Total Posts:109|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Calling all Protestants

CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.How is it different from the early heresies?

Explain your belief briefly and tell when your church was founded

Also tell why other protestants are wrong.
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 10:36:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.

The sola scriptura.
HomeschooledZombie
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 10:54:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well I can see your point in asking this question. I go to a Baptist church and we teach that the Bible is the inherent, infallible word of God(Which I believe you do as well) and the church is the body of believers.
so for us the idea that we are the "real church" is determined by whether we believe and teach an orthodox view of the Bible and of Christ.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:10:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.How is it different from the early heresies?

Explain your belief briefly and tell when your church was founded

Also tell why other protestants are wrong.

Some protestants, at least the ones I am familiar with, don't believe that only their "sect" is correct. They merely have their own way of worship. Baptists may have a louder service with more modern gospels, while Methodists may have a quieter service with more traditional gospels.

That said, the Catholic church as centuries of corruption backed up by historical evidence. And the fact that you need to confess your crimes to a priest to absolve them doesn't make sense to protestants, who believe that only God/Christ has the power to forgive and offer salvation. Catholics also pray to saints to intercede for them and the virgin Mary, and Protestants look at this close to praying to idols. That said, not all Protestants think that Catholics are "wrong" either, they just have a different way of worship.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:15:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.How is it different from the early heresies?

Explain your belief briefly and tell when your church was founded

Also tell why other protestants are wrong.

The word "church" comes from the Greek word ekklesia, which simply means a gathering of people in a public place. In regards to the New Testament, the church is not an organization, but it is the people of God called out of the world. Much of Paul's writings dealt with this theological issue, by pointing out that one becomes apart of the people of God not by works of the Law (which distinguished the Israelites) but by faith in the risen Messiah, and this was their "badge" of membership.

This church was founded in Acts 2, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Jews and Gentiles alike when the gospel was preached. The apostolic authority which only existed in the 1st Century, is now found contained in the current Canon of Scripture.

With regards to the Protestant reformation, I disagree considerably with much of the reformers, such as Calvin and Luther. The whole debate over justification that took place at that time committed severe anachronisms on both the side of the reformers, and the Catholic representatives who formulated their ideas at the Council of Trent in 1546.

In my mind, this was not the creation of a "new" church, rather it was a strong disagreement over what valid sources of authority are, which consequently resulted in doctrinal differences.

The primary difference I have with the RCC is that I do not see any warrant for affirming the authority of Pope, or "head" Bishop. There are shepherds who tend to the flock, but the chief shepherd is Jesus. And I find the interpretation of the Matthew 16 passage to be guilty of eisogesis (reading one's theology into the text).

All the evidence seems to point to the creation of a leading Bishop towards the end of the 2nd Century. There is also no mention of some kind of chief apostle or bishop among the early apostles, which lends to the conclusion that there was no hierarchy of authority among them. Hence, Paul was able to confront Peter over his being driven by fear to retreat from fellowship with the Gentiles.

With regards to recent scholarship, we can better understand the world of the 1st Century and understand these doctrines and teachings within that framework, rather than building on the suppositions and traditions of earlier misguided teachings.

That is why I am not a Catholic, because I simply do not find merit with a good number of their teachings to a degree that I could not consider myself to be one of them. Though I do not regard Catholics as a non-Christian sect, but fellow brothers.

You also ask why I think other Protestants are wrong... well, I don't consider myself a person who has everything figured out, but I'd say most Protestant denominations are the result of historical consequences. Such as the Anglican Church and the creation of the Episcopal Church for when the American's fled from England to enjoy religious freedom, but wanted to keep the a similar doctrine and form of worship.

Protestants and Catholics both have been too quick to shout heretic, but in this age I think we're beyond the years of barbarism, where we would burn those who disagree with us. I'm open for an honest dialogue, and for misconceptions to be cleared up.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

P.S. I don't prefer the term "Protestant" because I'm not really protesting anything. Though I am associated with churches that are of that lineage.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:20:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:10:59 AM, whatledge wrote::
That said, the Catholic church as centuries of corruption backed up by historical evidence. And the fact that you need to confess your crimes to a priest to absolve them doesn't make sense to protestants, who believe that only God/Christ has the power to forgive and offer salvation. Catholics also pray to saints to intercede for them and the virgin Mary, and Protestants look at this close to praying to idols. That said, not all Protestants think that Catholics are "wrong" either, they just have a different way of worship.

To be fair, Protestants are not free from corruption and atrocities so be careful with your reasons.

Also, Catholics believe that only God can forgive sins, but that God then gave that authority to the clerical order. They don't forgive sins of their own authority, that's absurd.

An idol is a false god, and while the Bible prohibits communing with the dead (which is pretty much the same thing) it should be made clear that Catholics do not worship the Saints or Mary, but revere them.

