A question for all Protestants

[Bill_Pick]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity).** However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages.** Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

The bolded part is where I think you will find the disagreements amongst Non-Catholic Christians.

God bless you Bill

 

[James_S_Saint]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

If Einstein was basically right about relativity, was he necessarily right about everything?

As a logician, I first thought the relativity theory was just sarcasm, but I found people worshiping it as though it were something of grand revelation. I thought, “Oh wow, if we measure everything relative to everything else, all of our measurements will be relative. NOW we understand!” I looked at the other things that Einstein espoused and found the man to be a child in the realm of metaphysics and thus saying many things that were just simple minded non-sense. Einstein was a great mathematician, but when it came to the “rest of the story”, he presumed, as do almost all people.

So the question becomes one of how much presumption has been accepted in the Catholic way. Gauging such isn’t that easy since it requires a temptation to presume on the part of the assessor. The protestant wouldn’t be a protestant if he didn’t suspect too much had been presumed. He need not be a black-or-white judge. He merely needs to be someone who rightfully understands that people presume far, far too often. Presumption is the very seed of all sin. When he looks into the infallibility of Catholic history, he sees clear evidence of presumption.

So it is understandable to me that the protestant would believe that even though the Catholic Church is right about some basic things, they get presumptuously carried away with others.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

The bolded part is where I think you will find the disagreements amongst Non-Catholic Christians.

God bless you Bill

As I read the Bible I could see the trinity developing before me without much help from others pointing it out. I dont even see infallibility when you do!

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

As others have pointed out, you have a wrong premise. Your entire position is based on the premise that if a teacher is right at one point, he MUST ergo be correct at all points. This is absurd.

President Obama said during the campaign that there are 50 States in the USA. Do you agree that’s true? Assuming you do, does your agreeing THEREBY mean that you view President Obama as infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error, that when he speaks - God speaks, and that WHATEVER he officially says MUST be accepted as correct? I hope you see the fault with your premise of this thread.

.

 

[Nine_Two]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

Because it was my Church which first taught those things.

 

[chessmane4e5]

I often wonder how Protestants (maybe I should non-Catholic Christians) come to terms with Jesus appointing Peter as the leader of the Church (gave him the Keys to the Kingdom) and told Peter that He would build His Church upon Peter. When we look at the history of this event, even the Apostles submit to Peter as the Leader (including Paul). St John even submits to Pope Clement (he was the 4th Pope). I mean, if Peter was supposed to be the only leader, then surely John would have felt obligated to speak up and not let Clement lead the Church. This all happened within the first century.

Jesus also said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

First I am confused at how people can claim Sola Scriptura, and yet deny all this.

Second, how do we reconcile all this. Do we say that Jesus was a liar, and Hell has prevailed against the Catholic Church?

Or do claim that the Apostles twisted the words of Christ.

Both of these seem highly unlikely. But now we have to wait about 300 years after Christ died until St. Jerome compiles the New Testament (much of it was already considered sacred Scripture, but Jerome had the final say, so to speak). Which means that Sola Scriptura are putting their faith in St Jerome some 300 years after Christ died, but not in the very Apostles that Jesus choose to be disciples, and whom all followed Peter as the leader of the Church.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to either:

1. Treat the New Testament as suspect, and therefore rely on Christ alone (sort of like a personal Jesus view).
2. Or to accept that Jesus did found His one True Church, appointed Peter as the leader, sends the Holy Spirit to protect and inspire the Church, and follow Tradition which is as sacred as the New Testament.

Of course this all seems clear to me, as I have accepted number 2. But I am just curious.

 

[poetryforjesus]

If Einstein was basically right about relativity, was he necessarily right about everything?

As a logician, I first thought the relativity theory was just sarcasm, but I found people worshiping it as though it were something of grand revelation. I thought, “Oh wow, if we measure everything relative to everything else, all of our measurements will be relative. NOW we understand!” I looked at the other things that Einstein espoused and found the man to be a child in the realm of metaphysics and thus saying many things that were just simple minded non-sense. Einstein was a great mathematician, but when it came to the “rest of the story”, he presumed, as do almost all people.

So the question becomes one of how much presumption has been accepted in the Catholic way. Gauging such isn’t that easy since it requires a temptation to presume on the part of the assessor. The protestant wouldn’t be a protestant if he didn’t suspect too much had been presumed. He need not be a black-or-white judge. He merely needs to be someone who rightfully understands that people presume far, far too often. Presumption is the very seed of all sin. When he looks into the infallibility of Catholic history, he sees clear evidence of presumption.

