PDA

View Full Version : Protestents and Catholics



chesslover
13-01-2004, 09:28 PM
I have moved this to the off chess section

anti-christ stated that all protestents should go to catholic churches as their exterior was grander and more reflective of the glory of God.

I stated that unlike Catholics, most protestents do not believe in the infalliability of the Pope, the praying to the saints or Mary, and the confession of sins to the priest as well as in the 7 sacrements.

Martin Luther the founder of the protestent refornation is a personal hero of mine. He stands in history as one of those unique forces, an individual who by force of will and by his ideas changed the world fundamentally, by a courage inspired by God. His protests against the catholic use of indulgences in his 95 Theses, gave rise to the other like minded souls including Calvin, and lead to the transformation of the world for the better.

Martin Luther summed up the mainstream Protestant thinking by these three concepts;

1. Sola gratia ("by Divine Grace alone". That means that people cannot "earn" their way into Heaven by "Good Works" but are entirely dependent on the Generosity and Grace of God for it. This eliminated the value of "human merits" and said that God Alone could affect that outcome).

2. Sola Fide ("by Faith alone". This refers to the "human" side of the above concept. Since people could not actively "earn" their way into Heaven, this statement was necessary to describe exactly what requirement actually applies to us. It essentially says that we each must totally accept that the Lord is God, that He is the Only God, and that the person recognizes His Atonement as freeing mankind to be able to accept Him. When a person deeply believes that, it fulfills the human responsibility, which then encourages the Lord to provide His Grace).

3. Sola Scriptura ("by the Bible alone". Rather than trusting any human to provide information about important religious information, that statement means to ONLY rely on what the Sacred Scripture says).

So inspiring huh? Everytime I read this I choke up in emotion. Compare the logical and simple way of Luther to the catholics/ orthodox churches's emphasis on tradition, mary, saints etc

Rincewind
13-01-2004, 11:35 PM
3. Sola Scriptura ("by the Bible alone". Rather than trusting any human to provide information about important religious information, that statement means to ONLY rely on what the Sacred Scripture says).

Hang on one cotton-picking second.

Weren't ALL the books of the bible written by fallable humans?

Furthermore, wasn't the decision about which books were in and which were out also made by humans?

Also isn't much of the bible "superficially" contradictory and requires it to be interpreted by biblical scholars to be "correctly" understood?

If the answer to any of these questions is even "maybe" then where does that leave Sola Scriptura?

chesslover
14-01-2004, 06:07 PM
Hang on one cotton-picking second.

Weren't ALL the books of the bible written by fallable humans?

Furthermore, wasn't the decision about which books were in and which were out also made by humans?

Also isn't much of the bible "superficially" contradictory and requires it to be interpreted by biblical scholars to be "correctly" understood?

If the answer to any of these questions is even "maybe" then where does that leave Sola Scriptura?

It does depend on what type of Christian you are. If you are a fundementalist christian, and believe that the Bible in unerring and 100% true and correct, then you believe in creation, and everything else that the Bible says literally.

On the other hand other more liberal christians go to the other side, and state that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and were written by falliable men, who wrote what God reveled in langauage and examples that they could understand and make sense of, and hence the Bible should not be taken literally

Cat
14-01-2004, 06:11 PM
So is truth an entirely subjective thing, CL?

chesslover
14-01-2004, 06:18 PM
So is truth an entirely subjective thing, CL?

I am a liberal protestent christian, so what i am stating is not representative of all christian thoughts or beliefs. There may be a fundamental christian in this BB who may have their own thoughts on this issue

But while there is one objective truth, some people may see that objective truth as being subjectively true

Rincewind
14-01-2004, 06:35 PM
On the other hand other more liberal christians go to the other side, and state that the Bible is not to be taken literally, and were written by falliable men, who wrote what God reveled in langauage and examples that they could understand and make sense of, and hence the Bible should not be taken literally

Elsewhere you say


I am a liberal protestent christian

So I assume you believe the bible was written by fallable men. There interpretation (if you will) of what God revealed to them. These writing were then judged by another panel of men several hundred years later to determine what would and would not be consider scripture.

