When coming up with Christian doctrines Protestants always ground themselves in the Bible. However, does this go against the Biblical teaching the God will send an "Advocate" (i.e. the Holy Spirit) to help with teaching. Does the Bible rule out the Protestants need for the Holy Spirit?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004

Answers

Which will lead to the next question:

What will the Holy Spirit provide for the believer?

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 21, 2004.

Protestants believe that (1) the writing of the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore inerrant, and (2) that the Holy Spirit will guide them to the truth as they individually read and interpret the Bible (hard to accept when you look at the widespread doctrinal conflict that permeates Protestantism). Also difficult to accept is their apparent contention that the compilation of the Canon of Scripture was guided by the Holy Spirit and is therefore inerrant - except for the seven books their founders removed.

The Catholic position is that (1) the writing of the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore inerrant; (2) the compilation of the Canon of Scripture was guided by the Holy Spirit and is therefore inerrant; and (3) the interpretation of Scripture through the teaching authority of the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and is therefore inerrant. When any one of these three essential pieces is missing, there is no way to obtain the fullness of truth from Scripture.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 21, 2004.

"(hard to accept when you look at the widespread doctrinal conflict that permeates Protestantism)." - Paul, the millionth he brings this up.

The "conflicts" you speak of are on non-essential doctrines. Does worshipping on Saturday/Sunday have any effect on whether you are a Christian or not? No. What is essential is determined by the Bible. Non-essential has no effect on ones salvation.

Roman Catholics always bring up the usual rhetoric about the "doctrinal chaos" Protestantism is.¹

I have to say, the "tens of thousands" of churches that hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are far more unified than the tens of thousands of churches² that hold to the Bible plus an infallible interpreter doctrine.

Just look at Faith and I as an example. I (most likely) will be joining a Presbyterian³ church soon, and Faith is... well, let's just say Baptistic.⁴

Now compare yourself (Roman Catholic) to a Mormon.

Faith and I hold to Sola Scriptura while the Mormon and you hold to the Scripture plus an infallible interpreter doctrine.

There is far more unity between Faith and I than there can ever be between you and the Mormon.

Can you call a Mormon your brother? No. Likewise, he, and any other person that holds to this doctrine of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter⁵, will reject each other as heretics.

Can I call Faith my Brother? I mean, Sister? Yes, I can.

While we (Faith and I) have very similar beliefs⁶ and can call each other brothers/sisters in Christ, you and the Mormon will reject each other as heretics and disagree on almost EVERY point of doctrine!

The doctrine of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter is the one that really creates doctrinal chaos and "anarchy".

The Roman argument about the Protestant "chaos" compared to the "unity" of the Church of Rome is a completely false comparison. What he/she is doing is comparing a single entity within the collective body of entities that holds to the doctrine of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter doctrine to the collective body of entities that hold to Sola Scriptura. Would it be fair of me to say there is more unity in Assemblies of God than those that hold to Scripture plus an infallible interpreter doctrine? ⁷ No, in order to make a true comparison one has to pick an single entity from one rule of faith (Say, Assemblies of God - "Sola Scriptura") and compare it to a single entity from the other rule of faith (say, Rome - "Scriptura plus an infallible interpreter").

Even then, there is MORE unity in Assemblies of God than there is in Rome! Don't believe me? Ask some Roman Catholics if Vatican II was an infallible council. Ask *which* Scripture has been infallibly defined by Rome. Ask if the "works of the law" that Paul says cannot justify a person works of merely ceremonial law or all works period. Ask if the Pope approves "evolution". Ask about the Novus Ordo mass. Ask who are the *real* Catholics.

As you can see, this alleged "unity" of Rome is a flat out lie. The Assemblies of God are far more united than Rome.

Rome fails the unity test.

Note:

¹ Eugene C. 021223,"...you only had been given true interpretations of scripture, you wouldn't have broken up into 30,000 lost, free-lance sects."

Gail 021124, "...what else can Protestantism do, there is NO remedy for the doctrinal divisions BUT yet more divisions!"

Ian B. 030414, "...we would not have 35,000 separate denominations, each preaching their own bespoke religion..."

John G. 021220, "When the spoken Word is ignored, the result is 30,000+ protestant denominations."

Paul M. 031204, "...the theology of Protestantism is in a state of absolute chaos..."

² Rome, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, Jehovah's Witnesses, Churches of Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), ICC, etc. Rome is *one* out of many.

³ Presbyterian Churches in America, http://www.pcanet.org/

⁴ Faith, I don't know the name of your church, but you are Pretrib, Premill, believe Baptism is a symbolic, Eternal Security, etc, so I think it's safe to say your are Baptistic. However, I think you prefer non-denominational.

⁵FYI, EOC believes Rome is heretical.

⁶ Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Grace through Faith, Resurrection of Christ, The Gospel, Deity, etc, the essential doctrines. Non-essential issues are Eschatology, Predestination/Election, and Worship on Saturday/Sunday, etc.

⁷This is the same argument Roman Catholics use, but reversed. The argument is false because it compares a rule of faith to a denomination. To make a true comparison, one has to one rule of faith (Scripture Alone) to another rule of faith (Scripture plus an infallible interpreter) or compare one denomination (as I mentioned earlier, Assemblies of God) to another denomination (Rome). Either way, Rome fails the unity test.

P.S. I decided to use these "notes" because I did not want to clutter my message.

- A reply to Emily on another thread

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 21, 2004.

The classic CoC practices (though doesn't teach) that the Bible voids the power of the Spirit. That's a crude statement, but I'll leave it as it is. I do find it awefully strange that the numerous Spirit Filled churches are also numerous in teaching. Perhaps the work of many spirits? hmm. I don't think history should decide instruction, but I do find it useful to analyze consistancy. If Jesus is the same yesterday as today, so should our following right? I guess this is why I'm such an Acts fan. They certainly were being guided by the Spirit, thus I should be able to make some comparrisonssesd.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), July 21, 2004.

The "conflicts" you speak of are on non-essential doctrines. Does worshipping on Saturday/Sunday have any effect on whether you are a Christian or not? No.

But, you are not Adventist. You may not think it essential. Adventists do. They will not accept sunday worship. You have no authority to declare it non-essential doctrine, nor does any other presbyterian, baptist, or methodist etc.

What is essential is determined by the Bible. Non-essential has no effect on ones salvation.

What does it determine? Why is there a difference between you and say...a Baptist regarding Baptism? Wouldn't Baptists regard baptism as essential? in that it affects salvation?

I have to say, the "tens of thousands" of churches that hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura are far more unified than the tens of thousands of churches2 that hold to the Bible plus an infallible interpreter doctrine.

It's not unity if you consider the essential doctrines of other protestants non-essential.

Now compare yourself (Roman Catholic) to a Mormon.

I don't even know if the Church accepts mormons as ecclesiatical communities like say, presbyterians. I'm sure presbyterians are closer on the ecumenical path than mormons. So why compare? Point?

Faith and I hold to Sola Scriptura while the Mormon and you hold to the Scripture plus an infallible interpreter doctrine.

You bring up a rare commonality between mormons and catholics to attack - logically flawed - because catholics can do the same comparison and to a much greater degree with presbyterians and mormons.

There is far more unity between Faith and I than there can ever be between you and the Mormon.

You are correct sir! Again, mormons are further down the ecumenical line. In fact, there is more unity between the Church and prebyterians or baptists than there is with mormons. Although, there could be more unity between presbyterians and baptists and mormons than with the Church! Would be interesting to see such a debate play out.

Can I call Faith my Brother? I mean, Sister? Yes, I can.

