DeoOmnisGloria.com

Personally I like chapters and verses it makes it much easier to cite stuff and do research. I've never really thought that chapters and verses distort the word. If anything it can make for a lazy reader who only picks a verse here or there without reading the entire book. I'm going guess your just joking here, Jay. Protestants have traditions just like Catholics do. It is the way we view our traditions that differ. No tradition is greater to us than the will of God. For us the most authoratative document of God is the Bible. Thats basically it in a nut shell. We believe revalation of Gods will still occurs today but we test it with scripture. We don't believe our leaders are infalible. Infalibility lies with the Trinity.

Amen to that Stan

Be blessed

Stan,
What if the Bible says that the Church is infallible?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Well if the bible said the Church is infallible and an organization calling itself the "Church" has been falible in the past then it wouldn't really be the Church. Logically speaking that is. On a side note, if one reads the Gospels the standards for those who follow Jesus are pretty high, many "Christians" don't meet them. Also I just want to say that lack of infalibility doesn't make you a bad person it just makes you human and not God. Many holy men and woman in the bible made mistakes. Moses the murderer, David the Adulterer and Peter the Denier of Christ. All of these men are near to God's heart.

I think Zorak's initial post was simply aimed at showing the selectiveness with which "Bible-Based" protestants apply the doctrine of sola scriptura. However, she seems to have struck a nerve with Stan, who is willing to accept the occasional "tradition of man," as long as it can be rationalized after the fact and doesn't agree with Rome.

"However, she seems to have struck a nerve with Stan, who is willing to accept the occasional "tradition of man," as long as it can be rationalized after the fact and doesn't agree with Rome." Jonathan

Afraid I'm going to have to disagree. I have certain beliefs about the way Chatholics do things but I would not take those beliefs make general statements about all Catholics who are over 1 billion. Act of taking Protestant reverance for the bible and saying that we are all about "Sola Scriptura" is just as bad as taking Catholic reverance for Mary and calling it adding her to the Trinity. Most protestants don't know about Sola Scriptura and don't even know latin so to say thats what we are all about is short sighted. Thats why I guess it hit a nerve.

I don't think tradition is a bad thing. I just feel it is secondary to the Gods will. For instance 2 yrs ago we had church at 8:30 and 11 services, wooden pews and did anouncements every Sunday. Now we moved the services up a half hour which gives us more flexibility, brought in modular chairs to free up space and cut out anouncements to free up time. We recognized that even though these were traditions for our church we wanted to move forward for the sake of the Gospel and Gods will. There were people who have been in our church for 20 years who didn't like the change but they got used to it and we have more people comming in and being led to Christ. Notice that I'm not talking about comprimising the truth of the Gospel, just taking new approaches to delivering that message.

Stan,

There is a substantial difference between Catholics challenging Sola Scriptura and Protestants challenging reverence for the Blessed Virgin Mary. If Protestants don't hold to Sola Scriptura then what becomes their foundation of truth? Is it personal convictions? We drive home the error of Sola Scriptura to illustrate the fundamental error of the Protestant movement. Whether or not your individual church holds to Sola Scriptura is a moot point for it remains one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Protestant movement, as any student of Church history would know.

Catholics come to know the truth of God through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which have been safeguarded by the Catholic Church down through the ages (something no Protestant church can claim).

The redecorating of a church and the rescheduling of services is also a poor example of "traditions" within the Protestant churches. Let's look at some of the more critical changes (or errors) to "traditions" that have come about since the rise of Protestantism; the acceptance and promotion of artifical contraception, the acceptance of divorce, the belief that homosexuality is acceptance (by certain churches), the belief that it is by faith alone that one is saved, and the belief that it is by the Bible alone that we can know truth...the list goes on.

The divisive nature of Protestantism is becoming more and more obvious, just look at all the different Protestant churches that now exist (over 20,000). As I have said before this is clearly not in accordance with the will of God (John 17:20-23).

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,
There are divisions in RCC as well. I am sure you have seen the other posts.
If you are going to use the various denominations in Protestantism as support for Catholicism...you have to also look at the various denominations in Catholicism.
Lastly, what is your source for the 20,000 denominations? Where is the official source Joe?

Be blessed

You keep saying there are multiple denominations within Catholicism Jeff, but you continue to fail to name one.

We are all still waiting....

In Christ,
Joe

Joe,
What kind of Catholic is Mel Gibson?

Jeff,
I would be interested in what you think about Mel. He's said on national television that he accepts Vatican II and he is in union with the Pope. Sounds like a Catholic to me.