So it is understandable to me that the protestant would believe that even though the Catholic Church is right about some basic things, they get presumptuously carried away with others.

The sad part is, when individuals are quick to judge and dismiss church teachings as errors of an imperfect church, they seldom subject their own understanding to the same level of scrutiny.

Basically they say, if I agree with a church teaching, then the church simply has stumbled upon a truth, good for them, they have my approval. If I find a teaching unacceptable, then the church has made a mistake.

You see, the matter of the fact is, we all believe in the infallibility of someone. We either let it be the church, or we let it be ourselves. When we say the church is imperfect, we are saying that we are more perfect than the church, because we certainly have the wisdom to discern where the church is right and where she is wrong.

 

[BrianH]

I often wonder how Protestants (maybe I should non-Catholic Christians) come to terms with Jesus appointing Peter as the leader of the Church (gave him the Keys to the Kingdom) and told Peter that He would build His Church upon Peter. When we look at the history of this event, even the Apostles submit to Peter as the Leader (including Paul). St John even submits to Pope Clement (he was the 4th Pope). I mean, if Peter was supposed to be the only leader, then surely John would have felt obligated to speak up and not let Clement lead the Church. This all happened within the first century.

So you can prove when Clement was written…news to me. I thought the range was 85 to 110 AD…
How does writing a letter to a congregation to solve a problem constitute leading the entire church either? Was Paul leading the entire church?

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

I have to offer a demurrer Bill Pick.

I don’t think the Trinity is explicit either. The Arians were wrong for denying the Catholic faith…after Nicea. Not before. They were concerned to preserve the unity of God and went overboard. But before Nicea there were ways of understanding the Scriptures alone that could be taken to mean that Christ was a creature. It required Tradition and Scripture and the teaching magesterium to arrive at the true Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. I don’t believe I would ever arrive at the Nicene Trinity by a sola scriptura method. And that is why I eventually became Catholic. The Scriptures alone are never explicitly adequate to resolve doctrinal controversy. It becomes necessary to defer to an outside authority. The Catholic Church offers a way to make sense of Scriptures which are not written out explicitly like a catechism or creed. They are hard to understand which is why I endorse the simple wisdom of the Ethiopian eunuch who was puzzled about Is. 53 and confessed how he could not understand unless someone should guide him.

I strongly believe that our Protestant friends can be helped more by our admitting that the Scriptures alone permit their beliefs. But I know I am preaching an uphill battle on that one with most of my Catholic friends. I just mention this idea for everyone’s consideration. I am sure I will not prevent the usual trend toward both sides claiming the Scriptures alone explicitly teach what they believe.

God bless

Rory

 

[AmericanJosiah]

You see, the matter of the fact is, we all believe in the infallibility of someone.

I don’t. Other than GOD, anyway.

Scripture never once uses the word, btw, of anything or anyone other than God - and God’s Scriptures.

But I think the opening poster just has a bad and unfounded premise: That if a teacher is right about one thing, then he/she/it is INFALLIBLE (and thus unaccountable) and that EVERYTHING he/she/it says MUST be correct. It’s entirely unfounded. As a Catholic, you’d probably agree with “Bob” that 2+2=4, does that mandate that ergo Bob is right when he teaches that The Catholic Church is wrong about several dogmas? Ah, if you agree at one point, MUST you agree at every point?

.

 

[chessmane4e5]

So you can prove when Clement was written…news to me. I thought the range was 85 to 110 AD…
How does writing a letter to a congregation to solve a problem constitute leading the entire church either? Was Paul leading the entire church?

The information I have says it was written c. 96 AD and is mentioned in Philippians 4:3.

"Clements exhortation was well received. Corinth did not contest the epistle, nor did they challenge the tone of authority woven throughout. We know from later writers that it accomplished the intended goal and was read regularly in the Corinthian Church for centuries, and in many other Churches as well.

At the time of Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, Apostle John was presumably still living and presiding over the Asian Churches only 240 miles from Corinth. Why was John not consulted to correct the problems in Corinth? Why was the task presumed to be the responsibility of Rome, which was well over six hundred miles away?" Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray page 122

It was not that the epistle was simply written, it is the context of the situation and the tone of authority in the letter.

It is true that Paul wrote various letters, but if you look at Galatians 1:16-19 you will see Paul refer to Peter as Cephas (Rock), which acknowledges the special position that Peter signified by that name.

