers are to look for additional or continued revelation beyond what was communicated verbally by the early church fathers and then eventually captured in written form...in fact, Paul repeatedly says the very opposite when addressing the heresies that began to emerge in several of the early churches (i.e., Col. 1:25-26, Col. 2:2-3, Col. 2:6-8, Col. 2:20-23, 1 Tim. 1:3-4, 1 Tim. 4:1-7, 1 Tim. 4:11, 1 Tim. 4:16, 1 Tim. 6:3-5, 1 Tim. 6:20-21, 1 John 2:24, etc.).

I suggest that the last two verses mentioned in the article (Luke 10:16, Matt. 28:19) are taken out of context if they are considered to convey anything other than the obvious meaning that believers are commanded and expected to represent Christ throughout the earth.  I see nothing in these or the surrounding verses which suggests that believers are to represent Christ by anything more than what they have already been taught.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 14, 1:44 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

Thank you!

> I'd like some time to research that response a bit.  In the
> meantime, I wonder if you (Catholicism) would say that the 'tradition' that
> Paul makes reference to includes all of the ideas espoused in modern
> Catholicism...including those which were not articulated in written form
> until the 16th century and following?  If so, what specifically gives you
> (Catholicism) reason to consider that Paul would believe the same?

Our tradition began with all of the apostles including Paul who went
to Rome and Peter, who first went to Antioch and became the first
Bishop of Antioch and then to Rome, where he also became the first
Bishop of Rome, James, who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem,
Andrew, the first Bishop of Constantinople and Mark, the first Bishop
of Alexandria. The term "Bishop" became "Pope" and "Patriarch" as
defined in councils to come.

There were the disciples of John like Polycarp of Smyrna and other
disciples like Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Clement
of Alexandri, etc, who taught us the Eucharist or the Mass, etc. The
council of Jerusalem was the very first council that we follow and was
even recorded in the Bible and then came the famous Seven Ecumenical
Councils.

Everything evolves and so did Catholicism, but the basic doctrines
that were promulgated way back then are still the same like "The
Trinity."

[SM]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

Our tradition began with all of the apostles including Paul who went

to Rome and Peter, who first went to Antioch and became the first
Bishop of Antioch and then to Rome, where he also became the first
Bishop of Rome, James, who became the first Bishop of Jerusalem,
Andrew, the first Bishop of Constantinople and Mark, the first Bishop
of Alexandria. The term "Bishop" became "Pope" and "Patriarch" as
defined in councils to come.

There were the disciples of John like Polycarp of Smyrna and other
disciples like Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Clement
of Alexandri, etc, who taught us the Eucharist or the Mass, etc. The
council of Jerusalem was the very first council that we follow and was
even recorded in the Bible and then came the famous Seven Ecumenical
Councils.

Everything evolves and so did Catholicism, but the basic doctrines
that were promulgated way back then are still the same like "The
Trinity."

I find it beneficial that you've articulated for us the 'path of transmission' of Catholicism, so I thank you for that, but I don't perceive that you've answered the specific question as to whether Catholics have reason to believe that Paul would hold the views expressed in modern Catholicism.  Could you comment on that (or at least elucidate how your response already addresses that question)?  Thanks.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 14, 5:14 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

You asked a very loaded question. But I answered, "Everything evolves
and so did Catholicism, but the basic doctrines that were (handed down
to us) promulgated way back then, are still the same like "The
Trinity."

Ask me specific questions on doctrines that were handed down and I
will answer each one specifically. If you ask a very convoluted and
vague question that you asked, then you'll get a very vague answer as
well.

Oral traditions are oral traditions and I hope that Protestants know
the difference between written and oral. However, we have the Bible
and all the epistles of Paul, Peter and others. We follow the Bible to
the T, because we formed it for our use. Even Martin Luther was very
grateful to Catholics because of the knowledge that he got from the
Bible that we formed.

Every doctrine that we follow are all in the Bible. The only doctrine
that I know of that is not in the Bible is our belief that when Mary
passed away, she went to heaven.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 14, 3:21 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

> appeals to 2 Tim. 2:2, and 2 Thess. 2:15.  I note that *both* of these

> verses clearly reference the established teachings of the early church

> fathers (e.g., "...the teachings *we* passed on to you", "...things you
> heard *me* say...").
>
> I know of *no* verse in Scripture that even *implies,* much less clearly

> states, that believers are to look for additional or continued revelation
> beyond what was communicated verbally by the early church fathers and then

> eventually captured in written form...in fact, Paul repeatedly says *the
> very opposite* when addressing the heresies that began to emerge in several

> of the early churches (i.e., Col. 1:25-26, Col. 2:2-3, Col. 2:6-8, Col.
> 2:20-23, 1 Tim. 1:3-4, 1 Tim. 4:1-7, 1 Tim. 4:11, 1 Tim. 4:16, 1 Tim. 6:3-5,
> 1 Tim. 6:20-21, 1 John 2:24, etc.).
>
> I suggest that the last two verses mentioned in the article (Luke 10:16,
> Matt. 28:19) are taken out of context if they are considered to convey
> anything other than the obvious meaning that believers are commanded and
> expected to represent Christ throughout the earth.  I see nothing in these
> or the surrounding verses which suggests that believers are to represent
> Christ by anything more than what they have already been taught.

In Luke 10:16 Jesus was commanding specifically the 72 disciples that
He appointed to go out and on Matt 28:19, Jesus was commanding
specifically His apostles. I did not even try to articulate it, as
there is nothing to articulate. The verses are very straightforward
and they mean what they mean.

[SM]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

You asked a very loaded question. But I answered, "Everything evolves

and so did Catholicism, but the basic doctrines that were (handed down
to us) promulgated way back then, are still the same like "The
Trinity."

Ask me specific questions on doctrines that were handed down and I
will answer each one specifically. If you ask a very convoluted and
vague question that you asked, then you'll get a very vague answer as
well.

Oral traditions are oral traditions and I hope that Protestants know
the difference between written and oral. However, we have the Bible
and all the epistles of Paul, Peter and others. We follow the Bible to
the T, because we formed it for our use. Even Martin Luther was very
grateful to Catholics because of the knowledge that he got from the
Bible that we formed.

Every doctrine that we follow are all in the Bible. The only doctrine
that I know of that is not in the Bible is our belief that when Mary
passed away, she went to heaven.

Tracey, it wasn't my intent to ask a 'loaded question' in the sense of trying to gain some advantage over you in our discussion, rather, I'm legitimately curious to know if Catholicism maintains that Paul held the same beliefs expressed in modern Catholicism and just didn't expressly articulate them in his writings.

I am interpreting from your response (but please correct me if my interpretation is wrong) that you're answering 'No' to my question, and that the beliefs of modern Catholicism are a product of evolutionary progress in understanding over the past two thousand years.

I note your comments about 'following the Bible to a T', and that 'all Catholic doctrines are in the Bible', but humbly submit that the contention of 'Protestants' is that this is not the case, and ask only that you acknowledge this sincerely held consideration.

We can later look more closely at some specific assertions made by Catholicism (perhaps even return to the idea of Christ's flesh being present in the Eucharist), but before we do I consider that we're still working on the more fundamental idea that the text of Scripture itself is the only recognized expression of God's revelation to modern man...noting that the early fathers of the Church (you refer to them as 'Bishops', which I concur with) considered only the contemporary teachings of the early Church fathers (which at the time were only maintained 'verbally'...i.e., prior to their having been recorded in the written form that we now have today) to be reliable and 'God breathed'...and that we have no reason to consider that additional understandings, either in their day, or through later revelations, should be received and perceived with equal authority as the original teachings.

[SM]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

I said:

 

> I suggest that the last two verses mentioned in the article (Luke 10:16,

> Matt. 28:19) are taken out of context if they are considered to convey
> anything other than the obvious meaning that believers are commanded and
> expected to represent Christ throughout the earth.  I see nothing in these
> or the surrounding verses which suggests that believers are to represent
> Christ by anything more than what they have already been taught.

You responded:

 

In Luke 10:16 and Matt 28:19, Jesus was telling and/or commanding His

apostles. I did not even try to articulate it, as there is nothing to
articulate.

