-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Typical Roman Catholic
- Thread starter Nimrod
- Start date
B
Bastoune
Guest
You went to a class that taught you the Bible? Good!
But how do you know if they taught it correctly?
Former Baptist, turned Catholic apologist Gary Hoge writes:
------------------------------------------------
There is also the problem of Protestant history. If the Bible is so perspicuous, there should be widespread agreement among Protestants, at least on the "essentials," however one defines them. And, in fact, Protestants do claim to agree on the "essentials":
Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants.[15]
First of all, how does one define an "orthodox" Protestant? Since everyone is free to interpret the Bible as he sees fit, by what authority would one Protestant presume to judge another to be "unorthodox"? I suppose he would say that whoever agrees with him on the "clear teachings" of the Bible on "essential" matters is orthodox, and everyone else is unorthodox. Let’s look at a few areas of disagreement among Protestants and see if they are limited to "unessential" teachings.
Baptism
Is this an essential issue? It depends on whom you ask. Martin Luther thought it was:
Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit.[16]
Even as early as 1530, when Luther wrote those words, Protestantism had already divided into "clamoring sects" that could not agree on the "clear biblical teaching" about baptism. Modern Lutherans, Anglicans, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ believe, like Luther, that we are regenerated in baptism. It is where salvation occurs. Simply put, if you’re not baptized, you’re probably not saved. For these Protestants, baptism goes to the very heart of salvation, and it is clearly an essential doctrine.
On the other hand, Baptists, Reformed, Presbyterians, and many non-denominational churches believe that baptism is purely symbolic. Salvation has already occurred, baptism is merely a public testimony to that fact. To these Protestants baptism is not an essential doctrine. In fact, Quakers and the Salvation Army don’t even baptize at all.
And while we’re on the subject, what about infant baptism? Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and Presbyterians baptize infants. The Lutherans, Anglicans, and some Methodists believe the infants are regenerated. Luther wrote,
Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism.[17]
Presbyterians, although they do baptize infants, consider their baptism purely symbolic. Baptists and many others refuse to baptize infants at all.
Regeneration is the very heart of salvation, yet Protestants can’t agree among themselves when and how and to whom it occurs. So much for perspicuity.
The Eucharist
Many Protestants would say the Eucharist, or "Lord’s Supper," is not an essential doctrine. But Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord . . . That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [died]" (1 Cor. 11:27, 30). That sure sounds essential to me, perhaps even related to salvation and/or perseverance.
So what is the "clear" biblical teaching about the Eucharist? Once again, it depends on who you ask. Martin Luther believed that the Eucharist contains the true body and blood of Jesus, and that through it Jesus forgives sins:
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. . . . For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. . . . But here our wise spirits contort themselves with their great art and wisdom, crying out and bawling: How can bread and wine forgive sins or strengthen faith? . . . such bread and wine as is the body and blood of Christ . . . is verily the treasure, and nothing else, through which such forgiveness is obtained. [18]
Such is the power of the Eucharist, according to Luther and modern Lutherans and Anglicans, that through it Christ forgives sins. The Lutheran Church wrote that the Zwinglians, who denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, were "a set of people, whom we see agitated by the spirit of lying, and uttering blasphemies against the Son of Man."[19]
Zwingli, of course, saw it differently. He believed that the Eucharist was purely symbolic, which is probably the majority opinion of Protestants today. Luther wrote that it "would be better to announce eternal damnation than salvation after the style of Zwingli."[20]
John Calvin, founder of Calvinism, didn’t consider the Eucharist to be completely symbolic, as Zwingli did. He considered it to be a means of grace, through which Christ communicates grace to his followers. However, he denied that the bread and wine actually become the "true body and blood of our Lord":
"For what absurdities [Luther] pawned upon us . . . when he said the bread is the very body! . . . a very foul error."[21]
Protestants have clashed from the very beginning over their understanding of the clear, perspicuous biblical teaching about the Eucharist. In 1577, only 60 years after Luther nailed his "95 Theses" to the door at Wittenberg, a book called 200 Interpretations of the Words, "This is My Body" was published in Ingolstadt, Germany. That title speaks volumes on the perspicuity of Scripture.
Charismatic Signs
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Mark 16:17-18).
What is the "clear" teaching of this passage? Pentecostal Holiness churches interpret it to mean that those who believe will exhibit these signs. In other words, if you don’t speak in tongues, you aren’t saved. For them this is certainly an essential doctrine. Many other Protestant churches accept the validity of charismatic signs (as does the Catholic Church), but they don’t regard their absence in any given Christian as a sign that the person is not saved. At the other end of the spectrum, many Baptist churches, and others, deny that charismatic signs are legitimate. Perhaps they are even manifestations of Satan, "great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect" (Matt. 24:24).
Mortal Sin
Can a Christian forfeit his salvation by committing a "mortal" sin? This is a vital question, one that explores the very nature of salvation itself. Is salvation irrevocable, or can it be lost? The answer to that question has a crucial bearing on how you live the Christian life. If it is impossible to forfeit your salvation, then you need not be overly concerned with how you live your life. Sure, you want to please the Lord and avoid his discipline, but at least you know that heaven is yours, no matter what you do. On the other hand, if it is possible to forfeit your salvation, then it’s critical to know how this can happen, so that you can avoid it. How horrible it would be to live as a devoted follower of Christ for years, only to turn your back on Him later in life and throw it all away. So it’s clearly essential to know whether any sins are "mortal." If this is not an essential doctrine, then there are no essential doctrines.
So what is the clear, perspicuous biblical teaching about mortal sin? Not surprisingly, it depends on whom you ask:
At one end of the spectrum are the Baptist, Presbyterian, and many non-denominational churches. Following the teachings of John Calvin, they do not believe that it is possible to forfeit salvation. If you are saved, you are always saved, and nothing can change that. Excessive sin does not jeopardize your salvation, but it may indicate that you were never really saved in the first place.
Somewhere in the middle are Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopal, and some others. Following the teachings of Jacob Arminius, they believe that it is possible to sin so grievously that you forfeit your salvation. Salvation can be regained through genuine repentance.
At the other end of the spectrum are the "Holiness" churches:
The Holiness people believe they do not sin in any sense of the word [based on 1 John 5:18]. If a Christian does sin, he loses his salvation and must repent and be saved again. This can result (in the extreme) in a saved-lost-saved-lost cycle.[22]
So, once again, the Protestant interpretation of the "clear teachings" of the Bible spans the entire spectrum, from those who believe it is impossible to forfeit salvation no matter how badly you sin, to those who believe you forfeit salvation if you sin at all.
These are only a few of the many examples that could be cited to demonstrate the obvious inability of Protestants to agree on the "clear" teachings of Scripture, even on essential issues. They can’t even agree on which issues are essential. Such is the fruit of sola Scriptura.
