If We Protestants Truly Hated Catholics...

[epostle]

"a martyr's damnation" is a senseless oxymoron, a contradiction of words.
This page alone - #782-800, has 18 posts, with 16 different topics. Generally, its about scriptural authority and interpretations etc. Wycliff is a standard anti-Catholic derailer, a favorite bat to beat Catholics with. Returning fire with reformers' atrocities and the discussion amounts to bar room brawl and a waste of time. Protestants today are not accountable for the bad things of centuries ago, but the Christian Taliban holds Catholics today accountable for every apparent sin ever committed over a 2000 year period.
Wycliff did not "pay with his life", he died of a stroke at the age of 64, while saying Mass. An English translation of the Bible was approved shortly after. But anti-Catholics do not want the truth. A stack of encyclopedias and scholarly references cannot change the way the anti-Catholic thinks. Wycliff is a rabbit hole anyway. This is a case where the froth flying from the rabid anti-Catholic's mouth gets in their eyes.

Solas 3, 4, 5 were borrowed from Catholic teaching, they are still there. They were not new scriptural insights.

If "faith alone" means faith formed in hope and charity, then it is a faith formed according to scripture. If "faith alone" is not formed with the other cardinal virtues, it is a man made tradition. Guess what definition the reformers chose.

"Bible alone theology" or sola scriptura is not found anywhere in scripture, and proven to be the most destructive principle to come out of the reformation. Even Luther had his regrets.

​

 

[bbyrd009]

Protestants today are not accountable for the bad things of centuries ago, but the Christian Taliban holds Catholics today accountable for every apparent sin ever committed over a 2000 year period.

imo that is just your persecution complex showing again kepha, wadr; i don't hold you accountable at all.
Catholicism, maybe, but not Catholics per se.
i do appreciate the delineation of Catholics and Christians though, ty
so remind us again why you are here

But anti-Catholics do not want the truth.

pretty broad brush there k, i mean you don't see just a teeny bit of self-service in this? lol

 

[BreadOfLife]

The papacy is 'the union of the catholic church and the secular state".
When Napoleon sent Berthier to arrest the pope in 1798, Napoleon declared the papacy dead, not the Catholic church, which continued to exist to the detriment of the human race.
Do you understand this, you poor pathetic mass of uncontrolled gushing emotionalism?
The Catholic church alone is NOT the papacy - the papacy is "the union of the Catholic church and the secular state".

And you have YET to present any etymological or historical evidence to support this idiotic claim of yours.

As I have educated you several times now - "Papacy" is simply a derivative of the Latin word for "Father" (Papa). That's ALL it means - and it's not even an official title of the Bishop of Rome.

Come back when you have some actual evidence - an NOT just your usual emotional outbursts . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

In this respect we all can agree with the Five Solas of the Reformation (which were also attacked by the Catholic Church). Here are the Five Solas and if your reject them, then your interpretation and that of your church is false.

The Five Solas are:

1. Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority.
2. Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
3. Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone.
4. Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King.
5. Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone.

A few corrections . . .

1. NOWHERE is this self-refuting doctrine supported by the very Scripture it uses as its "Final" Authority.
2. NOWHERE is this false doctrine supported by Scripture. In fact, the ONLY place this term is used in Scripture is in James 2:24, where it says: "You see that a man is justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.".
3. Yup - we ARE saved by the grace of God alone - and our cooperation with that grace. Without our cooperation - we cannot hope to be saved.
4. Only Jesus Christ IS our Lord, Savior, and King.
5. We DO live to glorify God.

 

[Marymog]

well, you made the point at least.
wadr you seem to be contradicting yourself too much for me to give any kind of reply, sorry. At least at the moment; i'm tired. might make more sense to me in the am

You don't get it so I will help you make sense of what I said.

Some believe that sola scriptura is the highest authority. That simply means that anything man says, including what Enoch says, has no authority. Enoch's interpretation of scripture has no authority over me.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

People don't find WHAT THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR. That's called self delusion.