But earlier still you said (emphasis added)...


3. Sola Scriptura ("by the Bible alone". Rather than trusting any human to provide information about important religious information, that statement means to ONLY rely on what the Sacred Scripture says).

But as you admit, that you have relied on humans to provide the scripture so how is that any better than listening to what an evangelical fundamentalist might say?

David Koresh for example was considered a prophet by his followers and his knowledge and ability to provide convincing argument from the scripture was (they tell me) highly developed. So why not become a Branch Davidian?

chesslover
14-01-2004, 08:11 PM
I PERSONALLY believe that rather than taking what any man (whether priest or non priest) says as gospal truth, you study the bible using faith and reason to ascertain what God's will is.

Rincewind
14-01-2004, 08:40 PM
Chesslover, you seem to be missing my point.

The bible was written by man, what would be considered part of the bible or not, was decided by man. It has also be translated by man.

So how does your process of determining the will of God through personal study remove man's fallability from the equation? (Thereby attaining the sola scriptura ideal).


(NB in this thread where I use the word man, I of course mean it in the non-gender specific sense).

chesslover
14-01-2004, 08:58 PM
You have got to have faith, that the Bible is God's word to us. The fact that humans transalated it, humans wrote it, humans decided what should be in the Bible, I believe does not matter, for the Holy Spirit ensures that what is in the Bible is what God wants has revealed to us.

Properly speaking, we do not "interpret" the Bible. The Bible interprets itself. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we simply attempt to say what the Bible itself says, without adding anything to it or taking anything away from it.

While we will never understand the entire Bible perfectly or completely in this life, we trust God's promise to help us to understand what we need to understand.

Goughfather
14-01-2004, 09:54 PM
Greetings from the reincarnated Machiavelli ...

This is an interesting discussion thread to which two important questions bear asking:

1) If you were an incorporeal God, how would you reveal yourself to humanity?

2) If you were an incorporeal God, how would you ensure that those writings which should be regarded as Sacred Scripture be included in the "Canon"? And conversely, by which means would you ensure that those writings which should not be regarded as Sacred Scripture are excluded from the "Canon"?

I understand that many respondents on this board do not hold theistic belief. But if one was to assume that God did in fact exist, then how would the above two questions be answered?


Also isn't much of the bible "superficially" contradictory and requires it to be interpreted by biblical scholars to be "correctly" understood?

If the answer to any of these questions is even "maybe" then where does that leave Sola Scriptura?

While the doctrine of Sola Scripture has been identified, it hasn't been expressed very clearly. The whole concept of Sola Scripture revolves around this concept of a "priesthood of all believers" (1 Peter 2:9). The very intention of this doctrine is to take the Scriptures out of the exclusive hands of the clergy. Not only does this doctrine suggest that all Christians have a right to interpret the Bible individually providing that they do so with integrity and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it suggests that they have a responsibility to do so. Sola Scripture is not a denial of the process in constructing the Canon, but merely states that the Bible is the exclusive authority in matters of faith. Sola Scripture is a reaction against the systematic abuse of Scripture by the clergy in the Pre-Reformation period, and their immunity to criticism. Sola Scripture simply states that Church tradition has no place in Christian doctrine unless the rationale for this tradition can be explicitly seen to be rooted in the Bible.

I can understand CL's admiration of Martin Luther in several respects. Firstly, individuals are expected to actively take responsibility in ensuring both the purity and intellectual integrity of their faith. Secondly, it takes into consideration the fact that each individual will have a unique relationship with God. Thirdly, it acknowledges the incredible scope and dimension of Scripture, understanding the limitless potential for the Holy Spirit to reveal new aspects of God's revelation to an individual. To tie Scripture to one exclusive meaning is to close one's eyes to the complex and multi-layered nature of the Word of God. Perhaps most importantly, however, is that the Reformation has encouraged an scrutiny of the Bible unparalleled by other document in human history. Examination of the texts is open to all, including those from different Christian denominations, from different religious traditions and from those who hold no theistic belief.

chesslover
15-01-2004, 06:22 PM
I understand that many respondents on this board do not hold theistic belief. But if one was to assume that God did in fact exist, then how would the above two questions be answered?