I don't understand your response.  When I re-read what I wrote, my meaning is clear to me but I recognize that may not be true for you.  Please let me know if clarification is needed.

[SM]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

In Luke 10:16 Jesus was commanding specifically the 72 disciples that

He appointed to go out and on Matt 28:19, Jesus was commanding
specifically His apostles. I did not even try to articulate it, as
there is nothing to articulate. The verses are very straightforward
and they mean what they mean.

This looks like a duplicate of your last post that I just responded to.  Again, I don't see how this relates to my post which was emphasizing that the verses mentioned command the disciples to 'go', but does not suggest that they preach anything other than what they were taught by Jesus.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 15, 12:02 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > In Luke 10:16 Jesus was commanding specifically the 72 disciples that
> > He appointed to go out and on Matt 28:19, Jesus was commanding
> > specifically His apostles. I did not even try to articulate it, as
> > there is nothing to articulate. The verses are very straightforward
> > and they mean what they mean.
>
> This looks like a duplicate of your last post that I just responded to.
>  Again, I don't see how this relates to my post which was emphasizing that
> the verses mentioned command the disciples to 'go', but does not suggest

> that they preach *anything* other than what they were taught by Jesus.

My point is that Jesus didn't give any restrictions. Here's the
complete context:

Matt 28: 16-20, "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the
mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they
worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said,
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore
go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to
obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always,
to the very end of the age.”

Do you see any restrictions above. Was Paul restricted in teaching us
the Eucharist, the Trinity, etc.?

[SM]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

My point is that Jesus didn't give any restrictions. Here's the

complete context:

Matt 28: 16-20, "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the
mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they
worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said,
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore
go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to
obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always,
to the very end of the age.”

Do you see any restrictions above. Was Paul restricted in teaching us
the Eucharist, the Trinity, etc.?

I agree that there were no explicit restrictions, but do you consider that the lack of specifying a restriction is the same as positively affirming?  Is your reference to this verse provided as support for the notion that the disciples should preach something other than what was specifically taught by Jesus (and later articulated in written form by the early Church fathers)?

[SM]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

I didn't say that at all. Our customs evolve as time goes by, like in

the Eucharist. There came a time when the priest more often face the
altar than the parishioners, but now they face the parishioners more
often than not. However, the doctrines that were handed down to us are
still the same. If you have objections to any doctrines, please say
them individually and let's discuss individually in order to avoid
confusions.

Ok, thank you for correcting what I thought you were saying.  So then, if it's not accurate to say that Catholic teaching has evolved in its understanding over the past two thousand years, that it's just the 'customs' (I interpret that to mean: rituals, religious practices, ceremonial procedures, etc.) that have changed somewhat over time...am I understanding then that you DO consider that Paul held all of the specific doctrines and beliefs that are expressed today in modern Catholicism?

 

> I note your comments about 'following the Bible to a T', and that 'all
> Catholic doctrines are in the Bible', but humbly submit that the contention
> of 'Protestants' is that this is not the case, and ask only that you
> acknowledge this sincerely held consideration.

Then I'm asking you to say what is not the case, then we'll discuss.
Is this hard to understand? Just say it what your objections are.

I intend to do so, and consider that I am presently doing so in our discussion about the idea of Sola Scriptura.  I don't want to confuse things by introducing other possible areas of difference until it's clear we're ready to move on from our existing point of discussion.

 

So Protestants do not know the difference between oral and written

thingy.

I find that statement somewhat ambiguous (i.e., "thingy").  Could you please clarify what you perceive 'Protestants' are not grasping as it relates to oral and written expression?

 

Oh my! I will repeat again and if needed, again and again. Our
doctrines are based in the Bible, so say your objections one by one
and let's discuss one by one.

The Real Presence in the Eucharist has been discussed so many times
and I'm not going there again. I'm appalled that Protestants cannot
believe that Jesus Christ can be present in every Catholic Churches
holding the Eucharist. How can he jump from church to church? For
heavens sake, He is God, He can be present everywhere and anywhere
where there are two or more Catholics gather together as followers of
Christ, BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

Speaking only for myself (and not necessarily on behalf of all 'Protestants'), I absolutely can believe that Christ can be present (and is present) "everywhere and anywhere" that two or more believers (not specifically Catholics) are gathered in His name, for this is clearly taught to us in Matthew 18:20.  Nothing in what I've written suggests otherwise.

My reference to our much earlier (never completed) discussion about the Eucharist, relates to the physical presence of Jesus...this is not explicitly (or even implicitly in my view) taught by the Scriptures.  As I said above, I'm happy to return to this discussion later after we're ready to move on from our current discussion about Sola Scriptura.

[SM]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that there were no explicit restrictions, but do you consider that

> the lack of specifying a restriction is the same as positively affirming?

No, and thought you guys follow the Bible.

Sorry, I don't follow your argument here...could you please elaborate.  Thanks.

 

>  Is your reference to this verse provided as support for the notion that the
> disciples should preach something other than what was specifically taught by
> Jesus (and later articulated in written form by the early Church fathers)?

I didn't say that. My point is that Paul was not restricted in
teaching us the Eucharist, the Trinity and other stuff.

I understand your point but consider it is irrelevant to my question since we're not yet talking about specific doctrines that Paul taught.  My question relates specifically to the verses you're referencing: ("In Luke 10:16 Jesus was commanding specifically the 72 disciples that He appointed to go out and on Matt 28:19, Jesus was commanding specifically His apostles.")

My question is whether you believe that in these verses Jesus was instructing the disciples to preach anything other than the truth that was known orally at the time, and later explicitly articulated in writing?

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 15, 11:49 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

I didn't say that at all. Our customs evolve as time goes by, like in
the Eucharist. There came a time when the priest more often face the
altar than the parishioners, but now they face the parishioners more
often than not. However, the doctrines that were handed down to us are
still the same. If you have objections to any doctrines, please say
them individually and let's discuss individually in order to avoid
confusions.

> I note your comments about 'following the Bible to a T', and that 'all
> Catholic doctrines are in the Bible', but humbly submit that the contention
> of 'Protestants' is that this is not the case, and ask only that you
> acknowledge this sincerely held consideration.

Then I'm asking you to say what is not the case, then we'll discuss.
Is this hard to understand? Just say it what your objections are.

> We can later look more closely at some specific assertions made by
> Catholicism (perhaps even return to the idea of Christ's flesh being present
> in the Eucharist), but before we do I consider that we're still working on
> the more fundamental idea that the text of Scripture itself is the only
> recognized expression of God's revelation to modern man...noting that the
> early fathers of the Church (you refer to them as 'Bishops', which I concur

> with) considered *only* the contemporary teachings of the early Church

> fathers (which at the time were only maintained 'verbally'...i.e., prior to
> their having been recorded in the written form that we now have today) to be
> reliable and 'God breathed'...and that we have no reason to consider that
> additional understandings, either in their day, or through later
> revelations, should be received and perceived with equal authority as the
> original teachings.

So Protestants do not know the difference between oral and written
thingy.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 16, 11:37 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Tracey Maddow

> <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> > My point is that Jesus didn't give any restrictions. Here's the
> > complete context:
>
> > Matt 28: 16-20, "Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the
> > mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they
> > worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said,
> > “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore
> > go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of
> > the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to
> > obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always,
> > to the very end of the age.”
>
> > Do you see any restrictions above. Was Paul restricted in teaching us
> > the Eucharist, the Trinity, etc.?
>
> I agree that there were no explicit restrictions, but do you consider that
> the lack of specifying a restriction is the same as positively affirming?

No, and thought you guys follow the Bible.

>  Is your reference to this verse provided as support for the notion that the
> disciples should preach something other than what was specifically taught by
> Jesus (and later articulated in written form by the early Church fathers)?

I didn't say that. My point is that Paul was not restricted in
teaching us the Eucharist, the Trinity and other stuff.

[Chris]

who is "we"? If you're suggesting here that the RCC formed it, I'm
going to laugh at you. The word Catholic was used very early on, as
early as the late 1st century even, but it has a totally different
connotation then it does post Vatican 1. Even the books of the NT
canon decided upon at Nice was carried out by a council that could
hardly be called Catholic in any modern sense.