Denominationalism Undermines Perspicuity
Protestantism has been divisive from its inception. Even as early as 1525 Martin Luther wrote,
There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.[23]
If the world lasts a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of the councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of the faith.[24]
In fact, the pace of Protestant division has increased over time. I can’t imagine anything more fatal to the idea of the "perspicuity" of Scripture. Indeed, from the beginning the Reformers understood that their divisiveness seriously undermined their credibility. In a letter to Luther’s colleague Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin wrote,
"It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves."[26]
How can we account for all this doctrinal confusion if the Bible is supposedly so clear? The Protestant explanation has been the same from the very beginning: If anyone can’t see the plain meaning of Scripture (as defined in the contradictory teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or whoever) it is because of his own sinfulness. Luther wrote,
Therefore come forward, you and all the Sophists together, and produce any one mystery which is still abstruse in the Scriptures. But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth . . . Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear scriptures of God.[27]
Therefore, if anyone disagrees with your own personal interpretation of the "all-clear scriptures of God," it is because he is blasphemous, wretched and blind. Only you (and your denomination, whatever it may be) are the pure in heart who honestly follow the "clear" teachings of God. If that sounds harsh, believe me, it’s nothing compared to what the Reformers had to say about each other:
"The devil has made himself master of Luther, to such a degree, as to make one believe he wishes to gain entire possession of him." (Ulrich Zwingli).[28]
"Zwingli was an offspring of hell, an associate of Arius, a man who did not deserve to be prayed for . . . He is dead and damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel, to compel others to follow his error." (Martin Luther).[29]
"[Luther] will not and can not associate himself with those who confess Christ . . . He wrote all his works by the impulse and the dictation of the devil." (Zwingli’s Church of Zurich).[30]
"[Luther] is puffed up with pride and arrogance, and seduced by Satan." (Oecolampadius).[31]
"Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths, and no one should pray for them." (Martin Luther).[32]
"Luther had done nothing to any purpose . . . people ought not to let themselves be duped by following his steps and being half-papist; it is much better to build a church entirely afresh." (John Calvin).[33]
"[Philip Melanchthon] openly opposes sound doctrine; or . . . cunningly, or at least, with but little manliness, disguises his own opinion . . . The inconstancy of Philip moves both my anger and detestation." (John Calvin).[34]
"Zwingli says almost nothing about Christian sanctity. He simply follows the Pelagians, the Papists and the philosophers." (Philip Melanchthon).[35]
"Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them." (Martin Bucer).[36]
"[Martin Bucer is] a gossip . . . a miscreant through and through . . . I trust him not at all, for Paul says ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.’" (Martin Luther).[37]
Obviously the Reformers attributed the diversity of opinion among themselves to wickedness on the part of whoever disagreed with them. Although the invective has died down considerably since then, this explanation is still held by some Protestants. According to J.I. Packer,
When adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism. [38]
Is all this really reasonable? Must each Protestant, or each denomination, assume that everyone else is blind and wicked and acting in bad faith because they draw conflicting doctrines from the same Scriptures? Fortunately, modern Protestants don’t usually attack each other with the same vitriol as the Reformers did. They take a much more irenic approach, and tend to attribute the differences more to blindness than to wickedness. But isn’t it more likely that most people are interpreting the Bible in good faith, and that they are just as open to the leading of the Holy Spirit as the next man? It seems much more reasonable to acknowledge that even some of the Bible’s "essential" teachings just aren’t clear enough to admit of but one "clear" interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------
Is THIS the legacy Jesus promised when He told the Apostles He would lead His Church ("ekklesia" in Greek - the same word the Septuagint uses to describe Israel; seen also in the title "Ecclesiastes") into ALL TRUTH? (John 14:26, 16:13)?!?!?
I don't think so.
But how do you know if they taught it correctly?
Former Baptist, turned Catholic apologist Gary Hoge writes:
------------------------------------------------
There is also the problem of Protestant history. If the Bible is so perspicuous, there should be widespread agreement among Protestants, at least on the "essentials," however one defines them. And, in fact, Protestants do claim to agree on the "essentials":
Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants.[15]
First of all, how does one define an "orthodox" Protestant? Since everyone is free to interpret the Bible as he sees fit, by what authority would one Protestant presume to judge another to be "unorthodox"? I suppose he would say that whoever agrees with him on the "clear teachings" of the Bible on "essential" matters is orthodox, and everyone else is unorthodox. Let’s look at a few areas of disagreement among Protestants and see if they are limited to "unessential" teachings.
Baptism
Is this an essential issue? It depends on whom you ask. Martin Luther thought it was:
Baptism is divine, not devised nor invented by men. For as truly as I can say, No man has spun the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer out of his head, but they are revealed and given by God Himself, so also I can boast that Baptism is no human trifle, but instituted by God Himself, moreover, that it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit.[16]
Even as early as 1530, when Luther wrote those words, Protestantism had already divided into "clamoring sects" that could not agree on the "clear biblical teaching" about baptism. Modern Lutherans, Anglicans, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ believe, like Luther, that we are regenerated in baptism. It is where salvation occurs. Simply put, if you’re not baptized, you’re probably not saved. For these Protestants, baptism goes to the very heart of salvation, and it is clearly an essential doctrine.
On the other hand, Baptists, Reformed, Presbyterians, and many non-denominational churches believe that baptism is purely symbolic. Salvation has already occurred, baptism is merely a public testimony to that fact. To these Protestants baptism is not an essential doctrine. In fact, Quakers and the Salvation Army don’t even baptize at all.
And while we’re on the subject, what about infant baptism? Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and Presbyterians baptize infants. The Lutherans, Anglicans, and some Methodists believe the infants are regenerated. Luther wrote,
Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism.[17]
Presbyterians, although they do baptize infants, consider their baptism purely symbolic. Baptists and many others refuse to baptize infants at all.
Regeneration is the very heart of salvation, yet Protestants can’t agree among themselves when and how and to whom it occurs. So much for perspicuity.
The Eucharist
Many Protestants would say the Eucharist, or "Lord’s Supper," is not an essential doctrine. But Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53). Paul wrote to the Corinthians that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord . . . That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep [died]" (1 Cor. 11:27, 30). That sure sounds essential to me, perhaps even related to salvation and/or perseverance.
