Calling on all Protestants on this forum!

[quote=dennisknapp]There have been some very intense debates going on in this forum and they have been very interesting. But one issue that I have seen repeatively over looked is history.

The arguements with which all Protestants rely on DID NOT exists in the early Church. Protestant Christianity and especially Evangelical Protestantism was an innovation of the 16th century in everything except that which is held in common with both branches of the historical Church–Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Michael P, stated,
“That is the good thing about not being Catholic. I don’t have to start with assumptions and read back into history and Scripture. I don’t have to identify with any traditions. I just identify with the invisible body of Christ and the local chuch. Therefore, I can approach this much more unbiasedly than others.”

Not with standing that this is a huge claim, where is the evidence for such a claim? I would say that because I am a Catholic, and have access to history, and belong to the tradition that wrote it, I can approach the topic with a greater understanding and insight because I do not read into it my modern biases and theological innovations. I have the testemony of all those who have come before me–Church Fathers, Creeds, Councils and the Magistarium. The whole cloud of witnesses attest to the validity and authenticity of the Catholic Church.

So, I am asking all those who are not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox to post historical evidence for your beliefs. Show us way we should buy into your system?

I hope I not being too plunt, but I need to be clear in my request or I feel I won’t get an adequate response.
[/quote]

I posted this on another thread but received no response so I am posting it here.

I am imploring, begging, beseeching any Protestant to provide positive evidence for thier beliefs that are not shared in common with historical Christianity.

Please provide evidence for:

Communion is only symbolic; not salvific.

That baptism is only symbolic; not salvific.

Marian doctrine is a late innovation of the Roman Catholic Church.

That Apostolic Succession was not taught in the early Church.

Dennis, I don’t think you’ll get too many replies, because ignoring/denying and/or re-writing history is all they can do.

Personally,History up to now really has not been an issue. I walk by Faith and not by sight. All I know is that Im a christian,a follower of Jesus Christ.I have a personal and intimate relation with Him. He is Lord of my life and I belongs to Him.I am His faithful and obidient servant.He provides for everything that I need. I live each day to the fullest by serving Him. Ill let you worry about the History. :smiley: God Bless

[quote=dennisknapp]I am imploring, begging, beseeching any Protestant to provide positive evidence for thier beliefs that are not shared in common with historical Christianity.

Please provide evidence for:

Communion is only symbolic; not salvific.

That baptism is only symbolic; not salvific.

Marian doctrine is a late innovation of the Roman Catholic Church.

That Apostolic Succession was not taught in the early Church.
[/quote]

Hi Dennis, You see you want me to provide proof,like I want you to provide proof and the truth is neither will convince each other because you are talking about thing which are happening in the Spirit. Human eyes cannot see what is in the Spirit .You need spiritual eyes to see in the Spirit. Satan does a wonderful job consuming our precious time doesnt he. I,m just as guilty as you…We need to fix our eyes on Above,thats the problem with us. God Bless

[quote=SPOKENWORD]Personally,History up to now really has not been an issue. I walk by Faith and not by sight. All I know is that Im a christian,a follower of Jesus Christ.I have a personal and intimate relation with Him. He is Lord of my life and I belongs to Him.I am His faithful and obidient servant.He provides for everything that I need. I live each day to the fullest by serving Him. Ill let you worry about the History. :smiley: God Bless
[/quote]

James 2:24 - You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Well as a Lutheran I quote the Church fathers often. You must remember that a Catholic is going to look back at the beginnings of the Church as the Catholic Church and the other branches formed at a later time.

Lutherans, at least most anyways, look at the beginnings of the Church as a nameless collection of ordained Priests or Bishops in their respective cities with no supreme head. These Bishops did indeed have control over their area of influence but were not subject to a Supreme Pontiff. Some of the writings that we have from people like John Chrysostom, Gregory, and Jerome tend to support this view.

Lutherans do believe in Apostolic Succession, The True Presence, The necessary aspect of Baptism, and that Mary was ever virgin. All of these aspects can be proven to have been held by the Church Fathers.

We simply believe that over time the power of the Bishop of Rome far exceeded itself with the Council of Nice being the pivotal point in history in which it became profound.

I am just putting this information up to let people know where Protestantism stands on the issue; I mean no disrespect of the Pope and his position. I am far too un-knowledged to claim that I know the power of the Pope.

