|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If a Hindu joins a mosque while still holding Hindu beliefs, is he a Muslim? THANK YOU! OF COURSE HE'S NOT. THAT'S THE POINT! He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have no opinion how wrong Faith may or may not be about Peter and the rock, but there are still foundational principles of Protestantism that define what a Protestant is. The definition of Protestant is not, "Anyone who interprets the Bible for himself." Thank you, that is true. I thought you were saying it was the definition a while back.
Faith wants to discuss the differences between Catholocism and Protestantism, tracing them all the way back to the early church, but it's turning into a discussion of who's a true Protestant. I've been urging Faith to ignore such distractions, no matter how determined. I must have missed your urging but I'm certainly happy to drop it if possible.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It would be nice if you would consider what I've posted before rushing on with your tu quoque propaganda..
I'm not going to be able to deal with this post on this thread the way things are going anway, at least not until later. But your references look really shoddy and your quotes unreliable The Rwanda genocide was completely engineered by the Catholic priests there, just to say that much, so including the Protestants is some kind of politically correct propaganda. Maybe some fought back perhaps? That would make them guilty of genocide in your book I guess.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22509 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Hi Faith,
I think at some point the direction I was arguing got reversed for you. I was calling specious the claim that any personal Biblical interpretation is Protestant. If Jar was saying that any beliefs one derives from a personal reading of the Bible are Protestant then that seems, at best, a far outlier of Protestant belief. But this thread isn't about whether Jar is Protestant. If he's wrong about being Protestant, so what. Move on to discussing your topic. Recent messages from Jar and PaulK touched on indulgences, and that seems much more relevant than who's a true Protestant. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think at some point the direction I was arguing got reversed for you. I was calling specious the claim that any personal Biblical interpretation is Protestant. That's a relief! I DID misread you. I still have trouble reading that post but I see at least a couple places where you meant something other than I understood you to mean. Thank you.
If Jar was saying that any beliefs one derives from a personal reading of the Bible are Protestant then that seems, at best, a far outlier of Protestant belief. I couldn't even figure out that's what everybody seemed to be saying so I couldn't answer it. It does seem to be their view, that hidden assumption I suspected had to be there that I couldn't recognize, and it is a strange misunderstanding of Protestant belief but it's a relief to get it recognized finally.
But this thread isn't about whether Jar is Protestant. If he's wrong about being Protestant, so what. Move on to discussing your topic. I do think that this whole side issue about who is a Protestant isn't as irrelevant as you are saying because it's all about the topic I was trying so hard to keep in focus -- WHAT Protestantism is. I boiled it down to its essentials, referred to sources, repeated it many times so it wouldn't get lost etc etc and it was still hard to keep it in focus. I really did have the idea that surely people here would be up on the history of these things so I wouldn't have to work so hard but I was wrong. Anyway, it would be hard to go on to other issues if that basic definition isn't established. However, maybe it now is to enough of an extent to move on.
Recent messages from Jar and PaulK touched on indulgences, and that seems much more relevant than who's a true Protestant Not sure this is the time to get to Indulgences or any of the rest of the 95 Theses of Luther. These are issues Luther raised for debate in the hope of raising awareness of the need for reforms within the Roman Church. They remained important in the whole Protestant revolution but not as important as the issues I've tried to keep the focus on here. I posted on the Catholic background to Nazism a ways back, Message 333, Hitler and Catholicism,EvC Forum: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries and Tempe 12foot seems to have responded to that post in Message 347, Genocides, EvC Forum: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries without acknowledging it or dealing with any of its points, merely trying to prove Protestants are "just as bad." So now there's this long answer to me just hanging there that I would like to deal with eventually. It's going to take me a fair amount of research, although he didn't do anything along those lines in answer to my post. My post dealt with only ONE subject, official Catholic involvement and doctrine in relation to Fascist murder, and I used many quotes from different people to support it, while Tempe's answer deals with a list of different events just thrown at me with a couple of very questionable references in support, that rightly should be taken up one by one. He's given one long paper apparently by a student on Rwanda that looks at a glance pretty confused about who did what but I may try to struggle through it eventually. Then on the Irish potato famine he gives one reference which is clearly from the Catholic point of view (my references were not partisan), and another clearly Catholic propaganda website on "Bad Protestants" and I can't make out if he has any source at all for the stuff about Zwingli. This is BAD debating style but I am nevertheless going to try to address all his points as I'm able, hopefully with much better references than his. SO THERE'S THAT PROJECT. That's on my mind right now, so Indulgences may have to wait. I'll review the thread, though. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: You didn't show that - and quoting a commentary couldn't show that (especially when it didn't even fully agree with your "consensus"). And I've seen other commentaries that hold to yet ANOTHER view. And if course, in the post that I actually quoted jar's interpretation wasn't even an issue - simply disagreement with the interpretation that you prefer.
quote: At that point I mistakenly assumed that the commentary actually agreed with you...
quote: You are happy to suggest that others should defer to expert opinion when it suits you - but when the experts disagree with you out comes the hate and the slanders. Hardly Christian behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: The person most prone to that misunderstanding seems to be you. The correctness of personal interpretations isn't even the point. THee question is whether people are even allowed to have them and still be considered Protestant. With regard to the particular verses under discussion your answer is NO. My answer is YES, within reason. i cannot see any reason why a Protestant couldn't read Matthew 16:15-20 as meaning that Peter was to be first amongst the Apostles and lead the Church after Jesus left.
quote: Matthew 16:15-20 isn't about that, is it ? And yet you insisted that anyone who did not adhere to the interpretation you preferred could not be a Protestant. Come on, tell me why the perfectly reasonable interpretation that I offer above is incompatible with being a Protestant - especially when it seems to be the most natural reading of the text.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I gave the whole sequence over on the other thread.
