Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[jacobaer]

Hi Nick,

You said: “In that case, this little bit of history would have been a non-issue if the CC had a correct understanding of theology:”

ME: Who will provide me with this correct understanding of theology?

Grace and peace,
Jacobaer

P.S. The church is the body of Christ and it is only through Christ that one can be saved, so you must be a member of the church in order to be saved.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Hi Nick,
You said: “In that case, this little bit of history would have been a non-issue if the CC had a correct understanding of theology:

ME: Who will provide me with this correct understanding of theology?

If you are one of the elect, then the Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth that will set you free.
(see Matt. 7:7-8)

P.S. The church is the body of Christ and it is only through Christ that one can be saved, so you must be a member of the church in order to be saved.

Your conclusion is not in complete harmony with the rest of it. In order to avoid reversing cause and effect, and to give God alone the glory for saving souls, I would word it like this:

1. It is only through Christ that one can be saved.
2. The church is the body of Christ.
3. So all those who are part of the church are saved.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Then why remain Protestant? *Sola scriptura *and *sola fide *were the pillars of the Protestant movement.

If you don’t believe sola scriptura, then come on home! We can talk about *sola fide *along the way!

There is no value in being a Protestant. Religious institutions are not the goal or purpose of faith.

Do you ever get disgusted by politicians who seem to think that being Democrat or Republican is what’s important?

I think the country would be better served by people who take the attitude that the good of the nation is what ought to be of most importance and not spinning the arguments only to make their own party look superior to the other. Religious loyalties, like political ones, seem to generate lots of unneccesary baggage that just gets in the way.

 

[Nick_Jones]

1. The Immaculate Conception
   Lk 1:28 - hail full of grace[highly favored] Lord is with you
   Lk 1:30 - you have found favor with God
   Lk 1:37 - for with God nothing shall be impossible
   *Rom 3:23 - all have sinned & are deprived of God’s glory
   *Lk 1:47 - my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

2&3. Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin
1Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 - power to legislate
Mt 18:17 - power to discipline
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
*Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

1. The sale of indulgences is not and was not Church teaching.
2. Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21L 3,1169; De unit.L 4,509-536.

LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

The problem with all of your biblical evidence is that the bible doesn’t teach what your church says it teaches. If you had grown up in some remote village that was never exposed to any sort of Christianity, and you were one day given a bible in your language to keep, none of the teachings you are defending would be found in the bible. Like the JW religion, which teaches that there is no eternal damnation, without the “infallible teaching authority” as your guide, none of the unbiblical teachings would be found.

 

[buffalo]

The problem with all of your biblical evidence is that the bible doesn’t teach what your church says it teaches. If you had grown up in some remote village that was never exposed to any sort of Christianity, and you were one day given a bible in your language to keep, none of the teachings you are defending would be found in the bible. Like the JW religion, which teaches that there is no eternal damnation, without the “infallible teaching authority” as your guide, none of the unbiblical teachings would be found.

The Catholic Church rests on a three legged stool. Tradition, the Bible and Magisterium. Catholicism is transmitted by all three in our Catechism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem with all of your biblical evidence is that the bible doesn’t teach what your church says it teaches. If you had grown up in some remote village that was never exposed to any sort of Christianity, and you were one day given a bible in your language to keep, none of the teachings you are defending would be found in the bible. Like the JW religion, which teaches that there is no eternal damnation, without the “infallible teaching authority” as your guide, none of the unbiblical teachings would be found.

NJ-

If you are trying to say that the person on the island alone with his Bible would not find all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I think you are correct. But not for the reasons you think.

First, the Bible is not Formally Sufficient. I refer you to the Ethiopian eunuch who could not understand what he was reading. Fortunately, the Apostle Phillip was there to help him out.

Second, the person on the island would not have known Jesus personally nor would he have known any of the Apostles personally. Fortunately, we Catholics have the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers to bridge the gap.

