Posted on 06/13/2010 2:11:50 AM PDT by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
“Protestant Churches(fxd) don’t know much about the Catholic Church, and...”
...vice versa. I also do not know much about Presbyterians, Lutherans or Orthodox faiths but I am hoping to learn w/o calling their leaders “liars.”
Since I am engaged with sundry Protestants on this forum quite a bit, I know very well the Protestant doctrines.
Protestantism is based on lying about the gospel. The extrascriptural ideas about Bible Alone and Faith Alone were only possible because people trusted Luther’s knowledge of the scripture.
Orthodoxy is, of course, fine and by and large free from doctrinal error.
That's a really hard-boiled Roman Catholic way to view the world, annalex. I'd thought better of you.
Early Protestant Reformers studied both the Old and New Testaments, and rejected the accumulated layers of corruption, legalism and false doctrine built up over the centuries after Apostolic times, in order to remain true to the purest form of the Gospel. Those traditions and doctrines that withstood this Biblical "test" were retained. The rest were not.
So, this odd hobby-horse you guys have jumped on regarding Sola Scriptura, as if it is some equivalent to the legalism present in your own system of belief, is telling. All traditions, doctrines and teachings are to be tested against the scripture, and those found unscriptural or even questionably so are discarded. That's Sola Scriptura. It was not and is not a repudiation of all tradition and doctrine of the medieval Catholic Church. It was an utter rejection of false doctrine and the traditions of man that had crept into the church that were not Biblically supported.
Regarding the claim that Protestant beliefs were "only possible because people trusted Luther's knowledge of the scripture," well, there's that hardwired expectation of some worldy authority, some mere man, standing in the role of Bishop of Rome, that your ability to process the world apparently seems to depend upon entirely. You've said in the past that you've attended services in a Protestant Church, but this sort of cloistered, provincial ignorance does not support such a claim.
Luther arose more or less contemporaneously with numerous figures in the Reformation. He was no more of a Protestant "pope" with believers in him than the man in the moon. When you find yourself able to grasp this, then you can plausibly claim to know very well "the Protestant doctrines." Until then, you can't.
The scripture indeed praises the scripture, sets it up as a method of resolving disputes and notes that it is divinely inspired. But it never sets it up as a sole rule of faith; it does however set up the Church as the rule of faith.
So, “sola Scriptura” is unscriptural.
I only picked on Luther because he started the deception. Others followed.
Don’t prattle about deception when your church purports to represent an unbroken line of Apostolic succession despite centuries of disputed, corrupt papacy, sometimes three competing popes at a time.
Their own hidebound, bureaucratic myopia made the Reformation inevitable. There have been Reformers on record since at least the eighth century, easily dismissed as “heretic” until critical mass was reached in the sixteenth century.
Why, do you suppose, was that critical mass reached? Was it something in the water? Or did the utter corruption of the hierarchy, from Rome to the local level across Europe and the British Isles, have something to do with it?
You should know the answer to this. But, drag out the megaphone and cheer for your team. Rah rah rah.
Dispute about succession is not the same as absence fo valid apostolic succession. While there were false popes, there has always been a valid pope. Besides, apostolic succession is not only through popes but also through bishops, and to priests.
Yes, there were bad clergy all along. Nor were St. Peter and the Holy Apostles themselves perfect, as the Scripture shows.
None of the imperfections of the Living Church is a lie about the scripture. The so-called Reformation is. That is the difference you don’t seem to grasp.
It's internally inconsistent and illogical on its face, much like presuming a bishop is infallible in any regard, let alone on the basis of mere geography.
You appear to have resorted to an erroneous use of that which you condemn, in a comically flailing attempt to reinforce your condemnation, here.
“Protestantism is based on lying about the gospel.”
This will be our last communication on this thread.
“The extrascriptural ideas about Bible Alone and Faith Alone were only possible because people trusted Luther’s knowledge of the scripture.”
So you disagree with extra scriptural writings? REALLY?
Do not bother answering, I am really not interested in hearing more from the likes of you on this thread.
Annalex: “The extrascriptural ideas about Bible Alone and Faith Alone were only possible because people trusted Luther’s knowledge of the scripture.”
You: So you disagree with extra scriptural writings? REALLY?
Me: I hope everyone gets a good look at your “reasoning” here. That is a false statement about what Annalex posted, and your own post shows itself false. This is typical of protestants on these RF threads, and a very clear, very typical example of the nature of Catholic/protestant disagreements.
“That is a false statement”
I made no statement.
Claiming to adhere to scriptuire is not the same as actually doing it. Case in point, the two Protestant Solas, sola scriptura and sola fide, are not written anywhere and the latter is directly controverted by it.
I disagree with doctrines that contradict the scripture. I do not disagree with development of doctrine that agrees with the scripture. This is why I am Catholic.
Perhaps I should have said “counterscriptural” in reference to Sola Fide and “extrascriptural” in reference to Sola Scriptura. Extrascriptural but not counterscriptural would be fine, of course, — we have doctrines like that, — but it is still self-contradictory when “Bible Alone” is the doctrine in question.
I doubt it would have made any difference.
Where is intellectual crudity there is Protestantism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.