A Convicted Evangelical (Church of Christ)

[kwortham]

Contrary to Catholics, I believe that the bible is our only infallibe authority. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any other authorities out there (Catholics often believe that this is the meaning of sola scriptura. But it is not). I simply hold that Scripture is our only infallible source. With that said, what place is there for the ECF’s??

This is your main problem. You believe only the bible is the authority or only infallible source. This is a concept alien to the first 1500 years of Christian history. Who gave witness to or authorized the Bible? How do you know which books belong in the Bible? Where in the Bible does it claim that it is the sole source for authority??? What authority does the Bible bow to? In other words, what does the Bible call the pillar and ground of the truth? Does the Bible make this claim for itself anywhere? Does the Bible say that “only scripture” or “scripture alone” is “sufficient” for all understanding???

 

[bwmnstar]

The OP isn’t really reading and responding to our reasonable, logical responses. The OP does not seem to have the grace from God or is not cooperating with the grace from God to face the facts as they are, just yet. It is not my place to judge why. It’s also not my place to try and convince someone of the full Gospel message who is not open to hearing it just yet. So I won’t waste anyone’s time anymore about this. Peace and grace and truth to you all.

I posted a quote today in regards to who wants a response. Of all the people on the forum, only two supplied post numbers via private message as I asked. You were one of the two individuals who supplied me with a post number. I responded to you immediately, since you were the first to inbox me.

I answered your question in its entirety. And you have failed to deal with the bulk of my response to you concerning how many different Catholic theologians differ on their interpretation of papal infallibility. Avery Dulles, Kung, Cardinal Newman, Cardinal Manning: all have different interpretations of the doctrine.

 

[bwmnstar]

I can understand your frustration. I told the OP to stick to the main argument: The Churches of Christ also have a right to being the true church? I have asked the OP to present me historical evidence and as of today…nothing. I was told to have some patience? After how many pages?

Send me the post number of your response, as I asked earlier today for those who wanted a response. Only a few have provided me the needed info.

 

[sdegutis]

I posted a quote today in regards to who wants a response. Of all the people on the forum, only two supplied post numbers via private message as I asked. You were one of the two individuals who supplied me with a post number. I responded to you immediately, since you were the first to inbox me.

I answered your question in its entirety. And you have failed to deal with the bulk of my response to you concerning how many different Catholic theologians differ on their interpretation of papal infallibility. Avery Dulles, Kung, Cardinal Newman, Cardinal Manning: all have different interpretations of the doctrine.

And someone else already answered you that we never claim theologians are infallible, so it doesn’t matter that they have different interpretations. You didn’t answer the heart of my question, which is how we should know to trust anyone in the first place to interpret Scripture infallibly for us. Why should we trust Luther and not Calvin, or Calvin and not Luther? Why should we trust whoever it is that’s saying “no, the Church has erred!” and believe that whoever he is has not himself erred? You haven’t answered this question at all.

 

[sdegutis]

1. Similar to scripture and tradition, papal pronouncements are geared toward certain contexts that must be interpreted. This doesn’t solve the problem of interepretation. It merely pushes it back a step. “The only way out of this infinite regression is for each individual to possess infallibiltiy so that each person can know that one has properly interpreted infallible papal pronouncements. But if each individual must possess infallibility to attain epistemic certainty, there is hardly a need for the pope to have a special charism of infallibility” (Mark Powell, 14-15).

All you’re saying is “it can be hard to interpret the Church’s interpretation of Scripture” which logically doesn’t prove that it’s fallible, only that the Church might need to expound again and again to make its interpretation more and more clear to any particular generation or culture. And by the way they have done just so many times for that very reason.

Catholic theologians disagree among themselves (see Cardinals Manning and Newman, as well as Avery Dulles and Hans Kung) about how to interpret the doctrine of papal infallibility. This in and of itself lends credence that the doctrine of papal infallibilty cannot guarantee religious epistemic certainty (Powell, 17).

It only proves that there are theologians who disagree with stuff. We don’t really care what theologians care about when we’re talking about the Church’s ability to infallibly interpret Scripture. Theologians ≠ the Church.

On a much smaller scale, Catholics are not all that different from Protestants in terms of rivaling groups. von Dollinger split from the Catholics after Vatican 1; Richard Simon was one of the first to apply historical criticism to Scripture; and Modernism in Roman Catholicism is heavily similar to Liberal Protestantism.