Got it. You can't find it either.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Actually, that is easy to answer. Who was it that was doing the persecuting? Who was Satan's prime tool in destroying Christianity throughout the dark ages? Hint. It wasn't Islam.

You said it is easy to answer.....but you didn't answer. Instead you ASKED TWO QUESTIONS!!!!

I apologize for stumping you.

Thank you for your time.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

People don't find WHAT THEY ARE NOT LOOKING FOR. That's called self delusion.

Hi dodge ball king.

There were two other questions in my post. Why didn't you answer them?? Let's try again:

Do you have a list of Churches (denominations) that practice all five (of the sola's)?

Starting with sola scriptura: If the Bible alone is our highest authority then whose interpretation of that Bible do we believe? Yours? RCC? Lutherans? Mormons? Muslims?

Mary

 

[Phoneman777]

And history shows this to be the Catholic Church... You have yet to even attempt to show that it was otherwise...

Some of its bishops included Clement, Polycarp, Ignatus, Cyprian to name just a few... Do you acknowledge these as bishops and heroes of the Faith?

Pax!

I and others have done nothing but repeatedly demonstrate that the church of Rome, in doctrine, practice, and mission, fails to resemble anything remotely to the church Christ founded. The early church kept the seventh day Sabbath, as told in Scripture and church historian Socrates Scholasticus. Read it straight from Rome's mouth:

Question: "Have you any other way of proving the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?"

Answer: "Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the 1st day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the 7th day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." - From: Stephen Keenan, Catholic—Doctrinal Catechism 3rd Edition: 174:

The remnant will always be identical to the whole, but Daniel says any church that "thinks to change times and laws" is not God's church, it is the church of Antichrist (Daniel 7:25 KJV).

www.romeschallenge.com

 

[Phoneman777]

And you have YET to present any etymological or historical evidence to support this idiotic claim of yours.

As I have educated you several times now - "Papacy" is simply a derivative of the Latin word for "Father" (Papa). That's ALL it means - and it's not even an official title of the Bishop of Rome.

Come back when you have some actual evidence - an NOT just your usual emotional outbursts . . .

Dead Bread, it is well known that the scope of the papacy's self-appointed (not God-appointed) authority is authority over all things religious and secular.

It was not until 538 A.D. when all opposition was eliminated that the papacy, as the Antichrist of Bible prophecy, began to exercise that authority over all religious and secular matters. Therefore, before 538 A.D. the only place the papacy existed was in the minds of Catholic pedophile prelates.

Capisce?

 

[Philip James]

I and others have done nothing but repeatedly demonstrate that the church of Rome, in doctrine, practice, and mission, fails to resemble anything remotely to the church Christ founded.

Actually you have not. To do so you would have to identify the Church in 100 AD , 200 AD , 300 AD... That you cannot even attempt to do so, in light of the evedince of Orthodox, Catholic teaching by the ECF's I can only conclude that things like the Eucharist truly being the body and blood of Christ, are in fact the teaching of the apostles. Further that these bishops, and those who succeded them are indeed the communities established by the apostles....
And that anyone who leaves these communities to start a 'new' church, do so on their own authority and the following applies to them:

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Pax!

 

[Enoch111]

Do you have a list of Churches (denominations) that practice all five (of the sola's)?

That's not the issue. The issue is "Why are the Five Solas rejected by the RCC when all other Christians accept them?" That is more relevant for you.

 

[Enoch111]

A few corrections . . .

Do you seriously believe that all the Reformers would hold to the Five Solas if they could not be supported by Scripture? Many were martyred for their beliefs and all were called "heretics" by the RCC. Fortunately the political power of the RCC does not exist any more and they cannot burn heretics.

Of course since you are committed to the false teachings of your church, you have to reject them, but all conservative non-Catholics believe that they are true.

.

 

[Marymog]

That's not the issue. The issue is "Why are the Five Solas rejected by the RCC when all other Christians accept them?" That is more relevant for you.

Because they are unbiblical and they had not been accepted until the reformation. Even Martin Luther had to rely on his authority, not scripture alone, to tell everyone that the RCC was wrong and he was right. He and his ilk killed and tortured men that didn't agree with him. He destroyed his own theory.

