Posted on 05/01/2008 5:07:35 PM PDT by annalex
Not necessarily either. One can simply decide the Catholic Church’s theology is not as correct as Protestant theology. I know one person who thought so.
I don't think that salvation is the same as conversion, and I don't view conversion as a one-time act. Please see my 93 on this thread. I think that we was on a Christian journey of faith since childhood, and it lead him to the Catholic Church because that is the logical summit of any conversion to Christ. But I do not deny that the process of his sanctification started in the Baptist community where he grew up.
I doo not think the Reformers were that interested in the Scripture. I disagree that Protestantism is faithful to it. The overriding desire of the Protestant reformers was to get rid of clericalism, which they saw as a bad thing. Logically, they had to propose another source of authority and so they invented the superstitious concept of sola scriptura. Then, they got to the task of finding interpretations of the Holy Scripture that were not pointing to a sacramental hierarchical Church. That was done by elevating some verses out of context, ignoring others and discarding a whole section of the Bible as not inspired. The scripture read in context, literally, verse by verse does not contain any contradiction with either Orthodox or the Catholic Church of today, and it contains plenty of contradition with several important Protestant doctrines. For example, both Sola Scriptura and sola fide are directly controverted by the Scripture and require amazing trickery of Protestant exegesis to explain away.
INDEED.
Thanks.
You are very welcome!
It only needs one.
Second Letter of Paul to the Thessalonians
"15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
I don't see how it can be stated any more plainly than that.
If that's what you thought Catholicism is, you obviously didn't learn much while you were there. I suggest you take a gander at the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", and check out scriptural references therein.
Would it be that everyone would realize this, Catholics included. Early Christians practiced the Christianity described in the bible and practiced by Christ. The identifying practices, the practices that differ the most from modern Christianity are the observance of the Lord's sabbath on the 7th day and the observation of the Lord's holy days, the same ones practiced by Christ while incarnate and then taught and practiced by gentile and jewish converts to Christianity.
While Catholicism has at least an excuse (the belief in holy tradition) for not practicing first century Christianity, Protestants have no such excuse. They instead pick and choose the traditions of the Catholic church which they want to observe.
Thank you for your replies. From what you say, though, you show yourself to be less concerned with what the man says than where he eventually ended up. As such, I can accept your position as an ardent Catholic defending what is supposed to be a conversion story.
Unfortunately, this man’s account leaves me no insights into the miracles of faith he has found - only blatant hypocrisy and a pathology of the self-serving ignorant life he left. To debate Catholicism and it’s extra-Biblical justifications would be an entirely new thread.
Thanks for your insights and time just the same.
I know that those stories are also out there too. But there is a far greater number of those who disagree and leave the Church and remain Christian. I am related to many who fall into that category.
It is my perspective, no offense, that the term “Christian” defines what you believe, and the term “Protestant” defines that you protest Church teaching, or in other words, don’t believe. However, this rejection is of Catholic Church teaching, not Christ.
If your reference is to the celebration of the Lord’s Day on Sunday, that is biblical. After the Resurrection the disciples met Him on a Sunday, and then on the next Sunday, and so we do the same thing to this day.
Interesting that this is a classic repentance and conversion story and you chose to malign the penitent.
***Can we first define “Sola Scriptura” as that the Scripture, by itself contains all that a person needs to know in order to be saved and to live a life of good works.***
Of course not.
Sola Scripture is the philosophy that all instruction, theology and religious information comes directly from the words of the Bible. Anything not found expressly in the Bible is not to be considered. That is the idiocy of sola scriptura.
***There was no robes***
Yes there were. That’s what they wore in those days.
***confessionals***
No, the practice was face to face confession.
***statues***
Yes there were - not that many in the beginning, but they had a lot of drawings and paintings.
***talismans***
You might want to research just a little more. Representations of the Chi-Rho were everywhere.
***and a hierarchy longer than the Presidential ascension list.***
A 2000 year old organization has a succession list a little longer than one that is just formed.
***The stuff mentioned were thought of by infallible men who thought it would endear them to God instead of focusing on His Son.***
Who are these infallible men?
***If it makes you feel better to admit your sin to a man then power to you as long as you make it a point to talk to the Lord directly as He commands.***
If you’re going to make statements like that, then you might want to make sure that you follow ALL of the commands of Jesus including eating His body and drinking His blood.
“Anything not found expressly in the Bible is not to be considered. “
Not true. Other information may be considered, but that information is never the final authority about any doctrine, Scripture is.
“That is the idiocy of sola scriptura.”
Careful who or what you call “idiot”...
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”
***Other information may be considered, but that information is never the final authority about any doctrine, Scripture is.***
Under the doctrine of Sola Scripture, only Scripture is considered. You must get your story straight.
***“That is the idiocy of sola scriptura.”
Careful who or what you call “idiot”...
“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”***
And this applies how?
“Under the doctrine of Sola Scripture, only Scripture is considered. You must get your story straight.”
Every definition I’ve ever seen referred to Scripture as “the final authority of Christian doctrine.” By defining the final authority it is implicit that other, extra-scriptural sources of authority may be considered - but if those sources disagree with Scripture, Scripture prevails as the final authority.
*************************
“And this applies how?”
Jesus authoritatively that man lives by the word of God - the Scripture.
That is a very high view of Scripture. Jesus ALWAYS appealed to Scripture as the final authority - excepting his own authoritative pronouncements. He regularly dismissed Jewish tradition as being a worthless addition to God’s word.
Jesus opinion of Scripture (always positive):
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=scripture&searchtype=all&version1=47&bookset=4
Jesus opinion of Tradition (always negative):
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=tradition&searchtype=all&version1=47&bookset=4
In Jesus ministry, he was Sola Scriptura. That’s why you need to be cautious regarding what or who you call “idiotic”.
***In Jesus ministry, he was Sola Scriptura. That’s why you need to be cautious regarding what or who you call “idiotic”.***
I understand that you might be mixing up OT and NT. Jesus referred to the OT (including the Deuterocanonicals). The NT wasn’t put together for 300 years after His ascension.
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.