The differences primarily are with regards to the mode of authority, or in other words, the means that God communicates to his people today.
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:30:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.How is it different from the early heresies?

Explain your belief briefly and tell when your church was founded

Also tell why other protestants are wrong.

Seems like you are asking a loaded question. Having said that - this is the exact reason protestant church membership is in decline. I have been one of those such members. All to I came across churches who had very staunch opinions regarding "Christian faith". Which, by matter of right, they are entitled to these opinions. For me however, I found many of these religious dogmas to be very stifling. I felt as though some of these churches did not encourage me to have independent spiritual growth in my relationship with God. Accordingly, any time I wandered off the path of what was being preached, or if I inquired about and struggled with some very difficult interpretations. I was quickly reminded the devil was after me and that such inquisition was not tolerated by God.

Thankfully, I realized early on how to spot it for what it was. Today, I am very comfortable with what I believe a Christian should understand. Christianity is not about external influences, it is and was always supposed to be about internal understanding of one's own journey in this world. I have never once believed Jesus ever intended for his followers be intolerant of other believers. I am certain Jesus recognized each person had to travel their own path to enlightenment. I won't go into it, but it should be understood -- the Bible, while true in essence (read between the lines) is an ancient script designed to elevate individual's standing with God, divine spark, consciousness, spiritualism -- whatever you want to call it. It was intended to elevate their own understanding and reason for our existence.

Your existence, my existence, the existence of every living thing in our known universe and to have a true authentic faith in the afterlife. Jesus was an incredible man - this cannot be denied. His ideas where way ahead of his time. I would even suggest his understanding of humanity was even ahead of our own collective understanding today. I have a deep respect for the Bible, but I understand what it is intended to do. It has helped me in my journey and will continue to help generations every where in their journey through life.

But, there are many ways toward this goal of understanding and enlightenment. It is unrealistic and arrogant for any person to say - it is this way and this way only followed up with threats of eternal damnation if you do not agree. This is a power grab and should signal an alarm to anyone who hears this. If it does not, I would suggest you have a lot of spiritual growth ahead of you and would encourage you to think about trying to be more introspective, discover how God see's you before telling others how God see them. Allow his plan to manifest in your life and allow God to manifest in other's by their own will.

As far as church founding -- this is a materialism... An irrelevant concept that has nothing to do with an individuals advancement in understanding oneness with God. Your body that contains your conscious/spirit/soul is the temple, your church is a building. Both have a shelf life, but your soul in eternal.

Just my two cents.... Divisiveness will only muddy the issue.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:35:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:20:45 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 11:10:59 AM, whatledge wrote::
That said, the Catholic church as centuries of corruption backed up by historical evidence. And the fact that you need to confess your crimes to a priest to absolve them doesn't make sense to protestants, who believe that only God/Christ has the power to forgive and offer salvation. Catholics also pray to saints to intercede for them and the virgin Mary, and Protestants look at this close to praying to idols. That said, not all Protestants think that Catholics are "wrong" either, they just have a different way of worship.

To be fair, Protestants are not free from corruption and atrocities so be careful with your reasons.

That wasn't my reason, however. My point was that the protestant church started primarily because of the corruption of Catholicism, not to mention the obvious difference in theology. I never stated that Protestants were free of corruption, no religion or man is.


Also, Catholics believe that only God can forgive sins, but that God then gave that authority to the clerical order. They don't forgive sins of their own authority, that's absurd.

The protestants are questioning exactly where God gives this authority in the bible. As the Holy Spirit seems to fulfill that role soundly.


An idol is a false god, and while the Bible prohibits communing with the dead (which is pretty much the same thing) it should be made clear that Catholics do not worship the Saints or Mary, but revere them.

Revering is one thing, praying to them is another.


The differences primarily are with regards to the mode of authority, or in other words, the means that God communicates to his people today.

So God has different means of communicating with people? I think this is a bit far-fetched. But perhaps this is because I am agnostic. The difference between the sects isn't how God communicates with them. It is the people within the sects and how they choose to worship their God.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:41:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:30:13 AM, SemperVI wrote:
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.How is it different from the early heresies?

Explain your belief briefly and tell when your church was founded

Also tell why other protestants are wrong.

Seems like you are asking a loaded question. Having said that - this is the exact reason protestant church membership is in decline. I have been one of those such members. All to I came across churches who had very staunch opinions regarding "Christian faith". Which, by matter of right, they are entitled to these opinions. For me however, I found many of these religious dogmas to be very stifling. I felt as though some of these churches did not encourage me to have independent spiritual growth in my relationship with God. Accordingly, any time I wandered off the path of what was being preached, or if I inquired about and struggled with some very difficult interpretations. I was quickly reminded the devil was after me and that such inquisition was not tolerated by God.