Third, God never promised that the Holy Spirit would lead that one individual “into all truth” as Jesus promised the Apostles. I suspect that the islander would wander off into some theological novelties and form a completely new denomination. :yup:

Fourth, the islander would not have the same Apostolic Authority that the Catholic Church has received from Jesus Himself.

Fifth, the span of his lifetime would not be even remotely close to the 2,000 years during which many of the greatest theological minds the world has ever known have been applied to our faith.

So, yes, I agree that he would not “find” many of the truths of our faith from reading the Bible alone. I’m pretty sure he would never use the word, “trinity”, for example.

It must be daunting for you to realize that as a *sola scriptura *Christian, this is precisely the position you are in.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Ok, I’m copy & pasting this from another similar thread

I’m doing this from memory, so someone who has the book PLEASE correct my mistakes!

Re Scott Currie’s Born Fundamentalist, Born-again Catholic:

1. Deposit of Faith: Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium. INFALLIBLE. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.
2. Dogma: INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church’s bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma.
3. Doctrine: NOT infallible teaching of the Church of Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned, even condemned. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma.
4. Discipline: NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propagated, designed with the intent to keep believers “on the straight and narrow”. Includes Lenten rules of fasting & priestly celibacy. Can be relaxed, altered, or abolished.
5. Devotions: Private practice of prayers, meditions, and disciplines, in accordance to Church approval. Includes 99% of Marian devotions, belief in approved apparitions or visions (Private Revelation), First Saturdays, Stations of the Cross, etc…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Of course the Catholic Church today teaches the same message that the Apostles taught. But after 2,000 years we understand it better.

**## **One needs to be careful here - otherwise it ****might seem that the Apostles were very ignorant of what Christian faith is really about. Are we really wiser in Christ than St. Paul ? I find that hard to believe. Come to think of it, you’ve just made an argument for the superiority of the Reformers to the Fathers ##

Now, let me ask you a question: prior to 1930, all Churches taught that artificial birth control was sinful. However, beginning that year with the Episcopal Church, all major Protestant denominations have caved to public pressure and changed their positions on this issue. The Catholic Church continues its opposition to birth control and it does so based upon scripture

!**

Now, what are are your thoughts on this doctrinal change, my sola scriptura friend?

**## If the Church of England - which is not the same thing as the Episcopalian Church had based its reasoning on SS, you would have a point. But it didn’t. So you don’t. **

**First show **

• what the teaching of “all major Protestant denominations” was before (say) 1930
  and
• how it differs now
  and
• what its basis was before the change (if any)
  - and there will be something to discuss; until then, the point is far from proved.

**Do Calvinists favour birth control ? They **might be a counter-example ##

**

Oh, one more dilemma and then I’ll let you stew: if the justification for Protestants changing their stand on this issue is that the Bible does not prohibit birth control, then were they teaching a “merely human tradition” when they opposed it prior to 1930, and if so, then doesn’t that illustrate the falsehood of sola scriptura

itself since the teaching was not Biblical but only a “teaching of men”, after all? **

But if the Bible does oppose artificial birth control, then why does Protestantism allow it today?

**## Solution - to “go between the horns” of the dilemma. The alternatives are based on a misunderstanding of how SS works. **

**Studying theologians does not violate SS. Studying the Fathers, does not do so. Calvinists are quite at ease in reading Augustine, or St.Bernard, or the Council of Orange in 529. What does violate SS, is to have another standard than Scripture to be the final judge of controversies in matters of faith. To rely on the Hodges, Warfield, Bavinck, Owen, Dabney, or the Heidelberg Confession violates SS as little as consulting Thomas, Augustine, a Lapide, Maldonatus, Pesch, Tromp, or Ratzinger violates the authority of the Pope or of Ecumenical Councils. **

The dilemma confuses the use of what are known as “subordinate standards” of faith = rules of faith of lower standing the the Bible, e.g. Catechisms, Confessional documents], with the use of human traditions such as Our Lord rebuked. How are they told apart ? By their agreement with the Biblical picture of what Christianity is. So presbyters are “in”, as is “salvation by grace alone”, Solus Christus etc., - while indulgences, purgatory, & Papal Primacy, are “out”. To ascertain “the whole counsel of God” [my emphasis , one has to do more than proof-text - one has to read the whole of the Biblical witness on any one subject, & get a feel for the atmosphere of it; & most of all, one must heed the Holy Spirit.

