Catholicism
#11
The KJV was written 100 years before Freemasonry was invented. Masons may use a KJV Bible but so do Mormons, Christian Scientists and many Protestants and Evangelicals. The KJV is not a "Masonic Bible". Anyway, I don't use the KJV.
Reply
#12
(04-21-2020, 04:53 PM)Wingfold Wrote: A "legitimate Protestant denomination" is one that accepts the Deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Other sects like the JWs, LDS Church and others do not. Any group that does not teach this cardinal tenet of the faith is not Christian, so they can be dismissed. Furthermore, any Catholic or Protestant or Evangelical who rejects the Deity of Christ is simply not a Christian. The source of this is the Bible, not me. The articles of the faith are spelled out in the Westminster Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Creeds - all of which teach the same thing.

The Bible cannot be the authority for that determination (as I already said), but let me explain :
  1. The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both use and interpret the Bible, so the Bible can hardly be the authority by which one can judge that they are not interpreting the Bible correctly. That would be a circular argument.
  2. The Bible does not define what is Biblical, hence why Protestants reject parts of the Old Testament. If we cannot use the Bible to determine what is Biblical, then it can hardly be the standard. Again, this creates a circular argument.
  3. Without an external authority, there is no way to establish what is Scripture and what Scripture means, so any appeal to the Bible without this is itself a circular argument.
  4. The Bible itself did not exist until well after Christ taught Christian doctrine, and the Apostles began teaching this. So clearly some doctrine came before Scripture, and given that St Paul says that the Corinthians should hold onto the gospel which St Paul taught to them, and we don't have that "gospel" and none would have been written at that point, clearly there is more than just what is in Scripture which is important and essential for the Faith.
So, again, you need to provide a clear and adequate authority who can judge what is a "legitimate" denomination. The Bible is not clear or adequate, seeing as those you say are "illegitimate" can claim legitimacy from the Bible. 

What authority, which is not Scripture itself, which you can know with certainty has the authority of God, can determine what is "legitimate" or not?

(04-21-2020, 04:53 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Again, the original source is the Bible and is articulated in the Catechism and the Creeds. Our faith must have a legitimate object and that object is Jesus Christ. You and I believe that. As far as our faith walks go, the Book of James says, "Faith without works is dead" (2:18) and then this from James 2:24, "By works a man is justified and not by faith only". This is not a contradiction of "Sola Fide". What James is saying that man is not justified by faith that IS alone. In other words, faith without works is dead. 

But again, Scripture in not adequate if people can read those passages, and then come up with an alternative explanation.

You can quote it all you want, but if the Ethopian eunich (Acts 8) could not understand Scripture without someone being sent to him (an ordained Deacon who could speak for the Church), then how do you expect that you can correctly interpret it without someone who can speak with God's authority.

The same reason given above are the issue. Without an external authority that says what books are in Scripture and is also able to both interpret Scripture authoritatively, and also condemn misinterpretations, then it's just your own opinion of Scripture, and your own opinion that Scripture is even from God.

Without a Church, or external authority who can verify that your opinions are correct, none of what you say makes any logical sense.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian, jovan66102, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#13
Quote:But, my question. Who are you to judge a "legitimate Protestant denomination"? Where can I find the authority which determines this or sets it out?

Now you're throwing like a girl. You know very well where that authority is to be found:

Quote:And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18 ).

And:

Quote:Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:18-20).

Surely you can find some better use of your time.
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
[-] The following 3 users Like Teresa Agrorum's post:
  • dahveed, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#14
(04-21-2020, 05:43 PM)Teresa Agrorum Wrote:
Quote:But, my question. Who are you to judge a "legitimate Protestant denomination"? Where can I find the authority which determines this or sets it out?

Now you're throwing like a girl. You know very well where that authority is to be found:

Quote:And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18 ).

And:

Quote:Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:18-20).

Surely you can find some better use of your time.

I'm trying to take our new Protestant friend (and soon to be revert to Catholicism) through the baby steps ...

