The Achilles' Heel of Protestantism

Here is some simple logic.

If you claim the church added things to the faith, there is a problem with that. The direct successors of the apostles believed in "pagan" things like Purgatory, Devotion to Mary, Prayers for the Dead, etc. If you have the internet you can research what the early church believed. That means immediately after the apostles died the people who they taught corrupted everything. If that is indeed the case, the authority of the bible itself is in question, since it was these corrupt people who selected canon.

Now you may argue that God ordained that the bible be without error. But this is contradicted by the fact the Martin Luther changed the canon. If the bible itself cannot be without error, then why did Martin Luther have to throw out books? Then it means the bible canon cannot be without error. Humans can change it too. This means the faith has to be preserved by human elements: a physical authority if you will.

Since the early church believed the same extra-biblical things Catholics do now, the idea that they got corrupt and added things over time is laughable.

Finally modern Protestants are doing things like saying hell is temporary or doesn't exist because they do not believe extra-biblical things like the idea that second death is complete separation from God. Some may even come to ideas that the trinity is baloney because it is not directly mentioned but merely referenced in the bible. When Catholics point out things like how the gospel of John references mortal and venial sin or things like how Mary will always be called blessed and is the mother of all Christians Protestants just shrug it off. Now the same thing is happening to you because you sawed off your own legs by stating that scripture alone should be accepted and not extra-biblical tradition.

reply to post by 547000

Now you may argue that God ordained that the bible be without error. But this is contradicted by the fact the Martin Luther changed the canon.

No he didn't.

If the bible itself cannot be without error, then why did Martin Luther have to throw out books?

He didn't. Martin Luther has the same books as canonical that the Catholic Church did at that point in time. That's right—the Protestants and the Catholics had the same canon! Why do the Catholics have more books today? Because they elevated that Apocrypha to the level of Scripture at Trent; largely due to the Protestants claiming that the Catholics taught things that aren't found in Scripture.

Then it means the bible canon cannot be without error. Humans can change it too. This means the faith has to be preserved by human elements: a physical authority if you will

Except Scripture wasn't changed.

reply to post by octotom

The Books were Never Included in the Jewish Scripture, and so shouldn't be in ours!

This is simply false. Starting circa 200 BC a group of 72 Jewish Rabbis translated the OT scripture into Greek, which consisted of 46 books. This "Septuagint" (Lt. Seventy) was written during a period of time when the "Writings" portion of the Old Testament Canon still being decided. The writing of this great work took time, but by the time it was finished, it contained not only the traditional Torah and Prophet texts, but also the now authoritative copies of the Jewish writings, including works written in Greek and written after the Hellenist conquest of Jerusalem. It was only after the Christians started using the Septuagint that the Jews deleted 7 books (the ones not in Hebrew) in an attempt to secure their own identity and distinguish themselves from Christians.

Catholics Added the Books to the Bible.

We could counter and say that "protestants" REMOVED books from the Bible. The fact is that all the books in the Catholic Old Testament appeared in the Septuagint. The OT canon was set, albeit somewhat unofficially, by the end of the 4th century by Bishops such as Irenaeus and Athanasius, including during councils. The Pope, the highest authority of the Catholic Church, ordered the books kept in Bible in the 5th Century, and the issue was permanently settled at Trent in the mid 16th century. The Church has supported these books from the beginning of its very existence.

The Apocrypha shouldn't be included, because they're not quoted in the NT.

Just because they're not quoted, doesn't mean they're not authoritative. Many of the common Old Testament books are not quoted directly in the NT Scripture as well. These include Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. Furthermore, there ARE allusions to the Apocrypha in the NT. Consider comparing the following verses as examples: 1) Rom 1:20-29and Wisdom 13:5,8 ; 14:24,27 2) 2 Cor 5: 1,4 and Wisdom 9:15 3) Jas 1:19 and Sirach 5:11.

www.catholicnewsagency.com...

reply to post by 547000


I never said that the books were never included with Scripture—the Jews acknowledged them, but never considered them Scripture; Martin Luther included them in his Bible editions, but they were never considered Scripture. (You can even buy Luther Bibles with the Apocrypha today, which I actually intend on doing soon.) This held true until the RCC at Trent said that the Apocrypha was equal to Scripture.

reply to post by octotom


I don't you understand how the Church works. For instance because later on the pope made it a doctrine that Mary was ever Virgin does not mean that the Catholic Church did not believe this before it was made doctrine. Same way with the removed books. Martin Luther was a Catholic priest, and he even considered removing the epistle of James. He included those books he disputed in his personal bible. He knew full well that they were already there--they weren't added later but confirmed as binding later.

I can't claim to be scholarly in disputes between Catholicism and Protestant, but, I always thought that the divisions took place, mainly, due to indulgences, and the Church's corruption in that area.

In Catholic theology, an indulgence is the full or partial remission of temporal punishment[1] due for sins which have already been forgiven. The indulgence is granted by the Catholic Church after the sinner has confessed and received absolution.[2] The belief is that indulgences draw on the Treasury of Merit accumulated by Christ's superabundantly meritorious sacrifice on the cross and the virtues and penances of the saints.[3] They are granted for specific good works and prayers.[3]

Indulgences replaced the severe penances of the early Church.[3] More exactly, they replaced the shortening of those penances that was allowed at the intercession of those imprisoned and those awaiting martyrdom for the faith.[4]

Alleged abuses in selling and granting indulgences[3] were a major point of contention when Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation (1517).

en.wikipedia.org...