ABE: I gave it on THIS thread, it turns out, here:EvC Forum: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries Jar claiming that Luther was wrong to deny that Matthew 16 showed The Roman Church to be the true Church. Luther did deny that, Jar affirmed it. How strange to call a person who prefers the Catholic understanding of what is the true Church a Protestant. There are many ways to show if a person is a Protestant or not, the solas are one, anti-Protestant opinion is of course another. Logic, common sense ought to tell you that much.
You are happy to suggest that others should defer to expert opinion when it suits you - but when the experts disagree with you out comes the hate and the slanders. Hardly Christian behaviour. How very odd of you. I tell you that Protestants don't deny authority but that expert opinion matters, then you make an issue of the fact that Protestant opinion would of course defer to Protestant opinion and object to antiChristian "scholarship" by unbelievers that undermines the Bible which we know to be God's word? Do you spend your life making up strange illogical arguments to try to undermine opinions you don't like or what? Oh and "hate and slanders" because I reject the claims to scholarship of people who abuse sscholarship. Right, of course, get that nasty PC accusation in there. Yeah, I cop to that. I HATE HATE HATE that kind of lying subterfuge, and it's not slander if it's the truth and it is. Edited by Faith, : add link to earlier message Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
i cannot see any reason why a Protestant couldn't read Matthew 16:15-20 as meaning that Peter was to be first amongst the Apostles and lead the Church after Jesus left. There are plenty of reasons why that isn't a correct interpretation but even if it were that isn't all Jar said. [See Message 319 where I give the whole sequence. EvC Forum: Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries] Specifically, as shown at that link, jar said this when I pointed out that Luther denied that the Roman Church was Christian at all:
Aw, too bad. Jesus said it is The Church. Luther loses once again. It isn't just the idea that Peter was to lead the Church but the specifically Roman Catholic doctrine that Peter was the first bishop of Rome or Pope and that makes them the true Church -- THAT's what jar affirmed. Against Luther. Sorry, that makes jar a Catholic, not a Protestant. Edited by Faith, : Add link Edited by Faith, : Add quote from jar from linked messageHe who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: That's not what we're arguing about.
quote: In other words you hate and lie about experts who come to conclusions contrary to your dogma.
quote: Of course it ISN'T true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I bet you can't come up with even one good, solid reason. And I'm not arguing about what jar said elsewhere, I'm arguing with your assertion that Protestants MUST interpret that passage the way you like. Want to actually deal with my point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There are plenty of reasons why that isn't a correct interpretation but even if it were that isn't all Jar said. I bet you can't come up with even one good, solid reason. And I'm not arguing about what jar said elsewhere, I'm arguing with your assertion that Protestants MUST interpret that passage the way you like. I did NOT say it has to be interpreted in one particular way, I said it isn't a Protestant interpretation if it is used to do what jar did with it, cause it to support the claims of Rome. Some interpret the rock to refer to Christ Himself, some to Peter's testimony and some do interpret it as referring to Peter but even when they do they don't suggest he had any kind of preeminence among the apostles in the characteristic he demonstrated by that testimony. He was first in some ways but not ABOVE the others in any ways. Here's one commentary, JF&B for Mat 16:18 at BLB, that makes this point, showing that all the apostles received the same commissioning from Jesus even if Peter was the first to make the testimony:
19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven--the kingdom of God about to be set up on earth and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven--Whatever this mean, it was soon expressly extended to all the apostles ( Mat 18:18 ); so that the claim of supreme authority in the Church, made for Peter by the Church of Rome, and then arrogated to themselves by the popes as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, is baseless and impudent. As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these "keys," on the day of Pentecost, he first "opened the door of faith" to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles. Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named. See on JF & B for Mt 18:18. One thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles--a thing conclusive against the Romish claims in behalf of that apostle. He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: But what about Gods grace? You seem to think that God insists that we work hard enough to impress Him. Although I will admit that I don't actually know WHAT God thinks! Wouldn't it be great though if God loved us so much that we could be failures and still live under His roof?
Honest Protestants KNOW that they don't have a clue of whether or not they are saved and will not know until after they are dead an judged. Dishonest Protestants may THINK they know, but it will only be after they are dead and judged that they will discover the truth. Jesus death was not some cheap get outta hell card.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm tired of how you keep shifting the argument. I don't know what YOU are arguing about but I've given my reasons quite consistently all along here. Sometimes the solas are the subject, sometimes it's the simple fact that jar agrees with a Catholic interpretaton of scripture.
I do hate the "experts" who lie about the supernatural basis of the Bible, I do indeed. They are the liars. The Bible is the supernatural word of God and they are unable to recognize that fact, being unbelievers, and too many Christians have bought into their lousy excuse for scholarship. I'm tired of this discussion, I'm tired of your nasty endlessly accusatory attitude and I hope I can call this post the end of it.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Wouldn't it be great though if God loved us so much that we could be failures and still live under His roof? He does, Phat, that's why He sent His Son to DIE FOR US total failures. All you have to do is believe that and look to Him trustingly. He died to save you. You do have to know who He is, though, He is Father, He is not "She." You MUST stop thinking jar knows anything, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Find a good church, a good pastor. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024