[Chris]

That is true, we don't rely upon the bible for every last detail of
life.

But when a church adopts teachings that are contrary to it, that's
when a Christian can and should take issue.

That's merely a diversion Tracy.

[Tracey Maddow]

Then why not post your objections and let's discuss. You cannot just
say things without being specific.

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 16, 3:17 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 3:58 pm, Tracey Maddow <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 3:16 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Faith needs a foundation. The Catholics will allude to the bible when
> > > it suits them (why bother???), but denigrate it when it steers one
> > > away from the errancy of Catholic doctrine.
>
> > We formed the Bible remember. To us it's not the only thing, it's
> > good, but there are other things to consider in life. I'm interested
> > in knowing or discussing the errancy of Catholic doctrine. Let's
> > discuss them one at a time so as to avoid confusion. Create subjects
> > for each one and I'll be looking for them.
>
> who is "we"? If you're suggesting here that the RCC formed it, I'm
> going to laugh at you.

Say it, who did? Protestants?

> The word Catholic was used very early on, as
> early as the late 1st century even, but it has a totally different
> connotation then it does post Vatican 1. Even the books of the NT
> canon decided upon at Nice was carried out by a council that could
> hardly be called Catholic in any modern sense.

I posted a separate subject for this.

[Steve Marriott]

On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:53, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

who is "we"? If you're suggesting here that the RCC formed it, I'm

going to laugh at you.

Say it, who did? Protestants?

I interpreted his comment to mean 'neither' (i.e., neither 'Protestants' or 'Catholics' as those terms are contemporarily understood).  Do you disagree with that observation?

[Tracey Maddow]

On Mar 18, 12:07 pm, Steve Marriott <steve.marri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 18, 2011, at 12:53, Tracey Maddow <tracey.maddow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> who is "we"? If you're suggesting here that the RCC formed it, I'm
> >> going to laugh at you.
>
> > Say it, who did? Protestants?
>
> I interpreted his comment to mean 'neither' (i.e., neither 'Protestants' or 'Catholics' as those terms are contemporarily understood).  Do you disagree with that observation?

I disagree. The first ever Bible was formed by Catholics in Rome and
in Africa. It's called the "Vetus Itala" or "Vetus Latina"

Then in the 4th century, Jerome revised the Vetus Itala to form the
"Vulgate" Even Martin was ecstatic and grateful of his knowledge of
the Bible and he credited it to Catholics.

Do you disagree?

[SM]

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tracey Maddow <tracey.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

I disagree. The first ever Bible was formed by Catholics in Rome and

in Africa. It's called the "Vetus Itala" or "Vetus Latina"

Then in the 4th century, Jerome revised the Vetus Itala to form the
"Vulgate" Even Martin was ecstatic and grateful of his knowledge of
the Bible and he credited it to Catholics.

Do you disagree?

No disagreement with the historical account...as expressed earlier Chris' disagreement appears to be with the meaning of 'Catholics'...that it didn't mean the same then that it's understood to mean today.  Do you agree that this is the point that Chris is making (i.e., that there's a difference between what the term 'Catholic' implied then, vs. what it implies now)?  If you agree that this is the point that Chris is making, can you respond to the merits of that point?

[Joe]

On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 12:45 am, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:> The Protestant heresy, at least the way I have observed it in SM and
> > probably Brock, is based on a fallacy of association.  Here is the way
> > I see it:
>
> > The Holy Spirit, to the individual believer, testifies of the absolute
> > truth of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  That is why
> > the Scripture says that it is only in the Holy Spirit that anyone can
> > say, "Jesus is Lord," and also, that it is the Holy Spirit in us that
> > cries out, "Abba! Father!"  That is God giving testimony of Himself,
> > and it is this that makes a person a Christian.  I do not think I am
> > overstepping my bounds when I say that Brock, SM, and myself are all
> > in agreement, that God is our Father, and that Jesus is Lord.
>
> L
>  Well I'm not so sure.

I am. I've conversed enough with the men I mentioned to be sure of
this. Your below comments are unrelated to your comment above, but
I'll address them.

>If a person is truly regenerate or born again,

This means baptized by water and the Holy Spirit. See John 3:5.

> does that necessitate an immediate understanding of doctrinal issue?

Of course not; infants don't have any understanding at all,
nonetheless, infants are validly baptized. but you seem to be
comparing apples with oranges, here. I wonder what the relation is to
the topic at hand.

> If a person has repented before God and likewise trusts in Christ's
> sacrifice, does that automatically mean they understand the notion of
> Christ's deity? Can a person waiver on that issue, say temporarily,
> and automatically lose their salvation?

To be saved means to be in heaven with God. None of us are saved,
yet. The common usage of the word "saved" among Protestants and
Evangelicals is the equivalent of the theological term, metanoia, or
conversion to the Faith. Conversion to the Faith of Christ ---
accomplished completely in conversion to Catholicism, and partially in
conversion to "mere Christianity" --- is the beginning of the road,
not the end. The road is, conversion from sin. The end is salvation,
which means to die in God's friendship (the state of sanctifying
grace) and to be brought by Him to heaven.

>  People need a proper understanding of those passages.

You didn't include any references to any Biblical passages, which is
what I will assume you meant. To which passages do you refer? Are
you referring to my words above?

>It gets misused
> all the time. What John is saying is that amidst the plethora of
> prophetic voices and utterances of those days, some would be anti-
> Christ, meaning they would actually oppose Jesus/the Apostle's
> teachings, and attempt to create dissent, and ultimately confusion.

Yes. Fortunately, however, we have the Church, and she is our
infallible guide. As Saint John wrote in one of his letters,

1 John 4:6 We are of God. He that knows God hears us. He that is not
of God hears us not. By this we know the spirit of truth and the
spirit of error.

My words above referred to the interior inspiration of the Holy Spirit
in the believer, causing him to believe and declare that Jesus is Lord
and God is Abba, Father. not exactly the same thing as the Apostolic
Authority established by Christ. Faith in the latter rests on the
former, and unfortunately, Martin Luther, for you, divorced the former
from the latter, resulting in your confusion. Saint John in his
letter is not referring to the interior testimony of the Holy Spirit
in the believer, but in fact to the spirit of docility to the
Authority established by Christ, namely the Apostolic Authority, which
is the fruit of that interior testimony, but as Protestantism
demonstrates, individual believers are free to stray into error if
they so will.

>Or
> just bad doctrine. The reader was told to "test the spirits" to see if
> they were truly delivering messages from God. If they cursed or
> belittled Christ, then it most certainly was not.
>

And, the Church is Christ's Mystical Body, so to curse or belittle the
Church is the same thing as to curse or belittle Christ.

> > Here is a series of related propositions that seem to delineate a
> > journey of faith, for some.
>
> > 1. Jesus Christ is Lord.
>
> > This proposition, and this proposition alone, is attested directly to
> > the individual believer by the Holy Spirit.
>
> > 2. The Gospel is true.
>
> > This follows directly from 1.
>
> > 3. The Scriptures contain the Gospel in written form.
>
> > 4. Therefore the Bible is the sole rule of Faith.
>
> > This line of reasoning would make one a Protestant.  But consider an
> > alternative line of reasoning:
>
> > 3.a. The Apostles and the Apostles' successors are the source of the
> > Gospel, after Christ.
>
>  Absolutely.
>
> > 4.a. Therefore, their teaching is the sole rule of Faith.
>
>  Also true.
>

I wonder why you were less enthusiastic about the statement of Sola
Scriptura above. Do you disagree with the logical derivation?

> > This line of reasoning would make one a Catholic.
>
>  No it wouldn't necessarily. Any extraneous beliefs, often rooted in
> paganism and whatnot, would make someone a Catholic, in the purest
> sense.

Not in the least. But I will wait to see your statement supported by
some actual examples before I comment any further. Except to say
that, the word "Catholic" means, as I'm sure you know, "universal."
Meaning that, the Catholic Faith is that which is found in every age
after the Messiah and in every part of the world after the preaching
of the Gospel. Including, obviously, in the First Century, when the
concept of Sola Scriptura would have been patently absurd.