You, brother, believe in heresy. I still love you! I want you to stop believing in heresy! What''s wrong with that? You don't accept me as a brother. That does not prevent me from accepting you as a brother.

While we (Faith and I) have very similar beliefs6 and can call each other brothers/sisters in Christ, you and the Mormon will reject each other as heretics and disagree on almost EVERY point of doctrine!

That's because you(David) and faith01 are related but far from being the same in doctrine. Perfect truth requires heavy scrutiny. That you choose not to scrutinize faith01's beliefs does not mean that others who consider themselves presbyterians will not.

The doctrine of Scripture plus an infallible interpreter is the one that really creates doctrinal chaos and "anarchy".

Scripture does not interpret. No infallible interpreter is anarchy. The Church's system isn't the simple reverse. It has infallible teaching authority which covers all bases including scriptural interpretation(which is a minutae detail). You are countering a simple counter-argument(regarding infallible interpretation) without countering the whole argument(of teaching authority). So, this really has little bearing on the Church.

Even then, there is MORE unity in Assemblies of God than there is in Rome! Don't believe me? Ask some Roman Catholics if Vatican II was an infallible council. Ask *which* Scripture has been infallibly defined by Rome. Ask if the "works of the law" that Paul says cannot justify a person works of merely ceremonial law or all works period. Ask if the Pope approves "evolution". Ask about the Novus Ordo mass. Ask who are the *real* Catholics.

Come on David. You're joking now. The "schismos" want to reform the Church by separating from it...going back to an earlier time...because the church has apostatized. Sound familiar? It makes them de facto protestants in denial.

Btw, there's an Assembly of God worship house two blocks from me, I know several people who attend it including my neighbor. They're pretty decent people. I admit I don't know much about them or their philosophy.

5FYI, EOC believes Rome is heretical.

Refer to my previous statements regarding brothers. Now, Rome has retracted it's anathema, so it's entirely up to the Greeks to make up their minds.

Regardless, it's mostly semantics. However, the Church's scrutiny and attention to every bit and detail of it's doctrines say one thing clearly - It's will never yield on what it considers truth, which is why I can only have respect for the Eastern Churches(though the Roman communion also sticks to this thing called "Orthodoxy"). Now, How do you explain this?.

6 Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Grace through Faith, Resurrection of Christ, The Gospel, Deity, etc, the essential doctrines. Non-essential issues are Eschatology, Predestination/Election, and Worship on Saturday/Sunday, etc.

You're saying the same thing over. This is your personal view. In reality, what some consider non-essential is essential to others. David, are there no calvinists who believe election/predestination is essential doctrine? I'm curious to know.

Anyway, let's say that I disagree with you. I believe that the Church can never apostatize. Individuals can. Let's say that I hold that the scriptures do not interpret, rather it is the Church's interpretation of God's Will and Revelation. Ok, you disagree. You think that scriptures is God's Will and Revelation(same thing) except ,let's say, that you believe the Church played little or no part in carrying out God's Will(in other words, it was predestined to happen, Church or no Church). My question to you, for now, is what do you take from this passage: NASB 1Cor11:23-32

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world.

Who determines what doctrines are essential? Why is a "work of the new law", receiving the Body and Blood of Christ not judged to be essential by most protestants? Why isn't it done according to the scriptures? Do you treat the Eucharist as mere bread and wine, David? Symbolic? If so, it's still works. These are questions I really want to know.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 22, 2004.

Hello Vince, welcome to our forum. Thank you for your reply. I would have replied sooner, but I have to sleep :-)

You said:

"You bring up a rare commonality between mormons and catholics to attack - logically flawed - because catholics can do the same comparison and to a much greater degree with presbyterians and mormons."

The "flawed" logic is certianly not with me but with the Roman Catholic that makes the comparison between their denomination to a system of faith (i.e. Protestantism's doctrinal chaos compared to Rome's "unity"). This is utterly a false comparison.

As I said before, to make a true comparison you must compare either the two systems of beliefs, or a single entity out of each system. This is being honest.

To compare Rome's denomination to the Mormon Chruch plus the Presbyterian church is also unfair. You compare one denomination (Rome) out of one system of beliefs (Scritpure plus and infallible interpreter), and compare it to two single entities out of two differnt systems of beliefs (SS and SPII). A Presbyterian church doesn't follow the same rule of Faith a Mormon does, and the Mormon follows the same rule of faith you do, which is Scripture plus an infallible interpreter.

Back to what I said above, a true comparision is comparing Rome's denomination (out of SPII rule of faith) and a Presbyterian denomination (out of SS rule of faith).

You said:

That's because you(David) and faith01 are related but far from being the same in doctrine. Perfect truth requires heavy scrutiny. That you choose not to scrutinize faith01's beliefs does not mean that others who consider themselves presbyterians will not.

Faith01 has professed belief in the Trinity, Sola Scriptura, Salvation by Grace through Faith, the Resurrection of Christ, The Gospel, Deity of Jesus, etc.

I am confident to say that the Presbyterian Church will call Faith01 fellow brethren, and not a heretic. Your assertion that I have not "scrutinized" Faith01's beliefs is utterly false. I listed the beliefs we hold in common. You and others will object with "how do we know what essential is?". Because Scriptures state they are. Ultimately, this will turn into a Sola Scriptura debate again. Here is a good web page that outlines the Essential doctrines and can give a better explanation that I can: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/essentials.htm

BTW, Do you know what the word scrutinize means? I'll tell you what it means; it means to examine, study, and inspect.

Have you scrutinized your own beliefs? Are you comfortable knowing that there is no historical nor scriptural basis for the Assumption of Mary? Or her Immaculate Conception?

Do you know that the unanimous consent of the Fathers oppose the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16? I thought the Roman Church at the Councils of Trent and Vatican I decreed it is unlawful to interpret Scripture contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers? Yet they did it to Matthew 16.

Are you comfortable knowing that purgatory is not found in Scripture, contradicts scripture, and is not found in the first two centuries of the [Christian] Church?

Moreover, you stated earlier, “Rome has retracted its anathema...".

Yes, for centuries the Roman Catholic Church stated the teachings of Protestants were heretical and we Protestants were not truly Christian. It now flip-flops at Vatican II, saying we are "separated brethren" and "Christian". I thought Rome was "consistent" and "never changing". But truly, if our teachings are heretical Rome should stand its ground, not flip-flop centuries later against its historical position. Or were the anathemas meaningless?

You said:

"Now, How do you explain this?"

The article talks about a continuing "dialogue". They are certainly not in full communion with each other. The EOC will not recognize the authority of the Pope--but I guess this ecumenical stuff happens from time to time

You said:

Scripture does not interpret. No infallible interpreter is anarchy. The Church's system isn't the simple reverse. It has infallible teaching authority which covers all bases including scriptural interpretation(which is a minutae detail). You are countering a simple counter-argument(regarding infallible interpretation) without countering the whole argument(of teaching authority). So, this really has little bearing on the Church.

One system of beliefs says trust Scriptura alone, the other system of beliefs is "Trust Rome" (Or Trust EOC, ICC, LDS, WT).

You said:

You are correct sir! Again, mormons are further down the ecumenical line. In fact, there is more unity between the Church and prebyterians or baptists than there is with mormons. Although, there could be more unity between presbyterians and baptists and mormons than with the Church! Would be interesting to see such a debate play out."

There is no unity between the Church of Rome and Protestants. Those who believe this are compromising truth. I am not sure what you meant by your last statement.

You said:

"The "schismos" want to reform the Church by separating from it...going back to an earlier time...because the church has apostatized. Sound familiar? It makes them de facto protestants in denial."

If I ask a "schismo" they will say other wise. This is merely your opinion. *One* out of many.

