S
Catholics, what do you do with 1 John 5? It contradicts RCC doctrine concerning the assurance of salvation. See for yourself.
- Status
B
benedictus2
Guest
Nope, not bluster. Just a line of thinking that I have posted in several other threads and to which no Protestant has ever had a reasonable comeback although one did do a good try but not convincing as he did not respond to my last post.
Essentially, in simplest terms the argument goes like this.
If you believe that the Bible is infallible (that is why you make it your rule of faith), then you accept that the Church is infallible because it is the Church who came up with the Canon of the Bible.
Below is a rebuttal from another poster and my reponse:
I am feeling rather lazy so I will just post a link to the ensuing rebuttals and counter rebuttals
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4401431&postcount=303
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4402273&postcount=330
S
SemperReformada
Guest
I don’t believe any council or person is infallible. In order to stay consistent with that belief, I don’t believe the canon is infallible either. I don’t believe that there are mistakes in the canon but I don’t believe it to be infallible either.
I don’t see how a non-Catholic could have any other belief.
BTW, thanks for the links but I feel lazy all the time. I’ll try to get to them but probably won’t today.
B
benedictus2
Guest
YOU HAVE JUST PROVED MY POINT
From a Protestant’s point of view then THE BIBLE IS NOT INFALLIBLE.
So why hold to Sola Scriptura when you are believing a fallible Bible?
And it is not about non-Catholics holding any other belief. It is about using that God given faculty called reason.
Which I will have to say protestants in this forum don’t exercise much. Not that they don’t have any. But they are afraid to use it because if they do, why they would actually be confronted with the Truth of the Catholic position.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
Where did I say that I believe the bible to be anything less than infallible?YOU HAVE JUST PROVED MY POINT
From a Protestant’s point of view then THE BIBLE IS NOT INFALLIBLE.
So why hold to Sola Scriptura when you are believing a fallible Bible?
And it is not about non-Catholics holding any other belief. It is about using that God given faculty called reason.
Which I will have to say protestants in this forum don’t exercise much. Not that they don’t have any. But they are afraid to use it because if they do, why they would actually be confronted with the Truth of the Catholic position.
P
PJM
Guest
mmmcounts
Catholics, what do you do with 1 John 5? It contradicts RCC doctrine concerning the assurance of salvation. See for yourself.
1 John Chapter 5
3* For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4* For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
And if we believe in Jesus we will do all of the following:
Be a Baptized Christian, obey All of God Commandments, Obey the Beautitudes MT. Chapter 5, and do everyting with love. PJM
13I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life… 16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God * will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
John 20:"21* Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. *23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” **
If you take the reading from 1 John, with the reading from John 20:
(Both the same John), you can see why the RCC teaches as she does. (This is the very short version). Mortal sin, because it is so serious: i.e. Abortion=murder, that is factually seperates us from a Saving relationship with Christ, until we Confess (as Jesus DIRECTED to one of His bishops or priest, and are forgiven.) We call it the sacrament od Reconcillation.
*1 John Chapter 1 (which comes before chapter 5)
"8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." **
18 We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
2 Tim. 3:16
" 16 All scripture is inspired by God and * profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
John 3:5 "5* Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”
Mt. 19: "17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. **If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” **
Friend there is a great deal more evidence I can give to explain the RCC position, but, I’ll see how you respond to this post first.
Love and prayers,
Catholics, what do you do with 1 John 5? It contradicts RCC doctrine concerning the assurance of salvation. See for yourself.
OK so far…
As a life long, and I thought, informed, and I know practcing RC, I’m not sure that this is actually a doctrine, although you do have the message straight. But your only sharring a partial truth.
Friend, can we please “play nice?” Christian Chairity is a good thing.:yup:
Your right the bible does say something different…
1 John Chapter 5
3* For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4* For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith. 5 Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
And if we believe in Jesus we will do all of the following:
Be a Baptized Christian, obey All of God Commandments, Obey the Beautitudes MT. Chapter 5, and do everyting with love. PJM
13I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life… 16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God * will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.