So what is the "clear" biblical teaching about the Eucharist? Once again, it depends on who you ask. Martin Luther believed that the Eucharist contains the true body and blood of Jesus, and that through it Jesus forgives sins:
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. . . . For this reason we go to the Sacrament because there we receive such a treasure by and in which we obtain forgiveness of sins. . . . But here our wise spirits contort themselves with their great art and wisdom, crying out and bawling: How can bread and wine forgive sins or strengthen faith? . . . such bread and wine as is the body and blood of Christ . . . is verily the treasure, and nothing else, through which such forgiveness is obtained. [18]
Such is the power of the Eucharist, according to Luther and modern Lutherans and Anglicans, that through it Christ forgives sins. The Lutheran Church wrote that the Zwinglians, who denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, were "a set of people, whom we see agitated by the spirit of lying, and uttering blasphemies against the Son of Man."[19]
Zwingli, of course, saw it differently. He believed that the Eucharist was purely symbolic, which is probably the majority opinion of Protestants today. Luther wrote that it "would be better to announce eternal damnation than salvation after the style of Zwingli."[20]
John Calvin, founder of Calvinism, didn’t consider the Eucharist to be completely symbolic, as Zwingli did. He considered it to be a means of grace, through which Christ communicates grace to his followers. However, he denied that the bread and wine actually become the "true body and blood of our Lord":
"For what absurdities [Luther] pawned upon us . . . when he said the bread is the very body! . . . a very foul error."[21]
Protestants have clashed from the very beginning over their understanding of the clear, perspicuous biblical teaching about the Eucharist. In 1577, only 60 years after Luther nailed his "95 Theses" to the door at Wittenberg, a book called 200 Interpretations of the Words, "This is My Body" was published in Ingolstadt, Germany. That title speaks volumes on the perspicuity of Scripture.
Charismatic Signs
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Mark 16:17-18).
What is the "clear" teaching of this passage? Pentecostal Holiness churches interpret it to mean that those who believe will exhibit these signs. In other words, if you don’t speak in tongues, you aren’t saved. For them this is certainly an essential doctrine. Many other Protestant churches accept the validity of charismatic signs (as does the Catholic Church), but they don’t regard their absence in any given Christian as a sign that the person is not saved. At the other end of the spectrum, many Baptist churches, and others, deny that charismatic signs are legitimate. Perhaps they are even manifestations of Satan, "great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect" (Matt. 24:24).
Mortal Sin
Can a Christian forfeit his salvation by committing a "mortal" sin? This is a vital question, one that explores the very nature of salvation itself. Is salvation irrevocable, or can it be lost? The answer to that question has a crucial bearing on how you live the Christian life. If it is impossible to forfeit your salvation, then you need not be overly concerned with how you live your life. Sure, you want to please the Lord and avoid his discipline, but at least you know that heaven is yours, no matter what you do. On the other hand, if it is possible to forfeit your salvation, then it’s critical to know how this can happen, so that you can avoid it. How horrible it would be to live as a devoted follower of Christ for years, only to turn your back on Him later in life and throw it all away. So it’s clearly essential to know whether any sins are "mortal." If this is not an essential doctrine, then there are no essential doctrines.
So what is the clear, perspicuous biblical teaching about mortal sin? Not surprisingly, it depends on whom you ask:
At one end of the spectrum are the Baptist, Presbyterian, and many non-denominational churches. Following the teachings of John Calvin, they do not believe that it is possible to forfeit salvation. If you are saved, you are always saved, and nothing can change that. Excessive sin does not jeopardize your salvation, but it may indicate that you were never really saved in the first place.
Somewhere in the middle are Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Episcopal, and some others. Following the teachings of Jacob Arminius, they believe that it is possible to sin so grievously that you forfeit your salvation. Salvation can be regained through genuine repentance.
At the other end of the spectrum are the "Holiness" churches:
The Holiness people believe they do not sin in any sense of the word [based on 1 John 5:18]. If a Christian does sin, he loses his salvation and must repent and be saved again. This can result (in the extreme) in a saved-lost-saved-lost cycle.[22]
So, once again, the Protestant interpretation of the "clear teachings" of the Bible spans the entire spectrum, from those who believe it is impossible to forfeit salvation no matter how badly you sin, to those who believe you forfeit salvation if you sin at all.
These are only a few of the many examples that could be cited to demonstrate the obvious inability of Protestants to agree on the "clear" teachings of Scripture, even on essential issues. They can’t even agree on which issues are essential. Such is the fruit of sola Scriptura.
Denominationalism Undermines Perspicuity
Protestantism has been divisive from its inception. Even as early as 1525 Martin Luther wrote,
There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.[23]
If the world lasts a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of the councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of the faith.[24]
In fact, the pace of Protestant division has increased over time. I can’t imagine anything more fatal to the idea of the "perspicuity" of Scripture. Indeed, from the beginning the Reformers understood that their divisiveness seriously undermined their credibility. In a letter to Luther’s colleague Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin wrote,
"It is indeed important that posterity should not know of our differences; for it is indescribably ridiculous that we, who are in opposition to the whole world, should be, at the very beginning of the Reformation, at issue among ourselves."[26]
How can we account for all this doctrinal confusion if the Bible is supposedly so clear? The Protestant explanation has been the same from the very beginning: If anyone can’t see the plain meaning of Scripture (as defined in the contradictory teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or Zwingli, or whoever) it is because of his own sinfulness. Luther wrote,
Therefore come forward, you and all the Sophists together, and produce any one mystery which is still abstruse in the Scriptures. But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from their own blindness or want of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of the truth . . . Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear scriptures of God.[27]
Therefore, if anyone disagrees with your own personal interpretation of the "all-clear scriptures of God," it is because he is blasphemous, wretched and blind. Only you (and your denomination, whatever it may be) are the pure in heart who honestly follow the "clear" teachings of God. If that sounds harsh, believe me, it’s nothing compared to what the Reformers had to say about each other:
"The devil has made himself master of Luther, to such a degree, as to make one believe he wishes to gain entire possession of him." (Ulrich Zwingli).[28]
"Zwingli was an offspring of hell, an associate of Arius, a man who did not deserve to be prayed for . . . He is dead and damned, having desired like a thief and a rebel, to compel others to follow his error." (Martin Luther).[29]
"[Luther] will not and can not associate himself with those who confess Christ . . . He wrote all his works by the impulse and the dictation of the devil." (Zwingli’s Church of Zurich).[30]
"[Luther] is puffed up with pride and arrogance, and seduced by Satan." (Oecolampadius).[31]
"Oecolampadius, Calvin . . . and the other heretics have in-deviled, through-deviled, over-deviled, corrupt hearts and lying mouths, and no one should pray for them." (Martin Luther).[32]
"Luther had done nothing to any purpose . . . people ought not to let themselves be duped by following his steps and being half-papist; it is much better to build a church entirely afresh." (John Calvin).[33]
"[Philip Melanchthon] openly opposes sound doctrine; or . . . cunningly, or at least, with but little manliness, disguises his own opinion . . . The inconstancy of Philip moves both my anger and detestation." (John Calvin).[34]
"Zwingli says almost nothing about Christian sanctity. He simply follows the Pelagians, the Papists and the philosophers." (Philip Melanchthon).[35]
"Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people according as he loves or hates them." (Martin Bucer).[36]
"[Martin Bucer is] a gossip . . . a miscreant through and through . . . I trust him not at all, for Paul says ‘A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid.’" (Martin Luther).[37]
Obviously the Reformers attributed the diversity of opinion among themselves to wickedness on the part of whoever disagreed with them. Although the invective has died down considerably since then, this explanation is still held by some Protestants. According to J.I. Packer,
When adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism. [38]
Is all this really reasonable? Must each Protestant, or each denomination, assume that everyone else is blind and wicked and acting in bad faith because they draw conflicting doctrines from the same Scriptures? Fortunately, modern Protestants don’t usually attack each other with the same vitriol as the Reformers did. They take a much more irenic approach, and tend to attribute the differences more to blindness than to wickedness. But isn’t it more likely that most people are interpreting the Bible in good faith, and that they are just as open to the leading of the Holy Spirit as the next man? It seems much more reasonable to acknowledge that even some of the Bible’s "essential" teachings just aren’t clear enough to admit of but one "clear" interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------
Is THIS the legacy Jesus promised when He told the Apostles He would lead His Church ("ekklesia" in Greek - the same word the Septuagint uses to describe Israel; seen also in the title "Ecclesiastes") into ALL TRUTH? (John 14:26, 16:13)?!?!?
