Can Protestants even judge heresy?

[JustaServant]

Many Protestant churches have a ‘confession’ that serves as the standard. That doesn’t necessarily mean the leadership will abide by it. Anymore than a local priest will abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church.
It’s the anti-creedal independent churches that stand on the heresy cliff ready to jump. And indeed many have.
Just turn on TBN.

 

[CopticChristian]

Can protestants even judge heresy when there is no standard of doctrine or belief? Sometimes, even within one denomination? Pointing to the Bible would be their response I’m sure, but the Bible requires interpretation and we’ve seen that instead of leading a standard of belief it actually does the opposite?

With this in mind how can a protestant ever judge what is heretical and what is not? They simply have no standard of comparison.

This question requires definition and understanding.

What is a Protestant? There are many Protestants that do not claim to be Protestant that do not know they accept Protestant thought. The Baptists are Protestant and many claim not to be Protestant.

The Synod of Dort, Calvinists, declared that the Arminians/Remonstrants were heretics. There has never been a synod since to say otherwise. Therefore the Methodists, Holiness movement, Pentacostals, AOG, Church of Nazarene and all that accept Arminianism are according to the synod of Dort heretics. On whom is it binding?

Declaration of heresy would have to be considered relative to the ecclesial body declaring heresy. For instance at inception the Baptists/Anababptist were heretics for not baptizing babies and the Baptists/Anabaptists may consider infant baptism heresy. Who is to enforce this and to whom is it binding?

There is no authoritative body. In my understanding looking back at the heretical split the Anglicans being the organized body that has transcended time, as I understand it the Anglican ecclesial body can declare something but it is not binding on anyone. I may be wrong on this.

In summary any declaration is relative to the body making the declaration and there is no authority to enforce a decree on the individual because that individual can declare themselves free of that body and join another body.

Gross, outlandish beliefs can be declared heretical, such as those that deny the Trinity and in that case the authority falls on the body that declared the Trinity to be dogma and not to be denied. Kind of a catch 22.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it? (Never mind that Catholics do have to engage in a lot more fallible interpretation than many conservative apologists admit.)

Catholic apologists typically appeal to history. But of course, one can interpret historical evidence wrong just as one can interpret Scripture wrong. Indeed, absent theological belief about inspiration, Scripture is just another body of historical evidence.

The confessional Protestant position is that certain views are objectively contrary to Scripture, and that it is the task and duty of the institutional Church to discipline those who hold such views.

I think there are huge problems with that position. But you can’t dismiss it simply by the general question "what makes you think you have the correct interpretation"? They have specific reasons for believing this in each case, just as Catholics do!

Edwin

Scripture, Tradition, consistency of teaching and Faith make me believe what you deny to be true.

How many institutional churches are there that speak for specific bodies, one, two, three…?

Do Episcopalians speak for Jonathan Bernis or Bennie Hinn or the Baptists?

 

[CopticChristian]

But again, that’s your interpretation. No different from a Calvinist who thinks that the Bible directly teaches the “doctrines of grace”!The idea that the “founding of the Catholic Church by Jesus” is some kind of indisputable, “objective,” historical fact is nonsense. You have to believe first of all that certain portions of the Gospels are historically accurate (Jesus giving Peter the keys in Matt. 16, for instance, rejecting the large number of scholars who think that this incident didn’t happen and was a theological interpolation by Matthew); then you have to argue that the Catholic Church today is identical to what Matt. 16 refers to as the “church,” which isn’t something you can prove historically, because what it means for an institution to be “the same” over time is not something for which there is an objective definition. And so on.

Catholics have lots of good arguments. Why persist in repeating the atrociously bad ones?

Edwin

As a historian might you admit that Calvinism is an invention and not historical?

Professor, it is historical nonsense to you. It is not to 1 billion Catholics that have Faith that what you call nonsense is not true. I am one.

Do you believe that Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen? I do. Regardless of what you say. I hope Jesus founded a Church so that we would not have chaos, regardless if there is evidence seen or not and I see that there is a Church that I believe by Faith to be that Church. Can you allow me to believe that there is a Church founded by Christ and not call it nonsense?