I think the problem is that you understand authority as coming from the parishoner, rather than from the papacy. In the Catholic church, you can't declare yourself a catholic, you must rather be declared a catholic by the Church. Therefore, if you do not accept Vatican II and/or you don't accept the priesthood, then you aren't catholic. It's that simple. As Joe pointed out, I can't simply declare myself a member of a university, the university must declare me a member.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Various Traditional Catholics CLAIM union with the Pope, but at the same time they reject some of the 2nd Vatican Reforms.
But don't believe me, I will give you the link so you can see Mel Gibson's view on the 2nd Vatican.

"Gibson is a more truculent Catholic. He scorns the Second Vatican Council, which in the 1960s replaced the Latin Mass with the liturgy in the language of the people and lots of perky folk songs. To Gibson, Vatican II "corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." He might also have noted that Catholicism flourished in those countries where it became a church of liberation — where priests welded traditional doctrine to radical social reform."

You can find this quote at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/story/0,9171,1101030127-409570-2,00.html

There are more traditional Catholics than sedvacantist of SSPX.

Be blessed

Jeff,
Your first quote is my point. Anyone can claim union with the Pope, this does not make them Catholic. The Southern Baptist convention could say they are Roman Catholic and claim union with the pope, but that would not make them Catholic.

I'm having trouble seeing how you miss this: Joe's posts earlier included several quotes from the Pope himself as well as the Church over the centuries that said one thing plainly: to be Catholic you must accept all of Catholic doctrines. You aren't talking about "denominations," you're talking about heretics who are no longer Catholic no matter what they claim.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

In your posts about the Passion, you were joyous and elated and proclaiming how only a Catholic could share the insight of Christ's passion.
Do you still feel the same about The Passion of Christ. Was the movie directed and produced by a Catholic?
Did the Vatican excommunicate Mel Gibson?
That would be like the Dean expelling a student right?
Does Mel still claim union to the Pope?

Just some random questions to prove a point.

Be blessed

Jeff,
Another issue you're missing: you can excommunicate yourself from the Catholic church. For example, you can have an abortion, which excommuncates you. Or you can refuse to follow the pope or Vatican II. God doesn't require a formal excommunication for each heretic who leaves His Church.

I think we've proven across the board that you are wrong about there being Catholic "denominations". We've pointed out the requirements to being Roman Catholic and only asked one thing of you: Name one Roman Catholic denomination. You obviously can't, so we move on.

What started the whole discussion was the point that protestantism leads to division, which is antithetical to the prayer of Jesus that we be "one" as He and the Father are one. Here's a second question for you: Can protestants ever live up to this charge?

God bless,
Jay

PS - the answer is "no" since there is no authority within the protestant mode of thought. Anyone can claim they are perfectly interpreting the Holy Spirit no matter what they believe(see the Anglican church as the perfect example).

Jay,

If an individual never attends the Roman Catholic church, can that person go to heaven?
Basically is there salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church according to the Vatican?

Be blessed

PS: Of course the answer is yes that one have salvation and get to Heaven without going to the Roman Catholic Church. I am just curious on what your point is.

Jeff,
Yes, you can get to heaven outside of the Catholic Church, but it is much more difficult. Christ established the Church for one reason: to offer us the Sacraments, which give us extra grace in order to get to heaven.

The example I always use is this:
Imagine our job on earth was to get across a large channel. You might make it by swimming, but it would be difficult. If I had a boat, I can offer you a better way to cross the channel. The Church and her Sacraments are that boat - a better way to heaven. This is why God, in His Wisdom, established a functional Church on earth.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,
Well it is interesting how Dave says that the answer is no. No way to Heaven besides the church. However, according the Bible, my belief is the following. There is no way to Heaven but through Christ.

Be blessed

Jeff,

The Church IS Christ! Check your Bible on that one; it's in there.

Jay simply meant that you can get there without being part of the visible Body of Christ (which is the Catholic Church, Roman or Eastern). His comment was not in reference to being saved without being part of the mystical Body of Christ. If you want to get it from the horse's mouth, I direct you to CCC (catechism) 774-776 and 846-848. These contain the teaching on salvation through the Church alone, which she continues to proclaim.