**So there is no objection to answer. **

 

[Randy_Carson]

One needs to be careful here - otherwise it might seem that the Apostles were very ignorant of what Christian faith is really about. Are we really wiser in Christ than St. Paul? I find that hard to believe. Come to think of it, you’ve just made an argument for the superiority of the Reformers to the Fathers

To the contrary, Paul’s genius was that beginning with almost with nothing (other than the Holy Spirit and a thorough grasp of God’s revelation to the Jews!). he outlined the Christian faith, and for that we recognize him as one of the greatest theological minds in Church history.

Parallels from other fields of endeavor would include those explorers such as Columbus, Magellan and De Soto, etc. who pushed back the frontiers of the known world and made further exploration easier for those that came later. In the field of science, Sir Isaac Newton wrote, “If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.”

Applying this idea then to our discussion, our understanding of the revealed truths of our faith develop over time as an acorn develops into a mighty oak tree. Viewed another way, we come to deeper understanding of God’s revelation in the same way that the layers of an onion are peeled back one at a time. The truth was there all along, of course, but we did not perceive it at first. This is what the Catholic Church refers to as development of doctrine.

I cannot speak to our wisdom, but wisdom and knowledge are two different things.

As for the Reformers being superior to the Fathers, surely you jest.

If the Church of England - which is not the same thing as the Episcopalian Church had based its reasoning on SS, you would have a point. But it didn’t. So you don’t.

First show

• what the teaching of “all major Protestant denominations” was before (say) 1930 and
• how it differs now and
• what its basis was before the change (if any)

• and there will be something to discuss; until then, the point is far from proved.

Do Calvinists favour birth control? They might be a counter-example

This work has been done by others. You should be able to do a Google search on this subject and verify these points for yourself if you have real interest in the subject. The connection between contraception and abortion is not my primary field of interest.

That said, I stand by my position that Protestantism (and here the old joke about trying to nail jello to the wall comes to mind) has changed its teaching on the subject of artificial birth control. This is only relevant in that it relates to the subject of the thread.

Solution - to “go between the horns” of the dilemma. The alternatives are based on a misunderstanding of how SS works.

Studying theologians does not violate SS. Studying the Fathers, does not do so. Calvinists are quite at ease in reading Augustine, or St.Bernard, or the Council of Orange in 529. What does violate SS, is to have another standard than Scripture to be the final judge of controversies in matters of faith. To rely on the Hodges, Warfield, Bavinck, Owen, Dabney, or the Heidelberg Confession violates SS as little as consulting Thomas, Augustine, a Lapide, Maldonatus, Pesch, Tromp, or Ratzinger violates the authority of the Pope or of Ecumenical Councils.

No argument here.

The dilemma confuses the use of what are known as “subordinate standards” of faith = rules of faith of lower standing the the Bible, e.g. Catechisms, Confessional documents], with the use of human traditions such as Our Lord rebuked. How are they told apart ? By their agreement with the Biblical picture of what Christianity is. So presbyters are “in”, as is “salvation by grace alone”, Solus Christus etc., - while indulgences, purgatory, & Papal Primacy, are “out”. To ascertain “the whole ncounsel of God”, one has to do more than proof-text - one has to read the whole of the Biblical witness on any one subject, & get a feel for the atmosphere of it; & most of all, one must heed the Holy Spirit.

So there is no objection to answer.

Actually, there is.

The Catholic Church reaches its position on contraception based upon scripture as I pointed out previously in this thread. Consequently, even Protestants must consider this carefully.

 

[Nick_Jones]

The Catholic Church reaches its position on contraception based upon scripture as I pointed out previously in this thread. Consequently, even Protestants must consider this carefully.

