ATTN: I will revert to Protestantism if Protestants can....

[O.S.Luke]

dennisknapp:

Yes, but which has the priority? Which has the final say, Scripture, Reason, Experience, or Tradition?

Peace

Uh… they ALL have the final say. The relationships aren’t hierarchical, they’re mutual. All inform the other. Scripture might be primary - which is not the same thing as a priority, because it’s a dead book without the other three. To use the Anglican analogy, remove one leg and the stool collapses.

I don’t quite get your question.

O+

 

[On_my_way]

O.S. Luke, If scripture is dead without the other three, then way do some protestant deny Tradition, Experience and Reason?

 

[O.S.Luke]

On my way:

O.S. Luke, If scripture is dead without the other three, then way do some protestant deny Tradition, Experience and Reason?

I couldn’t tell you. I’m a cradle U.M.

O+

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

dennisknapp:

Are not all beliefs by their very nature as truth claims inviting debate? If you say something is true then you should be able to defend it, yes?

This is all I seek to do with my posts. I want to put our differences on the board and discuss them like civilized people.

Is not the quest for truth worth it?

Peace

However, some truth claims cannot be validated by reason - no amount of dialectical brilliance can prove that God is Trinity; far less can they manifest this God.​

As St. Ambrose somewhere has it, “God did not will that we should be saved by dialectic” - agreeing in this with St.Paul, who spends several chapters of 1 Corinthians driving home the point that God has made the wisdom of this world into folly, through the “folly” of the Cross.

Only God can validate God - reason is but straw, and less than straw, in comparison. To validate God by reason is like trying to fit a polyhedron into a straight line: there is a relation of sorts between them, but they are incommensurable. A polyhedron might be described as a straight line - but that would be description of it; it would not be not the polyhedron itself. Jesus is the only adequate description of both God & man, because He is both; He alone unites in Himself two entities which are unimaginably incommensurable.

Jesus is God in Person - He “Godded”, not by reason, but by doing God-things: for God is both what C.S. Lewis called one of the “great nouns”; and, a verb: His Being & His Doing are Himself. What Jesus did not do was, rely on reason to prove that He is Who He claims to be - His merely being Who He is, is how He argues. He confronts people with Himself - our business, now as then, is to respond to the massive fact of Jesus; and by our response we come to know what we are, and judge ourselves.

Which is why no one can be argued into faith - reason cannot transcend reason, any more than we can fly by tugging at our shoe-laces - it is a river which cannot rise higher than its own source. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

E.E.N.S.:

Then would that make Christ a liar? For He says that this would never happen…

I dont think so - He did not guarantee the perfect inerrancy of every single assertion of His church; in fact, He said nothing that need imply such perfection.​

What He did do, was to promise always to be with His Church - & as this promise reveals One Whose character is in continuity with the utterly faithful God of the prophets, ISTM that the emphasis is on the Presence of Jesus, and not on the doctrinal rightness of the Church (whichever church now existing - if any - that may be): far less on any unfailing doctrinal rightness of the Church.

What we can’t take as obvious is this:

• That He was talking of the CC specifically
• That He was talking about doctrinal inerrancy
• That He was talking about unfailing and exceptionless doctrinal inerrancy

It is one thing for us to believe all this: it is quite another, for us to show that the texts mean any - let alone all - of it.

And, it is one thing to say that our faith is compatible with these Matthean passages - something else, to say that our interpretation is the only one that does justice to them; and something else, to say that the dogmas we support by quoting them, are nothing less than God’s own truth.

IOW - in saying that (say) Matt. 16.18 proves the Petrine primacy, for instance, we are implying a great deal; and what we say to others might be less unconvincing if we can be aware of what we are claiming - and of what we are perceived to be claiming.

I hope that clarifies things. ##

This is not the same thing…proving “scripture alone” wrong is not the same thing as not being able to see devotions in the scriptures (ie wearing the brown scapular). Don’t forget that the Church is a living thing, not just brick and mortar…theoak tree isn’t supposed to look like the acorn - nor the 36 year old male supposed to look like a new born baby.

Agreed - equally, perhaps the unlikeness of the 36 year old to the baby is explicable by a lack of any identity between them - our business, or part of it, is to do what we can to point to the identity that we see, and that others do not. And even when we have done that, much remains to do - it is not self-evident that the Church’s constitution is either willed by God, or is to be unchanging, for example. Our being conscious of how others see us is not everything, nor nearly everything - but it is indispensable, if we are to “speak to the condition” of other Christians. For by seeing what they see, through their eyes, AFA we can, we will be more nearly able to commend to them what we insist is true.​

 

[amanda_nicole82]

Don’t worry about reverting to Protestantism if being Catholic keeps you close to the Lord. Don’t worry about trying to prove anyone wrong either, you are not encouraging and lifting fellow Christians up. You are only discouraging fellow Christians and bringing them down. Being a Chrisitan in this world is already hard enough.
In Christ,
Amanda

 

[dennisknapp]

amanda_nicole82:

Don’t worry about reverting to Protestantism if being Catholic keeps you close to the Lord. Don’t worry about trying to prove anyone wrong either, you are not encouraging and lifting fellow Christians up. You are only discouraging fellow Christians and bringing them down. Being a Chrisitan in this world is already hard enough.
In Christ,
Amanda

Amanda,

Truth is important. What could bring people up more than the truth? I am not trying to prove anyone wrong, just providing an opportunity to help people better understand what they believe.

