KingofHazor said:

---

AGC said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

I've bolded the only doctrine that matters in your Christianity. You're disagreeing with him by proving his point.

---

No I haven't. You persist in not understanding the Protestant view.

Should there be a central authority to decide what is true in physics, in math, in medicine? If not, how do we know what is true?

Doesn't the existence of Protestantism itself rebut your point? What value is a central authority if it cannot control doctrine? Do you advocate for a return to the good old days of the auto-da-fe to keep those heretics in check?

---

You're right, evangelicals and Protestants writ large do believe in one man made authority to interpret scripture: the individual. But that's the primary doctrine in those denominations like we said, so the importance of anything else isn't a measure of 'Christianity' or 'Protestantism' or 'evangelicals' but the person professing it.

---

Not exactly true. Most thinking Protestants deeply believe that we should be influenced, even heavily influenced (but not governed) by the early church fathers in trying to figure stuff out. But we do not believe that we are to check our brains and our Bibles at the door, especially when confronted by gross corruption, sin, and heresy within the church itself.

You're EO, not RCC, correct?

---

Neither, Anglican. You referenced hooker's stool (I think) awhile back talking to an RCC and I held my tongue.

Look, you have the same hang up every time: it's always your brain helping with this decision. As long as it's only yours, you don't really have a leg to stand on to call out anything. Doctrine is only that deep because beyond that, people can disagree over the same verse or pick and choose any scholar they want for support. Two churches in the same association (within a denomination) can practice wildly different things on a Sunday and be in communion (tongue in cheek, that one).

It wasn't me. I've never heard that phrase before and have no idea what it means.

But you have me totally confused. Anglicans are Protestants, firmly so, so how can you be arguing the positions of the RCC and EO?

Help a guy out, here.

BTW, I joined an Anglican Church last summer and am still in the infatuation stage with it. I had gotten sick to my stomach of the large evangelical mega-church. They seem to have nothing in common with the Protestantism through its earliest stages through the late 20th century sometime.

And further, BTW, as I'm sure you know, the Puritans were all Anglicans!

KingofHazor said:

---

I don't think that this conversation is making any progress and that we're talking past each other. In my opinion, your arguments are not backed by history but are instead the RCC's rewrite of history. I also point to the conduct of the RCC throughout almost its entire history as overwhelming evidence that your arguments are wrong. There is no way that you can convince me to submit to the authority of a Pope that impregnated his own daughter, a Pope that led armies in Conquest, or Bishops that lived in 100,000 sq. ft. mansions while peasants around them starved to death.

However, there is no question in my mind that you are a follower of Jesus Christ and I welcome you as a brother in Christ. I would love to fellowship with you, even though the RCC forbids you to do the same with me (or at least have communion with me).

---

Sounds good. My last note will be that I continually referenced scripture and primary source documents, encouraging you to read them and your parting statement is that I'm using the Catholic Church's rewritten history anyway. I will leave you with one last encouragement to go read these things again/for the first time with an open mind. If you are starting with 'the Catholic Church is definitely wrong' , then it's best to refrain from these conversations in the future. I, and many other Catholics, have researched these things well and are happy to share and even learn from you, but wasting both of time doesn't help anyone.

May God bless you and your family. Have a great weekend.

Curious your thoughts on Ryle as an Anglican.

KingofHazor said:

---

I had gotten sick to my stomach of the large evangelical mega-church. They seem to have nothing in common with the Protestantism through its earliest stages through the late 20th century sometime.

---

This has kind of been my point today. The names that keep getting thrown around, like Hinn and Osteen, those are heretics to a true protestant. But those guys are the basis for the arguments for Rome as it relates to protestants.

I feel like this just isn't true at all. I'm not sure about others, but I have no interest critiquing guys like Osteen or Kenneth Copeland. I'd much rather argue MacArthur, RC Sproul, Gavin Ortlund, Spurgeon, Piper, etc. I don't think any of us even consider those mega church prosperity guys as even evangelicals, and of course not Christians

On what basis can you call them heretics? What is a "true Protestant"? I thought we were just sheep and goats?