It is also true that Paul wrote with Apostolic Authority, but history and the Bible show that Paul submitted to the Pope (Peter). In the same verse I quoted above we see that Paul went to visit Peter and stayed with him 15 days. He was saying this to the Galatians to prove his Apostleship. Why was Peter so important?

Yes Paul was a leader in the Church, but he was not THE Leader. Paul’s actions speak for themselves.

 

[BrianH]

Two issues. The date and how Paul view Peter.

The date of I. Clement is fixed by the following considerations. It appears from chapter 5 to be later than the persecution in the time of Nero, and from chapters 42-44 it is clear that the age of the apostles is regarded as past. It can therefore scarcely be older than 75-80 A.D. On the other hand chapter 44 speaks of presbyters who were appointed by the apostles and were still alive, and there is no trace of any of the controversies or persecutions of the second century. It is therefore probably not much later than 100 A.D. If it be assumed that chapter 1, which speaks of trouble and perhaps of persecution, refers to the time of Domitian, it can probably be dated as c. 96 A.D.; but we know very little of the alleged persecution in the time of Domitian, and it would not be prudent to decide that the epistle cannot be another ten or fifteen years later. It is safest to say that it must be dated between 75 and 110 A.D.; but within these limits there is a general agreement among critics to regard as most probable the last decade of the first century.

earlychristianwritings.com/1clement-intro.html

The date of this Epistle has been the subject of considerable controversy. It is clear from the writing itself that it was composed soon after some persecution (chap. i.) which the Roman Church had endured; and the only question is, whether we are to fix upon the persecution under Nero or Domitian. If the former, the date will be about the year 68; if the latter, we must place it towards the close of the first century or the beginning of the second. We possess no external aid to the settlement of this question. The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter, others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him and the apostle. The internal evidence, again, leaves the matter doubtful, though it has been strongly pressed on both sides. The probability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the Epistle may be dated about a.d. 97.

I also have a perspective that I agree with more
hermann-detering.de/clem_engl.htm

Regardless. There are no definite dates here. It is possible John was alive it is also possible that he was not.

Another option

Laurence Welborn writes about the dating of 1 Clement (op. cit., p. 1060):

Thus one must rely upon more general statements in the epistle and in tradition. The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called “ancient” (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived “blamelessly” as Christians “from youth to old age” (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140.

 

[BrianH]

As far as why Clement, Paul and Clement are associated together. Possibly Clement was a disciple of Paul.

Now about Peter and Paul and your claims about his apostleship, I will let the man speak for himself

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

Gal 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught [it], but [it] [came] through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called [me] through His grace,
Gal 1:16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
Gal 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those [who were] apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,* and remained with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Gal 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something–whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man–for those who seemed [to be something] added nothing to me.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as [the gospel] for the circumcised [was] to Peter
Gal 2:8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we [should go] to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Gal 2:10 [They desired] only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
Gal 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

Paul actually seems to be stressing the opposite of what you contend.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Two issues. The date and how Paul view Peter.:

I did not notice the second issue, How Paul viewed Peter. (edit, I just saw your second post)

But I will concede that maybe St John was dead when Clement wrote the letter. The rest of my point still stands.

I often wonder how Protestants (maybe I should non-Catholic Christians) come to terms with Jesus appointing Peter as the leader of the Church (gave him the Keys to the Kingdom) and told Peter that He would build His Church upon Peter. When we look at the history of this event, even the Apostles submit to Peter as the Leader (including Paul). This all happened within the first century.

Jesus also said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

First I am confused at how people can claim Sola Scriptura, and yet deny all this.

Second, how do we reconcile all this. Do we say that Jesus was a liar, and Hell has prevailed against the Catholic Church?

Or do claim that the Apostles twisted the words of Christ.

Both of these seem highly unlikely. But now we have to wait about 300 years after Christ died until St. Jerome compiles the New Testament (much of it was already considered sacred Scripture, but Jerome had the final say, so to speak). Which means that Sola Scriptura are putting their faith in St Jerome some 300 years after Christ died, but not in the very Apostles that Jesus choose to be disciples, and whom all followed Peter as the leader of the Church.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to either:

1. Treat the New Testament as suspect, and therefore rely on Christ alone (sort of like a personal Jesus view).

1. Or to accept that Jesus did found His one True Church, appointed Peter as the leader, sends the Holy Spirit to protect and inspire the Church, and follow Tradition which is as sacred as the New Testament.

Of course this all seems clear to me, as I have accepted number 2. But I am just curious.