So the REAL issue comes back full circle: Why is your interpretation right and anyone else wrong?

Mary

 

[BobRyan]

That's not the issue. The issue is "Why are the Five Solas rejected by the RCC when all other Christians accept them?" That is more relevant for you.

Because things like "sola scriptura" as we see it demonstrated by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 and also in Acts 17:11 practice even by non-Christians to determine if one of the first-order Apostles was teaching truth or false-doctrine, means that just about anybody could "test" RCC doctrine and tradition and see if it was truth or error.

 

[BobRyan]

Because they are unbiblical and they had not been accepted until the reformation.

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."

 

[BreadOfLife]

Dead Bread, it is well known that the scope of the papacy's self-appointed (not God-appointed) authority is authority over all things religious and secular.

It was not until 538 A.D. when all opposition was eliminated that the papacy, as the Antichrist of Bible prophecy, began to exercise that authority over all religious and secular matters. Therefore, before 538 A.D. the only place the papacy existed was in the minds of Catholic pedophile prelates.

Capisce?

And I've already schooled you on this point - several times now.

For your idiotic, revisionist claims to be true - you would have to ERASE the 2nd century documents - Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" and Tertullians "Di Pudicitia" from history because BOTH refer to the office of the Papacy soome 300 years BEFORE your phony date.

As I further educated you - you wold ALSO have to destroy all evidence from the Early Church Fathers like Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem and Opatue - ALL of who wrote about the office of the Papacy BEFORE your make-believe timeline.

ALL of your posts are based on your own little angry opinions and not a SHRED of evidence.
On the OTHER hand - I have presented nothing BUT historical evidence.

Face it - you don't have a historical leg to stand on and it's killing you . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do you seriously believe that all the Reformers would hold to the Five Solas if they could not be supported by Scripture? Many were martyred for their beliefs and all were called "heretics" by the RCC. Fortunately the political power of the RCC does not exist any more and they cannot burn heretics.

The very SAME could be said of every Catholic doctrine that YOU reject - especially the Real Presence.
Anyway - they WERE heretics because they began inventing new and contrary doctrines to Christianity.

Of course since you are committed to the false teachings of your church, you have to reject them, but all conservative non-Catholics believe that they are true..

That's funny.
A LOT of you anti-Catholics make this claim - but NONE of you is equipped to provide evidence for it . . .

 

[aspen]

“Then, Jesus.gave up his spirit and somehere in the Holy Roman Empire, a hammer was heard securing 95 thesis to a door of the All Saint’s Church in Wittenburg”

My Protestant education in a sentence

 

[BreadOfLife]

Acts 17:11 is not unbiblical. And it came wayyy before the reformation.
Mark 7:6-13 is not "unbiblical" and it came wayyy before the reformation
Isaiah 8:20 is not unbiblical and it came wayyy before the reformation
"20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light."

How do ANY of these verses support Sola Scriptura??

Acts 17:11 - The Bereans searched the Old Testament to see if what Paul was saying about Jesus was true.
NOWHERE does it even imply that the Bereans were Sola Scripturists. They were skeptics who were trying to substantiate what Paul was teaching - probably FROM the Old Testament.

Mark 7:6-13 - Jesus wasn't condemning Tradition here. He was condemning the Pharisees who placed their OWN traditions ABOVE the Traditions of the Law and God's Word.

Also - Paul tells the Thessalonians to . . .
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, EITHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT - OR BY or by a LETTER from us."
He doesn't place one above the other - but places BOTH of the ON PAR with each other.

The New Testament is LITTERED with oral Traditions.
In Matt 23:2 - Jesus Himself relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging "Moses' seat" of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 8:20
AGAIN - this is referring to the Word of God. NOWHERE does it refer to Scripture alone - or even Scripture at ALL. The instructions of Moses were based on what He and Yaweh spoke about.

Here are some more examples of ORAL Tradition that we are bound by . . .

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely ORAL TRADITION.

1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with Satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.