Thankfully, I realized early on how to spot it for what it was. Today, I am very comfortable with what I believe a Christian should understand. Christianity is not about external influences, it is and was always supposed to be about internal understanding of one's own journey in this world. I have never once believed Jesus ever intended for his followers be intolerant of other believers. I am certain Jesus recognized each person had to travel their own path to enlightenment. I won't go into it, but it should be understood -- the Bible, while true in essence (read between the lines) is an ancient script designed to elevate individual's standing with God, divine spark, consciousness, spiritualism -- whatever you want to call it. It was intended to elevate their own understanding and reason for our existence.

Your existence, my existence, the existence of every living thing in our known universe and to have a true authentic faith in the afterlife. Jesus was an incredible man - this cannot be denied. His ideas where way ahead of his time. I would even suggest his understanding of humanity was even ahead of our own collective understanding today. I have a deep respect for the Bible, but I understand what it is intended to do. It has helped me in my journey and will continue to help generations every where in their journey through life.

But, there are many ways toward this goal of understanding and enlightenment. It is unrealistic and arrogant for any person to say - it is this way and this way only followed up with threats of eternal damnation if you do not agree. This is a power grab and should signal an alarm to anyone who hears this. If it does not, I would suggest you have a lot of spiritual growth ahead of you and would encourage you to think about trying to be more introspective, discover how God see's you before telling others how God see them. Allow his plan to manifest in your life and allow God to manifest in other's by their own will.

As far as church founding -- this is a materialism... An irrelevant concept that has nothing to do with an individuals advancement in understanding oneness with God. Your body that contains your conscious/spirit/soul is the temple, your church is a building. Both have a shelf life, but your soul in eternal.

Just my two cents.... Divisiveness will only muddy the issue.

In the New Testament the word for "church" (ekklesia) never refers to a building, but always to a certain group of people. While this might be a convenient belief for you. How does it align with the relevant texts referring to the subject. That the Bible says that we all COLLECTIVELY are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and not just as an individual, going off and doing your own thing.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:44:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:35:04 AM, whatledge wrote:
So God has different means of communicating with people? I think this is a bit far-fetched. But perhaps this is because I am agnostic. The difference between the sects isn't how God communicates with them. It is the people within the sects and how they choose to worship their God.

I don't think you're getting my point. It's not about preference, it's about where these people believe God's authority primarily comes from. Protestants will say Scripture alone. Catholics will say Tradition, the Pope and Scripture.

Their doctrinal differences stem out of this disagreement.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 11:53:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:44:04 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 11:35:04 AM, whatledge wrote:
So God has different means of communicating with people? I think this is a bit far-fetched. But perhaps this is because I am agnostic. The difference between the sects isn't how God communicates with them. It is the people within the sects and how they choose to worship their God.

I don't think you're getting my point. It's not about preference, it's about where these people believe God's authority primarily comes from. Protestants will say Scripture alone. Catholics will say Tradition, the Pope and Scripture.

Their doctrinal differences stem out of this disagreement.

Ah I see, but if you look at how you worded it, you could see where the confusion may arise. But I agree, there are obvious theological differences. But when you say tradition, the pope and scripture, which of the three get priority? Or rather, what is tradition or the pope without the scripture? It seems Scripture has the obvious priority (as the word of God) than the other two, which are man made. Is there actually a reference to a pope in the bible or anything of the like? It seems that the highest authority should always be God and the scripture it derives from, from a theologically sound point of view. Especially given the context of historically corrupt popes and tradition (such as the historical practice of buying "forgiveness" with money, which the catholic church sadly indulged in).
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 12:09:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:41:42 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 11:30:13 AM, SemperVI wrote:
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.How is it different from the early heresies?

Explain your belief briefly and tell when your church was founded

Also tell why other protestants are wrong.

Seems like you are asking a loaded question. Having said that - this is the exact reason protestant church membership is in decline. I have been one of those such members. All to I came across churches who had very staunch opinions regarding "Christian faith". Which, by matter of right, they are entitled to these opinions. For me however, I found many of these religious dogmas to be very stifling. I felt as though some of these churches did not encourage me to have independent spiritual growth in my relationship with God. Accordingly, any time I wandered off the path of what was being preached, or if I inquired about and struggled with some very difficult interpretations. I was quickly reminded the devil was after me and that such inquisition was not tolerated by God.

Thankfully, I realized early on how to spot it for what it was. Today, I am very comfortable with what I believe a Christian should understand. Christianity is not about external influences, it is and was always supposed to be about internal understanding of one's own journey in this world. I have never once believed Jesus ever intended for his followers be intolerant of other believers. I am certain Jesus recognized each person had to travel their own path to enlightenment. I won't go into it, but it should be understood -- the Bible, while true in essence (read between the lines) is an ancient script designed to elevate individual's standing with God, divine spark, consciousness, spiritualism -- whatever you want to call it. It was intended to elevate their own understanding and reason for our existence.