I don't think so.
I feel sorry for you, that you feel it is necessary to take my words out of context at every turn so that you can elevate yourself to a level of pity. Let's look at what I really said, shall we?
Your poor Anabaptist friends would have probably felt very left out, considering no church back then believed what he did...because he was outside of the church.
Did you read my words? Where did I speak of persecution, much less, mock said persecution? These anabaptists were heretics who were not in the Church. This is all I said. Never did I condone punishment or persecution of these Christians. You ought to stop stuffing words in my mouth...I would hate to accidentally bite down on your fingers.
I have never claimed that they were. Again, please do not put words in my mouth. Crimes committed against any human are contrary to the Catholic faith, and we mutually condemn the sins committed against those of all faiths. An evil man does not make an evil religion.
Thank you for the prayers, but I'm not advocating any violence, nor does my Christian denomination. Keep trying to pin one on me, though. I've got all day.
God bless,
Grant
Posted by Nimrod:
One more thing. I asked Rich "how to you get to heaven". And what was his reply, "Be a good person as much as you can". Now that is a typical Roman Catholic. They don't know the Word, they don't know what their own church teaches. they believe in works to get to heaven.
I posted something similar to this on another thread. The average Catholic is Biblically illiterate. They believe in a religion based on works, not salvation by grace through faith.
Posted by Catholic Convert.
Scott Hahn said, on one of his tapes, that the Roman Church seemed to have been engaged in an ignoble experiment to see just how many dumb and uncatechized laity they could turn out.
I once paraphrased this quote in my own words because I could not remember it word for word, and got lambasted by you and others for slander and false accusations.
The fact remains that Catholics in general remain Biblically illiterate; not only unknowledgeable about the Bible, but even about their own religion. Hahn himself testified to this.
Posted by Carson:
Yes, delivered to "the saints". And who were they? The Church. Nowhere does the Bible say that revelation was completely delivered in a nicely packaged book called "The Bible". The Bible, brother, is a product of the living, breathing Body of Christ.
You make a false assumption. The "saints" that Jude refers to were not the Catholics, which you imply when referring to the "Church." They were the Apostles, and the first century Christians. The Catholic Church, as almost all of history attests did not come into existence until the fourth century. Jude wrote long before that. The Bible is a product of the body of Christ, but not the one you are thinking of. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. If anything, evidence points to Catholicsm corrupting the Bible under the influence of Origen and his followers at Alexandria, rather than preserving the Bible.
DHK
One more thing. I asked Rich "how to you get to heaven". And what was his reply, "Be a good person as much as you can". Now that is a typical Roman Catholic. They don't know the Word, they don't know what their own church teaches. they believe in works to get to heaven.
I posted something similar to this on another thread. The average Catholic is Biblically illiterate. They believe in a religion based on works, not salvation by grace through faith.
Posted by Catholic Convert.
Scott Hahn said, on one of his tapes, that the Roman Church seemed to have been engaged in an ignoble experiment to see just how many dumb and uncatechized laity they could turn out.
I once paraphrased this quote in my own words because I could not remember it word for word, and got lambasted by you and others for slander and false accusations.
The fact remains that Catholics in general remain Biblically illiterate; not only unknowledgeable about the Bible, but even about their own religion. Hahn himself testified to this.
Posted by Carson:
Yes, delivered to "the saints". And who were they? The Church. Nowhere does the Bible say that revelation was completely delivered in a nicely packaged book called "The Bible". The Bible, brother, is a product of the living, breathing Body of Christ.
You make a false assumption. The "saints" that Jude refers to were not the Catholics, which you imply when referring to the "Church." They were the Apostles, and the first century Christians. The Catholic Church, as almost all of history attests did not come into existence until the fourth century. Jude wrote long before that. The Bible is a product of the body of Christ, but not the one you are thinking of. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. If anything, evidence points to Catholicsm corrupting the Bible under the influence of Origen and his followers at Alexandria, rather than preserving the Bible.
DHK
"The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians."
The young evangelist Max Vasquez, was,(killed in 1998), a very spiritual, godly man in Guatemala.(1998). As long as he held more or less secret meetings behind closed doors, all was quiet, except for an occasional rock thrown up onto the tin roof to annoy the people inside with its explosive clang. When the growing group built a church and then advertised a campaign, the threats began to mount. Tormented by the local religious leaders, who urged on the mob, but did not openly lead them in any attacks. The local people in the city were divided, some holding the evangelicos ought to be stoned, or stay clear out of their country which was traditional. Others of more education and who had traveled more, said, "Any such violence would be just individual fanatics, not local traditional institution. " There were those educated in many fields, but they did not know the past history of the their faith, which has always down through the centuries practiced every form of violence, war, and torture to keep or to expand its hold on people, individuals, or countries. The countless burnings at the stake, the inventions of the rack and every novel form of torture was used to carry on their examination. When convenient the top religious leaders would take charge of any such program; if there was to great a reaction against the cruel, godlessness of the these religious leaders, they would direct those same countless tortures and deaths from behind the scenes but with their faithful civil authorities and soldiers carrying it on more openly.
Love
David
[ December 27, 2002, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Daveth ]
The young evangelist Max Vasquez, was,(killed in 1998), a very spiritual, godly man in Guatemala.(1998). As long as he held more or less secret meetings behind closed doors, all was quiet, except for an occasional rock thrown up onto the tin roof to annoy the people inside with its explosive clang. When the growing group built a church and then advertised a campaign, the threats began to mount. Tormented by the local religious leaders, who urged on the mob, but did not openly lead them in any attacks. The local people in the city were divided, some holding the evangelicos ought to be stoned, or stay clear out of their country which was traditional. Others of more education and who had traveled more, said, "Any such violence would be just individual fanatics, not local traditional institution. " There were those educated in many fields, but they did not know the past history of the their faith, which has always down through the centuries practiced every form of violence, war, and torture to keep or to expand its hold on people, individuals, or countries. The countless burnings at the stake, the inventions of the rack and every novel form of torture was used to carry on their examination. When convenient the top religious leaders would take charge of any such program; if there was to great a reaction against the cruel, godlessness of the these religious leaders, they would direct those same countless tortures and deaths from behind the scenes but with their faithful civil authorities and soldiers carrying it on more openly.