I can understand CL's admiration of Martin Luther in several respects. Firstly, individuals are expected to actively take responsibility in ensuring both the purity and intellectual integrity of their faith. Secondly, it takes into consideration the fact that each individual will have a unique relationship with God. Thirdly, it acknowledges the incredible scope and dimension of Scripture, understanding the limitless potential for the Holy Spirit to reveal new aspects of God's revelation to an individual. To tie Scripture to one exclusive meaning is to close one's eyes to the complex and multi-layered nature of the Word of God. Perhaps most importantly, however, is that the Reformation has encouraged an scrutiny of the Bible unparalleled by other document in human history. Examination of the texts is open to all, including those from different Christian denominations, from different religious traditions and from those who hold no theistic belief.

well done on your well articulated post above. It is good to know that there are others in the BB who are christians as well, and who can argue logically and rationally with the best that the atheists can throw at us in the BB - especially kevin and barry.

I was born a Lutheran and admire Luther very much. I notice that you stated that you are studyingg Luther too.

You summed up Luther's attraction very well :D

arosar
15-01-2004, 06:42 PM
I have a question, and this is a serious one. What is the need for that middle-man, the priest? Being, ahem, a catholic - this is what has always p.issed me off: that there's some guy between me and God.

(Note: I'm kinda a mainly secular person, not really a practicising Christian).

AR

chesslover
15-01-2004, 07:06 PM
I have a question, and this is a serious one. What is the need for that middle-man, the priest? Being, ahem, a catholic - this is what has always p.issed me off: that there's some guy between me and God.

AR

and teh answer is there is no need at all for a middle man

Jesus died for all our sins, and we can pray and approach him directly. There is no need for a priest, a church, saints, pope or mary to intercede on our behalf.

This is one of the main differences between protestents/evengelicals/fundamentalists and the catholics/ orthodox christians

Rincewind
15-01-2004, 08:08 PM
I have a question, and this is a serious one. What is the need for that middle-man, the priest? Being, ahem, a catholic - this is what has always p.issed me off: that there's some guy between me and God.

I'm not an student of catholic doctrine but I believe part of the thrust behind Vat I and II was a more personal relationship between the rank and file catholics and god. Perhaps someone like Goughfather could elaborate further.

Rincewind
15-01-2004, 08:12 PM
While the doctrine of Sola Scripture has been identified, it hasn't been expressed very clearly. The whole concept of Sola Scripture revolves around this concept of a "priesthood of all believers" (1 Peter 2:9). The very intention of this doctrine is to take the Scriptures out of the exclusive hands of the clergy. Not only does this doctrine suggest that all Christians have a right to interpret the Bible individually providing that they do so with integrity and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it suggests that they have a responsibility to do so. Sola Scripture is not a denial of the process in constructing the Canon, but merely states that the Bible is the exclusive authority in matters of faith. Sola Scripture is a reaction against the systematic abuse of Scripture by the clergy in the Pre-Reformation period, and their immunity to criticism. Sola Scripture simply states that Church tradition has no place in Christian doctrine unless the rationale for this tradition can be explicitly seen to be rooted in the Bible.

OK. So Sola Scriptura was more about disempowering the Roman church than it was about removing human fallability from the transmission of god's messages to humanity.

If you are saying anyone can interpret the bible and, as we know, there are 1001 cults out there all with their own interpretation, my question is, how does this further the spread of god message? Surely they can't all be right.

bergil
03-10-2005, 06:08 PM
OK. So Sola Scriptura was more about disempowering the Roman church than it was about removing human fallability from the transmission of god's messages to humanity.

If you are saying anyone can interpret the bible and, as we know, there are 1001 cults out there all with their own interpretation, my question is, how does this further the spread of god message? Surely they can't all be right.
Well what's the reply?

Rincewind
03-10-2005, 08:40 PM
Well what's the reply?