Your existence, my existence, the existence of every living thing in our known universe and to have a true authentic faith in the afterlife. Jesus was an incredible man - this cannot be denied. His ideas where way ahead of his time. I would even suggest his understanding of humanity was even ahead of our own collective understanding today. I have a deep respect for the Bible, but I understand what it is intended to do. It has helped me in my journey and will continue to help generations every where in their journey through life.

But, there are many ways toward this goal of understanding and enlightenment. It is unrealistic and arrogant for any person to say - it is this way and this way only followed up with threats of eternal damnation if you do not agree. This is a power grab and should signal an alarm to anyone who hears this. If it does not, I would suggest you have a lot of spiritual growth ahead of you and would encourage you to think about trying to be more introspective, discover how God see's you before telling others how God see them. Allow his plan to manifest in your life and allow God to manifest in other's by their own will.

As far as church founding -- this is a materialism... An irrelevant concept that has nothing to do with an individuals advancement in understanding oneness with God. Your body that contains your conscious/spirit/soul is the temple, your church is a building. Both have a shelf life, but your soul in eternal.

Just my two cents.... Divisiveness will only muddy the issue.

In the New Testament the word for "church" (ekklesia) never refers to a building, but always to a certain group of people. While this might be a convenient belief for you. How does it align with the relevant texts referring to the subject. That the Bible says that we all COLLECTIVELY are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and not just as an individual, going off and doing your own thing.

I stand corrected and agree in your definition and understanding of the word church. My point is this. It is relevant because in order for one to understand they are one with the collective of humanity, they must first understand they are one with the holy spirit, one with God. It is an internal journey, a journey that will ultimately lead them to a greater understanding that we are all one with God and this is what makes the collective understanding. I think we are saying the same thing but are getting caught up with semantics. So there you go - okay, a church is not a building, it is the congregation of believers who gather in unity with God.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 12:19:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 12:09:07 PM, SemperVI wrote:
At 1/8/2014 11:41:42 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 11:30:13 AM, SemperVI wrote:
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.How is it different from the early heresies?

Explain your belief briefly and tell when your church was founded

Also tell why other protestants are wrong.

Seems like you are asking a loaded question. Having said that - this is the exact reason protestant church membership is in decline. I have been one of those such members. All to I came across churches who had very staunch opinions regarding "Christian faith". Which, by matter of right, they are entitled to these opinions. For me however, I found many of these religious dogmas to be very stifling. I felt as though some of these churches did not encourage me to have independent spiritual growth in my relationship with God. Accordingly, any time I wandered off the path of what was being preached, or if I inquired about and struggled with some very difficult interpretations. I was quickly reminded the devil was after me and that such inquisition was not tolerated by God.

Thankfully, I realized early on how to spot it for what it was. Today, I am very comfortable with what I believe a Christian should understand. Christianity is not about external influences, it is and was always supposed to be about internal understanding of one's own journey in this world. I have never once believed Jesus ever intended for his followers be intolerant of other believers. I am certain Jesus recognized each person had to travel their own path to enlightenment. I won't go into it, but it should be understood -- the Bible, while true in essence (read between the lines) is an ancient script designed to elevate individual's standing with God, divine spark, consciousness, spiritualism -- whatever you want to call it. It was intended to elevate their own understanding and reason for our existence.

Your existence, my existence, the existence of every living thing in our known universe and to have a true authentic faith in the afterlife. Jesus was an incredible man - this cannot be denied. His ideas where way ahead of his time. I would even suggest his understanding of humanity was even ahead of our own collective understanding today. I have a deep respect for the Bible, but I understand what it is intended to do. It has helped me in my journey and will continue to help generations every where in their journey through life.

But, there are many ways toward this goal of understanding and enlightenment. It is unrealistic and arrogant for any person to say - it is this way and this way only followed up with threats of eternal damnation if you do not agree. This is a power grab and should signal an alarm to anyone who hears this. If it does not, I would suggest you have a lot of spiritual growth ahead of you and would encourage you to think about trying to be more introspective, discover how God see's you before telling others how God see them. Allow his plan to manifest in your life and allow God to manifest in other's by their own will.

As far as church founding -- this is a materialism... An irrelevant concept that has nothing to do with an individuals advancement in understanding oneness with God. Your body that contains your conscious/spirit/soul is the temple, your church is a building. Both have a shelf life, but your soul in eternal.

Just my two cents.... Divisiveness will only muddy the issue.