Tell me, was Vatican II an infallible council. Can you provide me with the scripture that Rome has infallibly defined? Is there anything wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass? Are the "works of the law" that Paul says cannot justify a person works of merely ceremonial law or all works period? Is pope John Paul II a legitimate pope or not? I really want to know.

In your opinion, who are the real Catholics and what do they believe?

Also, You mentioned there was an Assemblies of God near you. You might want to visit it at least once. I have taken the time to visit the Roman Communion many times, and even gone to the catechism classes. I don't cause a fuss, just there to learn and ask questions.

You said:

"are there no calvinists who believe election/predestination is essential doctrine? I'm curious to know."

While we believe predestination and election to be true, is it not essential. We may disagree with Arminians, and say,"yeah, you're horribly wrong, but hey, we're brothers". Matthew Slick is one of them (www.carm.org).

You said:

My question to you, for now, is what do you take from this passage: NASB 1Cor11:23-32

As for your last question, I did not understand it until I read the passage. I see what you are trying to do. You are focusing on one area of disagreement. Yes, I admit, there are disagreements. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, Reformed brutha believe in a spiritual presence of Christ, and Baptists/others believe it is symbolic.

But the truth is, it just doesn't matter. Scriptures do not clarify the issue.

As Eric Svendson said:

"Where the Scriptures are silent, there can be no essential belief--just as where there is no law there can be no transgression (Rom 4:15). In such a case, the principle of Rom 14:5 applies: "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." Are there disagreements among Evangelicals? You bet. Are these essential disagreements? Not possible. No one who is the elect of God can be deceived in essential beliefs; which necessarily implies that any disagreements among Evangelicals cannot be disagreements over essential matters. That all Evangelicals agree with this principle is borne out by the fact that all Evangelicals, regardless of denominational affiliation, embrace one another as brothers in Christ."

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 22, 2004.

bump

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 23, 2004.

Hi David!

Thanks for the welcome! I feel it presses me to respond to you. However, there are lots of things that press me to respond :-) I’m going to be a little selfish and respond to this topic first as opposed to some other topic on this or other forum.

I want to address several major issues.

The "flawed" logic is certianly not with me but with the Roman Catholic that makes the comparison between their denomination to a system of faith (i.e. Protestantism's doctrinal chaos compared to Rome's "unity"). This is utterly a false comparison.

Ok, let’s say then you believe in Sola Scriptura. This doctrine has several internal contradictions. First, you don’t speak the literal language of the bible and therefore, you must interpret it. Second, someone else defined this doctrine for you external to the bible, or else you would be able to find it in scriptures. Third, no one has yet to read the bible literally(from translation-an oxymoron) and been able to rectify the “literal” contradictions as a result. Fourth, and most glaring is that in the Gospels, Jesus spoke in metaphors and parables – thus the bible asserts that it is not literal, even in the original language.

So, Sola Scriptura requires an interpreter – you, White, Webster, Svendsen, Luther, Calvin, etc. It makes the “interpreter” comparison moot. What you’re really comparing is centralized and uncentralized. When a system is centralized it has order. When it is not, it is disordered. But, again within your own system, let’s call it Presbyterian, there is explicit order, doctrinal assent.

Comparing anything form of Christianity with Mormons wastes the Christian’s time because Mormonism relegates all prior Christianity to obsolescence due to “new revelation”.

Now, you do believe in infallible interpretation, in a sense. Who it is can vary with time. For example, today you can believe everything White, Webster, or Svendsen tells you. Tomorrow, you might find one or all of them are flawed. What matters is your belief at any given instant assumes an infallible interpreter.

What makes the Church’s definition of infallibility different from yours is it is God-Given. Doctrines can NEVER change. Because God is immutable and Truth which comes from God is also immutable. So it really is a Divine Institution! Therefore, the reverse is true of anything outside the Church and at the fringes of it. From that standpoint, I can launch into hundreds of pages of comparisons between different denominations of Protestantism and JW or Mormons! But, I am limited by time.

As for your last question, I did not understand it until I read the passage. I see what you are trying to do. You are focusing on one area of disagreement. Yes, I admit, there are disagreements. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, Reformed brutha believe in a spiritual presence of Christ, and Baptists/others believe it is symbolic

Note, that I didn’t focus on one area of disagreement. I asked for your(David’s) understanding of “communion”. Notice, you have split Protestantism into three major categories based on this single issue(based on what you thought my intentions were, but in fact there is no proof of it in the question). It’s still a very imperfect acknowledgement because you leave out the liberals who really don’t believe in any of that, not even Sola Scriptura the way you do. There are lots of ways to slice and dice Protestantism – fundamentalists, evangelicals, reformed, classic, apostolic, right wing, left wing, nothing at all, neo-arianism, polytheism, etc. The problem is we can’t seem to draw a line saying where Protestantism ends because there is a beginning(the protestant reformation) and now, we have the protestant era. All denominations that hold to the Gospels yet oppose even one doctrine of the church(thus having an antidoctrine) should be defined as protestant. In that way, protestantism can reach back to stronger roots in Monophysites, Arians, Gnostics etc. Does that make sense?

But the truth is, it just doesn't matter. Scriptures do not clarify the issue.

Then throw those issues out if you really hold on to Sola Scriptura but you still won't change what other protestants believe. Join a denomination that has no intercourse with any others that hold to such doctrines(it's been done before, I have friends you know). Or. Throw Sola Scriptura out and...same thing. Or. Become catholic and leave the false sense of security behind because the first two options leave you protestant and without unity!!

All the other stuff is not major enough to discuss right now. You misunderstood me on several occasions, but since you were thinking the same thing I won’t spend time commenting on them for now except that I gather you may think that I may not have “scrutinized” my beliefs, or should take it upon me to understand everything there is to know about anything. Regarding the former, I am twice your age, have fallen into doubt many times, have lapsed in all the steps down to atheism, and have rolled back up the hill again(Blessed is God!). I learned to say prayers since I was 3 years old and probably said the Ave Maria close to 100 thousand times by the time I reached your age(at least 10x a day, a rosary sometimes), praying with my family. The Regina Caeli, probably several thousand times(at least once a day). But, even if I thought hard while praying 1% of the time, then well, I would have thought about Mary a whole lot. Still, I lapsed. The Immaculate Conception makes perfect sense to me for a long time now such is bound to happen when the thin cynicism and petulance of youth yields to acceptance of one’s smallness in the greater scheme of things, a period that may last a lifetime but thankfully only a few years for me. So, yes I have scrutinized that doctrine(which can be done on another thread) and no(in anticipation), I have not tried to justify each and every belief I have.

Regarding knowledge, I still seek to know things, but I don’t expect to find everything there is to know. I have experienced many forms of worship, including several types of Buddhism(my fiance’s family is Shinto). I practically have no time to experience an Assembly of God’s service(why should I, when I can go to mass). The choice is then, to forum, or replace the time with an Assembly of God service. I pick writing because I can bear witness at the same time and I pick reading so that I can write, among other things. Make sense? Hopefully, that let’s you gauge me better. I note you probably understand me well that I am cradle-catholic. It hasn’t prevented me from having doubt, but it’s definitely a good thing and I thank God for the grace and outpouring of love in my life from family, friends, and church! :-)

May God bless you!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 23, 2004.

Gosh Barn Jabby, David! Vincent has some very clear thinking going on. He makes a lot of sense.

Vincent, you are as clear as light! Good post!

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 23, 2004.

Thanks rod! I'm humbled, though, because I know the many people who could have said better. Still posting :)

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 23, 2004.

Hello Vince, I hope next time you respond you have atleast studied what I mentioned below.

