ECT Why shouldn't I convert from Evangelical Protestant to Catholic?
- Thread starter RichRock
- Start date
Cruciform
New member
...which has already been decisively answered in Post #1640 above. :yawn:
#1640:dead:, has been answered and refuted in #1637
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
Post #1642.
Cruciform
New member
What you posted in #1637 was subsequently refuted in Post #1640. Thus, you're going to need something other than your already-disproven #1637 as a rebuttal. Try again.And back to Post #l637 (only need one)
What you posted in #1640 had already been refuted in Post #1637.
And you are going to need something other than just quoted articles from your Catholic Encyclopedia.
Try again.
Cruciform
New member
Rather, #1637 was subsequently refuted by Post #1640. Now you'll need to come up with something that hasn't already been rebutted if you intend to offer anything new to the discussion, something that hasn't already been refuted. Try again.
Rather #1640 had been previously refuted by #1637. Now you'll need to come up with something new that hasn't already been refuted. Try again.
Cruciform
New member
I'm content to let readers make up their own minds exactly which post came after the other, and therefore actually refutes the prior post. That's how the process of chronology works. Honest readers will know that perfectly well.
Moving on... :yawn:
That's how Chronology works. But not how Truth works.
Yes, by all means Cruciform, give it up, good idea.:loser:
Cruciform
New member
Whatever you say, OM. Take care now.
RichRock;
I don't know if you have made a decision yet or not of whether to convert to the Roman religion (RCC)
I would strongly suggest you do some serious research before doing so and not just taking the word of those of the Roman religion.
For instance, it's foundation of origin and anti-Biblical traditions adopted from the ways the heathen.
Here is a link with which to start;
www.eaec.org/cults/romancatholic.htm
I don't know if you have made a decision yet or not of whether to convert to the Roman religion (RCC)
I would strongly suggest you do some serious research before doing so and not just taking the word of those of the Roman religion.
For instance, it's foundation of origin and anti-Biblical traditions adopted from the ways the heathen.
Here is a link with which to start;
www.eaec.org/cults/romancatholic.htm
Cruciform
New member
OM would no doubt much rather you take the word of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. Unfortunately, unlike the Catholic Church, his chosen sect is not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
And instead take the word of one who has fallen for the long ago man-made Roman Catholic religion, a religion founded by so-called converted Romans of the sol invictus cult???
lifeisgood
New member
Also excellent book: “What I Would Tell You... If You Would Listen” by Karen Frazier Romero
God's Truth
New member
Do those authors tickle your ears?
Cruciform
New member
Sorry, but your parroted anti-Catholic claims have already been categorically refuted on this and other threads. Don't even bother.
No, I take the word of Christ's one historic Catholic Church, that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, rather than embracing the assumptions and opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Yes, it is sad that the Catholics have been taught to avoid any writings that are not of or approved by their higher-ups, they could learn a lot from the truths found in history about the RCC.
It took the space of centuries before the Church would even allow their members to read the Scriptures for themselves for fear they might see the errors of the Churches many false doctrines and practices. Today they have become so indoctrinated and programed that they refuse to think for themselves and only repeat what the Church has written, non-thinking robots.
www.aloha.net/~mikesch/banned.htm
(Make sure to read the last two para. in the link)
An example of what I am saying for me comes from back in the late '60s, there was a young Catholic man in our office that said that Mother Mary was the Mediatrix , I wrote down "1 Tim.2:5" on a piece of paper and told him to look it up that evening at home, the next morning he said "I didn't know that was in the Bible"
So goes the RCC's teachings, ONLY what the Church teaches as only IT interprets and adds IT's interpretations to the scriptures (a lot even overrides the scriptures), not what the Bible alone actually teaches. God's Word will interpret itself if one in sincerity asks.
Cruciform
New member
Proof, please. How about a passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that supports your claim here?
Wrong again. Looks like your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect simply has no idea what it's talking about.
Of course, the very same charge could just as easily be applied to you and all other non-Catholics. Nice try, though.
Here's some material that you didn't know was in the Bible: this, this, and this. Try again.
Of course---exactly as it has always been in Christ's one historic Church from its very beginning. In the 1st century, for example, it was ONLY what the Church (apostles and bishops) taught as only IT (apostles/bishops) interpreted. Likewise in our own day. It is the Church which teaches the laity, not the reverse. That is the biblical model.
Nonsense, as is plainly shown here:
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
As we have seen above, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura maintains that the individual believer needs only the Bible as a rule of faith and that he can obtain a true interpretation of a given Scripture passage simply by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. In practice, however, this approach creates more problems than it solves, and it ultimately prevents the believer from knowing definitively and with certainty how any given passage from the Bible should be interpreted.
The Protestant, in reality, interprets the Bible from a standpoint of subjective opinion rather than objective truth. For example, say Protestant person A studies a Scripture passage and concludes interpretation X. Protestant B studies the identical passage and concludes interpretation Y. Lastly, Protestant C studies the same passage and concludes interpretation Z. (37) Interpretations X and Y and Z are mutually contradictory. Yet each of these people, from the Protestant perspective, can consider his or her interpretation to be "correct" because each one has "compared Scripture with Scripture."
