Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[steve-b]

De_Maria:

That we should love His Son.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

If that is the case does a Catholic love His Son more than a Protestant?

How did Jesus qualify love for Him?

He made a condition

"IF you love me you will keep my commandments"John 14:15 RSVCE - The Promise of the Holy Spirit - “If - Bible Gateway

Can a Protestant do that?

Here’s an example of why the answer is no for a Protestant… Jesus insists on one receiving the Eucharist or they have no life in them. Protestants have no valid ordinations. Therefore no valid consecration ability. Therefore no Eucharist

Is the following then, a suggestion or a command? Jn6:53-57 RSVCE - So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, - Bible Gateway . It’s a command

 

[tgGodsway]

Profitable. But not necessary. For what? For someone to use when indoctrinating, teaching, correcting and reproving the man of God into all good works.

A book doesn’t do that. A Teacher does. And that Teacher is a member of the Teaching Church. The infallible Teaching Church.

Here’s were you are wrong again steve_b … I agree that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof etc. but it still takes the Church to interpret it. The problem is, the Church is NOT filled with inspiration to interpret. They can be, but not necessarily are.

You said the CC is the infallible teaching Church. On what scriptural bases?.. We are splitting hairs here, so please do not misunderstand my question. I agree that the scriptures are inspired and flawless. But I do not agree that those making the interpretation are also flawless. The “Teaching Church” as you call it, a are also sinners who need to constantly be in a state of repentance just like everyone else.

But on what scriptural bases do you say the teaching Church, and by the way, that too needs to be clarified. We have the office of teacher I agree, but for the Church itself to be a teacher, I need scriptural teaching. no pun intended. …is with no fallibility?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Profitable. But not necessary. For what? For someone to use when indoctrinating, teaching, correcting and reproving the man of God into all good works.

A book doesn’t do that. A Teacher does. And that Teacher is a member of the Teaching Church. The infallible Teaching Church.

Here’s were you are wrong again steve_b … I agree that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof etc. but it still takes the Church to interpret it. The problem is, the Church is NOT filled with inspiration to interpret. They can be, but not necessarily are.

Who does the scripture say is the pillar and foundation of truth? You? Nope! It’s the Church. The only Church that is there. The only Church Jesus established Himself. The Catholic Church. Get over it.

tgGodsway:

You said the CC is the infallible teaching Church. On what scriptural bases?..

Infallible means without error. Who wrote the NT?

tgGodsway:

We are splitting hairs here, so please do not misunderstand my question. I agree that the scriptures are inspired and flawless. But I do not agree that those making the interpretation are also flawless. The “Teaching Church” as you call it, a are also sinners who need to constantly be in a state of repentance just like everyone else.

Give me an example where the Church, taught error, by that I mean the Church says the entire Church is to believe a doctrine world wide, and later it was found to be wrong.

tgGodsway:

But on what scriptural bases do you say the teaching Church, and by the way, that too needs to be clarified. We have the office of teacher I agree, but for the Church itself to be a teacher, I need scriptural teaching. no pun intended. …is with no fallibility?

When Jesus said to Peter, I give YOU the keys of the kingdom, whatever you Peter bind and loose here on earth with be bound and loosed in heaven. Mt 16

 

[tgGodsway]

Who does the scripture say is the pillar and foundation of truth? You? Nope! It’s the Church. The only Church that is there. The only Church Jesus established Himself. The Catholic Church. Get over it.

yes to which I and millions around the world are apart whether you like it or not… We are all part of the same Universal Church but not all of us answer to R. and we are not suppose to answer to R. because R wasn’t suppose to force the world (of Churches) to answer to them. They imposed themselves in a headship role never given to them. They were all walking after the flesh when they demanded control over all things in the 4th. Century. But that is the way the R. empire did things in those days. And of course their supposed key of authority is to spout succession, a bad and weak interpretation. No… it was never God’s intention to have two heads. You say Christ is the head, yet, the pope is the head here on the earth. One plus one equals= one, in your estimation. right…

This only proves that the Church is fallible and needs to return to holy scripture to help them to the truth. And I noticed you didn’t answer my questions about that. you just did your usual rant.