>It's one thing to say we hold to Christ's/the Apostles
> teachings as delivered. It's another thing to tack all sorts of stuff
> onto that (and detract in some cases even) and just state that you're
> holding to Apostolic teaching. Way way way way way way way different.
>

Granted, those two things would be different. But in absence of any
actual criticism, there is nothing here to address.

> > Now in point of fact, in the infant Church, there were no written
> > Gospels, there was only the Apostles' teaching,
>
>  which differs significantly from what the RCC espouses today.

Here would be an appropriate place to level some actual criticism of
Catholic Dogma. Bare statements sans support or even references, do
not do much.

>In fact
> most if not all of the early church fathers up through the 6th
> century, easily, and beyond, would balk at what the RCC teaches today.
>

Easily said. Now back it up.

> and in point of fact,
>
> > the whole Church looked to them as the authority in all matters
> > touching Faith.  The Church had the OId Testament Scriptures, and the
> > Church wrote the New Testament Scriptures, under the inspiration of
> > the Holy Spirit.  In the Gospels, Jesus talks about establishing His
> > Church, and refers to His Church as the authority to whom all disputes
> > would be referred. (Matthew 18:17)
>
>  Let's be clear Joe. It doesn't state that at all Joe.
>

It most certainly does, and unlike you, I gave an actual Biblical
reference to where it states it exactly.

>  In fact, didn't Paul oppose Peter to his face on the issue of Mosaic
> observances? (Acts and Galatians).
>
>  Who was this authority from the getgo? Wasn't Peter...
>

Why then did Saint Paul oppose Saint Peter specifically, and not the
other Apostles? What was special about Saint Peter? Did it have
anything to do with the explicit words of Christ addressed
specifically to him? Or is Sola Scriptura selectively blind to what
contradicts the heresies of Luther?

>   The Book of Acts describes an
>
> > early Church who respected Christ's words, and revered the Apostles as
> > the source of the teaching they had received.  (Acts 2:42)  For a
> > thousand years, there was unity in Christ's Church.  After that, Satan
> > was let loose to deceive the nations.  (Revelation 20:1-3)  But even
> > after the first thousand years, there was no source of the teaching of
> > Christ apart from the successors of the Apostles.  That is why God's
> > Church is called Apostolic.  No one before Luther ever dared to
> > propose the Bible as a rule of Faith by which private individuals
> > could pass judgment on Councils.  Such a thing is, in reality, utterly
> > destructive of the virtue of Faith.  From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
>
>  A church can only be deemed Apostolic if it's adheres to the actual
> teachings of the Apostles.
>

Yes, and we find the teaching of the Apostles in the Church founded on
them.

>  The Catholic church is riddled w/nonsense, squirting holy water on
> immature fetus' insuring their entry into heaven.

John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be
born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.

You are mocking the Doctrine of Christ.

>Praying to Christ's
> mother, who they often blasphemously call "the Mother of God". Where
> is anything even close taught in the bible Joe?
>

Luke 1:30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for you have
found grace with God. 31 Behold you shall conceive in your womb and
shall bring forth a son: and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He
shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the
Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he
shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom
there shall be no end.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and
the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw
his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father),
full of grace and truth.

It is clear from these passages together that Jesus, born of Mary, is
God. She is His Mother, and He is God. How then is she not the
Mother of God? You call Holy Scripture "blasphemy." What do you call
truth?

> >http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
>
> > Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation
> > of a book.
>
>  There are always "private interpretations", even before the book was
> written. It's only a danger when it's errant.
>

Public revelation is not private interpretation, and Holy Scripture is
part of public revelation. That is why Saint Peter wrote,

2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture
is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the
will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by
the Holy Ghost.

A note is attached in the Douay Bible, to further expound the meaning:

No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation... This
shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's
private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy
scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and
declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be
interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised
to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the
world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the
scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to
the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. (Challoner)

>  For faith consists in submitting;
>
>  In Islam no doubt!
>

Catholicism is the True Islam.

>  private interpretation
>
> > consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the
> > teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the
> > dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and
> > delivers a verdict without appeal:
>
>  who does the Catholic church appeal to?

The Catholic Church is not a private individual. She is the Bride of
Christ, entrusted with the Teaching Authority.

>If the book is worthless,

Straw man. No one said that.

>the
> essence of what you're saying, what is the sacred foundation of faith,
> such that the RCC has some authority to rule on???
>

The Apostolic Tradition, received by the Apostles from the Master, of
which Holy Scripture is the written part. But Holy Scripture bears
witness that the written part is not the only part, and Saint Paul
exhorts the faithful to remain faithful to *both* parts of Sacred
Tradition, both the written and the oral.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the
traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

And again Challoner comments,

Traditions... See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be
received than their epistles. (Challoner)

>  he believes in himself rather than
>
> > in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not
> > faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.
> > John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which
> > was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst
> > Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is
> > exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who
> > expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their
> > people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations",
> > Faith and Private Judgment). And in proof he advances the instability
> > of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro
> > and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they
> > would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if
> > unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish". Yet
> > upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is
> > held together to this day.
>
>  The utter vast majority of Catholics have a simple mental assent to
> the truth of scripture. Do not the devils believe and tremble? You
> first have to delineate simple mental assent, and true faith and
> devotion.

>  Faith needs a foundation. The Catholics will allude to the bible when
> it suits them (why bother???), but denigrate it when it steers one
> away from the errancy of Catholic doctrine.

There is no such thing as an "errancy of Catholic Doctrine." So it is
in the end unsurprising that, once again, your accusations lack any
support or example.

Perhaps the good SM or Brock can at least make the attempt to supply
your lack.

[Joe]

On Mar 10, 11:07 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 12:45 am, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > upon the private interpretation of a book.
>
> >  There are always "private interpretations", even before the book was
> > written. It's only a danger when it's errant.
>

> >  For faith consists in submitting;
>
> >  In Islam no doubt!
>

> >  private interpretation
> > > consists in judging. In faith by hearing, the last word rests with the
> > > teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the
> > > dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and
> > > delivers a verdict without appeal:
>

> >  who does the Catholic church appeal to? If the book is worthless, the

> > essence of what you're saying, what is the sacred foundation of faith,
> > such that the RCC has some authority to rule on???
>

> >  he believes in himself rather than
> > > in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not
> > > faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.
> > > John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which
> > > was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst
> > > Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is
> > > exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who
> > > expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their
> > > people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations",
> > > Faith and Private Judgment). And in proof he advances the instability
> > > of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro
> > > and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they
> > > would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if
> > > unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish". Yet
> > > upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is
> > > held together to this day.
>
> >  The utter vast majority of Catholics have a simple mental assent to
> > the truth of scripture. Do not the devils believe and tremble? You
> > first have to delineate simple mental assent, and true faith and
> > devotion.
> >  Faith needs a foundation. The Catholics will allude to the bible when
> > it suits them (why bother???), but denigrate it when it steers one
> > away from the errancy of Catholic doctrine.
>

> Part of my current study right now has me in the letter to the Colossians.
>  I see considerable similarity between the heresy that Paul was addressing
> when he wrote the letter, and that which is manifest in modern Catholicism.
>  For example:
>
> Ceremonialism (2:16-17, 2:11, 3:11) - modern Catholicism places heavy
> emphasis on ceremony on ritual.
>
> Asceticism (2:21, 2:23)  - modern Catholicism considers the practice of
> asceticism a necessary requirement for the clergy, and it is likewise
> encouraged in the laity.
>
> Veneration of humans rather than Christ (1:15-20, 2:2, 3:9) - modern
> Catholicism has a similarly faded view of Christ due in part to their
> veneration of Mary, "saints", and the papal order.
>
> Reliance on human wisdom and tradition (2:4,8) - modern Catholicism places
> greater reliance upon the teachings of the Magesterium than on the clear and
> explicit interpretation of Scripture.
>
> I submit that the very reason that the Colossian heresies are manifest in
> Catholicism today is because of the very points Joe makes about what he
> refers to as "private interpretation".  I believe he accurately represents
> Catholicism with the view that Catholic dogma is sacrosanct above all
> things, including even Scripture (as you've noted in your response, Chris).
>  This misplaced reliance on the teachings of man rather than the manifest
> revelation of God through the Scripture is the basis for the deviations from
> that truth articulated in Catholic doctrine, much the same as was seen in
> first century Colosse.
>
> I believe the advice Paul would give to modern Catholics is found in
> the eighth verse of chapter 2: "See to it that no one takes you captive
> through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends upon human tradition
> and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