You said, "It’s still a very imperfect acknowledgement because you leave out the liberals who really don’t believe in any of that, not even Sola Scriptura the way you do."

Then, they really don't believe in Sola Scriptura do they? :) Ask them what they think of the Bible and you'll see what I mean. Ask them, if the Bible is a trustworthy source of truth, and their answer will reveal whether or not they hold to the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith. One cannot really put them in our category because they deny Sola Scriptura in practice.

You said, "So, Sola Scriptura requires an interpreter"

This just showed me you really don't know what Sola Scriptura is. I recommend you study about Sola Scriptura first before you try doing any comparisons. Also, look up what we mean by literal.

You said, "When a system is centralized it has order. When a system is centralized it has order. When it is not, it is disordered."

And later added, “All the other stuff is not major enough to discuss right now"

I believe I have shown Rome DOES NOT have unity. You have refused to respond to any of my questions. Are you telling me that believing the pope is not legitimate is "not major"?

Come on now, you can't have it both ways. If you want to make a point about "Protestant chaos" that is really on non-essential doctrines, then likewise, am I not correct in pointing out these "not major" disagreements in Rome?

I will list them again:

Tell me, was Vatican II an infallible council. Can you provide me with the scripture that Rome has infallibly defined? Is there anything wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass? Are the "works of the law" that Paul says cannot justify a person works of merely ceremonial law or all works period? Is pope John Paul II a legitimate pope or not? I really want to know.

In your opinion, who are the real Catholics and what do they believe?

What about Evangelical Catholics, Are they "real Catholics"? Who should I trust if I wanted to become Roman Catholic (A future note to rod, No, I have made up my mind and this is not going to happen so don't start with the conspiracy)?

You said, “Doctrines can NEVER change"

Really? Before Vatican II I was a heretic, now I am not. Can you please explain that? Was the 'infallible' Church [of Rome] wrong then, or now?

You said, “I can launch into hundreds of pages of comparisons between different denominations of Protestantism and JW or Mormons! But, I am limited by time."

But, in the end, it will be a false comparison-like comparing apples and oranges. As I have already explained why.

You said, “Note, that I didn’t focus on one area of disagreement. I asked for your(David’s) understanding of “communion”."

Whether you "note" this or not, it is exactly what you did. If I had given you my belief (which I am not sure about at this time) on that passage, you would have struck out with pointing out the disagreements with other churches. I caught on to it before you said it, and I know where you were trying to go at.

You said, “you have split Protestantism into three major categories based on this single issue(based on what you thought my intentions were, but in fact there is no proof of it in the question)."

Maybe you forgot what you wrote:

You said, "My question to you, for now, is what do you take from this passage: NASB 1Cor11:23-32... Who determines what doctrines are essential? Why is a "work of the new law", receiving the Body and Blood of Christ not judged to be essential by most protestants? Why isn't it done according to the scriptures? Do you treat the Eucharist as mere bread and wine, David? Symbolic?..."

It is plainly obvious what you were trying to do, whether you were conscious of it or not. I have already told you what determines something as essential; God's Word. The truth is you cannot produce *one* essential doctrinal difference among Evangelicals. You have to resort to focusing in on differences in church practice. Is communion monthly or weekly an issue to anathematize someone over? No. If so, you ought to be able to provide an explicit passage in Scripture that says so.

An example of a essential doctrine stated in Scripturen:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14 / KJV

You said,"All denominations that hold to the Gospels yet oppose even one doctrine of the church(thus having an antidoctrine) should be defined as protestant. In that way, protestantism can reach back to stronger roots in Monophysites, Arians, Gnostics etc. Does that make sense?

No, you and I define "Protestant" very differently. Maybe that is why you have a hard time and continue to make false comparisons. Perhaps looking up the word may help. You are just being simplistic in believing that if you are not Romanist, you are Protestant. It may also help to know that I believe all Christians are in a sense 'Protestants', but not all 'Protestants' are Christians.

You said,"There are lots of ways to slice and dice Protestantism"

Vice Versa. You can't run away from the facts. In a future note, if I do not respond to another post you make, it's likely you repeated the same mistakes again. My answer will be the same as my last to posts on this thread. If anything new comes up, then I might respond.

P.S

rod, next time you might actually like to respond to my post instead of cheerleading ;-)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

It is the first time I actually see two good arguments side by side.

I can compare them since I was a Catholic once. I was married by a baptist.

What Vincent has provided was good movement of thoought of why the Church is one. By Church, meant the word Catholic. Vincent only makes the old fallacy mistake from Catholics that the Catholic Church of Rome led by the Pope is the original one founded by Jesus and his apostles. Then, they traet evryone else as heretics or schismatics.

David's good point is in pinpointing that there are even disagreement s among Catholics, betweeen those who reject Vatican II and are now considered schismatics, and those of the Novus Ordo.

I could add to that Lutherans. Luther and his followers always saw themselves as Catholic. They thought that the Church had erred in some points which they tried to correct.

Then Jansenists in the 1700s, and Old Catholics in the 1870s.

The Church has evoved and continues to evolve. The proof is Papal ifallability in 1870 which led to schism, assumtion of Mary in 1950, Immaculate conception in 1854, final list of books in 1572 in Trent,....and so on.

I have to give David an edge.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

David said: rod, next time you might actually like to respond to my post instead of cheerleading ;-)

David, I see nothing wrong with rod encouraging Vincent. rod is merely expressing his opinion. There is nothing wrong with "cheerleading" as you like to call it. In fact, when I work hard at a post, I am encouraged to see someone agree with me in support.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

Emily,

There is nothing wrong with encouraging people, but I want rod to do more than that.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

bump2

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

Hi David!

I will respond to you line by line which is a really flawed system but, it will make sure all bases are covered in simplistic literary style.

>>Hello Vince, I hope next time you respond you have atleast studied what I mentioned below. <<

Alrighty, David. Generalizing without support gets us nowhere. So let us avoid this kind of rhetoric.

>>You said, "It’s still a very imperfect acknowledgement because you leave out the liberals who really don’t believe in any of that, not even Sola Scriptura the way you do.”

Then, they really don't believe in Sola Scriptura do they? :) Ask them what they think of the Bible and you'll see what I mean. Ask them, if the Bible is a trustworthy source of truth, and their answer will reveal whether or not they hold to the Scriptures as the sole infallible rule of faith. One cannot really put them in our category because they deny Sola Scriptura in practice. <<

Yes, they do believe in Sola Scriptura. They simply don't believe it the way you do :) Now, they ARE protestants because protestantism is refusal to submit to the authority of the bishop of Rome or any of the patriarchates, that is the Church which existed for 1500 years before the Reformation, but they do believe in the spirit of the Reformation or at least some extracted concepts.

>>You said, "So, Sola Scriptura requires an interpreter"

This just showed me you really don't know what Sola Scriptura is.<<

Prove it. Show me the universally accepted definition of Sola Scriptura. Explain to me how it is used to understand doctrines. Of course, I have already shown you that it is used to "interpret" and "define doctrines" or "assent to doctrines" so I won't repeat it here. What you cite is my premise which was backed up. You’re reading my premise and making it personal. So, I did not misrepresent your beliefs or anything like that. Why don’t you refute my reasoning instead of citing my premise?

>>I recommend you study about Sola Scriptura first before you try doing any comparisons.<<

Yes, I have done that. The existentialists would give you a run for your money on literal contradictions. I've also had to "fight them" tooth and nail - all because they assume I'm protestant which I guess I WAS at the time.