Ps Christ is risen!

The Bible? Teaching a man centered gospel that is nothing like what is presented in Scripture?

Y'all are really running with the sheep and goats thing.

Heresy requires doctrinal distinction. You can't call people heretics if all that matters is sheep and goats. Those are contradictory ideas.

Zobel said:

---

Heresy requires doctrinal distinction. You can't call people heretics if all that matters is sheep and goats. Those are contradictory ideas.

---

Most Protestant believe in small -o- orthodoxy. We just don't believe in "sacred tradition" or the final authority of post-apostolic church councils. Protestants can also disagree on many issues without calling others heretics.

You're trying to force Protestants into a framework or your creation, not theirs.

Quote:

---

My last note will be that I continually referenced scripture and primary source documents, encouraging you to read them and your parting statement is that I'm using the Catholic Church's rewritten history anyway. I will leave you with one last encouragement to go read these things again/for the first time with an open mind. If you are starting with 'the Catholic Church is definitely wrong' , then it's best to refrain from these conversations in the future. I, and many other Catholics, have researched these things well and are happy to share and even learn from you, but wasting both of time doesn't help anyone.

---

Why do you say that to me, and not apply it to yourself? Don't you start with the proposition that "Protestants are always wrong"? Why do you assume that you have researched these issues and I haven't?

From your posts, your research appears to be confined to reading only Catholic versions of church history. Broaden your horizons. Read church histories by Protestants and by secular historians. Why aren't you reading non-Catholic histories with an open mind?

KingofHazor said:

---

It wasn't me. I've never heard that phrase before and have no idea what it means.

But you have me totally confused. Anglicans are Protestants, firmly so, so how can you be arguing the positions of the RCC and EO?

Help a guy out, here.

BTW, I joined an Anglican Church last summer and am still in the infatuation stage with it. I had gotten sick to my stomach of the large evangelical mega-church. They seem to have nothing in common with the Protestantism through its earliest stages through the late 20th century sometime.

And further, BTW, as I'm sure you know, the Puritans were all Anglicans!

---

I use the term evangelical with Protestant frequently because they represent the bulk of Protestants. While we fit into Protestant, we have the sacraments, apostolic succession, and liturgy from much earlier than the reformation. We're not ad hoc Christians who walk into church with a bible and share our heresy in small group.

There are guard rails to Sola scriptura, such as the 39 articles, the episcopal structure, and tradition. Hence I come down on the EO/RCC side because we don't have the same license and liberty. If you think about our prayer book and readings, we don't choose a book and go through it til we're done, ignoring the holidays. We read the Old Testament, psalter, epistle, and gospel in set groups and we should be using that to inform our interpretation with the traditional methods (plaintext, what is it teaching me, where is Christ in it, etc.).

It's something you marinate in over time (the first few years were called the ministry of the pew by one of my priests) and then you begin to understand it and see the depth. I left the Baptist church after 30 plus years and wanted high church and that's how I wound up here.

KingofHazor said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Heresy requires doctrinal distinction. You can't call people heretics if all that matters is sheep and goats. Those are contradictory ideas.

---

Most Protestant believe in small -o- orthodoxy. We just don't believe in "sacred tradition" or the final authority of post-apostolic church councils. Protestants can also disagree on many issues without calling others heretics.

You're trying to force Protestants into a framework or your creation, not theirs.

---

One Bible, two testaments, three creeds, four councils…this is basic Anglicanism in my understanding. We make it past the apostolic councils simply by reciting the nicene creed, no?

Quote:

---

One Bible, two testaments, three creeds, four councils…this is basic Anglicanism in my understanding. We make it past the apostolic councils simply by reciting the nicene creed, no?

---

You're way over my head. Could you explain that to me like I'm a 5th grader?

ETA: After researching what I'm guessing you mean, all I can say is that my church didn't and doesn't discuss the historical basis for its theology much. It does discuss why it left the Episcopalian church a lot, and we do recite the Nicene Creed as part of our liturgical service.