Love
David
[ December 27, 2002, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Daveth ]
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi Dave,
We can only really talk with any clarity on our own personal experiences of Central and South America.
Twenty years ago I went to Bogota in Colombia. I strolled into a bar to get a beer. The whole bar went stoney quiet.
An old man looked up at me and said "Gringo?"
I said "no ON-GLAZE-IE". He might of thought I was selling double glazing or he might of thought I was English - either way the whole bar realised I was not an American. Everyone in the bar bought me a drink and wanted to know about the land of "johnny Walker" - great night.
I think the trouble "evangelicals" are having in Central and South American (based on my own very limited tiny experiences) are based on "American Imperialism". Its the same reasons why the Church Of England is small in India but the Catholic Church is much larger - one is associated with the imperialists and one with simply Christianity.
Things are never simply black and white. Simple people associate religion (Muslim to Baptist) with a culture.
[ December 27, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
We can only really talk with any clarity on our own personal experiences of Central and South America.
Twenty years ago I went to Bogota in Colombia. I strolled into a bar to get a beer. The whole bar went stoney quiet.
An old man looked up at me and said "Gringo?"
I said "no ON-GLAZE-IE". He might of thought I was selling double glazing or he might of thought I was English - either way the whole bar realised I was not an American. Everyone in the bar bought me a drink and wanted to know about the land of "johnny Walker" - great night.
I think the trouble "evangelicals" are having in Central and South American (based on my own very limited tiny experiences) are based on "American Imperialism". Its the same reasons why the Church Of England is small in India but the Catholic Church is much larger - one is associated with the imperialists and one with simply Christianity.
Things are never simply black and white. Simple people associate religion (Muslim to Baptist) with a culture.
[ December 27, 2002, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
No, they don't worship bread, they ADORE those cracker thingys, you know, the ones with the IHS, "(I) (H)ate (S)cripture" logo one the side.
[ December 27, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]
L
LaRae
Guest
No, they don't worship bread, they ADORE those cracker thingys, you know, the ones with the IHS, "(I) (H)ate (S)cripture" logo one the side.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you think it is showing good fruit to tell lies? Mock others?
If you disagree with Catholic teaching, fine however that doesn't give you the right to say what you have.
Perhaps you should remember this.....however you treat the least of us is how you treat Christ.
LaRae
SolaScriptura in 2003
New Member
Lies? I told no lie. Surely you understood that my saying the IHS on those Catholic crackers means "I hate Scripture" was a joke. According to Catholics it stands for "Jesus the Savior of mankind" (in Latin of course). Hislop, however, says it stands for Isis, Horus, Seb. Who cares what it stands for anyway? The point is that they worship a cracker! By the way, if you don't believe that the RCC teaches that the host ought to be adored (adoration = highest level of worship) during the eucharist, then go read up on the council of Trent.
Mock? What's wrong with mocking? Idol worshipers should be mocked and quite frequently were by the prophets of God! "And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, 'Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.'" (1 Ki 18:27)
[ December 27, 2002, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]
Mock? What's wrong with mocking? Idol worshipers should be mocked and quite frequently were by the prophets of God! "And so it was, at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, 'Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.'" (1 Ki 18:27)
[ December 27, 2002, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]
Headcoveredlady
New Member
Since the other topic was closed I will list some more here:
1. Transubstantiation, (Sp.) The Catholic religion crucifies Christ over and over by this act.
2. Confession to "fathers," Jesus told us to call no one father, but Father God. This is clearly against the Bible that I read. And no where in my Bible does it say these men can forgive sins.
3. CCD, went through the whole deal and never once cracked open a Bible.
4. I was never encouraged to bring my Bible to church either or read it at home in the mass. The only Bible verses I heard there were the first parts of the four gospels.
5. Tabernacles: Jesus is supposed to be in these little boxes. I remember when I had childlike faith and I would ask my mom over and over how Jesus fit into that little box.
6. Masses are said for dead people. Don't tell me this does not happen, my mom recently had one for her long deceased father. No Bible verses to support that one either.
7. Candle lighting is supposed to help the prayers get answered. Where in the Bible does it speak of candles to answer prayers.
8. Blessing of pets. Why do they need blessing and who says "fathers," can give them blessing?
9. Latin masses: my mother remembers the days when you could not understand one word because the entire service was in Latin. Why did they do that? Does not sound like a very effective way to teach the Bible if no one can understand the language.
And what Biblical support does this practice have?---- ANNULMENTS.
My own mother paid a large sum of money after her divorce to retain her membership in the religion. She was told that since she divorced she could no longer be a member, but if she paid $$$$$$ she would be welcomed back in with open arms. She paid the money,was given a "lovely" annulment certificate and told me that her marriage to my father never existed! Now wasn't that a lovely thing to tell a child??????
She did not make that up on her own that is what the Roman Catholic religion taught her.
HCL
[ December 28, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]
1. Transubstantiation, (Sp.) The Catholic religion crucifies Christ over and over by this act.
2. Confession to "fathers," Jesus told us to call no one father, but Father God. This is clearly against the Bible that I read. And no where in my Bible does it say these men can forgive sins.
3. CCD, went through the whole deal and never once cracked open a Bible.
4. I was never encouraged to bring my Bible to church either or read it at home in the mass. The only Bible verses I heard there were the first parts of the four gospels.
5. Tabernacles: Jesus is supposed to be in these little boxes. I remember when I had childlike faith and I would ask my mom over and over how Jesus fit into that little box.
6. Masses are said for dead people. Don't tell me this does not happen, my mom recently had one for her long deceased father. No Bible verses to support that one either.
7. Candle lighting is supposed to help the prayers get answered. Where in the Bible does it speak of candles to answer prayers.
8. Blessing of pets. Why do they need blessing and who says "fathers," can give them blessing?
9. Latin masses: my mother remembers the days when you could not understand one word because the entire service was in Latin. Why did they do that? Does not sound like a very effective way to teach the Bible if no one can understand the language.
And what Biblical support does this practice have?---- ANNULMENTS.
My own mother paid a large sum of money after her divorce to retain her membership in the religion. She was told that since she divorced she could no longer be a member, but if she paid $$$$$$ she would be welcomed back in with open arms. She paid the money,was given a "lovely" annulment certificate and told me that her marriage to my father never existed! Now wasn't that a lovely thing to tell a child??????
She did not make that up on her own that is what the Roman Catholic religion taught her.