In Christ (and His Body the Church),
Dave

Dave,

Here is how I understood it from Jay. You can get to Heaven by accepting Christ as your Savior. Jay believes that the easiest way to get there is by way of the Roman Catholic Church.
I understood Jay to mean that a protestant can get to Heaven, but the Roman Catholic Church is the easiest way to get there.
I was merely stating my belief...that is accepting Christ as your Savior is how salvation is attained.
Sorry if I misunderstood you. Everytime you say the Church, I assume you mean only Roman Catholicism. But if you believe that the only way to Heaven is by accepting Christ as your Savior, be it protestant or catholic, then I agree and say Amen to that.

Be blessed

Jeff,

That is largely true, but the fullness of the truth is a bit more nuanced. Jay's analogy works to an extent, especially for helping Protestants understand salvation from a Catholic perspective.

However, you must understand that the "boat" here is not optional. The will of God is that all be saved through the Catholic Church (in visible form). Christ instituted this visible Body and endowed her with the sacraments, seven earthly manifestions (not just symbols) of heavenly grace. It is through these sacraments that Christ's grace is distributed. More broadly termed, it is through the Church that Christ chose to effectuate His very sacrifice on the Cross. Though completed, it is the Church (His literal Body) that delivers that sacrifice to the unsaved. Therefore, to knowingly remain outside of the Church (even in a Protestant church) is a MORTAL sin. In other words, it demonstrates an actual rejection of Christ and therefore leads to Hell. The Church has always acknowledged this and still does. The concept of someone being saved outside the visible confines of the Church is designed for those who have accepted God to the best of their abilities, even if that falls just short of becoming a formal member of the Church through the sacraments. The prime examples are the OT saints, the thief on the cross, and the man on the deserted island. While it may apply to Protestants in many instances, you must also understand that this is tentative at best. The Church teaches that it is possible, not that it is probable. Only God knows the heart, and only God can say who receives this special extension of grace unto salvation outside the ordinary and sacred path He designed.

Regardless, this special grace is just a way of uniting the recipient to the Church catholic, the Body of Christ. Soooooo, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, visible or otherwise. Does this give you a better understanding of what the Church teaches?

In Christ,
Dave

I have been reading the posts and I find it interesting on how we humans always try to put things in a box. We want to label people and
things. The word Catholic means universal.
A term that wasn't used by the apostles but by the 2nd generation Christians that came after
them.

So Dave, Someone who is not a Roman Catholic fulfilling the critera you site for being a Catholic is NOT a part of the Body of Christ which by the way is HIS Church. Jesus NEVER said
upon this Rock I will build my Roman Catholic Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. If He did show it to me.

No, He built His church upon Himself, the True
Rock and He gave Peter and the apostles the authority to add to and Lead His Church while He was gone preparing a place for that church in heaven. I know that you will disagree.

Christ is the foundation of His Church, NOT Peter. He gave Peter authority to
lead that church, But Peter was NOT the church.
The church is believers and Followers of Christ,
Not of Peter. We are not Peterins, We are Christians. The church is made up of Followers
of Christ, Not Peter or Paul or Mary. Christ is
the head.

I know that you will disagree . As you have said
only Jesus knows a person's heart and He knows
mine. I will NEVER say that this person or that person who professes to be a follower of Christ
is not going to heaven. Jesus and Jesus alone
will make that decision. Not Dave, Not Peter,
Not the Pope and not Mary. Jesus is the One and
only Judge. I trust in Him and in His Mercy and in His Love and in His Word and in His Promises.

I wonder when He returns if He will be pleased with what Man has done with the church
that He started ? Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Philadephia
decribed in Revelation ? Jesus found no fault with that church. Do you believe that He will find No fault in the Roman Catholic Church when He comes back ? I do not see any Church Catholic
or Protestant that fits the Criteria of the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation.

Read Catholic writings. There was a contoversy
over the Eucharist. Some said you had to partake
of the Host and the Wine. One of the popes believed that. Then it was determined that the
Body and Blood are combined in the Host.

It was a sin to eat meat on Friday. Now it's okay to eat meat. All of the doctrines and dogmas
of the church were not there when Christ started
the church. Those doctrines and dogmas have evolved over the last 2000 years by various church councils. The church is a living breathing entity, not a building or a group of
Bishops in Rome.

I am sure you will label me a heretic or that I
am in rebellion. I have noticed that if someone
disagrees with the Main Blogers criteria of what
a Catholic is then they are not a Catholic.

I can disagree with my brother or my father or
my mother without being kicked out of the family.

American Followers of Christ tend to be Cafeteria
Christians , picking and choosing what part of
God's word they will follow.