However, it appears that Anglicans (US Anglicans?) do follow the three creeds and the first four councils, but not because they are authoritative in their own right but because they follow scripture precisely and because they were true ecumenical counsels. They followed and adopted what was both universally believed in the church and what was true to Scripture.

I'm not sure what your last sentence means, though. Forgive my ignorance.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

My last note will be that I continually referenced scripture and primary source documents, encouraging you to read them and your parting statement is that I'm using the Catholic Church's rewritten history anyway. I will leave you with one last encouragement to go read these things again/for the first time with an open mind. If you are starting with 'the Catholic Church is definitely wrong' , then it's best to refrain from these conversations in the future. I, and many other Catholics, have researched these things well and are happy to share and even learn from you, but wasting both of time doesn't help anyone.

---

Why do you say that to me, and not apply it to yourself? Don't you start with the proposition that "Protestants are always wrong"? Why do you assume that you have researched these issues and I haven't?

From your posts, your research appears to be confined to reading only Catholic versions of church history. Broaden your horizons. Read church histories by Protestants and by secular historians. Why aren't you reading non-Catholic histories with an open mind?

---

I say it that to you and not me because you do it again in the bolded. Idk why you can't see it. I cite scripture itself. I talk about reading the source documents for myself. I suggest you do the same. I never invoke a Catholic historian, and yet you say I'm reading Catholic versions of history over and over and over. I'm not reading any versions of history. I'm just reading the documents and encouraging you to do the same. If you want to come to a different conclusion, be my guest. But saying that I'm just repeating Catholic talking points makes it clear you aren't even reading my posts, or you think I'm lying.

And again, you think I was a protestant for 10 years without listening to what protestants had to say? Think about how illogical that is.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

One Bible, two testaments, three creeds, four councils…this is basic Anglicanism in my understanding. We make it past the apostolic councils simply by reciting the nicene creed, no?

---

You're way over my head. Could you explain that to me like I'm a 5th grader?

ETA: After researching what I'm guessing you mean, all I can say is that my church didn't and doesn't discuss the historical basis for its theology much. It does discuss why it left the Episcopalian church a lot, and we do recite the Nicene Creed as part of our liturgical service.

However, it appears that Anglicans (US Anglicans?) do follow the three creeds and the first four councils, but not because they are authoritative in their own right but because they follow scripture precisely and because they were true ecumenical counsels. They followed and adopted what was both universally believed in the church and what was true to Scripture.

I'm not sure what your last sentence means, though. Forgive my ignorance.

---

The historical basis is well worth researching. I don't know how many priests y'all have and what they lead outside the services but we have lots of opportunities to delve into our history in my parish. Henry the VIII was not the end of the start of Anglicanism, but Elizabeth post iconoclasm. My understanding is that our stability of practice started there.

What makes you think I haven't read scripture and source documents for myself?

In your 10 years as a Protestant (not a very long time), how much did you read of the history of the church prior to the Reformation and the causes of the Reformation?

I'm not saying that you only cite Catholic sources, I'm saying that your arguments show that your only resources are Catholic. You don't seem to acknowledge any nuance but insist that the RCC has been 100% correct 100% of the time. Your arguments seem lifted straight from RCC websites.

And did you ever respond to my post asking why I should view a Pope, Cardinal, or Bishop as authoritative on spiritual matters when they are openly engaged in horrible sin? I listed multiple examples.

Any cursory study of the RCC church's history should show any impartial observer that your arguments are wrong and without merit.

KingofHazor said:

---

What makes you think I haven't read scripture and source documents for myself?

---

Surely you've read scripture. I'm saying to read it again since you couldn't see where these lines of reasoning were coming from. If you've read the source documents of fathers and the Church, then I don't think you would be incorrectly saying what they taught. Maybe you did read them. Idk. That's why I've tried to qualified it with "again" in case you had.

Quote:

---

In your 10 years as a Protestant (not a very long time), how much did you read of the history of the church prior to the Reformation and the causes of the Reformation?