>>Also, look up what we mean by literal. <<

If it does not mean the "literal" definition of the word literal, then it is an interpretation, semantics.

literal: from dictionary.com

1). Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. 2) Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation. 3) Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind. 4) Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation. 5) Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

Which is it? Which one from the long list at dictionary.com it is. Note, the first definition asserts that the literal definition of literal is literally the first one. Aside from that, are you don't sound like a fundamentalist to me, because their "Sola Scriptura" is different from yours? Are you? They really mean it when they say literal. But, they just can't prove it or…it’s easily disproven and they simply won’t acknowledge the argument and go for red herrings, changing the topic, etc.

>>You said, "When a system is centralized it has order. When a system is centralized it has order. When it is not, it is disordered."

And later added, “All the other stuff is not major enough to discuss right now"

I believe I have shown Rome DOES NOT have unity.<<

You've not shown that Rome does not have unity. You stated the Sedevacantist case -- sorry David, you can drag j@ke or any of them into this and it won't count for anything. Because in the end, they believe in is "empty seats". Now, the word "Rome" is used to designate the Teaching Authority of the Church and I have no problem with using it that way. It is entirely irrelevant to use sedevacantists to show how the Teaching Authority of the Church is not in unity because they(schismatics) do not have teaching authority. They don’t have a seat in Rome! Go to the other forum and oblige "Frank" to pull up the document where they've been excommunicated. You're misrepresenting because you’re reiterating your premise while using a fallacy for its defense. On another note, I have no problem with being friendly or friends with sedevacantists or Lutherans or subscribing to any other heretical branch of Christianity. However, I will not support their beliefs.

>>You have refused to respond to any of my questions.<<

I knew you would say that. Let us not do exaggeration. A little humor sounds good to me, but no exaggeration please.

>>Are you telling me that believing the pope is not legitimate is "not major"?<<

The pope is 100% legitimate. So, you should never have repeated this point because doing so ignores what I have written. You have nothing to support your premise…that is…Rome does not have unity…which btw… should be written…Catholicism does not have unity.

>>Come on now, you can't have it both ways.<<

You're beating a straw man. Am not schismatic. I am in communion with the Church. Those who are schismatic are not in unity with the Church. Btw, belief in empty chairs is paganism :D

>>If you want to make a point about "Protestant chaos" that is really on non-essential doctrines, then likewise, am I not correct in pointing out these "not major" disagreements in Rome?<<

You are on the right track, but still wrong. These "major disagreements" with Rome, in fact, make those people non-Catholic, schismatic, heretical according to Catholicism.

>>I will list them again:

Tell me, was Vatican II an infallible council.<<

Yes. It doesn't matter what the EOC may think(or again the other schismatics) -- that it's just a local council, if so they still must acknowledge it is within the right of West to convoke such a council and they were welcome to come and dialogue – they just don’t want to anymore. The only thing consistency to Ecumenical councils is it’s happens when the church which submits to one pontiff, comes together in conciliar dialogue. It also doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. As catholic, I tell you Vat II’s teachings are infallible because it is Ecumenical and because it holds the highest teaching authority. But, what part of the Council’s copious briefs are doctrinal and what is not? On this thing, I make a note, the East- West started when a papal envoy exchanged anathemas with a Patriarch. That patriarch should have backed down before this happened. But, he didn’t and he got most of the Eastern Church to follow him. Then he lost his authority. Now, he has “honour” but the rest don’t really listen to him anymore. It would be interesting for me to live a long life just to find out if his successor(s) who have lost that authority can somehow recoup it by coming back and submitting to papal authority. The anathemas have been withdrawn. But, the patriarch’s power is still to be recovered. I digress. So sad.

>>Can you provide me with the scripture that Rome has infallibly defined?<<

The simple answer is I believe the Vatican I has done this so there's no reason to find it in scriptures. Sure, but this goes on and on. It’s a long debate. You hold that I can use scriptures to only defend my beliefs(Vat I is all I ever need) and I can do it with satisfaction using Matthew 16:16-19 has been cited for nearly 2000 years. You noticed in another thread I quoted a Church Council(which totally supercedes Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Lerins, Origen, or anyone else). They override every other interpretation because the Church spoke in UNISON. However, it is the Church which defines this through the Holy Spirit and the Church was in being before Matthew was even writing.

You may disagree. However, you are not in communion with the Church so your position rejects unanimous Church Teachings through individual interpretation. The Rock founded the Church in Rome which church is the final authority on matters of faith and therefore speaks infallibly on doctrine, the pontiff represents both the Rock and the Church in Rome.

I dunno, why don’t you believe in Jesus’ own words. Why use Paul to refute Jesus? The way I see it, when Paul nitpicks Peter, Papal Authority rubs off on him! What a smart thing to do! Proof that Peter is the Rock, yet again.

>>Is there anything wrong with the Novus Ordo Mass?<<

Nope! Ask a specific question and I will answer it. Otherwise, you’re asking me to guess your mind rather than answering affirmative/negative.

>>Are the "works of the law" that Paul says cannot justify a person works of merely ceremonial law or all works period?<<

The "law" that Paul refers to is the "OT law". So, you're asking me to transliterate Paul, which I am sorry to say, I cannot do. However, if you’re asking me about Church Teachings then I will tell you the whole faith and works thing is semantics because ultimately, we are justified by grace. That is, the work of faith is an effect of grace. Free will does not compel one to be disobedient to God’s Will. However, Original Sin stops us cold. So only by grace are we justified, not by faith or by works. Thus, we can never take credit, even for faith, though faith is credited by it’s works. This “faith” that Paul mentions is “trust that produces work”. So in one sense we can only receive credit by the trust. But, in another sense, we can receive credit only by works which are done in faith, that is “trust” by the power of grace.

I’ve seen protestants hack at this simple yet complex issue and come out incoherent(not saying that you have to be because others have come out with a coherent answer before). It’s because they’re trying to be literal. And, well you know the saying about being literal when it’s convenient :/ Sola Scriptura doesn’t work like that and I’ll prove it to you when you answer my question. If you can acknowledge that faith without works is dead, then what’s the point of worrying about just having faith? It’s dead faith then. Big-time polemics. This is a just another link that long chain of debate. If I must quack once then I do it now: You cannot separate faith and works in practice. Faith without works is dead. Works done without faith is worthless. Justification is by grace alone, that is, to Jesus Christ, God, alone is due all credit who has allowed us to get credit for our works of faith.

>>Is pope John Paul II a legitimate pope or not? I really want to know.<< Repetition. See above.

>>In your opinion, who are the real Catholics and what do they believe?<<

See reference to pope, schismatics, and Vatican II, above. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Do search for link at Vatican.va. Gogo!

>>What about Evangelical Catholics, Are they "real Catholics"?<<

There are too many groups using Evangelical and Catholics together. Which ones are you referring to? The only ones who are "real Catholics" are the ecclesiastical groups, that is, the lay apostalates, who seek in their way of life to Evangelize with the approbation from bishops who must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. That includes all the apologists, professional and unprofessional, who, if their bishops scutinize their works and have objections must be ready to rescind on their errors. Real catholics are obedient. All other combinations of Evangelical and Catholic is "no". Trust me when I say I’m not anti-David. I just can’t accept that one can be protestant and catholic at the same time.

>>Who should I trust if I wanted to become Roman Catholic (A future note to rod, No, I have made up my mind and this is not going to happen so don't start with the conspiracy)?<<

Trust the laity who are in communion with priests who are in communion with bishops who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

>>You said, “Doctrines can NEVER change"

Really?<<

Absolutely!