We all have to submit to the authority God has put us under. If we claim to be Catholics then that authority is the Pope.

That's it for now.

Grace and Peace to you.

Clem

Clem,
You're coming around! You say:

No, He built His church upon Himself, the True
Rock and He gave Peter and the apostles the authority to add to and Lead His Church while He was gone preparing a place for that church in heaven.

Now, as far as the rest of you're post goes, you're being silly. It is not us who determine who is or is not Catholic - it's the Church. We are simply pointing out what the Pope and other cardinals of the Church have said about what it means to be Catholic. I find it very interesting that some protestants on our site think it's fine to not believe what your church teaches! If you don't believe what your church is teaching, then why are you attending it?? This is the point: if you don't believe what your church teaches as truth, you aren't really a member of that church. You can disagree with certain things within the church, but you abosolutely cannot disagree with dogma. "Cafeteria Christianity" isn't Christianity at all; it's selfishness. The Truth does not change just because you don't like it or it's easier for you if it's different. This is akin to saying abortion is okay; abortion is never okay, no matter what you personally think or believe. If you suggest it is, that doesn't make the church or us wrong, it makes you wrong.

God bless,
Jay

As a side note, eating meat on Fridays was never a dogmatic issue. It was strictly a disciplinary issue. The same can be said of priestly celibacy, which can be changed at the leisure of any pope or council that feels it necessary to do so. There are numerous examples of these sorts of rules. It is sinful to disobey them not because they are objectively right or wrong, but rather because it is sinful to disobey the authority instituted by Christ. Clem, your comments are misguided and scandalous in suggesting otherwise. If you seek dissent and schism with the Church, please do not call yourself a Catholic. You speak out of both sides of your mouth when you acknowledge the God-given authority of the pope and then refuse to submit to his teachings. Your example of the family is well-chosen; but keep in mind that OT law required rebellious children to be stoned. Paul said that disobedient Christians should be turned over to Satan and that we should not even eat with them. If you want to be part of Christ's family, start acting like a brother instead of an accuser.

In Christ,
Dave

Clem,

You have the right thinking pattern. If you want to know the truth, just look in your Bible and pray earnestly that the Spirit of God give you clarity. Despite what Joe, Jay, and Dave say...the Bible is not a hard read.
I will leave you with this Scripture Clem...
Mark 7:7-9
They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men." You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them:"You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

You are right Clem, look at Scripture and see what Jesus taught. It is all in the Word.

Be blessed

Jeff,
Where does it say in the Bible that we should hold worship services on Sunday instead of Saturday? (I can show you where God commanded us to hold worship services on Saturday) Wait, where does it say we shouldn't be going to the Jewish Synagogues every Saturday?? After all, that's what the Apostles did in the book of Acts . . . and everything is in the Bible, right?

God bless,
Jay

PS - your Bible doesn't even contain all the books! How do you know what you're missing?

Jeff,

In your wisdom, perhaps you could also tell Clem exactly which books are the "Bible". Is it the Protestant Bible? The Catholic Bible? The Orthodox Bible? The Gnostic Bible? And, if you can answer (unlikely), perhaps you should tell us where in the Bible you found your answer...

In Christ,
Dave

Jay,

We already have seen a lengthy discussion of the Sabbath and its true meaning. I won't waste time retyping, but if you want you can revisit your posts.
The Bible does teach that you should not be judged on a Sabbath and that the Apostles broke bread(communion) on a Sunday.

"everything is in the Bible, right?"-Jay
Yes Jay it is, and once again I can tell you that the Bible shows how certain days or months are no longer necessary. Read Gal 4:10-11
Read Rom 14.

Acts 20:4
On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

Sounds like church to me.

Paul instructed the Galatian churches to collect money on the 1st of week. He gave these instructions to the church of Corinth as well.

1 Cor 16:1-2
Now about the collection for God's people: DO what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the FIRST DAY OF EVERY WEEK, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income.....

In John 20, it shows that Jesus returned to his disciples on a Sunday...and then 1 week later, Jesus reconvened with them again. He preached and did miraculous things.

Jesus established Sunday meetings. Sunday is not the new Sabbath. Sunday is the Lord's Day. According to the BIBLE, we are free from the sabbath law.
I could go into more detail with SCRIPTUAL proof if you would like.

Be blessed

Jeff,
So are you arguing that Sunday church isn't necessary or is? Your argument is somewhat confusing

If you are interpreting these verses correctly, why did the apostles continue going to the Synagogue and worshiping on Saturday?