There might be some Protestants who agree with the CC teaching on “Onanism” but in general, Protestants do not read into that text a teaching against birth control.

 

[Nick_Jones]

The Catholic Church rests on a three legged stool. Tradition, the Bible and Magisterium. Catholicism is transmitted by all three in our Catechism.

In that case, you must place your faith in the source of that three legged stool which is the CC.

If Jesus had told us, “The RCC is the way” then we would all need to be part of the RCC to be saved. But Jesus actually said, “I am the way.”

It doesn’t seem possible to maintain faith (for salvation) in the authority of the RCC AND in Jesus. Not one of the apostles taught that we are bound by two masters.

 

[Nick_Jones]

If you are trying to say that the person on the island alone with his Bible would not find all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, then I think you are correct. But not for the reasons you think.

First, the Bible is not Formally Sufficient. I refer you to the Ethiopian eunuch who could not understand what he was reading. Fortunately, the Apostle Phillip was there to help him out.

I agree that not every teaching found in the bible is equally clear to everyone. We can all learn from someone who has studied more than ourselves.

Second, the person on the island would not have known Jesus personally nor would he have known any of the Apostles personally. Fortunately, we Catholics have the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Early Church Fathers to bridge the gap.

And the JW’s would say that “Fortunately, we JW’s have the writings of the Watch Tower B&T society and Mr. Russel to bridge the gap.”

Third, God never promised that the Holy Spirit would lead that one individual “into all truth” as Jesus promised the Apostles. I suspect that the islander would wander off into some theological novelties and form a completely new denomination.

That is certainly a possibility.

Fourth, the islander would not have the same Apostolic Authority that the Catholic Church has received from Jesus Himself.

But the islander might have the Holy Spirit to guide him to understand what God is saying in the bible. That would certainly be sufficient.

Fifth, the span of his lifetime would not be even remotely close to the 2,000 years during which many of the greatest theological minds the world has ever known have been applied to our faith.

If more time leads inevitably to greater clarity as you seem to be suggesting, do you think that this applies only to theology, or is that true in general? The U.S. Supreme Court took nearly 200 years to discover a right to abortion that had been “hidden” in the constitution from the great minds of legal scholars until 1973!

So, yes, I agree that he would not “find” many of the truths of our faith from reading the Bible alone. I’m pretty sure he would never use the word, “trinity”, for example.

Since the word “trinity” doesn’t appear in the bible, you are making a safe bet here.

It must be daunting for you to realize that as a *sola scriptura *Christian, this is precisely the position you are in.

Why would that be daunting?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree that not every teaching found in the bible is equally clear to everyone. We can all learn from someone who has studied more than ourselves.

If you are acknowledging that scripture is not “perspicuous” after all, then so much for the sufficiency of scripture. If some guidance outside of scripture is needed sola scriptura fails. You are not far from the kingdom of God!

And the JW’s would say that “Fortunately, we JW’s have the writings of the Watch Tower B&T society and Mr. Russel to bridge the gap.”

And you are wise enough to understand that Jesus did not inspire these folks nor did any of them hand on their teachings directly to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Church as the Apostles did. You know you have no regard for their writings, so don’t be facetious.

But the islander might have the Holy Spirit to guide him to understand what God is saying in the bible. That would certainly be sufficient.

That is certainly possible; however, it does not appear to have occurred over the past 500 years such that ALL individual Protestants have been lead into ALL truth. When two denominations teach different things about the same doctrine, it is reasonable to conclude that at least one of them is wrong. So, while it MIGHT be possible for the Holy Spirit to do this, it seems just as likely that the HS might be frustrated by the fact that you have rejected the one Church He has been leading for 2,000 years.

Scripture tells us that Jesus wanted those who followed Him to be One. It also tells us the reason why He wants it: “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. **May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me **and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-21)

You see? The unity of Christians was intended to be a witness to the world of the fact that Jesus has come into the world. Your continued separation from the Church of Christ diminishes the power of the testimony we give to the world. This is reminiscent of Paul’s condemnation: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24)

Is there any wonder why the Muslims scorn our faith when you separate yourself from the Body of Christ by your continued “Protesting”?