---

Not much at all. That's why I became Protestant! I didn't read the actual source documents of the Catholic Church or their interpretation of certain prooftexts, choosing to rely on what Protestant pastors and historians said those documents said and meant. A Catholic friend an insightful question that led me to researching early church history and I realized I had made a mistake

Quote:

---

I'm saying that your arguments show that your only resources are Catholic

---

.

No, not my only resources. When I investigate the claim of a person or group, I go to the sources of that person or group. I cite the Bible because the Bible is claimed by Catholics. I cite the source documents of the Church because how else will I tell if they actually say what the Protestant pastors say they say? I read the Church fathers, who were Catholic, because how else will I know what they say? Like what you said about indulgences. I read the actual documents. They never give license to sell indulgences. Why do you think that they do if not because you took someone's word on it rather than reading it?

Similarly, when I investigated the claim that the reformation was restoring the Church to it's early days, I read Luther and Calvin. That's when I realized how terrible (even monstrous, I would say) their monergistic view of salvation was. Thankfully when I read his letter on Galatians I saw where he agreed his doctrine of justification was not held by the early Church fathers. His words. Not just wat Catholics said he said

Quote:

---

And did you ever respond to my post asking why I should view a Pope, Cardinal, or Bishop as authoritative on spiritual matters when they are openly engaged in horrible sin?

---

I didn't respond because you said I'd never convince you. So these words are a waste of space, but I'll do it anyway: Jesus says to do what the Pharisees tell you to do (everything they tell you in many translations), AND to not mimic their terrible behavior (Matt 23: 1-3). Following authority and not repeating their sins is exactly what Jesus says to do. Was Jesus wrong?

Quote:

---

Any cursory study of the RCC church's history should show any impartial observer that your arguments are wrong and without merit.

---

Again, a study of other's take on history instead of source documents. Let's practice sola scriptura here. I can read and understand the bible for myself, then pick which 'important authority' is correct, right? If I read the bible and come to the conclusions I do, I don't see how you can possibly say I'm wrong without you making me submit to your version of interpretation. That's whole knock against sola scriptura

Quote:

---

I didn't respond because you said I'd never convince you. So these words are a waste of space, but I'll do it anyway: Jesus says to do what the Pharisees tell you to do (everything they tell you in many translations), AND to not mimic their terrible behavior (Matt 23: 1-3). Following authority and not repeating their sins is exactly what Jesus says to do. Was Jesus wrong?

---

Man, that's cherry-picking words out of context. To reach that conclusion from Christ's words, you have to ignore everything else in Chapter 23 and the entirety of the Gospels.

Chapter 23 is an indictment of the Pharisees, their hypocrisy, and their doctrines. He calls them "blind guides", hypocrites, "sons of those who murdered the prophets", "snakes, offspring of vipers", subject to the sentence of hell.

You also ignore verses 8-10 where Christ explicitly tells us ". . . for only One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. 9 And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called leaders; for only One is your Leader, that is, Christ. " Thoe verses undercut almost all of the arguments that you have made in this thread!

You also ignore the entirety of the Gospels where Christ constantly ignores and violates the teachings of the Pharisees and instructs his disciples to do likewise. Examples include them eating bread with unwashed hands, picking grain on the Sabbath, Christ healing on the Sabbath, their association with "unclean" people, Christ's condemnation of "Corban", and so on.

Everything about Christ's ministry was a refutation of the teachings of the Pharisees. Your blind devotion to the RCC has caused you to invert Scripture to give it the opposite meaning of what Christ meant and what Matthew intended to communicate.

You claim that you rely on the "source documents", whatever those are. But the early fathers themselves were emphatic that even church councils were subordinate and subject to scripture.

KingofHazor said:

---

Quote:

---

I didn't respond because you said I'd never convince you. So these words are a waste of space, but I'll do it anyway: Jesus says to do what the Pharisees tell you to do (everything they tell you in many translations), AND to not mimic their terrible behavior (Matt 23: 1-3). Following authority and not repeating their sins is exactly what Jesus says to do. Was Jesus wrong?

---

Man, that's cherry-picking words out of context. To reach that conclusion from Christ's words, you have to ignore everything else in Chapter 23 and the entirety of the Gospels.