Also, I noticed you ignored Dave's questions . . . any response?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Simply put, you can go to church on whatever day you choose. If a church decides to hold service on Friday's, there is nothing wrong with that.
There is nothing wrong with holding services on Saturday either. It just so happens that it is best to have church on Sunday because that is when the most people can attend church. Once again if an individual works on Sundays, yet attends church on Fridays, that individual makes Friday a special day for the Lord and according to Scripture there is nothing wrong with that.

Roman 14:6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

Be blessed

Okay, Jeff, last chance. I asked you once, Jay asked you to respond, and now I ask you a third time. You say that everything is in the Bible, right? Where does the "Bible" tell you which books are in the Bible? Where does it say that the epistle of Jude is in, but not the two epistles of Clement? Why the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but not Wisdom, Mary Magdalene, Barnabas, and Thomas? Why the books of Esther and Daniel, but not (according to Protestants) Tobit and Baruch? And most importantly, please try to be consistent with your own staked out positions and limit the source for your answer to the "Bible". Of course if you think about that long enough you will get a headache. But do try to respond.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
The question you asked will require a lot of typing. However, I will start with a few questions. Why did early church fathers(such as Jerome, Cyril, Anathasius) reject the Apocrypha as canonical?
Do you think these men would change their views today?
Did Jesus ever discuss purgatory? Because if he did, maybe that would lend more credence to Maccabees.
The fact is that history does show the the Council of Trent does show that the Apocrypha was made canonical after the reformation. This was a response to "protestant" movement. Clem or whomever, the apocryphal books have ALWAYS been in question as inspired Scripture. By scholars and EARLY CHURCH fathers.
But if you want to know about which Scripture is inspired...look to the message of Christ. Do this in ALL manners of faith. Did Christ talk about purgatory? No.
Did his disciples? No. Even though Dave, I know you will want to pull out the Scripture in which it describes a man's works going through the flames. That does not talk about purgatory.
Anyways, you can look to see if Christ talked about Mary and veneration of dead saints.
My question to you is, if the Apocrypha was canonical, in particular Maccabees...why did Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Anasthasius and others reject it being inspired canonical Scripture? Were these not early church fathers whom you believe were lead by the Spirit? Why does the council of Trent approve what many early church father's reject? Do you see the contradiction here?
Are you going to challenge me to accept everything that an early church father believes? Are you going to answer the questions?
This will be an interesting series of discussions. I await you post.

Be blessed

Jeff,

The problem with your response is that you are anticipating the thrust of my question, but have ignored the question itself. I am not asking you about doctrinal points. Rather, I am going to the heart of everything you have posted to date. To over-simplify, you have constantly referred to the Bible as the sole authoritative source for theology. Aside from the fact that this claim never even appears in the Bible, your argument contains within it an assumption that you have not tested nor explained.

Your basic assumption is that the "Bible" is a book whose composition is readily ascertainable. In other words, you assume that the Bible consists of 66 books, starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation. Why? How do you know that these books were supposed to be in the "Bible"? My question is not trying to bring out any perspective on the apocrypha. It goes much deeper than that. But to avoid any confusion, I'll phrase it differently. How do you know that any book of the New Testament was meant to be in the New Testament? Who told you that I and II Peter are "canonical"? Who said that the four gospels were inspired of the Spirit and that other gospels (like the four I mentioned) are not inspired.

Rather than having you walk through each book to list the merits of the case for or against canonicity, I want to know what formula you are using. Is there some test? Since everything must appear in Scripture (your first principle), does your test also appear in Scripture? And if it does, isn't that circular since you must first know what is or is not Scripture before you can get some formula from Scripture? If your formula is not Scriptural, where does it come from? Is your source authoritative (i.e., is it binding on other people)? Or is it up to each individual to determine which books should be in the Bible?

Basically Jeff, you have assumed that the "Bible" is 66 books of unquestionable composition. History and logic dictate that your assumptions are anything but "unquestionable". You have never explained this assumption that undergirds every argument you have made, thus making your arguments weak. I would like you to provide me some insight into where your basis for acknowledging the authenticity of the NT comes from. Let's stick to the NT since we both agree on its constitution. Thanks.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
Just like God had used man to compile Scripture with the OT, the same goes for the NT.

I know this answer is short, but I am anticipating your answer.

Waiting for your response.

Be blessed

Jeff,

That does not answer my question, and is circular. Of course God inspired the writers of the "Sciptures". By definition, that's what makes them Scriptures. But how do you know that the books that you believe make up the NT were actually the ones intended by God to be the NT (i.e. inspired)? How do you know that God did not intend that the other books I mentioned be included in the NT?