>>Before Vatican II I was a heretic, now I am not. Can you please explain that?<<

You were not born before Vat II...neither was I. Now if your question is do you believe in heresy and the answer is yes. On the one hand, I can’t call you a heretic per se because you’re not a preacher or a figure public enough to cause a stir. On the other hand, if you were trying to convert people to your cause then, yes, you would be a heretic. Regardless, the definition of heresy or heretic has not changed. One means a system where you refuse to submit to the teaching authority of the Church. That is, a system of dissent. The other is a prominent figure in that system who may possibly have started that system. So, Luther is a heretic and Calvin is a heretic. But, David is still a minor pawn as is White, Webster, or Svendsen. Although, the latter three may be classed as heretics depending on who you ask. Still, I don’t think Rome is more than faintly aware of those guys’ existence. Little gnats on the radar screen so-to-speak.

>>Was the 'infallible' Church [of Rome] wrong then, or now?<<

Loaded question. Insufficient choices. They should be 1) wrong then, right now2) right then, wrong now 3) wrong then, wrong now 4) The one that I believe, doctrinally infallible then and now.

>>You said, “I can launch into hundreds of pages of comparisons between different denominations of Protestantism and JW or Mormons! But, I am limited by time."

But, in the end, it will be a false comparison -- like comparing apples and oranges.<<

You see, this is what I referred to when you made the comparison between the Church and Mormons. You base it on a narrow thesis and can't back it up except for a vague analogy of structure which I have refuted. Then you resort to the sedevacantist appeal which doesn’t work. If I go with my thesis, I can back it up. If you say I'm comparing apples with oranges, you will also have to back it up.

>>As I have already explained why. <<

Which I have refuted. See straw man argument above.

>>You said, “Note, that I didn’t focus on one area of disagreement. I asked for your(David’s) understanding of “communion”."

Whether you "note" this or not, it is exactly what you did.<<

You assume that I "would do it" but I did not do it, so you can't say that is exactly what I did because I did not argue for it. Although, I may do it now or later because you have brought it out.

>>If I had given you my belief (which I am not sure about at this time) on that passage, you would have struck out with pointing out the disagreements with other churches.<<

What if I had done something else? You'd never know until you answer my question.

>>I caught on to it before you said it, and I know where you were trying to go at.<<

Again, it's now in the alternate future-past. Reality has taken a different course. That is, you did not answer my question.

>>You said, “you have split Protestantism into three major categories based on this single issue(based on what you thought my intentions were, but in fact there is no proof of it in the question)."

Maybe you forgot what you wrote:

You said, "My question to you, for now, is what do you take from this passage: NASB 1Cor11:23-32... Who determines what doctrines are essential? Why is a "work of the new law", receiving the Body and Blood of Christ not judged to be essential by most protestants? Why isn't it done according to the scriptures? Do you treat the Eucharist as mere bread and wine, David? Symbolic?..."

It is plainly obvious what you were trying to do, whether you were conscious of it or not.<<

Ok, David, let's not pop-psychoanalyze me :) I have written with the Church’s position and a position that does not treat the Eucharist the same way in mind. I must guess but you haven’t answered my question, yet. Since, I gather from your previous post that it is a non-essential doctrine. I am perplexed as to why you would say such a thing. So will you explain? Or should we just beat around the bush?

>>I have already told you what determines something as essential; God's Word. The truth is you cannot produce *one* essential doctrinal difference among Evangelicals. You have to resort to focusing in on differences in church practice. Is communion monthly or weekly an issue to anathematize someone over? No. If so, you ought to be able to provide an explicit passage in Scripture that says so. <<

So what does God's Word tell us regarding Eucharist?

>>An example of a essential doctrine stated in Scripturen:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14 / KJV<<

Citing one-liners from the epistles is the worst approach, IMO. Were not the epistles sent as whole letters to their recipients? What is the doctrine here? Enumerate it, please. Also, what is so special about this doctrine which supposedly was not taught by the Church until someone decided Sola Scriptura was "The Way"?

>>You said,"All denominations that hold to the Gospels yet oppose even one doctrine of the church(thus having an antidoctrine) should be defined as protestant. In that way, protestantism can reach back to stronger roots in Monophysites, Arians, Gnostics etc. Does that make sense?

No, you and I define "Protestant" very differently. Maybe that is why you have a hard time and continue to make false comparisons. Perhaps looking up the word may help. You are just being simplistic in believing that if you are not Romanist, you are Protestant.<<

Which is it? 1) A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

Or

2) Of or pertaining to the faith and practice of those Christians who reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; as, Protestant writers.

Or

3) One who protests; -- originally applied to those who adhered to Luther, and protested against, or made a solemn declaration of dissent from, a decree of the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires, in 1529, against the Reformers, and appealed to a general council; -- now used in a popular sense to designate any Christian who does not belong to the Roman Catholic or the Greek Church.

I got these from dictionary.com.

Now, 3) and 2) are basically the same and are inclusive of 1). 1) is actually a subset of 3) which is a subset of 2). So 2) is the all- inclusive definition of protestantism. If you define it exclusively, then protestantism really is exclusive. How does protestantism go about making itself exclusive? One denomination denounces others. Unloose the rule and you release the river.

>>It may also help to know that I believe all Christians are in a sense 'Protestants', but not all 'Protestants' are Christians.<<

Bingo! You are now inclusive my friend – with respect to Protestantism but exclusive with respect to Christianity. You include JWs? Mormons? I would, perhaps in both categories – well it’s still tough with the JWs. They preach the gospels but don’t believe in the Deity.

>>You said,"There are lots of ways to slice and dice Protestantism"

Vice Versa.<<

Prove it the way I have broken down the straw-man argument or any other rational way.

>>You can't run away from the facts. In a future note, if I do not respond to another post you make, it's likely you repeated the same mistakes again. My answer will be the same as my last to posts on this thread. If anything new comes up, then I might respond.<<

That's irrational. You assume that I'm running away from facts, that I make the "same mistakes", that I don't "address your point". Prove it. I won't say you're resorting to ad hominem. But, you must prove your assertions. Now, when you do, I would gladly admit that I am wrong. The problem with such a statement is it's really arbitrary. How rational, how reasonable, how logical a person is would be subjective and irrrelevant when two people compare themselves to each other. It is up to a larger audience to judge. Debate is arguing and there’s no perfect way to argue so we have to ante-up and leave the extraneous conclusions out.

In general, I'm not doing this again(answering in long style) because it gets abrasive. The only unity you have right now is with your own church/denomination(you’re not AoG for example) which is not in communion with the long and historical Church. The Catholic Church is because it's the same Church. Further, it's the same heritage that the Eastern Orthodox(who are somewhat in unity with the Church through the odl ecumenical councils) and the Eastern Catholics(who are definitely in communion and in complete unity but separate autonomy) share. Any church/denomination if it's not one of the above, does not share in the same unity. And only the various Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics are in true communion, that is unity with the Church which is in unity with tradition in unity with the Apostles, Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura and anti-council gets in the way and every other anti- doctrine gets in the way. This is protestant unity, believe it or not. It's so strange a thing to be called unity, IMHO, when you can reject say AoG for Arminism.

>>P.S

rod, next time you might actually like to respond to my post instead of cheerleading ;-) <<

It's tough to pick on the humble guy.

Note: I might check up on this forum but I will be too busy to respond in any depth until Thursday. Also, I will look for this thread in particular so you don't need to bump it, David.

God Bless you!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 26, 2004.

Mongo shall....I mean rod shall sit in the observation deck and observe. I shall leave my pom-poms with my mule. Ok, David?

Thank you, Emily. Your post are always enlightening! Go, Emily!! Ooops, I meant just "Thank, you".

Anyway, I still have tons of reading to do. I long break from this place will prove beneficial in some respects. Where's Zarove??

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

David said: Can you provide me with the scripture that Rome has infallibly defined?