Chapter 23 is an indictment of the Pharisees, their hypocrisy, and their doctrines. He calls them "blind guides", hypocrites, "sons of those who murdered the prophets", "snakes, offspring of vipers", subject to the sentence of hell.

You also ignore verses 8-10 where Christ explicitly tells us ". . . for only One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. 9 And do not call anyone on earth your father; for only One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called leaders; for only One is your Leader, that is, Christ. " Thoe verses undercut almost all of the arguments that you have made in this thread!

You also ignore the entirety of the Gospels where Christ constantly ignores and violates the teachings of the Pharisees and instructs his disciples to do likewise. Examples include them eating bread with unwashed hands, picking grain on the Sabbath, Christ healing on the Sabbath, their association with "unclean" people, Christ's condemnation of "Corban", and so on.

Everything about Christ's ministry was a refutation of the teachings of the Pharisees. Your blind devotion to the RCC has caused you to invert Scripture to give it the opposite meaning of what Christ meant and what Matthew intended to communicate.

You claim that you rely on the "source documents", whatever those are. But the early fathers themselves were emphatic that even church councils were subordinate and subject to scripture.

---

LIke I said, total waste of time. All it generates is new insults. Now I've never read the rest of Matthew 23, or I'm intentionally ignoring it to twist scripture. I'm too stupid to interpret the rest of 23 because I interpret it differently than you. I don't know any of the examples from the rest of the gospels you cite. All because I've checked my brain at the door and blindly devote myself to the RCC. And you say all this while ignoring the rest of what I spent my time responding to you on.


You're the proponent of sola scriptura, right? I've read the bible This is how I interpret it. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong? Who are you to say I'm blind? You are fallible, correct? Or is it only me? Why don't you allow me to practice this sola scriptura that you say is the way we're supposed to be Christians?


I thought you said you read the source documents. Now you're saying you don't even know what they are?


I find it hard to believe you actually want to fellowship with me when this is the way you have responded just about every time. They come across as empty words. Even if you treat me different in real life, this is what you think about me. That doesn't sound like "fellowship". Which is why people like you have told me time and again Catholics aren't real Christians and they're going to hell.

This has been a massive waste of time for both you and me. I'll let you have last post.

I apologize profoundly for being too forceful and selecting ways of expressing myself that were offensive to you. Please forgive me; I was wrong.

Having said that, and in no way retracting from my apology and admission of wrong, I felt the same way about the manner in which you talked to me. Perhaps we should both recalibrate our online discussions? As a Protestant, I feel that the RCC and EO members of this board constantly disparage and talk down to us, and sometimes I overreact, as I have done to you.

I truly do consider you a brother in Christ and would eagerly fellowship with you.

FIDO95 said:

---

This is the tragedy of the internet and a conversation taking place in text. So much context is lost when we can't look each other in the eye and truly understand each others intent. I can say something harsh to a close friend. In person, he would know I'm just "breaking his balls" but in a text it is so easy to misunderstand that context and be offended.

I've certainly been guilty of misunderstanding someone's intent and/or failing to be charitable in my responses. I've tried to do better. At the end of the day, it all comes down to your heart. If your making your opinion because you care about the salvation of another's soul, you are in the right. If you are making that same opinion because you want to be right, you are guilty of pride.

Only Christ knows what is in our hearts compelling our hands to type away. Nonetheless, I suspect if we were having these types of conversations around a campfire, beer, and Texas BBQ with Dave South calling a game in the background, we would all feel more enlightened by the experience and surrounded by the Holy Spirit.



I had to quote NASB because it is the correct Bible! LOL

---

Well said!

Apology accepted. My intent was never to lecture. I know how sensitive the Catholic v Protestant debate can be. It was my hope that continued encouragement to go read/re-read things was a way for me to show I was not trying to tell you what you need to think, but might be helpful is seeing where I'm coming from and to see if you, on your own, might find some agreement with it.. Sorry if it didn't come across that way and read as more of lecture or talking down. If there is a way that might have been better in relaying that message, I'm open to a different approach in the future.