 

[boastinjesus]

Interesting post and responses. Here’s another Protestant’s two cents worth:

1. Isn’t there wide diversity of belief within the Catholic Church? I know that these can be divided up into “dogma” and “not dogma”, but Protestants do the same thing with “essential” and “non-essential”. Differing Protestant denominations allow people to worship with other like-minded people much the same way many Catholics in big cities can pick from differing Catholic churches in the area.
2. Everything has to be interpreted. Protestants get mocked for thinking they can interpret the Bible, but don’t the writings of the councils, catechisms, etc. also have to be interpreted? The only thread I’ve started on this discussion board was asking the question (to be answered from a Catholic perspective to avoid all the arguing that can sometimes begin) how a person is saved or how a person gets to heaven. I also asked if a Protestant praying to Christ directly outside of the Catholic Church had any shot. That post has gone on for 7 pages with Catholics disagreeing over the answers all appealing to church dogma, catechism, or something else. (I was also chided for caring so much about salvation!) My point is that to criticize Protestants for seeking to read and understand the Bible on a discussion board full of Catholics debating over the interpretations of their “documents” is ironic.
3. Wasn’t heresy to be dealt with in the Old Testament before the hierarchy of the CC?
4. When Jesus corrected the Saducees in Matt. 22:29, He told them they were wrong because they didn’t know the Scripture. Doesn’t that at least imply that they should have known better by study and right interpretation of the Scriptures?
5. The fact that some distort the Scripture for self-centered purposes (like Satan did / does) does not mean there is no authentic interpretation and that we can’t know it. That’s why 2 Peter 1:20 points out that Scripture is not subject to “someone’s own interpretation” and then launches into teachings about false prophets and teachers.

With the exception of the few condescending remarks, I do enjoy reading and interacting in this forum. May iron sharpen iron leading us all to the truth for the glory of God.

 

[CopticChristian]

Interesting post and responses. Here’s another Protestant’s two cents worth:

**1. Isn’t there wide diversity of belief within the Catholic Church? I know that these can be divided up into “dogma” and “not dogma”, but Protestants do the same thing with “essential” and “non-essential”. Differing Protestant denominations allow people to worship with other like-minded people much the same way many Catholics in big cities can pick from differing Catholic churches in the area. **
2. Everything has to be interpreted. Protestants get mocked for thinking they can interpret the Bible, but don’t the writings of the councils, catechisms, etc. also have to be interpreted? The only thread I’ve started on this discussion board was asking the question (to be answered from a Catholic perspective to avoid all the arguing that can sometimes begin) how a person is saved or how a person gets to heaven. I also asked if a Protestant praying to Christ directly outside of the Catholic Church had any shot. That post has gone on for 7 pages with Catholics disagreeing over the answers all appealing to church dogma, catechism, or something else. (I was also chided for caring so much about salvation!) My point is that to criticize Protestants for seeking to read and understand the Bible on a discussion board full of Catholics debating over the interpretations of their “documents” is ironic.

1. Wasn’t heresy to be dealt with in the Old Testament before the hierarchy of the CC?
2. When Jesus corrected the Saducees in Matt. 22:29, He told them they were wrong because they didn’t know the Scripture. Doesn’t that at least imply that they should have known better by study and right interpretation of the Scriptures?
3. The fact that some distort the Scripture for self-centered purposes (like Satan did / does) does not mean there is no authentic interpretation and that we can’t know it. That’s why 2 Peter 1:20 points out that Scripture is not subject to “someone’s own interpretation” and then launches into teachings about false prophets and teachers.

With the exception of the few condescending remarks, I do enjoy reading and interacting in this forum. May iron sharpen iron leading us all to the truth for the glory of God.