There are and always have been problems in the Church, especially people being led astray by heretics. This is even attested to in the Book of Acts, if you consider that the Judaizers were just heretics like any others, just like Modernists and the like. So all this proves is that there are many people within the Church who end up believing heretical view points for a time. But we never said this can’t happen. And we don’t hide the fact that it has happened in the past and will probably keep happening until the end of time. We claim that the Church has the ability to interpret Scripture infallibly.

I think there’s a pretty obvious difference and I’m not sure why you’re not seeing it. I think it lies in the difference between saying “the Church” and “the Magisterium” and “the Pope” etc. Read this and it should clear up any confusion you might have: newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

 

[JRKH]

With all due respect to everyone who has posted…I feel for the OP…
It can be quite overwhelming to try to deal with a site as well populated as this one is.
The OP is quite broad and deep in it’s assertions and different folks here have taken various approaches or sought to deal with different aspects of that OP. This has left our friend trying to deal with the many different avenues of argument presented…
Yes I feel for him…

Now back to our regulalry scheduled debating…:compcoff:

Peace
James

 

[bwmnstar]

You quoted me as saying: “The earliest non canonical writings suggest that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, administered primarily by immersion to believing and consenting individuals. The Church of Christ is in harmony.”

And then you wrote:

This is a merely a half-truth statement. I already mentioned to you that the first converts were consenting and believing adults because there wasn’t any cradle Christians. Second, please show me in the NT where it explicitly states the only acceptable method of baptism is immersion and all others are unacceptable? Third, please show me in the NT where the only norm or standard to baptize is based on “believing” and consenting people?

 

[bwmnstar]

With all due respect to everyone who has posted…I feel for the OP…
It can be quite overwhelming to try to deal with a site as well populated as this one is.
The OP is quite broad and deep in it’s assertions and different folks here have taken various approaches or sought to deal with different aspects of that OP. This has left our friend trying to deal with the many different avenues of argument presented…
Yes I feel for him…

Now back to our regulalry scheduled debating…:compcoff:

Peace
James

Thanks for bringing a little humor and being so understanding. I’m actually enjoying discussing my beliefs with you guys. Not everything I say is correct, and there I sharpen my views, admit I’m wrong and tread on. I’ve learned things from Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics, who have all sharpened me in certain areas on my walk with Christ. I know that most of you won’t agree with everything I write, but I pray that I too am challenging some here to be better thinkers as well.

God bless you and all on this forum.

 

[kaneata]

Hello all,

The following argument builds on itself:

1. The RCC confers apostolic continuity on both themselves and on the Eastern Orthodox.
2. Both churches consider only themselves to contain the fullness of the faith.
3. Since 2) contains a contradicting assertion, they cannot both be true. One of the apostolic churches has drifted from the apostolic teaching.
4. If it is possible for one apostolic church to drift, then it is possible for the other to drift as well.
5. I conclude that both have in fact drifted in certain areas.
   6)** Enter Church of Christ**
6. Here I am

So, then your reasoning is, since there is a perceived void, your church will jump in and fill it. Where was your church 1000 years ago?

 

[CopticChristian]

1. The earliest non canonical writings suggest that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, administered primarily by immersion to believing and consenting individuals. The Church of Christ is in harmony.
2. The earliest non-canonical sources indicate a plurality of elders in each church and not a bishop presiding over the rest of the presbytery. The church of Christ still maintains this type of church polity.
3. The ECF’s mandate singing with acapella worship. The Churches of Christ sing Acapella style.

I can list more. Would you like me to provide sources as well.

The Church of Christ is in many ways the Catholic Church prior to doctrinal development. In many ways, but not all. Please not the previous sentence before responding.

1. Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox as well as Nestorians now Chaldeans practice infant Baptism using the same sources and have pracitced infant baptism for 2000 years.
2. Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Nestorians now Chaldeans have Bishops or the equivalent
3. Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Nestorians now Chaldeans use music.

Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Nestorian now Chaldeans have apostolic succesion, celebrate the Eucharist, and the so called Protestant “church of Christ” does not.

 

[sdegutis]

bwmnstar,

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” - Didache

 

[kwortham]

So, then your reasoning is, since there is a perceived void, your church will jump in and fill it. Where was your church 1000 years ago?

Unless you want to count the gnostics as the first sola scriptura believers, sola scriptura hadn’t been invented 1000 years ago.

 

[CopticChristian]

So, then your reasoning is, since there is a perceived void, your church will jump in and fill it. Where was your church 1000 years ago?

Is it possible that it was hidden for all ages? Naaaaahh

 

[zaffiroborant]

Send me the post number of your response, as I asked earlier today for those who wanted a response. Only a few have provided me the needed info.