In the New Testament the word for "church" (ekklesia) never refers to a building, but always to a certain group of people. While this might be a convenient belief for you. How does it align with the relevant texts referring to the subject. That the Bible says that we all COLLECTIVELY are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and not just as an individual, going off and doing your own thing.

I stand corrected and agree in your definition and understanding of the word church. My point is this. It is relevant because in order for one to understand they are one with the collective of humanity, they must first understand they are one with the holy spirit, one with God. It is an internal journey, a journey that will ultimately lead them to a greater understanding that we are all one with God and this is what makes the collective understanding. I think we are saying the same thing but are getting caught up with semantics. So there you go - okay, a church is not a building, it is the congregation of believers who gather in unity with God.

Fair Enough. :)
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 12:34:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:53:30 AM, whatledge wrote:
At 1/8/2014 11:44:04 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 11:35:04 AM, whatledge wrote:
So God has different means of communicating with people? I think this is a bit far-fetched. But perhaps this is because I am agnostic. The difference between the sects isn't how God communicates with them. It is the people within the sects and how they choose to worship their God.

I don't think you're getting my point. It's not about preference, it's about where these people believe God's authority primarily comes from. Protestants will say Scripture alone. Catholics will say Tradition, the Pope and Scripture.

Their doctrinal differences stem out of this disagreement.

Ah I see, but if you look at how you worded it, you could see where the confusion may arise. But I agree, there are obvious theological differences. But when you say tradition, the pope and scripture, which of the three get priority? Or rather, what is tradition or the pope without the scripture? It seems Scripture has the obvious priority (as the word of God) than the other two, which are man made. Is there actually a reference to a pope in the bible or anything of the like? It seems that the highest authority should always be God and the scripture it derives from, from a theologically sound point of view. Especially given the context of historically corrupt popes and tradition (such as the historical practice of buying "forgiveness" with money, which the catholic church sadly indulged in).

Here is why I put in the bit about how God communicates. Both Protestants and Catholics acknowledge that God is the sole and primary source of authority. Therefore, understanding the methods by which he reveals his will, be it tradition or a pope or Scripture. These two groups have come to different conclusions on that matter.

In regards to your question about the relationship of the different authorities in the Catholic Church, it is important to note the a key difference between the Protestant idea of private interpretation. Here is the Catholic position:

"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."[1]

This results in the Magisterium of the Church in effect having authority over the Bible, though they are charged to seek the Holy Spirit for inspiration. They do have the final say on what the correct interpretation is within the Catholic Church though.

Hope this helps,
TrueScotsman

[1] http://www.vatican.va...
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 12:50:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 11:53:30 AM, whatledge wrote:

Especially given the context of historically corrupt popes and tradition (such as the historical practice of buying "forgiveness" with money, which the catholic church sadly indulged in).

In regards to indulgences, here is their definition.

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."
"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.[1]

Indulgences were only applicable in regards to temporal punishment, namely purgatory. So it would not be proper to say that people are purchasing forgiveness of sins. The initial purpose for indulgences was not to raise money for the RCC, but to aid the faithful to deeper purification by taking part in act of piety and devotion. They were then given to the church along with a charitable donation. The abuses that resulted from the doctrine I think demonstrated some inherent flaws in the doctrine, with how it could be used to manipulate people into giving the RCC money for the abatement of their dead relatives suffering in purgatory.

It's definitely misunderstood, but there is no denying the fact that there were considerable abuses concerning this doctrine.

Regards,
TrueScotsman

[1] http://www.vatican.va...
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 3:23:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is why I put in the bit about how God communicates. Both Protestants and Catholics acknowledge that God is the sole and primary source of authority. Therefore, understanding the methods by which he reveals his will, be it tradition or a pope or Scripture. These two groups have come to different conclusions on that matter.

In regards to your question about the relationship of the different authorities in the Catholic Church, it is important to note the a key difference between the Protestant idea of private interpretation. Here is the Catholic position:

"The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."[1]

This results in the Magisterium of the Church in effect having authority over the Bible, though they are charged to seek the Holy Spirit for inspiration. They do have the final say on what the correct interpretation is within the Catholic Church though.

Hope this helps,
TrueScotsman


[1] http://www.vatican.va...

I get all that, but what I don't get is where the Vatican gets its authority. Is it from scripture? Is the Vatican or the pope mentioned in scripture? Is there a specific quote in the Bible that says only the "Magisterium of the Church" can interpret the Bible correctly? This just seems like an obvious political motive on the church's part to have sole authority and power.
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 3:25:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
: It's definitely misunderstood, but there is no denying the fact that there were considerable abuses concerning this doctrine.