You are confusing diversity with heresy. Lets take the good old example of the Trinity. Oneness Pentacostals, Jehovah Witness, I believe 7th Day Adventists, and Mormons have a skewed version of the Trinity. What does a Protestant body do when someone contradicts the Trinity. Here we have examples of those that just formed an ecclesial body to teach the heresy they believe. This is the issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

Interesting post and responses. Here’s another Protestant’s two cents worth:

1. Isn’t there wide diversity of belief within the Catholic Church? I know that these can be divided up into “dogma” and “not dogma”, but Protestants do the same thing with “essential” and “non-essential”. Differing Protestant denominations allow people to worship with other like-minded people much the same way many Catholics in big cities can pick from differing Catholic churches in the area.
2. Everything has to be interpreted. Protestants get mocked for thinking they can interpret the Bible, but don’t the writings of the councils, catechisms, etc. also have to be interpreted? The only thread I’ve started on this discussion board was asking the question (to be answered from a Catholic perspective to avoid all the arguing that can sometimes begin) how a person is saved or how a person gets to heaven. I also asked if a Protestant praying to Christ directly outside of the Catholic Church had any shot. That post has gone on for 7 pages with Catholics disagreeing over the answers all appealing to church dogma, catechism, or something else. (I was also chided for caring so much about salvation!) My point is that to criticize Protestants for seeking to read and understand the Bible on a discussion board full of Catholics debating over the interpretations of their “documents” is ironic.
3. Wasn’t heresy to be dealt with in the Old Testament before the hierarchy of the CC?
4. When Jesus corrected the Saducees in Matt. 22:29, He told them they were wrong because they didn’t know the Scripture. Doesn’t that at least imply that they should have known better by study and right interpretation of the Scriptures?
5. The fact that some distort the Scripture for self-centered purposes (like Satan did / does) does not mean there is no authentic interpretation and that we can’t know it. That’s why 2 Peter 1:20 points out that Scripture is not subject to “someone’s own interpretation” and then launches into teachings about false prophets and teachers.

With the exception of the few condescending remarks, I do enjoy reading and interacting in this forum. May iron sharpen iron leading us all to the truth for the glory of God.

Now what about those that say Episocpalians are Apostate?

jonsquillministries.org/FAQEpiscipalCult.htm

There are those within the Anglican/Episcopalian body themselves who say that the Episcopalian Church has become apostate. One of these is Bishop Melvin Pickering. He is part of the ACIC, Anglican Church International Communion.

and what do we do with Episcopalians declaring that the sinners prayer, targeting Evanglicals as heretics.

albertmohler.com/2009/07/17/the-bishop-discovers-heresy/

Here is the paragraph that encapsulates Bishop Jefferts Schori’s diagnosis:

The crisis of this moment has several parts, and like Episcopalians, particularly the ones in Mississippi, they’re all related. The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being. That heresy is one reason for the theme of this Convention.

Quite a mess wouldn’t you agree?

 

[JonNC]

Many Protestant churches have a ‘confession’ that serves as the standard. That doesn’t necessarily mean the leadership will abide by it. Anymore than a local priest will abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church.
It’s the anti-creedal independent churches that stand on the heresy cliff ready to jump. And indeed many have.
Just turn on TBN.

Jon

 

[boastinjesus]

Can you point to something from perhaps the 15th century or earlier that questions these things? The earliest Church Fathers all agreed that Matt. 16 is accurate and means what Catholics have consistently claimed for 2000 years.

Juan Maldonatus, Spanish Jesuit theologian in the 1500’s wrote about Mt. 16:18:

"There are among ancient authors some who interpret “on this rock,” that is, “on this faith,” or “on this confession of faith in which thou hast called me the Son of the living God,” as Hilary, and Gregory Nyssen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets “on this rock,” that is, “on myself Christ,” because Christ was the rock. But Origen “on this rock,” that is to say, “on all men who have the same faith.” (source: Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, pgs. 343-344)

The Hilary referred to above wrote in *De Trinitate *regarding Matt. 16:18:

“This faith it is which is the foundation of the church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

and Augustine in his Retractiones:

"For it was not said to him: “Thou art a rock” (petra), but, “Thou art Peter" (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon recieved the name Peter. Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more probable.”
(Philip Schaff, 3:306)

Far from being dogmatic, Augustine left it up to the person to decide…

French theologian ordained priest in 1636, Jean de Launoy, surveyed the Church Fathers on this verse and found that 16 times the “rock” is identified as Christ, 44 times it’s identified as the confession of faith that Peter had just made, and only 17 times was the rock considered to be Peter (and you still have to take that to mean Petrine supremacy).