[quote=SPOKENWORD]Personally,History up to now really has not been an issue. I walk by Faith and not by sight. All I know is that Im a christian,a follower of Jesus Christ.I have a personal and intimate relation with Him. He is Lord of my life and I belongs to Him.I am His faithful and obidient servant.He provides for everything that I need. I live each day to the fullest by serving Him. Ill let you worry about the History. :smiley: God Bless
[/quote]

Spoken… But the Bible IS (also) history. And when you say you walk by faith not by sight, that is all well and good, But you DO walk by sight, in that you rely upon the Bible to answer all your needs/questions etc.

Our point is that one does not HAVE TO have the Bible (and none of us are remotely suggesting that it is not important or minimizind its worth! God forbid!) to be a Christian or maintain one’s Christainity. We Catholics have the Bible in abundance and love and believe every word of it. The early church didn’t have the luxury of printed scriptures like we do (In my case MANY translations & copies) yet their walk was faithful even unto death.

You rely on the historic nature of the Gospels for accurate info about Our Lord…you rely on the history of the early church as recorded in Acts of the Apostles. WE ALL DO, but why would we reject the historic letters and writings of those who followed right behind the apostles and paid for thier faith in blood and suffering? I think of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp just to name a couple. Granted their writings are not inspired as the scriptures are but they certainly are valuable in that they tell us many things about what they believed, lived for, and died for.

If what they wrote shows that they believed and practiced a Christianity that is Catholic then isn’t it sort of burying ones head in the sand to refuse their evidence? Especially when what they tell us is in line with Scripture anyway? :smiley: :heart: :bible1: :coffee:

[quote=RiverRock]Dennis, I don’t think you’ll get too many replies, because ignoring/denying and/or re-writing history is all they can do.
[/quote]

Well, when you say that, I wouldn’t expect many Protestants to reply either. Remember that you are on Catholic.com. Go to theologyweb.com if you want to find some fiery Protestants :wink: .

[quote=SPOKENWORD]Hi Dennis, You see you want me to provide proof,like I want you to provide proof and the truth is neither will convince each other because you are talking about thing which are happening in the Spirit. Human eyes cannot see what is in the Spirit .You need spiritual eyes to see in the Spirit. Satan does a wonderful job consuming our precious time doesnt he. I,m just as guilty as you…We need to fix our eyes on Above,thats the problem with us. God Bless
[/quote]

This is just begging the question. Is that all you can provide?

If your beliefs are “biblical” then there should be some evidence of them in the early Church. This is all I am getting at…where is the paper trail?

Please show me that what you believe is not an innovation.

[quote=RiverRock]Dennis, I don’t think you’ll get too many replies, because ignoring/denying and/or re-writing history is all they can do.
[/quote]

Sorry dennis, they are too busy rewriting doctrine to respond here.

[quote=Shibboleth]Well as a Lutheran I quote the Church fathers often. You must remember that a Catholic is going to look back at the beginnings of the Church as the Catholic Church and the other branches formed at a later time.

Lutherans, at least most anyways, look at the beginnings of the Church as a nameless collection of ordained Priests or Bishops in their respective cities with no supreme head. These Bishops did indeed have control over their area of influence but were not subject to a Supreme Pontiff. Some of the writings that we have from people like John Chrysostom, Gregory, and Jerome tend to support this view.

Lutherans do believe in Apostolic Succession, The True Presence, The necessary aspect of Baptism, and that Mary was ever virgin. All of these aspects can be proven to have been held by the Church Fathers.

We simply believe that over time the power of the Bishop of Rome far exceeded itself with the Council of Nice being the pivotal point in history in which it became profound.

I am just putting this information up to let people know where Protestantism stands on the issue; I mean no disrespect of the Pope and his position. I am far too un-knowledged to claim that I know the power of the Pope.
[/quote]

I have a great respect for Lutherianism. That being said I still would like to see evidence for the way Lutherians view the beliefs I just stated.

Shibboleth: I was just fixin’ to say the same thing. Although there have certainly been some disagreements over the years, today you’ll find very few Anglicans that would say the Eucharist is only symbolic. I doubt any would say that baptism was only symbolic. Certainly that’s not the teaching.

Regarding Marian doctrine, I guess that depends. People like Jack Spong aside, the Virgin birth is still a central tenet. You’ll find some disagreement on Mary being ever-Virgin, and even more on her own immaculate conception and assumption. That said, it’s my understanding these latter 2 beliefs would fall into the area sometimes referred to as “adiaphora”- not something to base a doctrine over, or, more importantly, fight about. The assumption for example, wasn’t declared infallible till 1950 or so- even tho they were widely believed. I assume that would mean that, prior to the infallible statement of Mary’s assumption, if a a Catholic disagreed with that statement he wasn’t necessarily heretical. Is that correct, anyone?