Peace

 

[Ann_Cheryl]

He never went to Mass in his Life;

You are mistaken. Jesus instituted the Eucharist with the first mass on Holy Thursday and is present at each mass since that first one.

]## But what if the Church went wrong before 100 - and stayed wrong ? ##

I dont think so - He did not guarantee the perfect inerrancy of every single assertion of His church; in fact, He said nothing that need imply such perfection.​

What do you mean by wrong? What do mean by every single assertion?
He did guarantee inerrancy in faith and morals and if you think the Church went wrong with this you are wrong.

 

[kellyb32]

Great posts…

I see some problems with a few of the posts that have quotes from the ECFs.

Anyone can take a quote out of context and make it sound like it supports their position.

Put those things in context and you’ll get a whole different picture.

Case in point…

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Luke 10:19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.

**(this is an older article)**SNAKE’S BITE KILLS CULTIST

East Lynn, W. Va. (UPI) - A 28-year-old religious cult snake handler died in this Wayne County community Monday of an untreated snake bite - the same way his father-in-law died two months ago.

Lonnie Richardson, 28, died at his home. Without medical attention, less than 24 hours after he was bitten on the upper right arm by a rattlesnake during a Sunday night religious service.

Richardson and his father-in-law, Tallmade Adkins were members of a cult meeting at the Jesus Church. The group bases its snake handling practice on a verse in the 16th chapter of Mark.

“And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them.”

This was what? A result of not having enough faith in order to be healed or not bitten in the first place? I wonder what the church members think after something like this happens.

---

Matt. 5:29-30 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

From this we should all be walking around without our right eyes or hands since we are all guilty of sinning with our eyes and hands. But we don’t do this do we?

Just to repeat myself, you should take quotes in context before drawing conclusions.

But that’s just my 2 cents …

 

[Mystophilus]

dennisknapp:

This is no joke. If I am shown that the early Church actually believed these things and it was the Catholic Church which erred, I will change.

Why?

Are you saying that you would change church just because another one might be more similar in doctrine to ‘the early Church’? Are you assuming, then, that ‘the early Church’ was somehow ‘more correct’ in its beliefs than you are in yours, or than your current church is in its?

Considering the number of doctrinal and theological misconceptions in the first century (as described in the NT), it would not be reasonable to assume that any given belief is correct merely because people held it thereafter.

 

[_MM]

First off, we must discern WHAT precisely you MEAN my Sola Scriptura. I have seen MANY protestant religions, and the majority…VAST majoriity teach:

Bible+Holy Spirit= Wisdom & Understanding

If this is Sola Scriptura…is it Biblical? No, for the Bible was not yet produced, Edited by Moderator as a conduct rule 7 violation

As far as symbolic baptism, it it the “water” that washes away your sin? No. The water gets you wet. Yes! That is why the apostles preached and taught:

1. REPENT! (<God forgives and cleanses you)
2. Be baptized, in accordance with John the Baptist and Jesus’ teachings.

The water in and of itself does nothing for your sin, only God can do cleanse. We may forgive others who sin against us, and forgive them, lest God not forgive us…that whole, “Do unto others” scripture.

Is the RCC or any religion the one true church. The answer is simply…no. For Peter is not the head of the church, for h was but a man. A good and holy man, but still a man. Jesus is the head of the One & True Church, The Body of Christ. And THAT is it’s ONLY name. call it Catholic if you wish, translated universal…actually…worldly iin this case, since it does not transcend earth. But it is and ever will be; THE Body of Christ.

 

[dennisknapp]

~MM:

First off, we must discern WHAT precisely you MEAN my Sola Scriptura. I have seen MANY protestant religions, and the majority…VAST majoriity teach:

Bible+Holy Spirit= Wisdom & Understanding.

Yes, but was this taught by early Christians?
~MM:

If this is Sola Scriptura…is it Biblical? No, for the Bible was not yet produced, Edited by Moderator as a conduct rule 7 violation.

Exactly, then why buy into it?
~MM:

As far as symbolic baptism, it it the “water” that washes away your sin? No. The water gets you wet. Yes! That is why the apostles preached and taught:

1. REPENT! (<God forgives and cleanses you)
2. Be baptized, in accordance with John the Baptist and Jesus’ teachings.

Where is your proof, aside from your own interpretation of scripture. What early Christian thought the way you do? I would say that your formula is an innovation of the Reformation. It is not bibilcal nor historical.
~MM:

The water in and of itself does nothing for your sin, only God can do cleanse. We may forgive others who sin against us, and forgive them, lest God not forgive us…that whole, “Do unto others” scripture.

The water is the means by which the Spirit washes away our sins.
~MM:

Is the RCC or any religion the one true church. The answer is simply…no. For Peter is not the head of the church, for h was but a man. A good and holy man, but still a man. Jesus is the head of the One & True Church, The Body of Christ. And THAT is it’s ONLY name. call it Catholic if you wish, translated universal…actually…worldly iin this case, since it does not transcend earth. But it is and ever will be; THE Body of Christ.

So, where did the Church that Christ established go? The line of Popes can be traced back to the Apostle Peter, can your pastor do the same?

Your post seems to be alot of conjecture, lacking support or evidence. If I am to revert I need more than that.

Peace