Challoner, perhaps, addresses some of your points. Here are his notes
on Chapter 2:

* In meat, etc... He means with regard to the Jewish observations
of the distinction of clean and unclean meats; and of their festivals,
new moons, and sabbaths, as being no longer obligatory. (Challoner)
* Willing, etc... That is, by a self willed, self invented,
superstitious worship, falsely pretending humility, but really
proceeding from pride. Such was the worship, that many of the
philosophers (against whom St. Paul speaks in verse 8) paid to angels
or demons, by sacrificing to them, as carriers of intelligence betwixt
God and men; pretending humility in so doing, as if God was too great
to be addressed by men; and setting aside the mediatorship of Jesus
Christ, who is the head both of angels and men. Such also was the
worship paid by the ancient heretics, disciples of Simon and Menander,
to the angels, whom they believed to be makers and lords of this lower
world. This is certain, that they whom the apostle here condemns, did
not hold the head (verse 19), that is, Jesus Christ, and his
mediatorship; and therefore what he writes here no way touches the
Catholic doctrine and practice, of desiring our good angels to pray to
God for us, through Jesus Christ. St. Jerome [Epist. ad Algas.]
understands by the religion or service of angels, the Jewish teachers,
who sought to subject the new Christians to the observance of the
Mosaic law. (Challoner)
* Touch not, etc... The meaning is, that Christians should not
subject themselves, either to the ordinances of the old law,
forbidding touching or tasting things unclean; or to the superstitious
invention of heretics, imposing such restraints, under pretence of
wisdom, humility, or mortification. (Challoner)

If this is not enough, I will give an answer to each one of your
accusations above, which are your accusations against the Church and
not Saint Paul's.

> Ceremonialism

It is understandable that you would view *any* emphasis on ceremony or
ritual as too "heavy," since Protestantism has done away with most of
the rites initiated by Christ! As the most obvious examples,
Protestantism has done away with all but one of the Sacraments
instituted by Christ. Baptism is the only Sacrament they retain,
although as Christians they also retain Matrimony, though they deny
it. Now the Sacraments are all necessarily connected with rites,
which are what you disparage as "ceremonies" and "rituals." The
proper term is rites, which I suppose is the root of the word ritual.
You do retain the Rite of Baptism. Is it too much of a heavy emphasis
on ceremony and ritual to insist that it must be done with natural
water, and "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit?" I might be off the mark here, I don't know what your
particular sect does in Baptism, some Protestants even do away with
the Baptismal Formula itself!

But a Sacrament, as an outward sign of interior grace, is always
carried by a rite, and the Catholic Church retains all seven of the
Sacraments instituted by Christ. (Scriptural references available on
request.)

> Asceticism

Asceticism is self-discipline. Holy Scripture has much to say about
this.

Proverbs 3:11 My son, do not reject the discipline of the LORD Or
loathe His reproof, 12 For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a
father corrects the son in whom he delights.

Hebrews 12:4 For you have not yet resisted unto blood, striving
against sin. 5 And you have forgotten the consolation which speaks to
you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of
the Lord: neither be wearied whilst you are rebuked by him. 6 For whom
the Lord loves he chastises: and he scourges every son whom he
receives. 7 Persevere under discipline. God deals with you as with his
sons. For what son is there whom the father does not correct? 8 But if
you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are
you bastards and not sons. 9 Moreover, we have had fathers of our
flesh for instructors, and we reverenced them. Shall we not much more
obey the Father of spirits and live? 10 And they indeed for a few
days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our
profit, that we might receive his sanctification. 11 Now all
chastisement for the present indeed seems not to bring with it joy,
but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by
it the most peaceable fruit of justice. 12 Wherefore, lift up the
hands which hang down and the feeble knees: 13 And make straight steps
with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but
rather be healed.

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I chastise my body and bring it into
subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself
should become a castaway.

I chastise, etc... Here St. Paul shows the necessity of self-denial
and mortification, to subdue the flesh, and its inordinate desires.
(Challoner)

>Veneration of humans rather than Christ

There is no "rather than Christ" in our honoring and invoking Christ's
Saints. They are our fellow-servants, and they love to help us,
whenever we ask. This is a straw man.

> Reliance on human wisdom and tradition

Another straw man.

>modern Catholicism places
> greater reliance upon the teachings of the Magesterium than on the clear and
> explicit interpretation of Scripture.

That's a joke, right? Because, the fact is, the only clear and
explicit --- and true --- interpretation of Holy Scripture IS the
teaching of the Magisterium, as Holy Scripture also bears witness.

Matthew 18:15 But if your brother shall offend against you, go, and
rebuke him between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you shall
gain your brother. 16 And if he will not hear you, take with you one
or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he
will not hear the church, let him be to you as the heathen and
publican.

Acts 2:42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles
and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to
behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living
God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The pillar and ground of the truth... . Therefore the church of the
living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions,
superstition, or idolatry. (Challoner)

But this is the heart of our dispute about Sola Scriptura, that extra-
biblical and manifestly absurd doctrine that you cling to, rather than
to the Church of Christ. I can't get my head around it. You'd think,
that if the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, that it would at
least be mentioned, even in passing, *somewhere* in the Scriptures
themselves?? Rather than --- as it is --- blatantly contradicted by
them. And yet, here we are. I have to defend God's Holy Church
against the words of a fellow Christian. Go figure!

Two more points, and I'll await your response.

>the view that Catholic dogma is sacrosanct above all
> things, including even Scripture

That is kind of like saying a horse is better than a horse. Holy
Scripture is Catholic Dogma. How can you say that we hold dogma
*above* Scripture? Scripture IS DOGMA!

> This misplaced reliance on the teachings of man

God the Holy Spirit, SM, is not a man. And that is He upon Whom we
rely.

But your mistrust of the spirit of holiness is evident, above, in your
disparaging of asceticism, in which you contradict both King Solomon
and Saint Paul. Asceticism is well known not only in Christian
tradition but throughout the whole world, as indispensable to
holiness. And the Holy Spirit is called the Holy Spirit because He is
the One who sanctifies the faithful, i.e. leads them to holiness. The
Holy Spirit IS the spirit of discipline, and anyone who despises
discipline plainly has no part in Him.

I want to close with a few remarks about some misconceptions I'm
fairly certain you have. All of these things --- the asking of help
of the Saints, the practice of devotions, the practice of self-
discipline, the pursuit of holiness --- are things that those who love
God do because they love Him. None of them have any meaning apart
from salvation in Christ, Who alone saves us. You seem to think that
we rely on these things for our salvation instead of Christ, which is
completely wrong. These things, we do *in* Christ, in whom is our
salvation. Rather than believe that He was only here two thousand
years ago, and only left behind a Book, we believe that He came to
earth to dwell among men and still dwells among us to this day, and
established a Living Church built of precious stones. You cannot
shake the Faith of a devoted Catholic. It is impossible to shake,
because we know God, and we know that our Faith comes from God. We
know that our Church comes from God, because we see her, and we see
her beauty and her magnificence, the Bride of Christ. And I am not
talking about the architectural beauty of churches or the aesthetics
of sculpture and music and art. I am talking about a beauty that
cannot be seen with the eyes of the flesh, the true spiritual beauty
that is the Church of the Living God. Moreover, we know that in her
is our holiness, and the Holy Spirit cannot be deceived, nor can He
deceive. You are invited in!

Peace!

[14SM.jcil]

On Apr 28, 2011, at 3:44, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks for the input Joe.  Your representation of Protestantism continues to be almost invariably inaccurate, but I attribute this to ignorance rather than malice.

Despite your response I still consider Paul's advice particularly relevant for modern Catholics:

"See to it that no one takes you captive

through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends upon human tradition

and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

Peace.