And we believe in apostolic succession, even if the Catholics don’t believe in it (ours, that is).

[quote=dennisknapp]This is just begging the question. Is that all you can provide?

If your beliefs are “biblical” then there should be some evidence of them in the early Church. This is all I am getting at…where is the paper trail?

Please show me that what you believe is not an innovation.
[/quote]

I believe that the bible is Gods inspired Word and is sufficient for me.History is recorded in the Bible. :thumbsup: God Bless.

[quote=mean_owen]Shibboleth: I was just fixin’ to say the same thing. Although there have certainly been some disagreements over the years, today you’ll find very few Anglicans that would say the Eucharist is only symbolic. I doubt any would say that baptism was only symbolic. Certainly that’s not the teaching.

Regarding Marian doctrine, I guess that depends. People like Jack Spong aside, the Virgin birth is still a central tenet. You’ll find some disagreement on Mary being ever-Virgin, and even more on her own immaculate conception and assumption. That said, it’s my understanding these latter 2 beliefs would fall into the area sometimes referred to as “adiaphora”- not something to base a doctrine over, or, more importantly, fight about. The assumption for example, wasn’t declared infallible till 1950 or so- even tho they were widely believed. I assume that would mean that, prior to the infallible statement of Mary’s assumption, if a a Catholic disagreed with that statement he wasn’t necessarily heretical. Is that correct, anyone?

And we believe in apostolic succession, even if the Catholics don’t believe in it (ours, that is).
[/quote]

But would you say that baptism and the Eucharist are salvific?

Also, it matters not when a dogma is declared. The first dogma was declared 300 years after Christ ascended into heaven.

[quote=dennisknapp]I have a great respect for Lutherianism. That being said I still would like to see evidence for the way Lutherians view the beliefs I just stated.
[/quote]

Here is a start, I do not have time right now to post the rest.

Per Article VIII of the Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration), Lutherans confess:

“Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.”

Also as part of the Church Catholic, we share the pre-reformation Marian Dogmas with the pre-schismed Church:

“Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.” -The Conclusion to the Augsburg Confession

That would include the conclusion of the Second Council of Constantinople in the year 553:

“If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.”

Just look at the other threads regarding Protestants. When a fair share of people on this board have made up their minds that Protestants are wrong and Catholics are right, no matter what the point of view of the Protestants are, why keep explaining yourself? Why keep arguing with a brick wall? If you’re looking for instant gratification, then yeah Protestants are all wrong and we make stuff up as we go. Feel better now? Good!

With regards to some of the other posts on this thread about history, just remember history is always written by the victors. Just think about that.

[quote=SPOKENWORD]I believe that the bible is Gods inspired Word and is sufficient for me.History is recorded in the Bible. :thumbsup: God Bless.
[/quote]

What are you trying to say?

This is what I hear:

Assertion+Assertion+Assertion=truth.

What is missing is EVIDENCE.

Here is an assertion for you:

You believe an innovation of the 16th century and so are cut off from the Church Christ established.

And since you provide no evidence for you assertion I will provide none for mine.

Therefore, you are wrong.

[quote=Shibboleth]Here is a start, I do not have time right now to post the rest.

Per Article VIII of the Formula of Concord (Solid Declaration), Lutherans confess:

“Mary, the most blessed virgin, did not conceive a mere, ordinary human being, but a human being who is truly the Son of the most high God, as the angel testifies. He demonstrated his divine majesty even in his mother’s womb in that he was born of a virgin without violating her virginity. Therefore she is truly the mother of God and yet remained a virgin.”

Also as part of the Church Catholic, we share the pre-reformation Marian Dogmas with the pre-schismed Church:

“Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.” -The Conclusion to the Augsburg Confession

That would include the conclusion of the Second Council of Constantinople in the year 553:

“If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.”
[/quote]

These are great references and I would agree. But they are in accordance with what has been held by the historical Church. What I am asking is for evidence of your belief that do not agree with the historical Church, in early Church history.

[quote=dennisknapp]But would you say that baptism and the Eucharist are salvific?

Also, it matters not when a dogma is declared. The first dogma was declared 300 years after Christ ascended into heaven.
[/quote]

Sure, I’d say that.

And I’d also say that of course it matters when it something is declared a dogma. As I asked before, would disbelief in the doctrine of Mary’s assumption, before the infallible declaration, be heresy?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.