Even Catholic historians grant that the church Fathers were split on the interpretation of this passage.

 

[CopticChristian]

Juan Maldonatus, Spanish Jesuit theologian in the 1500’s wrote about Mt. 16:18:

"There are among ancient authors some who interpret “on this rock,” that is, “on this faith,” or “on this confession of faith in which thou hast called me the Son of the living God,” as Hilary, and Gregory Nyssen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets “on this rock,” that is, “on myself Christ,” because Christ was the rock. But Origen “on this rock,” that is to say, “on all men who have the same faith.” (source: Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, pgs. 343-344)

The Hilary referred to above wrote in *De Trinitate *regarding Matt. 16:18:

“This faith it is which is the foundation of the church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”

and Augustine in his Retractiones:

"For it was not said to him: “Thou art a rock” (petra), but, “Thou art Peter" (Petrus); and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon recieved the name Peter. Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more probable.”
(Philip Schaff, 3:306)
Far from being dogmatic, Augustine left it up to the person to decide…

French theologian ordained priest in 1636, Jean de Launoy, surveyed the Church Fathers on this verse and found that 16 times the “rock” is identified as Christ, 44 times it’s identified as the confession of faith that Peter had just made, and only 17 times was the rock considered to be Peter (and you still have to take that to mean Petrine supremacy).

Even Catholic historians grant that the church Fathers were split on the interpretation of this passage.

Schaff is a Protestant…

Try reading Jesus, Peter and the Keys…Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess:thumbsup:

 

[Nicea325]

Interesting post and responses. Here’s another Protestant’s two cents worth:

1. Isn’t there wide diversity of belief within the Catholic Church? I know that these can be divided up into “dogma” and “not dogma”, but Protestants do the same thing with “essential” and “non-essential”.

No! Doctrine and dogma are not up for change and no amount of human disagreement makes an iota of difference to doctrinal truth. Now is there human opinions among Catholics? Yes.

Differing Protestant denominations allow people to worship with other like-minded people much the same way many Catholics in big cities can pick from differing Catholic churches in the area.

I do not think so. You are injecting Protestant ideals and assumptions with Catholicism. A Catholic attending a different parish or rite is not the same as: Today I’ll attend the Baptist church and next week the Assembly of God.

1. Everything has to be interpreted. Protestants get mocked for thinking they can interpret the Bible, but don’t the writings of the councils, catechisms, etc. also have to be interpreted?

They have been interpreted by the Church. Does the U.S. government hand out amendments and bills to the public first to get a correct interpretation or or vice versa?

The only thread I’ve started on this discussion board was asking the question (to be answered from a Catholic perspective to avoid all the arguing that can sometimes begin) how a person is saved or how a person gets to heaven. I also asked if a Protestant praying to Christ directly outside of the Catholic Church had any shot. That post has gone on for 7 pages with Catholics disagreeing over the answers all appealing to church dogma, catechism, or something else. (I was also chided for caring so much about salvation!) My point is that to criticize Protestants for seeking to read and understand the Bible on a discussion board full of Catholics debating over the interpretations of their “documents” is ironic.

Salvation comes through God’s graces and in lieu of our cooperation with Him.

1. Wasn’t heresy to be dealt with in the Old Testament before the hierarchy of the CC?

Yes God warns the nation of Israel to not practice the religious rites of their neighbors. What does that have to do with CC hiearchy?

1. When Jesus corrected the Saducees in Matt. 22:29, He told them they were wrong because they didn’t know the Scripture. Doesn’t that at least imply that they should have known better by study and right interpretation of the Scriptures?

Yes Jesus gave them the correct understanding because evidently they had misunderstood them.

1. The fact that some distort the Scripture for self-centered purposes (like Satan did / does) does not mean there is no authentic interpretation and that we can’t know it. That’s why 2 Peter 1:20 points out that Scripture is not subject to “someone’s own interpretation” and then launches into teachings about false prophets and teachers.

Precisely why Jesus founded His church with authority.Much like why nations have a government to make those “big” decisions for their citizens.

With the exception of the few condescending remarks, I do enjoy reading and interacting in this forum. May iron sharpen iron leading us all to the truth for the glory of God.