If you want to know the answer to this, see this thread on Catholic Answers' "Ask an Apologist":

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=4262

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 26, 2004.

Emily, I know the answer, and it varies. My point was for the person I was asking to give me his opinion. I've been to that forum too.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

Well, I believe my point was made :) If I find time to respond to so many misconceptions/repeated arguments/errors, I'll respond. Anyways, good day.

damnant quod non intelligunt...

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

Ok David, I'll leave you alone :) Don't delete Luke's comment if it gives you good cheer. That's only being fair to you and I don't mind at all.

Peace!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 26, 2004.

Vince, I'm just sleepy right now, I'll respond later, before Thursday though. Also, our moderator is on vacation...it seems the last time he wanted to clean up the forum from posts like these he got trampled on.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

Well, I do have admin powers though ;-) just to be fair, I'll delete his comment towards you. But I am leaving the rest as is.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.

I was just waiting for rod to read the message. Apparently, if I do delete these kind of messages coming from a Catholic I am a horrible mean person. But if I leave them on when a non-catholic does the same to a catholic, I am still a horrible mean person. What do I do? If I am going to be labled either way, I will be labeled for doing in what I believe.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.

Luke, (Luke@private.please)

I'm sorry, but this is the third time you come to this forum and break our rules. You are now banned, any further posts from you will be deleted.

-- (Christian_Moderator@hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.

Rod asked where I was. I am around, just not postign so much since I havent much to say and a lot of work o do.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 27, 2004.

Good to hear from you, Zarove.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.

It wasn't me. It was a one-armed man.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), July 27, 2004.

Not you Luke, little luke.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.

Vince,

I advise you not to respond point-counter point this time. It might be easier for you just to reply to a couple of things.

You said, "It's so strange a thing to be called unity, IMHO, when you can reject say AoG for Arminism."

They are still my brothers, they are just horribly wrong on some non-essential issues. :) I will not respond to any other statements you made in the last paragraph because as you say to me, they are just "assertions". Have you ever heard the phrase "if you repeat a lie long enough soon you will begin to believe it"?

Webster's dictionary defines a Protestant as this:

A member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth;

Even dictionary.com had this as an entry

A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

You also quoted two other entries and they are somewhat correct. Number 2 & 3 are being a bit more simplistic. Number 1, which I quoted from two sources above, is very descriptive of a Historic Protestant, which is what I am always referring to when I say Protestant.

You just can't add Mormons (Who would also agree with me) in the Protestant fold. You are being to simplistic by saying if you are not Romanist you are Protestant. I hope you know why you can’t call Mormons Protestants, as they do not believe in Sola Scriptura, but hold to your rule of faith, which is Scripture plus an infallible interpreter. No one can understand scripture without their Organization-sound familiar?

You said, "Bingo! You are now inclusive my friend – with respect to Protestantism but exclusive with respect to Christianity. You include JWs? Mormons? I would, perhaps in both categories – well it’s still tough with the JWs. They preach the gospels but don’t believe in the Deity."

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my statement that not all "'Protestants' are Christians". Mormons do not see themselves as Protestants, nor do we see them as Protestants either. Biblically, Mormons aren't Christians either. You again are making this into a very broad term. I wonder if I name a frog, name it Jesus, and start my own cult if you would still classify me as a "Christian". If no, why not? My new cult would also believe in "Jesus".

You said, "Citing one-liners from the epistles is the worst approach, IMO"

Yes, it is exactly that, your opinion. Are you going to debate that 1 Corinthians 15:14 is NOT essential? Can one believe Christ did not rise from the dead and still be "Christian"? (I wouldn't be surprised if you said yes".)

You said, "So what does God's Word tell us regarding Eucharist?"

It certainly does not teach what you think it teaches :)

You said, "I must guess but you haven’t answered my question, yet... I am perplexed as to why you would say such a thing. So will you explain?"

I answered it, but you did not like it. This is a fact that is beyond debate, any reader can see I answered your post. I also said, “I am not sure about at this time". I already said why it is non-essential-because the Scriptures do not clarify it. Vince, we are going to get nowhere if you keep asking the same question.

You said, "You assume that I "would do it" but I did not do it, so you can't say that is exactly what I did because I did not argue for it. Although, I may do it now or later because you have brought it out."

Oh, ok, I see, I was terribly wrong. So please tell us what the purpose of that question was. You are the one that brought it up even though there was NO mention of this topic before. Why would you bring it up? This thread was certainly not talking about the Lord's Supper. You brought it up with one intention-I was addressing a faulty Romanist argument that is invalid, unfair, utterly false, and inconsistent and have shown there are disagreements among Romanists-so you brought up The Lord's Supper in an attempt to show the "chaos of Protestantism". I will ask you Vince, to retire the notion that you innocently brought this up without knowing why because it is VERY OBVIOUS from your post what your intentions were. You have no need to respond to this section because this is the last time I address this and you will be wasting your time.

You said, "Which I have refuted. See straw man argument above."

If you say so, that still doesn't prove it. Vince, no matter what you want to believe, it is still an invalid, inconsistent, utterly false and unfair argument. You are saying, "My organization has more unity then your group of organizations". Of course it does, this is beyond debate. One organization always has, by definition, more organizational unity than a group of organizations has. Why won't you be fair and honest and actually compare one organization or another? Or, compare one rule of faith to another rule of faith? I think I know why-because attacking straw men is easier.

You said, "You see, this is what I referred to when you made the comparison between the Church and Mormons. You base it on a narrow thesis and can't back it up except for a vague analogy of structure which I have refuted. Then you resort to the sedevacantist appeal which doesn’t work. If I go with my thesis, I can back it up. If you say I'm comparing apples with oranges, you will also have to back it up. "

You and the Mormons, EOC, ICC, JW, etc all have the same rule of faith-That is, Scripture plus an infallible interpreter. "No one can understand scripture without our organization"-sound familiar? Well all say that. I have already "back[ed] it up". You can go back an read for yourself. The sedevacantist "appeal" does in fact work. It’s basically "he said, she said", but using your FALLIBLE opinions interpreting church documents. Ask Jake, he says he’s Roman Catholic, you say he's not; this is just your own private pontification. What is your "thesis" btw? I seem to have completely missed that :)

You said, "Loaded question. Insufficient choices. They should be 1) wrong then, right now2) right then, wrong now 3) wrong then, wrong now 4) The one that I believe, doctrinally infallible then and now."

Ok, so 1) it was either wrong then, and corrected it's error. 2) it was right then but has now erred 3) it is right then and right now even though they contradict each other 4) The one that I believe-it was wrong then and is still wrong now

You said, "You were not born before Vat II...neither was I."

Before Vatican II, anyone that held to my beliefs would be considered a heretic. After Vatican II my beliefs are now "separate brethren" and no longer heretical.

You said, "Now if your question is do you believe in heresy and the answer is yes."

Why? Because you say so? You really haven't proven this. Yes, Trent says I'm a heretic. Vatican II says I'm separated brethren now :) Was the Church of Rome was in error to anathematize our teachings in the first place? It completely reversed its former position at Vatican II. Rome did a complete 180' there. I am a legitimate Christian now according to Vatican II, whether you like it or not.

You said, "Absolutely!"

We see that Rome is inconsistent in her claims :) Just like the anathemas. Unless you can explain how I am a heretical "separate brethren" going to hell and heaven at the same time.

Another disagreement: Do Moslems and Jews need to be evangelized?

You said, "I just can’t accept that one can be protestant and catholic at the same time."

Tell that to the webmaster at www.evangelicalcatholic.com

Another division: What about Charismatic Catholics?

You said, "The "law" that Paul refers to is the "OT law"."

