A CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL RESPONSE
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
See, the problem with your assumption here is that Protestants never had divine authority (or even apparent divine visions or instructions for that matter) to schism from the Church.
Protestant reformers relied on the testimony of the Bible alone,
>>Which is, of course, an unscriptural, man-made doctrine, utterly foreign to Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, and the practice of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, East and West, throughout the world, from the beginning.
********************************
which they held to be inspired by God and inherently authoritative.
>>>The Bible, we learn from the Church, is indeed inspired, and is indeed authoritative. What is most certainly not inspired, and what is most certainly not authoritative, is the man-made doctrine that the Bible ALONE is authoritative ("Sola Scriptura"😉. This man-made, heretical innovation of 16th century Protest-ants was never known to Scripture or Tradition, until it was invented by a disgruntled Augustinian Friar named Martin Luther, 1,500 years after the last Apostle died.
**************************************************
It was Rome's long departure from the written Word of God, and fallacious elevation of Church Tradition, that drove Martin Luther and others to point out the many theological faults of Roman Catholicism.
>>>Alas, in so doing, they apparently managed to forget to read the very New Testament Scriptures they themselves proposed to set up in opposition to the Catholic Church which wrote them. First, as to the notion that the Bible alone is the sole authority, the Bible itself plainly disagrees, and one wonders how the "pointers out of theological faults" managed to miss the simple fact that the Bible itself tells us that it is the Church, not the Bible, which is "the pillar and ground of the truth":
1 Tim 3:15
15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
*********************************************
As with conservative Protestants today, most reformers soundly rejected the idea that the Bible was a product of RC Tradition.
>>What else was it the product of, then? It is certain Christ did not say "thou art Peter and on this rock I will rain down copies of King James Bibles from the sky, leaving everyone to decide for themselves what it means".
Sola Scriptura!
>>Is a man-made doctrine, contrary to Scripture, and one which has, predictably enough, proven to be a catastrophic breeder of schism after schism after schism after schism in actual historical practice. And how else could it have been? "Sola Scriptura"! you cry. "Sola Scriptura" Joe down the street cries. Until you both can't agree on whether "baptism" is with or without water…......presto! Yet another denomination.
Indeed, all it really takes to found another Protestant denomination, is a resentment and a coffee pot.
*******************************************************8
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is true that during the time of the Protestant Revolution there was a lot of corruption in the church, but using my analogy above, stemming that plant (the church through excommunications etc.) is a solution, whilst abandoning the plant would be foolish.
This solution assumes the Roman Church is the genuine article.
>>It certainly enjoys the advantage of having been around fifteen hundred years before the first Protestant was.
*************************
Protestants have long held that view in doubt.
>>Well, I should certainly expect so. After all, it certainly doesn't say much for one's catholicity, to schism from the Church, and then admit it was the True Church from which one schismed, does it?
***************************************************
If the Roman Catholic Church is merely a vague reflection of the New Testament church, then the only appropriate response is to reject it.
>>>Hear hear. Needless to say, the same goes for the twenty thousand-odd Protestant sub-sects which have, each and all of them, sprung up on the heels of "Sola Scriptura".
Hmmm. How to see which is the True Church, and which the "vague reflection"?
I know! Let's see when they first appeared.
Bzzzzt. Right you are.
Catholic, by fifteen hundred years.
Next?
***************************************************
Given that post-Vatican II Rome still preaches many of the heresies that led to the Protestant Reformation, it seems they still have a great deal of pruning to do.
>>>Well, it is certainly true that, unlike these twenty-thousand odd Protestant sect-lets that spring up with every shift in the winds, the Catholic Church has never, will never, and can never change even one of her dogmas.
This is because the Protestant sects' dogmas are man made, while the Catholic Church's dogmas are God-given.
quote: (post)
*******************************************8
Originally posted by Transfinitum
And the Catholic Church was established at the exact point that Christ "built his church" on Peter in the Gospel of Matthew. From there every Catholic ordination happened and each and every one can be traced down to that event. The result of this is something called Apostolic Succession, where every ordained clergyman can perform the blessed sacraments (eg. Communion, Confession etc...) with Divine sanction.
In fact, the church was established at Pentecost [Acts 2:1-47]. While Peter played a significant role in the launching of the church, one must look far beyond the pages of the Bible to make a case for Apostolic Succession.
>>>Quite so. Just as your Bible has already told you, it is the Church, and not the Bible, which is the pillar and ground of the truth.
**********************************************************
The circular nature of Rome's argument here is highly problematic.
>>>That's a laugh. How ironic, that the fellow who cheers "Sola Scriptura"!, apparently oblivious to the fact that every single reader of the Bible can have their own interpretation of it, should accuse the Catholic Church of "circular arguments"!
*****************************************************
The very people who authenticate Tradition, rest upon their own affirmations in support of their positional authority. Thus Rome's "divine sanction" is at best pretentious.
>>>>How unfortunate for you, then, that it is that very Roman Church which alone has fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible, that Christ's Church should be:
a) built on Peter (Matthew 16:18)
b) exist in visible, unbroken succession until the end of time (Matthew 16:18)
c)
Be spread throughout the world, and found in every nation, race, and tongue of mankind (Matthew 28:19)
***************************************************************
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Protestants do not have this sanction, they broke away from it. Therefore they had and have no authority to schism (and judging from the hundreds of Protestant denominations, there is not much in the realm of clarity either).
Conservative Protestants rest upon the Bible as their only and all sufficient rule for faith and practice. It is the only authority we claim and the only authority we need.
>>>Apparently you are unaware that you are making my point for me with your answer. Of course you rest upon the Bible as your only authority. That is precisely why you continually schism and re-schism, having substituted the man-made absurdity of "Sola Scriptura" for the God-gtiven truth that Christ will build His Church on Peter, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
********************************************************8
It should be noted that, despite the many varieties of Protestant churches, there are only two relevant camps within the movement.
>>>Heh heh heh. Says who? You? On what authority? Where in the Bible does it say "there are only two relevant camps within the movement"? Can you give us chapter and verse, please? No? Oh. I see. So, by your own words above, "(the Bible) is the only authority we claim and the only authority we need" we can dismiss your statement here as utterly without authority.
<snip of statement self-acknowledged to have no authority>
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Let me ask, if you do not believe in Purgatory, what happens to those who have committed moderate sins. They cannot go directly to Heaven (for as per the definition of heaven, perfection and holiness, there can be no sin) so do they all go to hell? In that case Heaven is almost impossible to enter and one MUST be a saint to do so.
The Roman Catholic categorization of sins as Venial or Mortal is entirely contrary to Scripture.
>>>For somebody always on about how the Bible is your sole authority, you apparently don't read certain parts of it much. Allow me to introduce the Apostle John:
1 Jn 5:16-
16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death.
*********************************
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." [James 2:10/NIV]
>>>But you see, Christians are not under the law. Even most Protestants understand that.
*************************************************************