HCL
[ December 28, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]
+++++++1. Transubstantiation, (Sp.) The Catholic religion crucifies Christ over and over by this act.++++++++++++++
Perhaps you could cite a Catholic source for this.
+++++++2. Confession to "fathers," Jesus told us to call no one father, but Father God. This is clearly against the Bible that I read. And no where in my Bible does it say these men can forgive sins.++++++Doesn't your bible have John 20?????Does Mt 22 also forbid you calling your teacher in school teacher? The "Father" issue has already been succesfully rebutted here.
++++++5. Tabernacles: Jesus is supposed to be in these little boxes. I remember when I had childlike faith and I would ask my mom over and over how Jesus fit into that little box.+++++See John 6 if you can not accept this teaching.
+++++++++6. Masses are said for dead people. Don't tell me this does not happen, my mom recently had one for her long deceased father. No Bible verses to support that one either.++++++
Jews have done this before and after Christ. You might try 2 Maccabees if you want a verse to support it.
+++++7. Candle lighting is supposed to help the prayers get answered. Where in the Bible does it speak of candles to answer prayers.+++++++++++ Candles signify prayers rising to heaven. They don't have anything to do with them being answered.
+++++9. Latin masses: my mother remembers the days when you could not understand one word because the entire service was in Latin. Why did they do that? Does not sound like a very effective way to teach the Bible if no one can understand the language.+++++++++++ Latin was the common language at one time. Look it up. It is still the language of the Church.
+++++And what Biblical support does this practice have?---- ANNULMENTS.++++++I believe that might fall under binding or loosening. If someone is unable to be married--say because they are already married--even civil law recognizes that no subsequent marriage is valid.
++++++My own mother paid a large sum of money after her divorce to retain her membership in the religion. She was told that since she divorced she could no longer be a member, but if she paid $$$$$$ she would be welcomed back in with open arms. She paid the money,was given a "lovely" annulment certificate and told me that her marriage to my father never existed! Now wasn't that a lovely thing to tell a child??????++++++++++++++++ Annulments have nothing to do with retaining "status" as a Catholic. They do have something to do with remarrying. And yes, annulments are too easy to obtain in the US. I believe the Vatican is working on this issue.
Perhaps you could cite a Catholic source for this.
+++++++2. Confession to "fathers," Jesus told us to call no one father, but Father God. This is clearly against the Bible that I read. And no where in my Bible does it say these men can forgive sins.++++++Doesn't your bible have John 20?????Does Mt 22 also forbid you calling your teacher in school teacher? The "Father" issue has already been succesfully rebutted here.
++++++5. Tabernacles: Jesus is supposed to be in these little boxes. I remember when I had childlike faith and I would ask my mom over and over how Jesus fit into that little box.+++++See John 6 if you can not accept this teaching.
+++++++++6. Masses are said for dead people. Don't tell me this does not happen, my mom recently had one for her long deceased father. No Bible verses to support that one either.++++++
Jews have done this before and after Christ. You might try 2 Maccabees if you want a verse to support it.
+++++7. Candle lighting is supposed to help the prayers get answered. Where in the Bible does it speak of candles to answer prayers.+++++++++++ Candles signify prayers rising to heaven. They don't have anything to do with them being answered.
+++++9. Latin masses: my mother remembers the days when you could not understand one word because the entire service was in Latin. Why did they do that? Does not sound like a very effective way to teach the Bible if no one can understand the language.+++++++++++ Latin was the common language at one time. Look it up. It is still the language of the Church.
+++++And what Biblical support does this practice have?---- ANNULMENTS.++++++I believe that might fall under binding or loosening. If someone is unable to be married--say because they are already married--even civil law recognizes that no subsequent marriage is valid.
++++++My own mother paid a large sum of money after her divorce to retain her membership in the religion. She was told that since she divorced she could no longer be a member, but if she paid $$$$$$ she would be welcomed back in with open arms. She paid the money,was given a "lovely" annulment certificate and told me that her marriage to my father never existed! Now wasn't that a lovely thing to tell a child??????++++++++++++++++ Annulments have nothing to do with retaining "status" as a Catholic. They do have something to do with remarrying. And yes, annulments are too easy to obtain in the US. I believe the Vatican is working on this issue.
CatholicConvert
New Member
Lies? I told no lie.
Is a distortion of truth the same as a lie? I sure think so for one.
Surely you understood that my saying the IHS on those Catholic crackers means "I hate Scripture" was a joke.
We have given you extensive Scripture which shows that the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths are built upon the WHOLE of Scripture rather than your constant habit of jerking a verse out of context. That you reject it is your problem, not ours.
According to Catholics it stands for "Jesus the Savior of mankind" (in Latin of course).
Of course in Latin. That is the language of the Church. Have a problem with that?
Hislop, however, says it stands for Isis, Horus, Seb.
Yeah, there's a real objective source for reference.
Who cares what it stands for anyway?
You apparently do or you would not have resorted to the crude attempt at humor you made.
In keeping with the season, let me make a slight modification to the rest of Sola's Screed:
"The point is that they worship a baby! By the way, if you don't believe that the RCC teaches that the baby ought to be adored (adoration = highest level of worship) during the Eucharist, then go read up on the council of Trent.
You get the point, Sola, or do I have to get the crayons out for ya? THINK of how incredible it seemed to the Jews of that day to be told that the One Who holds the universe in His hands was fully and completely in that little tiny piece of living and breathing flesh we call a baby?
Why is it any harder that the bread and wine become most truly His Flesh and Blood? Is that harder somehow for God than to become a baby?
You need to go somewhere and exercise your thinking capabilities some!!
Brother Ed
Is a distortion of truth the same as a lie? I sure think so for one.
Surely you understood that my saying the IHS on those Catholic crackers means "I hate Scripture" was a joke.
We have given you extensive Scripture which shows that the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths are built upon the WHOLE of Scripture rather than your constant habit of jerking a verse out of context. That you reject it is your problem, not ours.
According to Catholics it stands for "Jesus the Savior of mankind" (in Latin of course).
Of course in Latin. That is the language of the Church. Have a problem with that?
Hislop, however, says it stands for Isis, Horus, Seb.
Yeah, there's a real objective source for reference.
Who cares what it stands for anyway?
You apparently do or you would not have resorted to the crude attempt at humor you made.
In keeping with the season, let me make a slight modification to the rest of Sola's Screed:
"The point is that they worship a baby! By the way, if you don't believe that the RCC teaches that the baby ought to be adored (adoration = highest level of worship) during the Eucharist, then go read up on the council of Trent.
You get the point, Sola, or do I have to get the crayons out for ya? THINK of how incredible it seemed to the Jews of that day to be told that the One Who holds the universe in His hands was fully and completely in that little tiny piece of living and breathing flesh we call a baby?