[14SM.jcil]

On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:24, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 9, 7:16 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 12:45 am, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:> The Protestant heresy, at least the way I have observed it in SM and
>>> probably Brock, is based on a fallacy of association. Here is the way
>>> I see it:
>>
>>> The Holy Spirit, to the individual believer, testifies of the absolute
>>> truth of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is why
>>> the Scripture says that it is only in the Holy Spirit that anyone can
>>> say, "Jesus is Lord," and also, that it is the Holy Spirit in us that
>>> cries out, "Abba! Father!" That is God giving testimony of Himself,
>>> and it is this that makes a person a Christian. I do not think I am
>>> overstepping my bounds when I say that Brock, SM, and myself are all
>>> in agreement, that God is our Father, and that Jesus is Lord.
>>
>> L
>> Well I'm not so sure.
>
> I am. I've conversed enough with the men I mentioned to be sure of
> this.

Joe, in what way are you 'sure' that I ("and probably Brock") are relying on the fallacy of association?

[Joe]

The main thesis of my post was to advance a theory explaining how one
might arrive at the conclusion, "Sola Scriptura." If you have an
alternate theory, or a refutation of the points I've made, by all
means, present your thoughts. However, this has no connection with my
remark to Chris. I assumed, as I think is natural, that his comment
was directed to my statement immediately preceding it, to wit: "I do

not think I am overstepping my bounds when I say that Brock, SM, and
myself are all in agreement, that God is our Father, and that Jesus is

Lord." I took Chris to mean he was not so sure of that. In fact, his
comments following that remark support this interpretation. I
responded by saying that I am sure. Do you disagree?

[Joe]

On Apr 28, 8:50 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 3:44, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> Thanks for the input Joe.  Your representation of Protestantism continues to be almost invariably inaccurate, but I attribute this to ignorance rather than malice.
>

To instruct the ignorant is a work of Mercy. Please, do go on! Tell
me how I have misrepresented your belief system.

When you misrepresented Catholicism, I was careful to point out
exactly how. That is more or less the only proper protocol for a
discussion forum, wouldn't you agree? In general: if you disagree
with anything your opponent states, then say why. Be specific.
Support your disagreement with arguments, facts, cites, anything.
Anything is better than simply saying, "you are ignorant," and leaving
it at that. That is a non-argument.

> Despite your response I still consider Paul's advice particularly relevant for modern Catholics:
>
> > "See to it that no one takes you captive
> > through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends upon human tradition
> > and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
>
> Peace.

Catholicism in its entirety is based on the doctrine of Christ. So
your accusation above is a straw man.

In particular, we hold fast to the Traditions we have received from
the Apostles, as Saint Paul exhorts us in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Thus
they are not, as you falsely assert, "human tradition."

Above is an example of an actual argument, using Scripture.
Scripture, of course, is not the only thing one might use effectively
in an argument, but it is useful to us, as Saint Paul wrote to Saint
Timothy. My point in this paragraph is that I've actually bothered to
address your point, and to refute it. Kindly at least attempt to do
the same. Demonstrate exactly how, for example, you consider certain
specific elements of Catholic Doctrine to be "hollow and deceptive
philosophy." Show that they are indeed, as you assert above sans any
support, dependent on human tradition rather than Apostolic Tradition,
and on the principles of this world rather than on Christ. Thanks in
advance!

[14SM.jcil]

On Apr 29, 2011, at 0:33, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The main thesis of my post was to advance a theory explaining how one
> might arrive at the conclusion, "Sola Scriptura." If you have an
> alternate theory, or a refutation of the points I've made, by all
> means, present your thoughts. However, this has no connection with my
> remark to Chris. I assumed, as I think is natural, that his comment
> was directed to my statement immediately preceding it, to wit: "I do
> not think I am overstepping my bounds when I say that Brock, SM, and
> myself are all in agreement, that God is our Father, and that Jesus is
> Lord." I took Chris to mean he was not so sure of that. In fact, his
> comments following that remark support this interpretation. I
> responded by saying that I am sure. Do you disagree?

Thanks for clarifying your comments for me, Joe. It wasn't immediately apparent to me what the focus of your assertion was.

I'll not resurrect our discussion regarding Sola Scriptura since I no longer hold hope that my views can penetrate what I perceive to be a blindly accepted inculcation (I don't intend that term offensively and respect that you likely view me similarly - although for my part, in truth I have given serious and honest consideration to many of your points).

In researching our earlier discussions, I've come to be even more convinced of the validity of the concept of Sola Scriptura. I respect that you're comfortable seeing things differently.

Peace.

[SM]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

To instruct the ignorant is a work of Mercy.  Please, do go on!  Tell
me how I have misrepresented your belief system.

Thanks for the invitation, Joe.  It's refreshing to see that you're open to seeing 'Protestantism' differently.

I've come to conclude however, that the differences are inconsequential.  I've been spending some time lately researching NDEs, and I'm more convinced than ever of something I have long suspected: God uses a broad array of means to draw people to himself.

I believe as sin-stained beings none of us in this life will arrive at an entirely accurate and comprehensive understanding of how God relates to man, but I am resolved to more earnestly applaud and encourage all genuine attempts to reconcile with our Creator, no matter the accoutrements which surround such attempts.

What is non-negotiable is the truth that Jesus Christ has accomplished for all those who believe what they could not do for themselves; indeed, what could not be done through any other means.  The shedding of the blood of Christ is the only sufficient provision for the remission of sins.  We may take different paths to arrive there, but there is but one door through which reconciliation is attained.

[Joe]

On Apr 29, 10:23 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To instruct the ignorant is a work of Mercy.  Please, do go on!  Tell
> > me how I have misrepresented your belief system.
>
> Thanks for the invitation, Joe.  It's refreshing to see that you're open to
> seeing 'Protestantism' differently.
>

But it is disappointing to see you so disinclined to that work of
mercy.

> I've come to conclude however, that the differences are inconsequential.
>  I've been spending some time lately researching NDEs, and I'm more
> convinced than ever of something I have long suspected: God uses a broad
> array of means to draw people to himself.
>

Very catholic view, there!

> I believe as sin-stained beings none of us in this life will arrive at an
> entirely accurate and comprehensive understanding of how God relates to man,
> but I am resolved to more earnestly applaud and encourage all genuine
> attempts to reconcile with our Creator, no matter the accoutrements which
> surround such attempts.
>

But, at the expense of earnestly contending for that faith once
delivered unto the saints?

> What is non-negotiable is the truth that Jesus Christ has accomplished for
> all those who believe what they could not do for themselves; indeed, what
> could not be done through any other means.  The shedding of the blood of
> Christ is the only sufficient provision for the remission of sins.  We may
> take different paths to arrive there, but there is but one door through
> which reconciliation is attained.

So, are you saying that the sincerity of non-Christians is sufficient,
or insufficient to please God?

And, is there any particular reason you have chosen to truncate our
discussion on this discussion group? You say, "the differences are
inconsequential," and then you seem to extend that inconsequentiality
to the differences between *any* sets of beliefs. But then, you seem
to backpedal and say that belief in Jesus Christ is important. Or, am
I reading you wrong? Do you mean that Christ's Sacrifice is
important, but that it is not as important to believe it?

Are beliefs important, or not? If not, then how would Christian vs
non-Christian be important? Or if so, then how would the differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism be inconsequential? We are
commanded (Jude 3) "to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered
to the saints." That is what I am seeking to do with you, and here
seems to be the ideal place to do it. But you seem reticent to
continue.

Is it because --- perhaps? --- that you hold that our common faith in
Jesus Christ as Lord is the most important thing, and that that is so
important, and unites us in Him, so as to make our doctrinal
differences unimportant, to the point that avoiding the risk of
scandalizing unbelievers by arguing in their presence outweighs the
desire for unity in all things?

Or is it, rather, that you have judged me as ignorant and brainwashed
to the point that it is simply not worth your effort to try to get me
to understand what you see as the plain and simple truth of Sola
Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc.?

Or is it something else again?