Which was my only point, really. To me, it just seems like a ploy for the church to make money. Not to mention, are indulgences even mentioned in the Bible?? The only monetary compensation I know of is the tithe.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 3:43:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 3:25:55 PM, whatledge wrote:
Which was my only point, really. To me, it just seems like a ploy for the church to make money. Not to mention, are indulgences even mentioned in the Bible?? The only monetary compensation I know of is the tithe.

That's not entirely accurate either,

So they praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge, who reveals what is hidden, 42 and they begged him that this sin might be completely blotted out. Then, Judas, that great man, urged the people to keep away from sin, because they had seen for themselves what had happened to those men who had sinned. 43 He also took up a collection from all his men, totaling about four pounds of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. Judas did this noble thing because he believed in the resurrection of the dead.[1]

You have to take into account that Catholics include the Apocrypha into their Canon, which has a directly related passage here. Which is another reason why Protestants rejected the apocrypha, since one of their primary contentions was the practice of indulgences.

[1] 2 Maccabees 12:41-43 (GNT)
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 3:51:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 3:23:05 PM, whatledge wrote:
I get all that, but what I don't get is where the Vatican gets its authority. Is it from scripture? Is the Vatican or the pope mentioned in scripture? Is there a specific quote in the Bible that says only the "Magisterium of the Church" can interpret the Bible correctly? This just seems like an obvious political motive on the church's part to have sole authority and power.

The Vatican believes it gets it's authority from being the rightful heir of the apostolic heritage. That Peter was the first Pope, and the Church he set up was the Holy Catholic Church, which is the only true Church. That's what they believe at least.

Because they believe to be heirs of this tradition, they also acknowledge tradition as authoritative in addition to the Bible.

You also have to take into account that the only people who really read the Bible prior to reformation were the clerics. Not too many spoke Latin, which was the ONLY translation of the Bible used until the 16th Century. So at that point it seemed a bit common sense, and a way for them to have conformity in doctrine. Though, I would say it's a recipe for subjugation.

I wouldn't say that any passages in the Bible support the interpretive authority of the Magisterium. It does talk about how God appointed teachers to the Church, but said nothing about those teachers being to the degree the Roman Catholic Church has elevated them to.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 3:58:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 3:51:47 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 3:23:05 PM, whatledge wrote:
I get all that, but what I don't get is where the Vatican gets its authority. Is it from scripture? Is the Vatican or the pope mentioned in scripture? Is there a specific quote in the Bible that says only the "Magisterium of the Church" can interpret the Bible correctly? This just seems like an obvious political motive on the church's part to have sole authority and power.

The Vatican believes it gets it's authority from being the rightful heir of the apostolic heritage. That Peter was the first Pope, and the Church he set up was the Holy Catholic Church, which is the only true Church. That's what they believe at least.

Because they believe to be heirs of this tradition, they also acknowledge tradition as authoritative in addition to the Bible.

I see. It seems like a stretch to say the least, but it is what it is, I suppose.


You also have to take into account that the only people who really read the Bible prior to reformation were the clerics. Not too many spoke Latin, which was the ONLY translation of the Bible used until the 16th Century. So at that point it seemed a bit common sense, and a way for them to have conformity in doctrine. Though, I would say it's a recipe for subjugation.

The new testament was actually written in Greek [1]. But I see what you are trying to say.

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...


I wouldn't say that any passages in the Bible support the interpretive authority of the Magisterium. It does talk about how God appointed teachers to the Church, but said nothing about those teachers being to the degree the Roman Catholic Church has elevated them to.

Indeed, which is why I am more forgiving of the protestants than Catholics. So many of their "tradition" just seems inspired by the church rather than scripture.


Regards,
TrueScotsman
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:05:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why call Protestants any more than Catholics? Both groups use the same Catholic Church Fathers edited early Christian texts that support Paul's Mystery Religion doctrine that is identical to the ones he knew of in his home town of Tarsus, i.e., the vicarious sin atonement doctrine that uses a dying/resurrection god-man as scapegoat for the sins of a believer, a scapegoat that is more than a sacrificed object, it is a God.

All Pauline Christian doctrines are in hot water now because Paul reattached Jesus' teachings to Judaism when they were beyond Judaism. Now all of Judaism is toast because of being revealed as the product of priesthood liars of ancient Judah who concocted the tales of the Old Testament. Israeli archeology has put the End Times flag on all Abrahamic religions because of outing Abraham and Moses, and David and Solomon as all fictitious characters which the Catholic and Protestant world along with Jews and Muslims believe were real people when they never were and their stories only produced for tribal unification political reasons.

I am a Celestial Torah Christian, a modern Gnostic Christian theology as us Gnostic Christians never were Bible bound believers. So our Christianity will not suffer the End Times fate of Pauline Christianity. No amount of interpretation will ever overcome the basic spiritual lies that Pauline New Testament Christianity is based upon.