Amen!

Peace to you brother in Christ.

 

[boastinjesus]

You are confusing diversity with heresy. Lets take the good old example of the Trinity. Oneness Pentacostals, Jehovah Witness, I believe 7th Day Adventists, and Mormons have a skewed version of the Trinity. What does a Protestant body do when someone contradicts the Trinity. Here we have examples of those that just formed an ecclesial body to teach the heresy they believe. This is the issue.

True, there is a huge difference between diversity and heresy. The essentials need to be defined, but it is still an authority issue. Citing what Jehovahs Witness and Mormons believe is not helpful. No Conservative, Protestant church is going to hold that they are Christian (I would argue the other two aren’t either based on thier denial of the Triune God). Is the Trinity an essential? Yes. Someone not holding to the Trinity would certainly not be admitted to church membership in churches I’ve been a part of, and if they were attending and pushed the issue, they would be disciplined.

Would the Catholic Church state that a religion which denies the Trinity is worshipping the same God as they are?

The point I was trying to make is that many Catholics on this site state that the diversity of Protestant beliefs (not what we would consider heresy, but diversity in non-essentials) is proof of false religion, when there is also much diversity (and liberty) within Catholicism.
This was more of a general satement. I’m curious to hear about the other 4 points on the list.

 

[boastinjesus]

Schaff is a Protestant…

Protestants can’t quote Augustine correctly? What about all the others who are Catholic historians? It is certainly far from unanimous.

 

[boastinjesus]

Interesting post and responses. Here’s another Protestant’s two cents worth:

1. I do not think so. You are injecting Protestant ideals and assumptions with Catholicism. A Catholic attending a different parish or rite is not the same as: Today I’ll attend the Baptist church and next week the Assembly of God.
2. Salvation comes through God’s graces and in lieu of our cooperation with Him.
3. Yes God warns the nation of Israel to not practice the religious rites of their neighbors. What does that have to do with CC hiearchy?
4. Yes Jesus gave them the correct understanding because evidently they had misunderstood them.

Peace to you brother in Christ.

I added numbers beside your comments b/c I haven’t figured out the multi-quote thing yet.

1. There is much diversity in what is taught by priests in Catholic churches. That was my point. Others on this site have made the distinction b/w dogma and non-dogma. I didn’t come up with that.
2. If it were that easy or unanimously accepted it wouldn’t have taken 7 pages to define. Most of the diversity was about salvation outside of the CC. My point wasn’t about the question, but about the differences of opinions among Catholics in answering it.
3. My point was that heresy was dealt with prior to the CC, so it’s not a stretch to say the same could be done today. It could be argued that it can’t be done rightly outside of the CC, but that goes beyond my point.
4. Jesus condemned them b/c they didn’t know the Scriptures. Had they known the Scriptures they would not have fallen into that error. Seems that people could study and understand the bible outside of a particular tradition.

Good conversation.

 

[CopticChristian]

True, there is a huge difference between diversity and heresy. The essentials need to be defined, but it is still an authority issue. Citing what Jehovahs Witness and Mormons believe is not helpful. No Conservative, Protestant church is going to hold that they are Christian (I would argue the other two aren’t either based on thier denial of the Triune God). **Is the Trinity an essential? Yes. ** Someone not holding to the Trinity would certainly not be admitted to church membership in churches I’ve been a part of, and if they were attending and pushed the issue, they would be disciplined.

Would the Catholic Church state that a religion which denies the Trinity is worshipping the same God as they are?

The point I was trying to make is that many Catholics on this site state that the diversity of Protestant beliefs (not what we would consider heresy, but diversity in non-essentials) is proof of false religion, when there is also much diversity (and liberty) within Catholicism.
This was more of a general satement. I’m curious to hear about the other 4 points on the list.

When was the Trinity defined as essential?

 

[CopticChristian]

Protestants can’t quote Augustine correctly? What about all the others who are Catholic historians? It is certainly far from unanimous.