[Joe]

On Apr 29, 6:04 am, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 0:33, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The main thesis of my post was to advance a theory explaining how one
> > might arrive at the conclusion, "Sola Scriptura."  If you have an
> > alternate theory, or a refutation of the points I've made, by all
> > means, present your thoughts.  However, this has no connection with my
> > remark to Chris.  I assumed, as I think is natural, that his comment
> > was directed to my statement immediately preceding it, to wit: "I do
> > not think I am overstepping my bounds when I say that Brock, SM, and
> > myself are all in agreement, that God is our Father, and that Jesus is
> > Lord."  I took Chris to mean he was not so sure of that.  In fact, his
> > comments following that remark support this interpretation.  I
> > responded by saying that I am sure.  Do you disagree?
>
> Thanks for clarifying your comments for me, Joe.  It wasn't immediately apparent to me what the focus of your assertion was.
>
> I'll not resurrect our discussion regarding Sola Scriptura since I no longer hold hope that my views can penetrate what I perceive to be a blindly accepted inculcation (I don't intend that term offensively and respect that you likely view me similarly - although for my part, in truth I have given serious and honest consideration to many of your points).
>

I consider your assertion of a perception to be out of line. You
perceive no such thing, since no such thing exists in me. You may
hold, as your view, that I am in a state of blind acceptance of
inculcation, and you certainly are entitled to hold that view of me,
and to express it as such. But to claim that opinion of yours as a
perception is going too far.

> In researching our earlier discussions, I've come to be even more convinced of the validity of the concept of Sola Scriptura.  I respect that you're comfortable seeing things differently.
>
> Peace.

This is a discussion forum, SM. I do not understand your
unwillingness to discuss things on it. Why are you here?

[SM]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I believe as sin-stained beings none of us in this life will arrive at an
> entirely accurate and comprehensive understanding of how God relates to man,
> but I am resolved to more earnestly applaud and encourage all genuine
> attempts to reconcile with our Creator, no matter the accoutrements which
> surround such attempts.
>

But, at the expense of earnestly contending for that faith once
delivered unto the saints?

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."  (Jude 3)

I concur with Jude that we should robustly 'contend' for the message of the Gospel.  So long as we find agreement on that I see no reason to press further into areas that have already proven difficult for us to discuss charitably.

 

> What is non-negotiable is the truth that Jesus Christ has accomplished for
> all those who believe what they could not do for themselves; indeed, what
> could not be done through any other means.  The shedding of the blood of
> Christ is the only sufficient provision for the remission of sins.  We may
> take different paths to arrive there, but there is but one door through
> which reconciliation is attained.

So, are you saying that the sincerity of non-Christians is sufficient,
or insufficient to please God?

If by "please God" you mean 'become reconciled to God', I think the statement I made is clear: "The shedding of the blood of Christ is the only sufficient provision for the remission of sins."

If you mean something else, please clarify.

 

And, is there any particular reason you have chosen to truncate our
discussion on this discussion group?  You say, "the differences are
inconsequential," and then you seem to extend that inconsequentiality
to the differences between *any* sets of beliefs.  But then, you seem
to backpedal and say that belief in Jesus Christ is important.  Or, am
I reading you wrong?  Do you mean that Christ's Sacrifice is
important, but that it is not as important to believe it?

I mean to say that the Gospel as described clearly in Scripture is non-negotiable and worthy of 'contention' (see above).  One of the truths of the Gospel is that we place our trust in it ("believe it").

 

Are beliefs important, or not?  If not, then how would Christian vs
non-Christian be important?  Or if so, then how would the differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism be inconsequential?  We are
commanded (Jude 3) "to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered
to the saints."  That is what I am seeking to do with you, and here
seems to be the ideal place to do it.  But you seem reticent to
continue.

The purpose for our discussions should be to draw closer to God in an authentic, eternally secure relationship with our Creator, and to enjoin those around us to do the same.

"But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called 'Today,' so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness."  (Hebrews 3:13)

"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up" (1 Thess. 5:11)

"And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another - and all the more as you see the Day approaching." (Hebrews 10:24-25)

"Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves." (Romans 12:10)

 

Is it because --- perhaps? --- that you hold that our common faith in
Jesus Christ as Lord is the most important thing, and that that is so
important, and unites us in Him, so as to make our doctrinal

differences unimportant...?

Yes.

 

[Joe]

On May 2, 3:48 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > . . . is there any particular reason you have chosen to truncate our

> > discussion on this discussion group?  

. . .

> > Is it because --- perhaps? --- that you hold that our common faith in
> > Jesus Christ as Lord is the most important thing, and that that is so
> > important, and unites us in Him, so as to make our doctrinal
> > differences unimportant...?
>
> Yes.

O.K., I can respect that. Thanks.

[Joe]

On May 2, 3:48 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

You wrote,

"I am resolved to more earnestly applaud and encourage all genuine
> > > attempts to reconcile with our Creator, no matter the accoutrements which
> > > surround such attempts.
"

By, "all genuine attempts. . ." do you mean to include sincere
Buddhists, or not?

> > And, is there any particular reason you have chosen to truncate our
> > discussion on this discussion group?  You say, "the differences are
> > inconsequential," and then you seem to extend that inconsequentiality
> > to the differences between *any* sets of beliefs.  But then, you seem
> > to backpedal and say that belief in Jesus Christ is important.  Or, am
> > I reading you wrong?  Do you mean that Christ's Sacrifice is
> > important, but that it is not as important to believe it?
>
> I mean to say that the Gospel as described clearly in Scripture is
> non-negotiable and worthy of 'contention' (see above).  One of the truths of
> the Gospel is that we place our trust in it ("believe it").
>

That is only one of them. There are many others, and we are not
actually authorized to pick and choose.

> > Are beliefs important, or not?  If not, then how would Christian vs
> > non-Christian be important?  Or if so, then how would the differences
> > between Catholicism and Protestantism be inconsequential?  We are
> > commanded (Jude 3) "to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered
> > to the saints."  That is what I am seeking to do with you, and here
> > seems to be the ideal place to do it.  But you seem reticent to
> > continue.
>
> The purpose for our discussions should be to draw closer to God in an
> authentic, eternally secure relationship with our Creator, and to enjoin
> those around us to do the same.
>

Well, that's what I'd like to do, here. But you seem to want to keep
it as diluted as possible for the sake of appearances. Or, perhaps,
you really think a diluted version of the Gospel is all that is
necessary.

For myself, for example, I would rather *feel* insecure if that makes
me fear God more and strive more for holiness, than feel secure and
not worry so much about my sins. I am actually interested in
converting from my sins. I think that's the whole point. What do you
think about that?

> "But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called 'Today,' so that
> none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness."  (Hebrews 3:13)
>
> "Therefore encourage one another and build each other up" (1 Thess. 5:11)
>
> "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good
> deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing,
> but encouraging one another - and all the more as you see the Day
> approaching." (Hebrews 10:24-25)
>
> "Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves."
> (Romans 12:10)
>
> > Is it because --- perhaps? --- that you hold that our common faith in
> > Jesus Christ as Lord is the most important thing, and that that is so
> > important, and unites us in Him, so as to make our doctrinal
> > differences unimportant...?
>
> Yes.

While I respect that, and out of respect for that I am toning it down
somewhat, I hope you recognize that in my view, there are severe
deficiencies in some systems claiming to be Christian, and that it is
even possible that those deficiencies are in essentials, so much so
that they may constitute a danger to salvation. I wouldn't want it on
my conscience that I failed to inform you of the truth necessary to
salvation, so, I am hoping that you will not mistake a desire to seem
to agree for charity. It may be more charitable to contend for the
fullness of Faith, as Saint Jude says. And there are many more
elements of faith than bare acceptance of Our Lord's propitiatory
Sacrifice. I hope, in short, that you will not abandon our discussion
entirely. I'll try to take baby steps.

[SM]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

You wrote,

"I am resolved to more earnestly applaud and encourage all genuine
> > > attempts to reconcile with our Creator, no matter the accoutrements which
> > > surround such attempts.
"

By, "all genuine attempts. . ." do you mean to include sincere
Buddhists, or not?