Celestial Torah Christianity, the world's oldest Christian religion, will never fail humanity because no human can reach God's Sign Language to manipulate it and make it serve human ambitions.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:37:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 3:58:59 PM, whatledge wrote:


I see. It seems like a stretch to say the least, but it is what it is, I suppose.


Agreed.
You also have to take into account that the only people who really read the Bible prior to reformation were the clerics. Not too many spoke Latin, which was the ONLY translation of the Bible used until the 16th Century. So at that point it seemed a bit common sense, and a way for them to have conformity in doctrine. Though, I would say it's a recipe for subjugation.

The new testament was actually written in Greek [1]. But I see what you are trying to say.


I actually read Koine Greek, so I am well aware of that fact. :P

Which is why I said the only translation they had at the time was the Latin, which was of course Jerome's Latin Vulgate. There weren't complete Greek Bibles around at that time, just manuscripts. It wasn't until Erasmus' Textus Receptus that we had a Greek version of the Bible beyond the great unical codices (although this was built off of a Greek version printed in 1516, but the Textus Recpetus is the only relevant one now)

Indeed, which is why I am more forgiving of the protestants than Catholics. So many of their "tradition" just seems inspired by the church rather than scripture.


Which is why I relate more so with the Protestant variety, though I have issues with both traditions. I just think it's important to do my best to understand them from the most accurate perspective possible, most Protestants demonize the Catholic Church, and that is reflected in the overall American mentality.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
whatledge
Posts: 210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 4:43:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Which is why I relate more so with the Protestant variety, though I have issues with both traditions. I just think it's important to do my best to understand them from the most accurate perspective possible, most Protestants demonize the Catholic Church, and that is reflected in the overall American mentality.

That is a sad reality, though I must admit, I haven't been exposed to too much hatred against Catholics. I do admire your knowledge in the subject and your effort to understand all perspectives. If you do not mind me asking, what sect (if you care to even label yourself within one) do you partake in? Because I see that you listed yourself as "other" in your profile but you do seem to be a Christian.


Regards,
TrueScotsman
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:08:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 4:43:48 PM, whatledge wrote:

That is a sad reality, though I must admit, I haven't been exposed to too much hatred against Catholics. I do admire your knowledge in the subject and your effort to understand all perspectives. If you do not mind me asking, what sect (if you care to even label yourself within one) do you partake in? Because I see that you listed yourself as "other" in your profile but you do seem to be a Christian.


America has become less "Catholic hating," I suppose you could say over the last few decades. Historically speaking, since America has strong roots in Protestantism, many have viewed the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon (an appeal to a figurative character in the Revelation literature).

Which is no wonder why we have only had one Catholic President, as many feared a Catholic representative would be too influenced by the Pope.

Pope Francis has done amazing things to restore global (especially American) perception of the Roman Catholic Church. Which I respect him for doing so.

I selected "other" because I embrace Fideism, which basically states what I believe about God philosophically. Which means that I am in a sense an Agnostic Christian, I don't think it is possible to truly have knowledge of the divine.

However, like most things in life that have meaning and purpose, be it marriage, career, religion, there is a degree of uncertainty that comes with the territory. I would even say that there is a beneficial nature to that respect.

In regards to my theology, I would say I line up decently with historical Protestantism in many respects. Some notable differences is that I take a "New Perspective" view with regards to Justifcation.

The New Perspective is a current movement in Biblical scholarship that seeks to rethink issues such as Justification by using the best evidence we have regarding the culture of the 1st Century. Basically, I think Protestants and Catholics confuse issues by not understanding them in their original contexts.

Another notable difference is that I don't think the Bible is infallible. I don't think it's as contradictory as some critics make it out to be, but I reject the verbal plenary method of inspiration.

I also reject the notion of hell being a place of eternal torment, I think that's a pagan doctrine that was woven into Christian doctrine early on. I would be known as a Conditionalist.

Oh.. and I accept Evolution via Natural Selection and Big Bang Cosmology.

I guess you could say I am somewhere between a liberal Christian.. and a well.. normal Christian. I just take the foundation for why we believe what we believe to a more existential level, rather than trying to convince everyone around me that every single one of my beliefs is the most reasonable contention possible. Life is too short to do that.. but that's just my position.

Hope this was helpful!

Regards,
TrueScotsman
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:21:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 5:08:48 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 4:43:48 PM, whatledge wrote:

That is a sad reality, though I must admit, I haven't been exposed to too much hatred against Catholics. I do admire your knowledge in the subject and your effort to understand all perspectives. If you do not mind me asking, what sect (if you care to even label yourself within one) do you partake in? Because I see that you listed yourself as "other" in your profile but you do seem to be a Christian.