Robert Sungenis (A Roman Catholic) disagrees with fellow Romanists James Akin and Scott Hahn on this.

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/work-law.htm
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/paul_law.htm

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/Works_of_the_Law.htm

You said, "The simple answer is I believe the Vatican I has done this so there's no reason to find it in scriptures."

This really does not answer my question does it? I asked, “Can you provide me with the scripture that Rome has infallibly defined?". This is another "not major" disagreement between Romanists; some say 7/8 or 0/2.

Pastor David T. King talks about this:

Roman apologist Patrick Madrid asserts that the scriptural texts often used in connection with the official definition of papal infallibility (Matt. 16 and Jn. 21) have not been infallibly defined by the Roman communion:

Patrick Madrid: ...the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

You might want to contact him, and give him your assurance that these passages have been infallibly defined. But there's a whole host of others who claim that it's only the dogma defined that's infallible, not the reasons leading up to it, such as the passages from Scripture or tradition used in support of them. But evidently, neither Scripture nor revelation suffices to define some dogmas of the Roman communion.

You might also want to read this:

10 Worst But Most Common Techniques of the Roman Apologist

You said, "I can do it with satisfaction using Matthew 16:16-19 has been cited for nearly 2000 years."

Are you comfortable knowing that the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers actually oppose Rome's interpretation of Matthew 16? This is another inconsistently on the part of Rome.

You said, "why don’t you believe in Jesus’ own words. Why use Paul to refute Jesus?"

I do believe them; I just don't believe what you want me to believe about them. :) It's called reading something into the text that's not there-a very bad hermeneutic.

You said, "I tell you Vat II’s teachings are infallible because it is Ecumenical and because it holds the highest teaching authority. "

Really? Some will say you have been duped into believing it is. This is just more "he said, she said".

You said, "These "major disagreements" with Rome, in fact, make those people non-Catholic, schismatic, heretical according to Catholicism."

Again, this is your own private pontification. Have you heard of that Romanist sect that worships the sacred heart of Jesus? As I mentioned, what about Charismatic Catholics? The pope has condemned neither of them (least to my knowledge, I might be wrong). What about the disagreements between the Jesuits, Franciscans, and Dominicans? Have you read about that? What about Liberal Catholicism? What about that push to name Mary Co-Redemptrix? Would you agree or disagree with that? (This is another disagreement between Catholics). Even Gail admits there is an "in-house" debate.

You said, "You're beating a straw man."

You are holding a double standard. You seem to think that you are free to point out differences in church practice among Evangelicals but I am not free to point out the "not major" differences in Rome. There is no straw man, and simple saying it is one does not make it one.

You said, "The pope is 100% legitimate. So, you should never have repeated this point because doing so ignores what I have written. You have nothing to support your premise…that is…Rome does not have unity…which btw… should be written…Catholicism does not have unity. "

I'm sorry, but you seem to think I can see into the future. I am barely reading your post, so it would have been impossible for me to not "repeat this point" in the post you were responding too. Please Vince, think things through. You also have nothing to support that Rome does have unity. The only thing you can come up with is the "chaos of Protestantism" which I have shown to be a false comparison. Btw, it's Rome in this forum ;-) And simply repeating repeatedly that Rome has unity does not prove it.

You said, "I knew you would say that. Let us not do exaggeration. A little humor sounds good to me, but no exaggeration please."

I am not exaggerating. I asked you a couple of questions and you blew them off. Moreover, you even admitted it yourself! You said in response to my questions that they are "not major enough to discuss right now". I am not "exaggerating" and your refusal to read your own words is interesting. Any reader can see that.

You said, "You've not shown that Rome does not have unity. You stated the Sedevacantist case -- sorry David, you can drag j@ke or any of them into this and it won't count for anything."

Sorry Vince, this is still your opinion. Jake believes he is Roman Catholic. You believe you are Roman Catholic.

You said, "Yes, they do believe in Sola Scriptura. They simply don't believe it the way you do :)"

No they don't. There are not many definitions of Sola Scriptura, if there is I challenge you to prove it.

You said, “The existentialists would give you a run for your money on literal contradictions."

I am afraid you are confused with wooden literalism. Once again, this shows you do not know what you are talking about and have misconceptions about our beliefs.

Tommy Ice explains this well:

The dictionary defines literal as "belonging to letters." Further, it says literal interpretation involves an approach "based on the actual words in their ordinary meaning, . . . not going beyond the facts."2 "Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language."3 How is this done? It can only be accomplished through an interpretation of the written text which includes consideration of the grammatical (according to the rules of grammar), historical (consistent with the historical setting of the passage), contextual (in accord with its context) method of interpretation. This is what literalists mean by consistently literal interpretation.

This excerpt by James White might help you learn more about Sola Scriptura rather than continuing the same misconceptions your buddies have. Sorry this is so long, but it's for your benefit:

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Also,

Vince, you have another post directed towards you by Max.

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00BRHb

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Hi David!

I'll make this as short and sweet as possible, cut it down to one point and save the rest for later or a different thread.

You have contradicted yourself with Sola Scriptura:

James White:

The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating

Tommy Ice:

How is this done? It can only be accomplished through an interpretation of the written text which includes consideration of the grammatical (according to the rules of grammar), historical (consistent with the historical setting of the passage), contextual (in accord with its context) method of interpretation

Now, if it must be interpreted, then Scriptures is not self- interpretating. Furthermore, unless there is some handbook that was written by God for grammatical, historical, and contextual methods of interpretation, James White, David Ortiz, or Tommy Ice will use their own rules for interpreting the Bible using their own grammatical, historical, and contextual methods. Or. They will borrow them from someone else.

We know, in fact, that Scriptures is not self-interpreting because the New Testament has people interpreting the Old. Nevermind that the New Testament is not an exhaustive interpretation of the Old. Who interprets the New Testament Epistles?

This is something else:

Btw, it's Rome in this forum ;-)

No, it's David's choice of word :-) David should not choose to limit the forum to using misleading terms. Even if David chooses to turn this into a (insert David's Church here) forum, David should not assert that others should use a misleading term against another Church in the same way that Paul M or Ed L would not assert that posters should use misleading terms to describe (insert David's Church here). In any case, we're talking about Catholics and Catholicism, not the Church's Hierarchy, some of whom reside in Rome or specifically the pontiff who resides in Rome in which case the usage of "Rome" to describe the pontiff's unity to himself is ridiculous. Fair?

God Bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 29, 2004.

:) Vince, Sorry, there is no contradiction.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

I'm busy right now, will try to reply later.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Also, There is nothing subjective about grammer, history or context. :)

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Also, There is nothing subjective about grammer, history or context. :)

Sure, David. That's why we seem to "misunderstand" each other so much. Just find someone else who can explain Sola Scriptura better because Tommy Ice and James White don't cut it :) We'll move on from there.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 29, 2004.

Vince,

www.christiantruth.com

:) Pastor King and Bill Webster have a great 3 Volume-1,000+ pg book that has not cannot be refuted by Rome. That's a good start.,

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

BTW,

White didn't explain all of Sola Scriptura, he just gave a brief definition of it and what it's not. Tommy Ice just gave what we mean by literal.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

Hehe, I have to earn my food. Can't worry about that just yet :)

Actually, that makes me consider refuting just a couple of pages of theirs. But, it has to wait because I have to get ready for a friend's wedding this coming Saturday. So, I dunno. Time is so limited for me. I actually check on this and the other forum pretty often now but I doubt I can participate much until late next week. I'm off to bed.

Gnite :)

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 29, 2004.

G'nite.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.

I'm sorry, I got the numbers wrong. :) it's only 1100 pages, my bad. It was off the top of my head.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), July 29, 2004.