Good question.  I'm not all that familiar with Buddhism or many of the eastern religions, but my perception is that these paths generally lead away from the truth that is found in Christ Jesus.  However, to the extent that any aspect of these paths could actually take one closer to an authentic reconciliation with our Creator, I wholeheartedly would applaud that...for this is the real need of man.

 

> Do you mean that Christ's Sacrifice is important, but that it is not as important to believe it?
>
> I mean to say that the Gospel as described clearly in Scripture is
> non-negotiable and worthy of 'contention' (see above).  One of the truths of
> the Gospel is that we place our trust in it ("believe it").
>

That is only one of them.  There are many others, and we are not
actually authorized to pick and choose.

Agreed.  I haven't suggested otherwise.  I was responding to your specific question regarding belief in the sacrifice of Christ.

 

> > Are beliefs important, or not?  If not, then how would Christian vs
> > non-Christian be important?  Or if so, then how would the differences
> > between Catholicism and Protestantism be inconsequential?  We are
> > commanded (Jude 3) "to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered
> > to the saints."  That is what I am seeking to do with you, and here
> > seems to be the ideal place to do it.  But you seem reticent to
> > continue.
>
> The purpose for our discussions should be to draw closer to God in an
> authentic, eternally secure relationship with our Creator, and to enjoin
> those around us to do the same.
>

Well, that's what I'd like to do, here.  But you seem to want to keep
it as diluted as possible for the sake of appearances.  Or, perhaps,
you really think a diluted version of the Gospel is all that is
necessary.

I neither said nor intimated any kind of 'diluted Gospel'.  In fact, I believe I've the opposite: 'The Gospel is worthy of contention'.  My point is that it centers around Christ, and that He and He alone is the appropriate focus.  Nothing need be added.

 

For myself, for example, I would rather *feel* insecure if that makes
me fear God more and strive more for holiness, than feel secure and
not worry so much about my sins.  I am actually interested in
converting from my sins.  I think that's the whole point.  What do you
think about that?

I believe the Bible makes clear that the power of 'conversion' is beyond either of us; it is entirely a work of God.  Since it's entirely a work of God, there is nothing to *feel* insecure about.  Having said that, I agree that our participation with the active and ongoing work of the Spirit of God to make us more like Christ is one of the purposes of our life.

 

While I respect that, and out of respect for that I am toning it down

somewhat, I hope you recognize that in my view, there are severe
deficiencies in some systems claiming to be Christian, and that it is
even possible that those deficiencies are in essentials, so much so
that they may constitute a danger to salvation.  I wouldn't want it on
my conscience that I failed to inform you of the truth necessary to
salvation, so, I am hoping that you will not mistake a desire to seem
to agree for charity.  It may be more charitable to contend for the
fullness of Faith, as Saint Jude says.  And there are many more
elements of faith than bare acceptance of Our Lord's propitiatory
Sacrifice.  I hope, in short, that you will not abandon our discussion
entirely.  I'll try to take baby steps.

I very much respect the thought you express here.  Let me say that I release you from any obligation on my behalf.  When you review your life in front of the King, and you're asked about our interaction you can report with full measure of truth and sincerity that you pursued me as you believed best.  You can point to this post as validation of that fact.  Meanwhile, let your conscience be at rest.  Trust that God is a work in my life and will graciously lead me in accordance with his will and divine plan.

[Joe]

On May 3, 9:59 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You wrote,
>
> > "I am resolved to more earnestly applaud and encourage all genuine
> > > > > attempts to reconcile with our Creator, no matter the accoutrements
> > which
> > > > > surround such attempts.
> > "
>
> > By, "all genuine attempts. . ." do you mean to include sincere
> > Buddhists, or not?
>
> Good question.  I'm not all that familiar with Buddhism or many of the
> eastern religions, but my perception is that these paths generally lead away
> from the truth that is found in Christ Jesus.  However, to the extent that
> any aspect of these paths could actually take one closer to an authentic
> reconciliation with our Creator, I wholeheartedly would applaud that...for
> this is the real need of man.
>
> > > Do you mean that Christ's Sacrifice is important, but that it is not as
> > important to believe it?
>
> > > I mean to say that the Gospel as described clearly in Scripture is
> > > non-negotiable and worthy of 'contention' (see above).  One of the truths
> > of
> > > the Gospel is that we place our trust in it ("believe it").
>
> > That is only one of them.  There are many others, and we are not
> > actually authorized to pick and choose.
>
> Agreed.  I haven't suggested otherwise.

Yet, you do pick and choose.

> I was responding to your specific
> question regarding belief in the sacrifice of Christ.
>
> > > > Are beliefs important, or not?  If not, then how would Christian vs
> > > > non-Christian be important?  Or if so, then how would the differences
> > > > between Catholicism and Protestantism be inconsequential?  We are
> > > > commanded (Jude 3) "to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered
> > > > to the saints."  That is what I am seeking to do with you, and here
> > > > seems to be the ideal place to do it.  But you seem reticent to
> > > > continue.
>
> > > The purpose for our discussions should be to draw closer to God in an
> > > authentic, eternally secure relationship with our Creator, and to enjoin
> > > those around us to do the same.
>
> > Well, that's what I'd like to do, here.  But you seem to want to keep
> > it as diluted as possible for the sake of appearances.  Or, perhaps,
> > you really think a diluted version of the Gospel is all that is
> > necessary.
>
> I neither said nor intimated any kind of 'diluted Gospel'.  In fact, I
> believe I've the opposite: 'The Gospel is worthy of contention'.  My point
> is that it centers around Christ, and that He and He alone is the
> appropriate focus.  Nothing need be added.
>

But things are subtracted, by Protestants. Essential things. Christ
Himself is subtracted from Protestantism.

I think I'll obey the Holy Spirit rather than you, thanks just the
same! :) I know that God is leading you to Himself. I am
participating in that, if you allow it.

One of the things He was showing me this morning is the obvious
connection between Protestantism and Freemasonry. It revolves around
the question of Authority. In the beginning, Lucifer rebelled against
God's authority. He induced Adam and Eve to do the same. He induced
others to rebel against His legitimate authority in Moses. When He
came as the Messiah, with all the Power and Authority of His Father,
He established His Church on the foundation of the Apostles and the
Rock whom He named Peter. Heretics throughout the centuries rebelled
against God's established Authority in His Church, and Protestantism
is the legacy of Martin Luther's rebellion against God's Authority.
Freemasonry preaches, "liberty, equality, fraternity," which are very
attractive sentiments to fallen man. But hidden beneath the cloak of
such pretty-sounding words is rebellion. "All men are created equal"
implies that no man may be placed in any position of authority above
another, not even if God does it. And God did it, in Saint Peter and
in the Popes. And Martin Luther proclaimed the false doctrine of the
Freemasons to the German people, and brought them into rebellion with
him. And that rebellion continues to the present day, in you.

Earnestly contending for the Gospel means the whole Gospel, even the
inconvenient parts that say Saint Peter was given the Keys, among
others.

[dom]

On May 9, 11:21 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Earnestly contending for the Gospel means the whole Gospel, even the
> inconvenient parts that say Saint Peter was given the Keys, among
> others.

You're right about that, Joe. Too bad the RCC uses only the parts
of the gospel that are useful to it.

[Joe]

By "the RCC" I assume you mean God's one and only Church, that He
founded, according to the Gospels. According to Scripture,

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach,
to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: 17 That the man of God
may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

So the parts that God's Church finds useful, according to the
Scriptures, is ALL of them. That isn't "too bad," that is very good
--- too good for you to comprehend, perhaps. But God is better than
your imagination.

[dom]

On May 10, 7:48 pm, Joe <jfg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 1:20 pm, dom <dbio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >   You're right about that, Joe.  Too bad the RCC uses only the parts
> > of the gospel that are useful to it.

> By "the RCC" I assume you mean God's one and only Church, that He
> founded, according to the Gospels.  According to Scripture,

Joe, assumption is the mother of all phukups. That is one, if you
mean the RCC is God's one church.
Christ said "catholic," not Catholic.
.
If you don't, then the rest of your reply is valid.

[Joe]

God's Church was built on Saint Peter, not on Martin Luther.