"Quasimodo geniti infantes, rationabile, sine dolo lac concupiscite." (1 Pt 2.2)
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#15
Quote:"Quasimodo geniti infantes, rationabile, sine dolo lac concupiscite."

I'll get out of the way. ;-)
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
Reply
#16
MM has a lot more patience than me.

It doesn't make sense to be a Protestant on very basic epistemic grounds. There is absolutely no way to ground the hermeneutic needed to make sense of any part of the Bible and hence any of the traditional doctrines of Protestantism. It presumes a strong form of fideism. It is a spiral that ends only with an individual's fiat of what he or she believes is right or wrong (and of course, spurred on with the benediction of the Holy Ghost, who seems happy to approve every other Protestant's interpretation, even if they are all contradictory). And that sort of self-determined individualism leads inevitably to Nietzsche. My old Presbyterian pastor said every Christian has to confront Nietzsche. I eventually realized he actually meant every Protestant has to confront Nietzsche.

Also if one refers to anything outside of the Bible as legitimate in interpreting the Bible, such as creeds or catechisms, one implicitly lends authority to speak on divine matters to the body of people who formed those creeds and catechisms. How then does one adjudicate the legitimacy of councils without reference to a notion of Sacred Tradition? But how can Sacred Tradition be trustworthy? Why this Tradition and not that one? Without reference to an authority that transcends all individual opinions, the process never stops. It's like the atheist asking, "Well, who made God?"

"Well, who made that tradition Sacred?"

You can't refer to Our Lord because you're not Our Lord. You can't refer to creeds or catechisms because they were formed by men after Our Lord and the death of His last apostle. You can't refer to councils because why should you trust them? Who can you trust except your own intuitive fiat of what is right and wrong?

But then, why should anyone trust your judgment about it?

The Magisterium of the Church is the best solution to the never-ending problem of how we know what is part of Revelation and what is not. The added bonus is that it's the best solution because it's the only solution, the one instituted by Christ.
[-] The following 6 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, Fionnchu, josh987654321, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, MiserereMeiDeus
Reply
#17
(04-21-2020, 05:35 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-21-2020, 04:53 PM)Wingfold Wrote: A "legitimate Protestant denomination" is one that accepts the Deity and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Other sects like the JWs, LDS Church and others do not. Any group that does not teach this cardinal tenet of the faith is not Christian, so they can be dismissed. Furthermore, any Catholic or Protestant or Evangelical who rejects the Deity of Christ is simply not a Christian. The source of this is the Bible, not me. The articles of the faith are spelled out in the Westminster Catechism, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Creeds - all of which teach the same thing.

The Bible cannot be the authority for that determination (as I already said), but let me explain :
  1. The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both use and interpret the Bible, so the Bible can hardly be the authority by which one can judge that they are not interpreting the Bible correctly. That would be a circular argument.
  2. The Bible does not define what is Biblical, hence why Protestants reject parts of the Old Testament. If we cannot use the Bible to determine what is Biblical, then it can hardly be the standard. Again, this creates a circular argument.
  3. Without an external authority, there is no way to establish what is Scripture and what Scripture means, so any appeal to the Bible without this is itself a circular argument.
  4. The Bible itself did not exist until well after Christ taught Christian doctrine, and the Apostles began teaching this. So clearly some doctrine came before Scripture, and given that St Paul says that the Corinthians should hold onto the gospel which St Paul taught to them, and we don't have that "gospel" and none would have been written at that point, clearly there is more than just what is in Scripture which is important and essential for the Faith.
So, again, you need to provide a clear and adequate authority who can judge what is a "legitimate" denomination. The Bible is not clear or adequate, seeing as those you say are "illegitimate" can claim legitimacy from the Bible. 

What authority, which is not Scripture itself, which you can know with certainty has the authority of God, can determine what is "legitimate" or not?

(04-21-2020, 04:53 PM)Wingfold Wrote: Again, the original source is the Bible and is articulated in the Catechism and the Creeds. Our faith must have a legitimate object and that object is Jesus Christ. You and I believe that. As far as our faith walks go, the Book of James says, "Faith without works is dead" (2:18) and then this from James 2:24, "By works a man is justified and not by faith only". This is not a contradiction of "Sola Fide". What James is saying that man is not justified by faith that IS alone. In other words, faith without works is dead. 