I see the word "Reformation" and it makes me think the purpose was to reform the Church, not divide it. The Church needed reform, and did reform. We should be one Church now, no? The splitting from the church gave legitimacy to every other group who wanted to go their own way. Now we have umptyleben denominations.

On another note, after over a millenium of using the Bible as is, wasn't it a little grandiose to think that one man, or one small group of men could make those sweeping changes?

reply to post by windword


I would think the main difference is Protestants subscribe to one or more of the five solas.

reply to post by 547000

Finally modern Protestants are doing things like saying hell is temporary or doesn't exist because they do not believe extra-biblical things like the idea that second death is complete separation from God. Some may even come to ideas that the trinity is baloney because it is not directly mentioned but merely referenced in the bible. When Catholics point out things like how the gospel of John references mortal and venial sin or things like how Mary will always be called blessed and is the mother of all Christians Protestants just shrug it off. Now the same thing is happening to you because you sawed off your own legs by stating that scripture alone should be accepted and not extra-biblical tradition.

Ok. so how or where do the five solas"

Salvation through Scripture. (I would substitute "scripture" for the "Word.")
Salvation through Faith
Salvation through Grace
Salvation through Christ (I would say Christ Consciousness)
Salvation through God

relate to repentance, indulgence or the confirmation of the punishment of hell? Do you, as a Catholic disagree with these tenets?

You forgot the word 'alone' which I disagree with.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by 547000
You forgot the word 'alone' which I disagree with.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 19-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

HAHA! How can they be alone if there are 5 of them?

I admit that this is the first I've read of the five solas. I was raised Pentecostal but have since developed my own ideology about the metaphysical and mystical elements of the Judeo-Christian philosophies.

I don't believe that mankind has to continually inform god of its shortcomings in order to gain salvation, if one believes that god sent Jesus to die for your sins. If I have to constantly tell Jesus, god or some priest how unworthy I am to accept a gift from god, then why did Jesus die? Why did he offer us a gift that has to be earned over and over, that we can never be worthy of?

Spirit entered/married matter, in order to experience the wonders of the creation. The covenant from god is that; if we are born, we die. When we die, we go home to god, as demonstrated by Christ.

reply to post by charles1952

I see the word "Reformation" and it makes me think the purpose was to reform the Church, not divide it.

You're correct.

The Church needed reform, and did reform. We should be one Church now, no?

We should. Rome didn't like that there were people condemning them for their unbiblical, sinful practices though.

The splitting from the church gave legitimacy to every other group who wanted to go their own way. Now we have umptyleben denominations.

The difference is though, that the denominations are separated by unimportant issues; while Protestantism as a whole and Catholicism are simply not compatible at all because they differ on major points of doctrine.

On another note, after over a millenium of using the Bible as is, wasn't it a little grandiose to think that one man, or one small group of men could make those sweeping changes?

That's the RCC for you. All it takes is the the Pope to sit on his little throne and say what he wants and he alone can change everything.

reply to post by windword


Those aren't the five solas. I have the five solas in my signature. They don't all have to do with salvation.

reply to post by windword

HAHA! How can they be alone if there are 5 of them?

Because they're all referring to something different, not the same thing.

I don't believe that mankind has to continually inform god of its shortcomings in order to gain salvation,

That's good because we're not saved by continually confessing our sin. We're saved by faith in Jesus Christ.

Very well, let us suppose that the church changed the scriptures, which I plainly disagree with. Then the bible was modified. How can you say that God divinely protects it from modification? There are so many groups that change the bible, like Mormons. And if the Church itself changed the bible by having extra books for a thousand+ years, that debunks the theory.

You can't be a protestant knowing the logic presented in this thread.

reply to post by octotom


I would consider going to catholicism when they throw out the Mithraism, the Ishtar "Queen of Heaven" worship, remove the statues of Janus from the Vatican and tear down the statue of Venus they renamed Mary. Rename Jesus as sole redeemer, stop transmuting those cookies into Christ and eating his flesh (cannibalism) and drinking his blood (also a sin and forbidden to Christians is consuming blood) which is what pagans do to gain the strengths of their enemies, and then celebrate Christ's birthday on October 15 when he was born during the hebrew month of Tishri which falls between sept. 15 and oct. 15, instead of celebrating his birthday on the day Mithra was born which is december 25th. Finally top that off with the true trinity of Father Son and Holy Spirit instead of Father, Mother, Son, like the pagans do.

Here's something interesting you need to see:

Roman Catholicism is Mithraism

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Amen lonewolf19792000, great reply! I don't even need to add anything, you said all that needed to be said. Star for you (for whatever the devil they are good for !?)

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


You are so brainwashed it's sad. I double dare you to read up on what the early church believed. Hint: It resembled nothing close to Protestantism. History is an enemy of protestantism so protestants just throw wild accusations because they have no case. Conspiracy theory is the only way you can explain why the first Christians believed the same things Catholics do now. Unless you want to say protestantism is a branch of gnosticism.

reply to post by 547000


please explain how you got that correlation...

How is Protestantism in any way similar.... let alone a "branch of" gnosticism?

reply to post by Akragon


Well, if they claim to be the church the apostles meant it to be, they have a problem: the first Christians believed things like veneration of Mary, Eucharist, Praying for the dead, and Purgatory. They have the internet: if they refuse to look at what the early church believed it is willful ignorance.

If they claim to be the true church and believe none of these thing, then they must have derived their beliefs from the heretics of the time, because they stand opposed to what the first Christians believed.