If more time leads inevitably to greater clarity as you seem to be suggesting, do you think that this applies only to theology, or is that true in general? The U.S. Supreme Court took nearly 200 years to discover a right to abortion that had been “hidden” in the constitution from the great minds of legal scholars until 1973!

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is led by the Holy Spirit in the same way that God leads His Church? Again, I don’t think you really believe this, so I wonder if you are just being argumentative as opposed to actually thinking.

Since the word “trinity” doesn’t appear in the bible, you are making a safe bet here.

And not by “chance” did I make it.

Why would that be daunting?

Because as a sola scriptura, *sola fide *Christian, the islander is you.

My dad, a Protestant as I once was, said recently to his pastor, “It’s your job to tell me what to think. It’s my job to decide if I believe you.” Unfortunately, the pastor has no real way of knowing if his own fallible interpretation of the Word of God is correct, and my father has no way of knowing with certainty whether he should accept the preaching he hears.

That may not seem very daunting to you, but God’s plan for His Church is better than that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There might be some Protestants who agree with the CC teaching on “Onanism” but in general, Protestants do not read into that text a teaching against birth control.

Not since 1930 they don’t. That’s why I brought it into the discussion on “Doctrinal Changes”. See the connection?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I must respectfully disagree that even Protestant scholars begrudgingly acknowledge He established a Church built upon Kepha. Peter is that “kepha.” There are big problems with that

Nick-

I don’t know if you are a new Christian, but you need to research this issue. For example, Baptist scholar D.A. Carson wrote:

On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ …others adopt some other distinction . . . **Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter **[emphasis added]. . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . .In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .

(D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. ed., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368}

There are other examples of Protestants who have begrudgingly acknowledged that Peter is the petros, the kepha, that Jesus is referring to.

Just Google: D.A. Carson Kepha and see for yourself. I’m not trying to be overbearing here, but this is one issue that is pretty much a slam dunk for the Catholic Apologist. Do you need other examples?

You mentioned in a previous post that we can all learn from those who have studied more. Talk about an understatement. Perhaps you are beginning to understand why you need (and God provided) more than sola scriptura.

I’m also wondering if you’re starting to feel a little bit lonely on that island…

 

[petra]

If salvation is by grace, through faith, then it follows that it is not by works of the law… including water baptism and the submission to some religious sect, be it visible or invisible. “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3)

And we also see that Abraham was justified by works (James 2:21-26). Faith requires a response. Any response could be called a work, including altar calls and praying the sinner’s prayer. Baptisim is the normative reponse to God’s invitation for salvation. The altar call is a relatively recent invention of American evangelists.

The CC has plainly stated that we must believe Rome and submit to Rome in order to be saved. As for me, I will trust in Jesus only.

The CC has plainly stated that salvation comes to us through Christ, who has authorized and enabled His Body, His Church to effectively bring the gospel to the world.

 

[CANman]

In that case, you must place your faith in the source of that three legged stool which is the CC.

If Jesus had told us, “The RCC is the way” then we would all need to be part of the RCC to be saved. But Jesus actually said, “I am the way.”

It doesn’t seem possible to maintain faith (for salvation) in the authority of the RCC AND in Jesus. Not one of the apostles taught that we are bound by two masters.

Here is where you err, Nick. The source of that three legged stool is Jesus - the only WAY TRUTH AND LIFE!

Would you you say those Israelites did not believe in God when they listened to Isaiah?, or Ezekiel?, or Moses?, or Abraham? The source of their “truth” was God. God delivered it to the Israelites via a mediator!

Similarly, Jesus transmits His truth to us in the same way, through that three legged stool, each leg powered and supplied for by the Messiah, Our Lord and Saviour!

Do not mistake the fact that we believe that God teaches us through fallible men with the error that we do not trust in God. That is simply ludicrous.

You yourself have relied on fallible men to give you the Sacred Scriptures, and have no problem with that (neither do we). How you personally have derived that those ancient writings are inspired by God should be an interesting tale.