But again, Scripture in not adequate if people can read those passages, and then come up with an alternative explanation.

You can quote it all you want, but if the Ethopian eunich (Acts 8) could not understand Scripture without someone being sent to him (an ordained Deacon who could speak for the Church), then how do you expect that you can correctly interpret it without someone who can speak with God's authority.

The same reason given above are the issue. Without an external authority that says what books are in Scripture and is also able to both interpret Scripture authoritatively, and also condemn misinterpretations, then it's just your own opinion of Scripture, and your own opinion that Scripture is even from God.

Without a Church, or external authority who can verify that your opinions are correct, none of what you say makes any logical sense.
Reply
#18
(04-21-2020, 01:30 PM)Wingfold Wrote: .

Thanks Wingfold, I don't disagree with that either, we say 'Faith+Works', but then if you qualify your faith alone thing with 'faith without works are dead', then essentially we're saying the same thing... faith+works.

But keep reading though, because that's not the heart of the issue between Protestants and Catholics, Primarily when you get to John 6 and the Holy Eucharist. Id also recommend having a look into Dr Scott Hahn's conversion story, who converted my father from Protestantism to Catholicism.

God Bless You
Reply
#19
(04-21-2020, 01:30 PM)Wingfold Wrote: As someone who was raised a Catholic (if in name only) and is now a Protestant, I must disagree with your above statement claiming that Protestants only require an intellectual conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God to acquire salvation. That is NOT the case. In fact, Protestants teach exactly what you say regarding "a conversion of the heart", a changing of the mind - repentance or "metanoia". We also teach that "faith without works is dead". If people say they believe but don't live out their professed faith as God's grace permits them to do good works, we believe that their faith isn't genuine. Protestants teach that Christianity is "Christ in you" (Colossians 1:27) and this means "in you" in mind, heart and deed.

May I ask which of the 40,000+ denominations of Protestantism are you a part of?

And if you are part of those "I ain't no stinkin' denomination, I am an evangelical follower of the Word of God" then may I ask are you a follower of the Calvinist Way, Wesleyan Way, or Lutheran Way?

Kinda helps to know what we are dealing with.
Reply
#20
(04-21-2020, 08:51 PM)piscis Wrote: MM has a lot more patience than me.

It doesn't make sense to be a Protestant on very basic epistemic grounds. There is absolutely no way to ground the hermeneutic needed to make sense of any part of the Bible and hence any of the traditional doctrines of Protestantism. It presumes a strong form of fideism. It is a spiral that ends only with an individual's fiat of what he or she believes is right or wrong (and of course, spurred on with the benediction of the Holy Ghost, who seems happy to approve every other Protestant's interpretation, even if they are all contradictory). And that sort of self-determined individualism leads inevitably to Nietzsche. My old Presbyterian pastor said every Christian has to confront Nietzsche. I eventually realized he actually meant every Protestant has to confront Nietzsche.

Also if one refers to anything outside of the Bible as legitimate in interpreting the Bible, such as creeds or catechisms, one implicitly lends authority to speak on divine matters to the body of people who formed those creeds and catechisms. How then does one adjudicate the legitimacy of councils without reference to a notion of Sacred Tradition? But how can Sacred Tradition be trustworthy? Why this Tradition and not that one? Without reference to an authority that transcends all individual opinions, the process never stops. It's like the atheist asking, "Well, who made God?"

"Well, who made that tradition Sacred?"

You can't refer to Our Lord because you're not Our Lord. You can't refer to creeds or catechisms because they were formed by men after Our Lord and the death of His last apostle. You can't refer to councils because why should you trust them? Who can you trust except your own intuitive fiat of what is right and wrong?

But then, why should anyone trust your judgment about it?

The Magisterium of the Church is the best solution to the never-ending problem of how we know what is part of Revelation and what is not. The added bonus is that it's the best solution because it's the only solution, the one instituted by Christ.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)