America has become less "Catholic hating," I suppose you could say over the last few decades. Historically speaking, since America has strong roots in Protestantism, many have viewed the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon (an appeal to a figurative character in the Revelation literature).

Which is no wonder why we have only had one Catholic President, as many feared a Catholic representative would be too influenced by the Pope.

Pope Francis has done amazing things to restore global (especially American) perception of the Roman Catholic Church. Which I respect him for doing so.

I selected "other" because I embrace Fideism, which basically states what I believe about God philosophically. Which means that I am in a sense an Agnostic Christian, I don't think it is possible to truly have knowledge of the divine.

However, like most things in life that have meaning and purpose, be it marriage, career, religion, there is a degree of uncertainty that comes with the territory. I would even say that there is a beneficial nature to that respect.

In regards to my theology, I would say I line up decently with historical Protestantism in many respects. Some notable differences is that I take a "New Perspective" view with regards to Justifcation.

The New Perspective is a current movement in Biblical scholarship that seeks to rethink issues such as Justification by using the best evidence we have regarding the culture of the 1st Century. Basically, I think Protestants and Catholics confuse issues by not understanding them in their original contexts.

Another notable difference is that I don't think the Bible is infallible. I don't think it's as contradictory as some critics make it out to be, but I reject the verbal plenary method of inspiration.

I also reject the notion of hell being a place of eternal torment, I think that's a pagan doctrine that was woven into Christian doctrine early on. I would be known as a Conditionalist.

Oh.. and I accept Evolution via Natural Selection and Big Bang Cosmology.

I guess you could say I am somewhere between a liberal Christian.. and a well.. normal Christian. I just take the foundation for why we believe what we believe to a more existential level, rather than trying to convince everyone around me that every single one of my beliefs is the most reasonable contention possible. Life is too short to do that.. but that's just my position.

Hope this was helpful!

Regards,
TrueScotsman

You seem rather like me in religious temperment except I don't accept fideism - I think it is, to put it mildly, ill advised. Also, I don't accept conditionalism/annihilationism - I used to, but I'm a universalist now.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:37:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 5:21:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

You seem rather like me in religious temperment except I don't accept fideism - I think it is, to put it mildly, ill advised. Also, I don't accept conditionalism/annihilationism - I used to, but I'm a universalist now.

Advisement noted. :) Fideism is simply where I ended up, though different people articulate it in of course.. different ways.

Universalism is definitely on the rise, and it isn't without merit in theological discussions. I just haven't been convinced yet. I'd say between your position and mine is where the true debate lies, the Traditional view is bankrupt in just about every way possible.

Regards,
TrueScotsman
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 5:54:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 10:36:58 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 1/8/2014 10:30:28 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
I want you to explain why your church, that does not have an unbroken historic chain of apostles, and which popped up over 1300+ years after the death of Christ is the true church.

The sola scriptura.

Who commanded sola scriptura?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 6:24:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 5:37:02 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/8/2014 5:21:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

You seem rather like me in religious temperment except I don't accept fideism - I think it is, to put it mildly, ill advised. Also, I don't accept conditionalism/annihilationism - I used to, but I'm a universalist now.

Advisement noted. :) Fideism is simply where I ended up, though different people articulate it in of course.. different ways.


May I ask why?

Universalism is definitely on the rise, and it isn't without merit in theological discussions. I just haven't been convinced yet. I'd say between your position and mine is where the true debate lies, the Traditional view is bankrupt in just about every way possible.


I'd definitely agree on your last point. On what point(s) are you undecided? The philosophical, theological, or biblical/hermeneutical side(s)? If I could only suggest one book to you it would definitely be this one. I was undecided for a while (a couple of years, actually) until Robin Parry pushed me over the edge.

http://www.amazon.com...

Regards,
TrueScotsman
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2014 6:52:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/8/2014 6:24:12 PM, popculturepooka wrote:


May I ask why?


From an epistemological standpoint, I do not think I can be honest and go beyond that. I simply don't think, given the information we do have, we can say with sufficient justification that we absolutely know there is a God. I'm sure there are many who would agree that there is a degree of uncertainty, I would probably just say that it's more uncertainty than most people think.

I'd definitely agree on your last point. On what point(s) are you undecided? The philosophical, theological, or biblical/hermeneutical side(s)? If I could only suggest one book to you it would definitely be this one. I was undecided for a while (a couple of years, actually) until Robin Parry pushed me over the edge.

http://www.amazon.com...


I would say theologically, and especially from the biblical/hermeneutical side. I understand the argument that Universalists try to make with regards to the word aionios, but I don't buy it. Though it's not without merit, as I said earlier.

I've heard some arguments from Gregory MacDonald before, it's a valid point of view and shouldn't be labeled as heresy (just ridiculous..), but as of yet I can't say I agree with it.