Why is it any harder that the bread and wine become most truly His Flesh and Blood? Is that harder somehow for God than to become a baby?
You need to go somewhere and exercise your thinking capabilities some!!
Brother Ed
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hi HCL,
You point to one reason why you rejected the Catholic church - that was the hurt your parents divorce/anullment caused you. I think it can be valid to reject things that cause you pain. I think many Americans have become Muslim because of the pain their black parents suffered right up to about 1960. Pain is a valid reason to reject. However, once the pain has lowered somewhat perhaps look again. Do something to give yourself assurance. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a convert to the Catholic Church and try to understand why they want to be Catholic. Its worthwhile looking at arguments CLOSELY from both sides.
From what I have come to understand about the Baptist church from this board is that it has no set belief. If you can honestly look at the bible and see the Catholic Church in it then as far as I can tell (from this board) you can still consider yourself a Baptist even though you decide to attend a Catholic Church - At least that is how it has been explained HERE.
[ December 28, 2002, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
You point to one reason why you rejected the Catholic church - that was the hurt your parents divorce/anullment caused you. I think it can be valid to reject things that cause you pain. I think many Americans have become Muslim because of the pain their black parents suffered right up to about 1960. Pain is a valid reason to reject. However, once the pain has lowered somewhat perhaps look again. Do something to give yourself assurance. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a convert to the Catholic Church and try to understand why they want to be Catholic. Its worthwhile looking at arguments CLOSELY from both sides.
From what I have come to understand about the Baptist church from this board is that it has no set belief. If you can honestly look at the bible and see the Catholic Church in it then as far as I can tell (from this board) you can still consider yourself a Baptist even though you decide to attend a Catholic Church - At least that is how it has been explained HERE.
[ December 28, 2002, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
CatholicConvert
New Member
5. Tabernacles: Jesus is supposed to be in these little boxes. I remember when I had childlike faith and I would ask my mom over and over how Jesus fit into that little box.
Ask yourself this then: How could the God Who holds the whole universe in His hands fit into the body of that little baby boy in Bethlehem? When you find the answer for this, your question above will also be answered.
6. Masses are said for dead people. Don't tell me this does not happen, my mom recently had one for her long deceased father. No Bible verses to support that one either.
That's because the Reformers took several books out of the Bible in order to support their position. And if Luther had had his way, we would have even less books than we have now.
7. Candle lighting is supposed to help the prayers get answered. Where in the Bible does it speak of candles to answer prayers.
I never heard that. I heard that the are symbolic of our prayers, but not that they are aids to getting our prayers answered. But in Revelation, we see Jesus standing in Heaven in the midst of a seven branched candlestick. So how's come your assembly doesn't even USE candles?
8. Blessing of pets. Why do they need blessing and who says "fathers," can give them blessing?
You know, after I had been in the Church for about a year, we had the "blessing of the cars" one Sunday. And as I was reflecting upon this, it suddenly dawned upon me that the presence of Jesus in the world makes EVERYTHING A BLESSING to the believer. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible to bless OBJECTS and PETS so as to reflect this truth. Jesus has won!!! He is here -- NOW!!! And someday -- He will be here in fullness. But in the meantime, His presence in the world BLESSES IT!!!
9. Latin masses: my mother remembers the days when you could not understand one word because the entire service was in Latin. Why did they do that? Does not sound like a very effective way to teach the Bible if no one can understand the language.
Since I am not Roman Catholic, I cannot address this fully, however, in our Byzantine Church, the Liturgy is done in parts in Old Church Slavonic. Pretty language, but I don't understand a word of it. However, there is a side x side English translation of what we say. I understand that this is the case in the Roman Miselette alsp. Said with respect, perhaps your mother wasn't trying too hard.
And what Biblical support does this practice have?---- ANNULMENTS.
Jesus. That's what:
Mt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
That AUTHORITY (authority -- a LOST CONCEPT to most Americans!!) is still extant in the bishops of the Church. It's a shame they don't know how to USE IT!!!
My own mother paid a large sum of money after her divorce to retain her membership in the religion. She was told that since she divorced she could no longer be a member, but if she paid $$$$$$ she would be welcomed back in with open arms.
Excuse me? You seem to forget that marriage is "FOR LIFE" and that since your mother and father divorced, regardless of which one was at fault, she could not receive the Eucharist if she remarried because she would be living in a state of ADULTERY!!! And to give her the Blessed Sacrament in that state and act as if everything were alright would be to further condemn her soul. You should be thankful that the Church took their DUTY with an earnestness and seriousness!!!
She paid the money,
What? Do you think that priest and bishops don't have to eat and pay rent on their buildings?
was given a "lovely" annulment certificate and told me that her marriage to my father never existed!
If there was really no intent to marry between them (I do not know all the particulars) then they truly didn't marry. And as noted above, the bishops have the authority from Christ to "bind and loose". True, it may have been abused, but that does not nullify the reality of either their authority or the right to perform such nullifications. What would you rather have, people who have divorced and remarried running around living in adultery and receiving the Eucharist in a state of sin?
Now wasn't that a lovely thing to tell a child??????
I get the feeling from your deep sarcasm that your mother didn't just "tell" this to you, but rather considerably embellished it with her own brand of vitriol and anger against your Dad and the Church.
You know, depending on WHO is telling the story, you can tell any story so as to bring out any number of differing emotions. I don't think your mother did you a great service in the way she told you.
She did not make that up on her own that is what the Roman Catholic religion taught her.
YOU should have listened to it better.
Brother Ed
Ask yourself this then: How could the God Who holds the whole universe in His hands fit into the body of that little baby boy in Bethlehem? When you find the answer for this, your question above will also be answered.
6. Masses are said for dead people. Don't tell me this does not happen, my mom recently had one for her long deceased father. No Bible verses to support that one either.
That's because the Reformers took several books out of the Bible in order to support their position. And if Luther had had his way, we would have even less books than we have now.
7. Candle lighting is supposed to help the prayers get answered. Where in the Bible does it speak of candles to answer prayers.
I never heard that. I heard that the are symbolic of our prayers, but not that they are aids to getting our prayers answered. But in Revelation, we see Jesus standing in Heaven in the midst of a seven branched candlestick. So how's come your assembly doesn't even USE candles?
8. Blessing of pets. Why do they need blessing and who says "fathers," can give them blessing?
You know, after I had been in the Church for about a year, we had the "blessing of the cars" one Sunday. And as I was reflecting upon this, it suddenly dawned upon me that the presence of Jesus in the world makes EVERYTHING A BLESSING to the believer. Therefore, it is perfectly sensible to bless OBJECTS and PETS so as to reflect this truth. Jesus has won!!! He is here -- NOW!!! And someday -- He will be here in fullness. But in the meantime, His presence in the world BLESSES IT!!!
9. Latin masses: my mother remembers the days when you could not understand one word because the entire service was in Latin. Why did they do that? Does not sound like a very effective way to teach the Bible if no one can understand the language.