And I am sure I can dig up more evidence of the Apostles submitting to Peter and the other early Popes, if you would like

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Most Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

Hi Bill

I was just wondering are you actually asking a genuine question, or just copying and pasting from this site here: scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

 

[chessmane4e5]

As far as why Clement, Paul and Clement are associated together. Possibly Clement was a disciple of Paul.

Now about Peter and Paul and your claims about his apostleship, I will let the man speak for himself

Paul actually seems to be stressing the opposite of what you contend.

Gal 1:11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught [it], but [it] [came] through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

This does not seem to contradict anything I said. I said that Paul went to Peter for 15 days which seems significant. Especially if Paul already knew the gospel, why would he go to Peter?

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called [me] through His grace,
Gal 1:16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,
Gal 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those [who were] apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,* and remained with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

“The purpose of Paul’s going to Jerusalem on this occasion was to make the acquaintance of the leading apostle - and not merely to make his acquaintance but to inquire of him (for that is the force of the verb historesai which he uses). For Peter was a primary informant on matters which it was now important that Paul should know - the details of Jesus’ ministry and the ‘tradition’ of teaching which is derived from him. There is in some quarter considerable resistance to the idea that Paul was interested in acquiring information of this kind, but even if Paul had no such interest (which is incredible), what would Peter talk about in those fifteen days?” F.F. Bruce Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free page 84

Gal 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something–whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man–for those who seemed [to be something] added nothing to me.
Gal 2:7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as [the gospel] for the circumcised [was] to Peter
Gal 2:8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles),
Gal 2:9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we [should go] to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
Gal 2:10 [They desired] only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do.
Gal 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;

But you should finish the passage

11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Paul is admonishing Peter for acting un-Christian. Does this prove that Peter was not the Pope? No, we all know that even the Pope is a man and sins just like the rest of us. Had this been an area of Faith and Morals, then the Catholic Church would have some questions to answer. But we have never claimed the Pope is perfect.

I still see nothing that contradicts my original post. We have an example of Paul demonstrating the everyone sins (including Peter) but that it is a Christians duty to stand up and correct those wrongs, EVEN IF IT IS THE LEADER OF THE CHURCH. This is why Paul mentions this to the Galatians, otherwise, if he was trying to prove that he was the leader he would need a lot more evidence than this.

 

[BrianH]

Why does Paul make a big deal out of the fact he did not immediately go up. Why make a big deal about the three years? He does this to show that he was no less an Apostle than they. He did not answer to anyone but God…he says that. If he goes to show or in obedience to Peter’s authority, the 15 days is inconsequential. He goes to learn details and perhaps just to get to know Peter. Or other reasons not stated. Paul is very strong about these matters.

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called [me] through His grace,
Gal 1:16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,Gal 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those [who were] apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter,* and remained with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

 

[BrianH]

On a side note, and not an area I think I have ever discussed. Faith and Morals is anachronistic. If it is not, I would like to hear why.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Why does Paul make a big deal out of the fact he did not immediately go up. Why make a big deal about the three years? He does this to show that he was no less an Apostle than they. He did not answer to anyone but God…he says that. If he goes to show or in obedience to Peter’s authority, the 15 days is inconsequential. He goes to learn details and perhaps just to get to know Peter. Or other reasons not stated. Paul is very strong about these matters.

I agree that Paul wanted the people to view him as “No less an Apostle”, but you must also agree that he never intended anyone to view him as the leader.

Other than this, we can only speculate as to why he waited 3 years. To say he waited 3 years was to show that he was a true apostles does not make sense. I would be more inclined to believe that he was preaching the Gospel, which he felt was more important at the time, of course this is my own speculation. What we do know, is that he did go to Peter. We also know that Paul did submit to Peters role as leader of the Church.

We have plenty of instances where Peter takes the role of leader, with no protest from Paul or any other Apostle.

Acts 1:12-16, 20-26 and Acts 2:14, we see it is Peter that stands up from among the other Apostles and speaks for them.

If anyone doubted Peter’s role as Leader of the Church, they never spoke or wrote about it. Although, why would the Apostles (or anyone else) question Peters authority as leader when they heard Christ words, “Upon you Peter I will build my church, the gates of hell will not prevail against it, and I give you the Keys to the Kingdom”.

If you can cite any Scripture or any writings of the Early Fathers that show that Peter was not the leader of the Church, please cite them. Galatians 2:11-14 only shows Paul admonish Peter for acting inappropriately, and it was not in a leadership role but while he was eating.