 

[Veritas41]

The atheists argue the same:

Which god should we worship, Bhudda?, Thor?, Allah?, or one of the other thousand gods that have been worshipped?

The premise is deeply flawed, for it assumes that people are inherently good, seekers of truth. Not so! We are fallen! The bible says that “no one seeks God” (Rom.3:11)
I don’t think it’s a flawed argument because the question atheists ask is legitimate – which god is true, if any are true? You investigate, you learn and study. Jews worship the same God we do, but they don’t believe all the same things we do about Him, so it would be legitimate for a seeker to wonder which religion is true (Judaism or Christianity) if they both worship the same God but have different beliefs. And that, of course, would involve examining the claims of Christ.

And in investigating Christianity, a seeker would be faced with three major branches of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant) all with different Bibles. As a Protestant, your assumption is that the Bible is all we need to know the truth, and I’m just pointing out a very real problem for the seeker --which Bible is the complete Bible? How would you answer a seeker who asked you that question? What reasons would you give him for choosing one Bible over another? That’s an honest question that deserves and honest answer, don’t you think?

It has nothing to do with presuming people are basically good or not – we have the faculty of reason and we can use that to examine claims and evidence, etc. That does not require the gift of faith to do that. Ever heard of Josh McDowell? I heard him talk once and he mentioned discussing Christianity with some university students. He was engaging in apologetics with them, attempting to prove the truth of the claims of Christ, and they interrupted him saying that they knew Christianity was true, they just didn’t want to change their lives. So even someone dead in their sins can still recognize if something is true or not.
The remedy for our “dead in sin” condition, is the grace of God, which makes some people–those who have received the grace of regeneration, to begin to see themselves as they really are: utterly lost and sinful before a Holy God.
No argument there – what does that have to do with knowing which is the true Bible and true Church?
God provides His sheep with all that they need to obtain salvation. Not one of His sheep will be lost. Not because of the CC but because of the personal intervention of the Holy Spirit, who will lead the elect to the Truth, and cause them to be willing to accept it.
Yes, God does provide His sheep with all they need to obtain salvation (and He provides grace sufficient for anyone to be saved, but not all avail themselves of it). Yes, the elect will not be lost, but how does that contradict the claims of the Catholic Church? That is Catholic teaching, after all! And if the Holy Spirit leads the elect to all truth, and you’re sounding Reformed here so I’m assuming you believe all “true Christians” are the elect, then why do true Christians disagree on what the truth is? Surely the Holy Spirit doesn’t deliberately lead people to contradictory understandings of the truth, so that must mean the fault lies with the one claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit. So how does a true Christian know for sure that what he believes is really the result of the Holy Spirit guiding him and not his own misunderstanding of something?

 

[Veritas41]

The early church was not a perfect picture of absolute unity even though they still had the apostles among them, so it hardly seems surprising that perfect unity is still lacking in the church today. The church can be the pillar and foundation of truth even if it consists (on earth) of sinners who are not in perfect agreement on every teaching found in the bible. If you are determined to find **infallible truth **from some church, you are seeking what cannot be found.

Not absolute unity in the sense that every single member of that church believes 100% in what the Church teaches (we’ve always had heretics and schismatics among us, even during the time of the apostles, which many of the Nt letters address). I’m speaking of unity of belief in Church teaching. Please provide evidence that the early Church was comprised of multiple churches that couldn’t even agree on whether Holy Communion is the Real Presence of Christ or just a symbol or if baptism is necessary for salvation (and how to do it properly – immersion, sprinkling, “believers only”, infants?), whether it’s possible to lose one’s salvation or whether the charismatic gifts are operational today, etc. etc.