Since I am not Roman Catholic, I cannot address this fully, however, in our Byzantine Church, the Liturgy is done in parts in Old Church Slavonic. Pretty language, but I don't understand a word of it. However, there is a side x side English translation of what we say. I understand that this is the case in the Roman Miselette alsp. Said with respect, perhaps your mother wasn't trying too hard.
And what Biblical support does this practice have?---- ANNULMENTS.
Jesus. That's what:
Mt 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
That AUTHORITY (authority -- a LOST CONCEPT to most Americans!!) is still extant in the bishops of the Church. It's a shame they don't know how to USE IT!!!
My own mother paid a large sum of money after her divorce to retain her membership in the religion. She was told that since she divorced she could no longer be a member, but if she paid $$$$$$ she would be welcomed back in with open arms.
Excuse me? You seem to forget that marriage is "FOR LIFE" and that since your mother and father divorced, regardless of which one was at fault, she could not receive the Eucharist if she remarried because she would be living in a state of ADULTERY!!! And to give her the Blessed Sacrament in that state and act as if everything were alright would be to further condemn her soul. You should be thankful that the Church took their DUTY with an earnestness and seriousness!!!
She paid the money,
What? Do you think that priest and bishops don't have to eat and pay rent on their buildings?
was given a "lovely" annulment certificate and told me that her marriage to my father never existed!
If there was really no intent to marry between them (I do not know all the particulars) then they truly didn't marry. And as noted above, the bishops have the authority from Christ to "bind and loose". True, it may have been abused, but that does not nullify the reality of either their authority or the right to perform such nullifications. What would you rather have, people who have divorced and remarried running around living in adultery and receiving the Eucharist in a state of sin?
Now wasn't that a lovely thing to tell a child??????
I get the feeling from your deep sarcasm that your mother didn't just "tell" this to you, but rather considerably embellished it with her own brand of vitriol and anger against your Dad and the Church.
You know, depending on WHO is telling the story, you can tell any story so as to bring out any number of differing emotions. I don't think your mother did you a great service in the way she told you.
She did not make that up on her own that is what the Roman Catholic religion taught her.
YOU should have listened to it better.
Brother Ed
The Council of Trent places a conedemnation on this belief, and what you state is contrary to the Catholic faith. Perhaps you should have researched a little before leaving the Church of Christ.
The term "Father" is just that, a term. It's a title of honor to those, who like the father of a household, shepard their children to the One True God. Any serious religious study will reveal this to you. Further, many people in Holy Writ are referred to as fathers. Further, as has already been stated, Christ said to call no man teacher, and yet I'm sure you have no problem doing this.
Have you never had a Bible study in your church in which perhaps a book was bought that everyone used, because it dealt with specific topics? And within these books, Scripture was frequently quoted and referenced? Please give me the name of whatever materials you used and will see if it was so absent of Scriptures! Either way, bad CCD teachers no doubt exist. Perhaps your parents should have taken this up with the priest or the bishop so that proper teachings were being taught.
Well, then apparently your Church wasn't Catholic, because at every Mass in every Church around the world, a reading from the Old Testament, from the Epistles in the New Testament, and a Gospel reading is read EVERY Sunday. And not just from the "first parts" of the Gospels. If you go to Church every Sunday for three years, you will have heard every word of the Gospel preached into your ears, as well as a good chunk of the rest of the Bible. Further, had you gone to daily Mass, you would have heard nearly EVERY BIT of the Bible read into your ears. And if that's not enough, the Missal in your pews has the readings for the entire season in it, and you can read along or read ahead (or back) as much as you want. The Word of God was not originally in a "Bible" but was in seperate letters. One does not have to have a complete Bible to read the Word of God in short spans.
Further, if you would have bothered to learn about your faith outside of your 8th grade CCD class, you'd see that the Church has always encouraged private reading of Scriptures.
I know, it takes a great deal of faith, doesn't it? I'm sorry that you were lacking in this area. Imagine the people around 30 AD, seeing a man walking around claiming to be GOD ALMIGHTY! They must have laughed at him, thinking the God and Creater of the Universe could be contained in a mere man! Thank God for FAITH!
I guess you don't like funerals either? Heck, let's just forget about dead people all together! No one here has ever denied that Masses are said for the dead (which you assumed some Catholic would say it doesn't happen, for some reason, as if we were ashamed). I'm not ashamed of my Church. Try reading up on why we do this, or start a thread about it, and we'll discuss it, openly and honestly.
Where did you get this from? Candles are to symbolize "the light of the world," which is Jesus Christ. Where we belive Jesus is present (as the mediator of our prayer to the Father, in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and in the Eucharist), candles are lit to further symbolize to the world that Christ is truly present in our midst!
You are referring to the Blessing of the Animals, which is in honor of St. Francis of Assisi. St. Francis was so in love with the Gospel of Christ that it is said that he even preached to the birds and the animals. All creation was made by God, and God created everything good, and everything He has given us is a blessing. The blessing of the animals is simply prayers for the wellbeing and blessing of those creatures which God has put in our care for the betterment of His people. I don't see the theological problem.
The purpose is not "to teach the Bible." It is to teach the Gospel of Christ, which is CONTAINED in the Bible, and the homilies and Scriptures were read in the vernacular. The Mass itself (the Sacrament of the Eucharist) and other prayers were said in Latin, though people knew what they meant.
Perhaps that Christ condemned divorce, and thus no divorce is valid in the eyes of God (except in perhaps extrenous circumstances). And since Marriage is a covenant between God and man, if man did not really give his consent (whether because intoxicated, or drugged, or with false intentions, or by lying in his vows), then the Sacrament never really took place. The two were never married in the first place. That is what an annullment is. It is not a severing of the marriage covenant, but a statement that the marriage never took place at all.
Whoever said it was lovely? I never said it was lovely, nor has anyone else on this board, or any Catholic that I've ever known. It's a painful process, but one in which true reconciliation can occur, because unlike divorce, it forces the two parties to truly be open to one another and look at their "marriage." I don't know anything about money, or what it costs, bu I can tell by your emotive language that you're blowing it out of proportion. I will look into this, though, so that we can have a better dialogue about it.Originally posted by Headcoveredlady:
My own mother paid a large sum of money after her divorce to retain her membership in the religion. She was told that since she divorced she could no longer be a member, but if she paid $$$$$$ she would be welcomed back in with open arms. She paid the money,was given a "lovely" annulment certificate and told me that her marriage to my father never existed! Now wasn't that a lovely thing to tell a child??????
No offense, but based on what you've said above, you don't know what the Church teaches, so you are hardly one to make such a statement. Let's research a little more together. You can contact me on AIM as "DojoGrant" and I'd be happy to work through any issues you have, using Scriptures and accurate Church teachings, taken from Church councils and declarations.
God bless you,
Grant