Now there are only two possible determinations for these three Protestants: a) each of them is incorrect in his interpretation, or b) only one of them is correct – since three contradictory interpretations cannot simultaneously be true. (38) The problem here is that, without the existence of an infallible authority to tell the three Protestants which of their respective interpretations is correct (i.e., objectively true), there is no way for each of them to know with certainty and definitively if his particular interpretation is the correct one. Each Protestant is ultimately left to an individual interpretation based on mere personal opinion – study and research into the matter notwithstanding. Each Protestant thus becomes his own final authority – or, if you will, his own "pope."
Protestantism in practice bears out this fact. Since the Bible alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith (if it were, our three Protestants would be in complete accord in their interpretations), every believer and denomination within Protestantism must necessarily arrive at his/her/its own interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, if there are many possible interpretations of Scripture, by definition there is no ultimate interpretation. And if there is no ultimate interpretation, then a person cannot know whether or not his own interpretation is objectively true.
A good comparison would be the moral law. If each person relied on his own opinion to determine what was right or wrong, we would have nothing more than moral relativism, and each person could rightly assert his own set of standards. However, since God has clearly defined moral absolutes for us (in addition to those we can know by reason from the natural law), we can assess any given action and determine how morally good or bad it is. This would be impossible without moral absolutes.
Of course any given denomination within Protestantism would probably maintain that its particular interpretations are the correct ones – at least in practice, if not formally. If it did not, its adherents would be changing denominations! However, if any given denomination claims that its interpretations are correct above those of the other denominations, it has effectively set itself up as a final authority. The problem here is that such an act violates Sola Scriptura, setting up an authority outside Scripture.
On the other hand, if any given denomination would grant that it’s interpretations are no more correct than those of other denominations, then we are back to the original dilemma of never knowing which interpretation is correct and thus never having the definitive truth. But Our Lord said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6). The predicament here is that each and every denomination within Protestantism makes the same claim – either effectively or formally – regarding its interpretations being "correct." What we are left with are thousands of different denominations, each claiming to have the Scriptural "truth," yet none of which is capable of providing an objective determination regarding that "truth." The result is an inability to obtain a definitive, authoritative and final interpretation of any given Scripture passage. In other words, the Protestant can never say that "the buck stops here" with regard to any given interpretation for any given passage of the Bible.
Read the entire article here
As we have seen above, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura maintains that the individual believer needs only the Bible as a rule of faith and that he can obtain a true interpretation of a given Scripture passage simply by comparing it with what the rest of the Bible teaches. In practice, however, this approach creates more problems than it solves, and it ultimately prevents the believer from knowing definitively and with certainty how any given passage from the Bible should be interpreted.
The Protestant, in reality, interprets the Bible from a standpoint of subjective opinion rather than objective truth. For example, say Protestant person A studies a Scripture passage and concludes interpretation X. Protestant B studies the identical passage and concludes interpretation Y. Lastly, Protestant C studies the same passage and concludes interpretation Z. (37) Interpretations X and Y and Z are mutually contradictory. Yet each of these people, from the Protestant perspective, can consider his or her interpretation to be "correct" because each one has "compared Scripture with Scripture."
Now there are only two possible determinations for these three Protestants: a) each of them is incorrect in his interpretation, or b) only one of them is correct – since three contradictory interpretations cannot simultaneously be true. (38) The problem here is that, without the existence of an infallible authority to tell the three Protestants which of their respective interpretations is correct (i.e., objectively true), there is no way for each of them to know with certainty and definitively if his particular interpretation is the correct one. Each Protestant is ultimately left to an individual interpretation based on mere personal opinion – study and research into the matter notwithstanding. Each Protestant thus becomes his own final authority – or, if you will, his own "pope."
Protestantism in practice bears out this fact. Since the Bible alone is not sufficient as a rule of faith (if it were, our three Protestants would be in complete accord in their interpretations), every believer and denomination within Protestantism must necessarily arrive at his/her/its own interpretation of the Bible. Consequently, if there are many possible interpretations of Scripture, by definition there is no ultimate interpretation. And if there is no ultimate interpretation, then a person cannot know whether or not his own interpretation is objectively true.
A good comparison would be the moral law. If each person relied on his own opinion to determine what was right or wrong, we would have nothing more than moral relativism, and each person could rightly assert his own set of standards. However, since God has clearly defined moral absolutes for us (in addition to those we can know by reason from the natural law), we can assess any given action and determine how morally good or bad it is. This would be impossible without moral absolutes.
Of course any given denomination within Protestantism would probably maintain that its particular interpretations are the correct ones – at least in practice, if not formally. If it did not, its adherents would be changing denominations! However, if any given denomination claims that its interpretations are correct above those of the other denominations, it has effectively set itself up as a final authority. The problem here is that such an act violates Sola Scriptura, setting up an authority outside Scripture.
On the other hand, if any given denomination would grant that it’s interpretations are no more correct than those of other denominations, then we are back to the original dilemma of never knowing which interpretation is correct and thus never having the definitive truth. But Our Lord said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6). The predicament here is that each and every denomination within Protestantism makes the same claim – either effectively or formally – regarding its interpretations being "correct." What we are left with are thousands of different denominations, each claiming to have the Scriptural "truth," yet none of which is capable of providing an objective determination regarding that "truth." The result is an inability to obtain a definitive, authoritative and final interpretation of any given Scripture passage. In other words, the Protestant can never say that "the buck stops here" with regard to any given interpretation for any given passage of the Bible.
Read the entire article here
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+