Can you show me, from the Bible, where it says we will NOT find infallible truth in any church? Do you even know how we got the Bible? It was through the Catholic Church. There wasn’t even a set canon of the Bible for almost the first *four hundred years *of the Church’s existence. The first book of the NT wasn’t written until 25-30 years after Christ’s Resurrection and the last not for another 30+ years, so how did those earliest Christians know what the truth was? For almost thirty years they didn’t have a single book of the NT from which to learn Christian teaching. So were they without any means of knowing infallible truth just because it hadn’t been written down yet? It was the Catholic Church in the Synod of Rome (387), Councils of Carthage and Hippo (393 and 397) and affirmed by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD that determined the canon of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. That’s historical fact --I’ve looked it up in even secular sources, and even Protestant sources acknowledge. As a Protestant,you’re faced with a dilemma --if the Church wasn’t acting infallibly in determining the canon of the Bible, then what assurance do you have that the books in your Bible are inspired? I realize you use a canon of the Bible determined by Protestant Reformers (primarily Luther), who removed 7 books from the OT and wanted to remove some even from the New Testament (like Revelation and James) but refrained. You still have the same dilemma – did the Protestant Reformers act infallibly in their determination of the canon? If you answer yes to either case (the Catholic Church or the Protestant Reformers) then you have just undermined your own position because you’ve admitted there can be infallibility outside the Bible.

 

[Nick_Jones]

If you are acknowledging that scripture is not “perspicuous” after all, then so much for the sufficiency of scripture. If some guidance outside of scripture is needed sola scriptura fails. You are not far from the kingdom of God!

How does SS fail if I need to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to:

A. Hunger for what is good and true.

B. Understand what I need to understand in the bible for my salvation.

And you are wise enough to understand that Jesus did not inspire these folks nor did any of them hand on their teachings directly to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Church as the Apostles did. You know you have no regard for their writings, so don’t be facetious.

Try telling that to the JW’s! They all insist that their religion has existed since the very beginning of Christianity.

That is certainly possible; however, it does not appear to have occurred over the past 500 years such that ALL individual Protestants have been lead into ALL truth. When two denominations teach different things about the same doctrine, it is reasonable to conclude that at least one of them is wrong. So, while it MIGHT be possible for the Holy Spirit to do this, it seems just as likely that the HS might be frustrated by the fact that you have rejected the one Church He has been leading for 2,000 years.

The eternal will of God (Holy Spirit) cannot be frustrated by the will of man. Everything that God intends to accomplish will be successfully accomplished. And none of this means that all of the elect will be perfectly unified in every belief during their mortal lives.

Scripture tells us that Jesus wanted those who followed Him to be One. It also tells us the reason why He wants it: “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. **May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me **and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-21)

You see? The unity of Christians was intended to be a witness to the world of the fact that Jesus has come into the world. Your continued separation from the Church of Christ diminishes the power of the testimony we give to the world. This is reminiscent of Paul’s condemnation: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2:24)

Is there any wonder why the Muslims scorn our faith when you separate yourself from the Body of Christ by your continued “Protesting”?

I’m not separated from the body of Christ by not being under the authority of the pope. I have only one Master… Jesus Christ, and Him alone.

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is led by the Holy Spirit in the same way that God leads His Church? Again, I don’t think you really believe this, so I wonder if you are just being argumentative as opposed to actually thinking.

No. I’ve just pointed out the fact that fallen human beings do not tend to bring greater clarity (to theology, for example) because of the longer time period for the greatest minds to prevail.

Because as a sola scriptura, *sola fide *Christian, the islander is you.

There would be an equal degree of “islander” in all of us if not for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You used your own private judgement to choose the path leading to Rome, and I have used my judgement to lead me to trust in Jesus.

My dad, a Protestant as I once was, said recently to his pastor, “It’s your job to tell me what to think. It’s my job to decide if I believe you.” Unfortunately, the pastor has no real way of knowing if his own fallible interpretation of the Word of God is correct, and my father has no way of knowing with certainty whether he should accept the preaching he hears.

It is the duty of every individual to earnestly seek the Truth. The bible tells us that if we seek the truth we will find it. But most people will not seek the truth.

That may not seem very daunting to you, but God’s plan for His Church is better than that.

It is for God to say what is good or better for us.