John 20:"21* Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. *23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” **
If you take the reading from 1 John, with the reading from John 20:
(Both the same John), you can see why the RCC teaches as she does. (This is the very short version). Mortal sin, because it is so serious: i.e. Abortion=murder, that is factually seperates us from a Saving relationship with Christ, until we Confess (as Jesus DIRECTED to one of His bishops or priest, and are forgiven.) We call it the sacrament od Reconcillation.
*1 John Chapter 1 (which comes before chapter 5)
"8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." **
18 We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
2 Tim. 3:16
" 16 All scripture is inspired by God and * profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
John 3:5 "5* Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”
Mt. 19: "17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. **If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” **
Friend there is a great deal more evidence I can give to explain the RCC position, but, I’ll see how you respond to this post first.
Love and prayers,
1
1holycatholic
Guest
S
SemperReformada
Guest
The key word in my post is canon.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I know. The Canon is the list of what is and what isn’t Scripture. The Canon of Scripture (all 73 books) was infallibly defined by the Catholic Church ~350 years after Christ established the Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, I can’t let you off that easily. If you question the canon, then you question the Bible itself.
On the other hand, if this was just a matter of typing quickly, then just be more precise next time, okay?
You have to be precise when discussing these things.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
Your church didn’t infallibly declare the canon of the OT until Trent. The councils of Carthage and Hippo were provincial in nature and therefore not binding on the church universal.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Obviously if Trent (Tridentine decrees) was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the canon for the church universal Hippo and Carthage couldn’t have been.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
My statement contains absolutely no ambiguity…none.No, I can’t let you off that easily. If you question the canon, then you question the Bible itself.
On the other hand, if this was just a matter of typing quickly, then just be more precise next time, okay?
You have to be precise when discussing these things.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This is perhaps a bit simplistic. There was a lot more to the development of the canon than the declaration of Trent.
*The Council of Trent, convened to reaffirm Catholic doctrines and to revitalize the Church, proclaimed that these books had always belonged to the Bible and had to remain in it. After all, it was the Catholic Church, in the fourth century, at the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage (A.D. 382, 393, 397, respectively), that officially decided which books belonged to the Bible and which did not. This had been reaffirmed by many popes and councils later, including the ecumenical Council of Florence. When the Council of Trent was convened, it merely formally restated the constant teaching of the Church. [Catholic Answers: More Catholic Inventions]
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
My apologies…I need clarification. Please explain what you meant when you wrote:I don’t believe that there are mistakes in the canon but I don’t believe it to be infallible either.
Are you suggesting, as RC Sproul did, that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books?
Thanks.
J
joe370
Guest
**If you are Christian, I don’t see how you can refute what benedictus2 is saying?
**
While the Apostles lived, I agree that THEN they were given infallible guidance. I do not believe, however, we have Apostles NOW - THAT IS, TODAY. Their function has now ceased. CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE TRUE AND ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.
SemperReformada , you said:
I’m not sure what you going to set out and prove. Are you going to prove your church is infallible or that a belief in sola scriptura somehow hinges on your church being infallible?
**The C.C. isn’t infallible on its own merit! Surely you must know this, for the C.C. is comprised of ALL fallible men and women! To speak metaphorically, as opposed to what Jesus did, vis-a-vis the Holy Eucharist, the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus Christ, endowed Jesus’ One Apostolic Church, on Pentecost (Acts 2) --with Jesus’ Divine Presence, in perpetuity, according to both your bibles! Jesus’ Church is the aircraft, and the Holy Spirit is the Divine rudder --the Divine Controlling Agent or Influence over the direction of Jesus’ One Church, not fallible humans, and the anti-Christ is the counter controlling agent or counter influence trying to muster up, never ending turbulence, to throw the aircraft, again, comprised of mere fallible humans --off course! This is a battle we can’t win without the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit. Do you really think Jesus was going to leave His Mystical Body, the Apostolic Church, to which Jesus Christ is the Savior, in the hands of mere fallible humans? You said, “CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE TRUE AND ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.” If you believe that, then you must realize that the Apostolic Church to which Jesus is the Foundation, can’t FAIL! And your are correct, all the Apostles died in the 1st century. Today we have their successors, who minister in their stead, and carry on their function.