I find this rather demanding and ill-mannered, you are to date the only discussion board participant I’ve seen that required special treatment, on any board I’ve lurked or posted on. The info you need is on the the thread, you just don’t want to be bothered reading what people post.

 

[CopticChristian]

I find this rather demanding and ill-mannered, you are to date the only discussion board participant I’ve seen that required special treatment, on any board I’ve lurked or posted on. The info you need is on the the thread, you just don’t want to be bothered reading what people post.

Perhaps it comes from being convicted and convinced.

 

[zaffiroborant]

With all due respect to everyone who has posted…I feel for the OP…
It can be quite overwhelming to try to deal with a site as well populated as this one is.
The OP is quite broad and deep in it’s assertions and different folks here have taken various approaches or sought to deal with different aspects of that OP. This has left our friend trying to deal with the many different avenues of argument presented…
Yes I feel for him…

Now back to our regulalry scheduled debating…:compcoff:

Peace
James

Then maybe the OP should have read and familiarized himself with board. I have little sympathy for someone who strides in and throws down the gauntlet in his very first post and then complains about how heavy the response is. “Send me your question in a message and I’ll respond” pfffft, this is a discussion board get it together and address it in the thread you started. 2 other boards I participate in will sanction you for not responding when asked to back up assertions.

 

[hosemonkey]

It looks to me that all of the protestant’s arguments have been kicked into a cocked hat by the difficult truth of history. Sorry mate, you cannot create a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. No matter how hard you try to create ligitimacy for your man-made “church,” truth and history will eventually catch up with you. Just as mormonism tries very hard to appear “christian” by adding the name of Jesus to their title, the term “Church of Christ” does not make it so. You are up against two thousand years of Truth, Faith and scholarship, no way you can prevail. Best to take what you have learned, reject disobedient protestantism and come home to the only True Church, the Catholic Church.

 

[bwmnstar]

Then maybe the OP should have read and familiarized himself with board. I have little sympathy for someone who strides in and throws down the gauntlet in his very first post and then complains about how heavy the response is. “Send me your question in a message and I’ll respond” pfffft, this is a discussion board get it together and address it in the thread you started. 2 other boards I participate in will sanction you for not responding when asked to back up assertions.

I wasn’t complaining about how heavy the responses are. Rather, I was complaing about 40 individuals coming from various angles all wanting me to respond to them simultaneously. Please don’t misrepresent me.

The two boards that sanction responses for assertions. Is it a board in which you have several individuals formulating arguments from various angles (who all believe the same thing) expecting you to respond immediately?

Lastly, I asked individuals not to send me the message, but the number of the post located in the top right hand corner. This way I don’t have to go searching through 14 threads. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I wasn’t complaining about how heavy the responses are. Rather, I was complaing about 40 individuals coming from various angles all wanting me to respond to them simultaneously. Please don’t misrepresent me.

Why would you complain? You should have had an understanding of how it would be received before your opening salvo after all, you are the one who opened with the various angles, you should be prepared to answer every angle you proposed. Without calling for special treatment.

IThe two boards that sanction responses for assertions. Is it a board in which you have several individuals concoting arguments from various angles (who all believe the same thing) expecting you to respond immediately?

Yes, and they are more often than not able to respond as requested. They can, you well… you might want to keep that in mind the next time you feel like throwing down a handful of challenges.

 

[CopticChristian]

I wasn’t complaining about how heavy the responses are. Rather, I was complaing about 40 individuals coming from various angles all wanting me to respond to them simultaneously. Please don’t misrepresent me.

The two boards that sanction responses for assertions. Is it a board in which you have several individuals formulating arguments from various angles (who all believe the same thing) expecting you to respond immediately?

Lastly, I asked individuals not to send me the message, but the number of the post located in the top right hand corner. This way I don’t have to go searching through 14 threads. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request.

BM,

This is Catholic Answers where you are going to encounter lots of Catholics with answers. Usually people come to this site looking for answers about Catholics. I pointed out that you put yourself in this position of the toughest guy in the world challenging the UFC to prove you wrong.

I am just a Church going guy who reads a little bit. There are some really devoted, bright, loving people on this site that just want to give you an answer. You have been answered and all you do is continue with your dialogue about your premise.

I pointed out the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Nestorians that follow the same principles you outline yet do not correlate with your beliefs. You do not tackle this or any other attempt to get you to look at your error in your premise.

You may want to take a stab at CARM and see how long you last there. You may want to invite Radical, a reformed brother, to discuss your premise. You may find that interesting. I always find his posts interesting.