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,
Are you looking for me to point to an infallible source of why I believe the Bible is inspired??

Be blessed

Jeff,

I'm not sure how many ways I can ask this question, but I will try again. First, how do you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are "Scripture"? Second, how do you know that Wisdom, Barnabas, Mary of Magdala, and Thomas are not "Scripture"? I'm not looking for anything, Jeff; I just would like you to answer these two questions.

In Christ,
Dave

Well, first off, it is historical innaccuracy to assume that the Apocrypha was not part of the Church Bible Canon until the Council of Trent. The Council of Hippo in the late 300s already established those books. And you can find 5 Church Fathers who accepted the Apocrypha for every 1 Church Father that rejected it. Also keep in mind that the Old Testament of our modern bible comes from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and this translation is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint is referenced in the New Testament no fewer than 250 times. And how many books did this Septuagint contain? 46, not 39. Protestants believe in 39 books as inspired Old Testament Scripture. In the 90s A.D., the Pharisees of Palestine held the Council of Jamnia which 1)claimed that the 7 books we are referring to as the "apocrypha" were not inspired, and 2) required Jews of the time to curse the name of Christ. Yet why would this be necessary if these books were not Christian in the first place? 46 books are even today used by Ethiopian Jews who were not involved in the Council of Jamnia. And clearly we cannot take seriously a council which demanded people curse the name of Jesus our Lord? 46 books were used by Christians until the time of Martin Luther, who removed them because they contradicted the other books that he personally felt were inspired. But remember he also called the Epistle of James "an epistle of straw" and thought very little of the Book of Revelation. And what individual Christians may have used in the first several centuries does not matter, for what the church taught that they must use matters, for if we use the canon the church taught, then if we believe we are guided to truth then indeed also the church was guided to truth. And I think we need to come to the main point of this whole argument about the canon of the Christian Bible. If Jesus promised that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it (his Church)", invisible or visible, then clearly we would be able to see, in every moment from the year 100 when all the books had been written to the year 1500, people who used the Protestant Old Testament canon of 39 books. And we cannot see that. But can we see the Catholic Church leadership and its members using 46 books, from historical sources? Yes we can. Protestants always lose the historical argument because it simply does not back them up. And Sola Scriptura by definition is incorrect because there was no bible till the Church put the books together, and indeed there were no books until the late 40s and 50s A.D. So in the 40's, there was a Church, but there was no Bible. Jesus called his followers to preach, not to write. Therefore, Jesus created the Church, which in turn passed on the Sacred Teachings of Tradition given by Christ, and then organized them into the Bible we have today. Individual Christians did not make the decision, but the leaders of the Church, the Catholic Church, did. And this Church preserved these books for 1500 years, until some pious, yet overzealous, reformers decided to rip out 7 books to justify their NEW teachings. As for myself, I have respect for the Protestant faithful, and see them all as fellow Christians. Yet it will always seem to me that the two stated main principle of Protestantism, 1.) Sola Scriptura and 2.) Sola fide are refuted by both Scripture itself and 1500 years of Christian Tradition. Sola Scriptura is refuted by the fact the Bible did not originally exist and the fact it does came about from a process of Tradition. Sola fide, or faith alone, is refuted not by a rejection of the importance of faith, but by stressing the corresponding importance of works, for "Faith without works is dead." I know this was a really long post but I hope it somewhat clarifies the issues at hand.

I've read some of yas post & learned a lot of history i'm a christain in American,also a house wife a mother, & a sunday school teacher our church is grace & truth house of Worship we are all about the word of GOD & LIVING THEM THROUGH JESUS CHRIST our Lord and Savior I would like to know what is the meaning of protestant?

Angel,

"Protestant" refers to the communities of Christians who, in protest over numerous moral failures on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, decided to separate from the Roman Catholic Church while attempting to retain their Christian identity.

Some of today's Protestants, although still Protestant, understand their faith to run deeper than a rejection of Catholilcism - and so they describe themselves as Christian. Whether they consider Roman Catholics to deserve the term Christian varies from person to person and culture to culture.

In some cultures, the term Christian and Protestant are used interchangeably, some Catholics from non-English speaking nations will answer "no" if asked: "are you a Christian"?

Most Roman Catholics in North America consider themselves Christian. All Protestants consider themselves Christian.

Hope this helps.

Post a comment