In my experience and in my opinion Protestants somehow tend to quote out of context, take for instance…

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15**And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, **which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. **/COLOR]

Protestants quote Timothy to prove that Scripture is Scripture and are left wondering when someone points out that this has nothing to do with the New Testament or the canon of the Bible. It validates what Timothy knew as a child and that was not the NT. How do we know Mark wrote Mark or Paul wrote Hebrews. This is a tendency in Protestant thought.

 

[Newsy]

I added numbers beside your comments b/c I haven’t figured out the multi-quote thing yet.

1. There is much diversity in what is taught by priests in Catholic churches. That was my point. Others on this site have made the distinction b/w dogma and non-dogma. I didn’t come up with that.
2. If it were that easy or unanimously accepted it wouldn’t have taken 7 pages to define. Most of the diversity was about salvation outside of the CC. My point wasn’t about the question, but about the differences of opinions among Catholics in answering it.
3. My point was that heresy was dealt with prior to the CC, so it’s not a stretch to say the same could be done today. It could be argued that it can’t be done rightly outside of the CC, but that goes beyond my point.
4. Jesus condemned them b/c they didn’t know the Scriptures. Had they known the Scriptures they would not have fallen into that error. Seems that people could study and understand the bible outside of a particular tradition.

Good conversation.

1. There are some, inside the Catholic Church, who do not understand its stance. The Catholic Church set forth its beliefs in the CCC. Just b/c a Catholic is mistaken on the Church’s stance, doesn’t change the Church’s teaching.
2. You started a thread looking for an answer you could have found in the Catechism. Salvation outside the Church is debated, mostly b/c it is up to God. We can speculate, but it is His decision.
3. So, we aren’t to appeal to the Church? Just throwing that in.
4. Did He tell them to study more? Did He tell them, through study, the truth would be revealed by a feeling in their stomachs? The Saducees rejected anything after the books of Moses, He used their own books to correct them. He explained it to them, this is what the Church does. Feel free to interpret inside of their teaching. Rejection of the Church’s Authority leads to chaos.

 

[joe370]

Link, that is a really good question; quite thought provoking:

Can protestants even judge heresy when there is no standard of doctrine or belief? Sometimes, even within one denomination? Pointing to the Bible would be their response I’m sure, but the Bible requires interpretation and we’ve seen that instead of leading a standard of belief it actually does the opposite?

In the Protestant sphere there is always only one standard regarding any one doctrine or practice, that is until division rears its ugly head, and when it does, (as it has done for 500 years) - as per the practice of sola scriptura,** no one has the authority **to tell another sola scriptura proponent that they are mistaken for the simple fact that scripture alone is the only authority to which they defer. The legacy of the reformation has resulted in the reliance, of each individual, on his/her own discernment as he/she is moved by the holy spirit, and the end result has historically led to division, disunity, confusion, doubt and precisely the OPPOSITE of what Jesus had prayed for in John 17.

With this in mind how can a protestant ever judge what is heretical and what is not? They simply have no standard of comparison.

 

[joe370]

ltwin;8606529]Protestant churches are certainly capable of discerning and acting against false teachers.

If scripture alone is my only authority, then why would I need the guidance of any one Protestant Pastor? Take it right to scripture alone - right?

 

[joe370]

Contarini;8606616]This is a dead end, because if you go far enough back you can ask this of Catholics as well

What if that dead end takes us all the way back to the apostles?

: what makes them believe that the Catholic Church has the authority they claim for it?

By that same logic, I could say: No one church has been endowed with the spirit guided authority to teach, except the apostles. Perhaps the key is locating the church in the world today, to which the apostles belonged?

Catholic apologists typically appeal to history. But of course, one can interpret historical evidence wrong just as one can interpret Scripture wrong.

I guess, it looks like there is no way to know, if you are right?

Indeed, absent theological belief about inspiration, Scripture is just another body of historical evidence.

Based on your logic, theological belief, inspiration, cannot be proven one way or the other.

The confessional Protestant position is that certain views are objectively contrary to Scripture, and that it is the task and duty of the institutional Church to discipline those who hold such views.

And they derive their authority from scripture - correct? It can’t be from Jesus obviously.

I think there are huge problems with that position. But you can’t dismiss it simply by the general question “what makes you think you have the correct interpretation”?

Edwin, if you are correct then what is the correct answer to the preceding question?