Jesus I was evil in my younger days. Imagine writing "Why not become a Branch Davidian?" :doh:

four four two
03-10-2005, 08:48 PM
Hey,I here the Branch Davidians throw the best barbecues. ;) :whistle:

Dozy
03-10-2005, 11:03 PM
So long as this one's been resuscitated...

In his first post, ChessLover sez

I stated that unlike Catholics, most protestents do not believe in the infalliability of the Pope It reminded me of a newspaper article some years ago about Galileo, who had been excommunicated by one Pope, only to be reinstated to the bosom of the church by another.

The journo who wrote the story described it as "retrospective infallibility".

bergil
05-10-2005, 07:31 AM
So long as this one's been resuscitated...

In his first post, ChessLover sez
It reminded me of a newspaper article some years ago about Galileo, who had been excommunicated by one Pope, only to be reinstated to the bosom of the church by another.

The journo who wrote the story described it as "retrospective infallibility".
No its a resurrected but liked the tag! :clap:

Rincewind
05-10-2005, 07:44 AM
The journo who wrote the story described it as "retrospective infallibility".

It is incorrect to think that catholics believe the pope is, in himself, infallible. His infallibility is believed to come from God and only applies when he speaks ex cathedra.

From the catholic encyclopedia online on ex cathedra...

Its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesi‚ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."

antichrist
05-10-2005, 09:21 AM
And as there is no God it is all immaterial.

Dozy
05-10-2005, 09:50 AM
It is incorrect to think that catholics believe the pope is, in himself, infallible. His infallibility is believed to come from God and only applies when he speaks ex cathedra.

From the catholic encyclopedia online on ex cathedra...

Its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesi‚ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."Without intending to be offensive it does read like legal gobbledegook. I'd say the interpretation of that could be pretty flexible.
Even so, it's convenient to have an on-off switch to cover the blunders.

Rincewind
05-10-2005, 10:14 AM
Without intending to be offensive it does read like legal gobbledegook. I'd say the interpretation of that could be pretty flexible.
Even so, it's convenient to have an on-off switch to cover the blunders.

It does. Note that although I was raised a catholic I am (and have been for maybe 20 years) a staunch athiest. However it is important to understand the beliefs of others if you want to engage in reasonable discussion on the same.

Dozy
05-10-2005, 10:43 AM
It does. Note that although I was raised a catholic I am (and have been for maybe 20 years) a staunch athiest. However it is important to understand the beliefs of others if you want to engage in reasonable discussion on the same.No argument there. My background was Baptist -- fundamental protestantism, fire and brimstone. I don't know a lot about Catholicism and can't speak with confidence about it.

Andrew Greeley (RC priest turned lecturer at Chicago U) does a pretty fair apologia, albeit tongue-in-cheek, in his novels. He faces the problems and anomalies and attempts to put them in perspective.

antichrist
05-10-2005, 05:48 PM
No argument there. My background was Baptist -- fundamental protestantism, fire and brimstone. I don't know a lot about Catholicism and can't speak with confidence about it.

....

Dozy, the only worse then not being brought up a Catholic is to admit it.

And then again the worse thing about being brought up a Catholic is not to become an atheist.

arosar
30-10-2005, 07:57 PM
Now even these Jesus freaks have their own blog.

http://fhlcc.blogspot.com/

AR

Lucena
30-10-2005, 10:28 PM
Well what's the reply?

My guess is he doesn't post here that often and he's missed it if he has been on here.

bergil
30-10-2005, 10:40 PM
The Roman Catholic Church gave us all the glorious works of Michael Angelo. Enough said :hand:

antichrist
31-10-2005, 09:24 AM
The Roman Catholic Church gave us all the glorious works of Michael Angelo. Enough said :hand:

Yeah, but it was conscription. He could have done great nudes if the Church did not corrupt him. But didn't he manage to sneak heads of his mates or someone or another onto his pics of the saints?

Rincewind
31-10-2005, 10:05 AM
Yeah, but it was conscription. He could have done great nudes if the Church did not corrupt him. But didn't he manage to sneak heads of his mates or someone or another onto his pics of the saints?

Not to mention one or two kangaroos.