The Holy Spirit was then and is now, according to both your bibles, the Infallible guiding Force behind Jesus’ Infallible Church, comprised of nothing, but very fallible humans, just as every protestant and evangelical church is!
If the C.C. is not infallibly “taught” and “guided” by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, then you are both right, and the C.C. is nothing more than a human Institution, rendering ALL churches, including the church to which you both belong, and sola scriptura, nothing more than a man made lie, perpetrated by mere fallible humans, invalidating Jesus Christ as God, and if this is true, then I’m sure that non-believers, the world over are dancing a jig. I’m sorry but you guys can’t have it both ways. **
**
While the Apostles lived, I agree that THEN they were given infallible guidance. I do not believe, however, we have Apostles NOW - THAT IS, TODAY. Their function has now ceased. CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE TRUE AND ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.
SemperReformada , you said:
I’m not sure what you going to set out and prove. Are you going to prove your church is infallible or that a belief in sola scriptura somehow hinges on your church being infallible?
**The C.C. isn’t infallible on its own merit! Surely you must know this, for the C.C. is comprised of ALL fallible men and women! To speak metaphorically, as opposed to what Jesus did, vis-a-vis the Holy Eucharist, the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus Christ, endowed Jesus’ One Apostolic Church, on Pentecost (Acts 2) --with Jesus’ Divine Presence, in perpetuity, according to both your bibles! Jesus’ Church is the aircraft, and the Holy Spirit is the Divine rudder --the Divine Controlling Agent or Influence over the direction of Jesus’ One Church, not fallible humans, and the anti-Christ is the counter controlling agent or counter influence trying to muster up, never ending turbulence, to throw the aircraft, again, comprised of mere fallible humans --off course! This is a battle we can’t win without the perpetual guidance of the Holy Spirit. Do you really think Jesus was going to leave His Mystical Body, the Apostolic Church, to which Jesus Christ is the Savior, in the hands of mere fallible humans? You said, “CHRIST HIMSELF IS THE TRUE AND ONLY FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH.” If you believe that, then you must realize that the Apostolic Church to which Jesus is the Foundation, can’t FAIL! And your are correct, all the Apostles died in the 1st century. Today we have their successors, who minister in their stead, and carry on their function.
The Holy Spirit was then and is now, according to both your bibles, the Infallible guiding Force behind Jesus’ Infallible Church, comprised of nothing, but very fallible humans, just as every protestant and evangelical church is!
If the C.C. is not infallibly “taught” and “guided” by the Holy Spirit in perpetuity, then you are both right, and the C.C. is nothing more than a human Institution, rendering ALL churches, including the church to which you both belong, and sola scriptura, nothing more than a man made lie, perpetrated by mere fallible humans, invalidating Jesus Christ as God, and if this is true, then I’m sure that non-believers, the world over are dancing a jig. I’m sorry but you guys can’t have it both ways. **
S
SemperReformada
Guest
I’m not so sure your source is accurate. I disagree with it’s statement about “merely formally restated” the canon.
At Trent the council fathers were not unanimous in understanding that the earlier councils had “settled” the issue of canonocity for the deutero’s.
Jedin:
I can post more on this if anyone is interested but it’s my understanding that there was a vote at Trent and while it’s obvious that the vote in favor of canonizing the deutero’s carried the day, it was not unanimous.
If Trent just formally restated the canon as it was stated in the earlier councils, why have a vote, why have any debate on this issue? I may have been to simplistic but I think in this instance Catholic Answers is overstating their case.
V
VociMike
Guest
A very astute recognition, and one that I think very few non-Catholic Christians could bring themselves to affirm.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
I don’t believe the canon is infallible, nor do I believe the canon I accept has any errors in it. So yes, I would agree with Sproul
S
SemperReformada
Guest
I have no idea how they could accept any other.
V
VociMike
Guest
Unanimity is not a requirement for any council doctrinal determination. Were the early councils unanimous on all the doctrines Protestantism (mostly) believes? And if not, will your belief in those doctrines be weakened?
Trent revisited the canon because it had been challenged. That’s the way councils work.
- Status