 

[MT1926]

This only proves that the Church is fallible and needs to return to holy scripture to help them to the truth.

So are you saying the Church isn’t the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The definition of a pillar is a person or thing regarded as reliably providing essential support for something, in this case the truth.

The definition of a foundation is an underlying basis or principle for something, in this case the truth.

If the Church needs to return to scripture to find the truth, that would mean the scriptures lied to us and the Church is not capable of be the underlying basis for providing us with essential support to provide truth.

If what you believe is true shouldn’t the scripture of claimed itself to be the pillar and foundation of the truth?

 

[De_Maria]

Here’s were you are wrong again steve_b … I agree that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof etc. but it still takes the Church to interpret it.

You’re wrong tgG. The Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture. The Catholic Church Teaches the Word of God which is contained in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

The problem is, the Church is NOT filled with inspiration to interpret. They can be, but not necessarily are.

Scripture says that the Catholic Church has the anointing to Teach infallibly. That’s what this verse says:

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The Church will teach the wisdom of God, even in the heavens. If that’s not infallible, what is?

 

[2towers]

I guess it is only fair, after all, I am the Catholic who just won’t listen to the protestants.

 

[tgGodsway]

So are you saying the Church isn’t the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. Eph. 2:20
Paul’s inference here is that the Church is build upon the teachings of the apostles and Christ being the supporter of all of it. Those twelve men were the pillars and Christ was/is their foundation.

The problem here is how the word Church is treated. For you there is the Church (=hieratical organized system founded in Rome by Peter) and then there is us … on the outside.

This definition is fictional at best.

 

[tgGodsway]

You’re wrong tgG. The Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture. The Catholic Church Teaches the Word of God which is contained in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

You can believe that all you want, but I’ve seen examples of their interpretation of scripture and much of it is not interpretation at all. It is (via decree) invention!

I’m not sure what world you are living in, but every single one of those cardinals throughout all of history, have no choice but to read the N.T. manuscript and make an interpretation. Then they go and teach what they believe it means. This process is fallible and requires checks and balances. But they do not believe they are fallible or their tradition. It is a deception at a dangerous level.

 

[Vonsalza]

You can believe that all you want, but I’ve seen examples of their interpretation of scripture and much of it is not interpretation at all. It is (via decree) invention!

Well, tg, since the Church “invented” the New Testament, it’s kinda has the right to do that… right?

…have no choice but to read the N.T. manuscript…

Again, we’re members of a Church that factually predates and wrote and compiled the NT.

 

[tgGodsway]

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The Church will teach the wisdom of God, even in the heavens. If that’s not infallible, what is?

Agreed. But we all can teach the manifold wisdom of God! … Why do I say we all? Because we all are members of God’s Church. It is not a select special inner circle found in Rome. But as mentioned before, Paul didn’t believe the Church was infallible. His letters of correction to the CHURCH is the evidence. But because Paul and Peter, and James, and John and a few others were inspired by the holy Spirit when they were living and through their actions, and then inspired by the holy Spirit when they put it all down on paper before they died, we can trust their testament.
Anything, or anyone who comes along after the eye-witnesses to the truth, must be filtered through the inspired record. The idea that the Church today is infallible is heretical on its face.

 

[tgGodsway]

Well, tg, since the Church “invented” the New Testament, it’s kinda has the right to do that… right?

The church didn’t invent anything. The Church “received” God’s revelation through the power of the holy Spirit to receive it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Well, tg, since the Church “invented” the New Testament, it’s kinda has the right to do that… right?

The church didn’t invent anything. The Church “received” God’s revelation through the power of the holy Spirit to receive it.

Sure. And via apostolic succession, the power of an authoritative Church to further define its doctrines continues up unto this very day.

It’s by that same power that we clarified what, exactly, the Trinity was at Nicaea.

There were plenty of Arian Christians at the time that didn’t like what the Church decided on that issue.

 

[tgGodsway]

One more thing on this point.

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God

key word here: MIGHT… be… the manifold wisdom of God MIGHT be known through the Church. He shouldn’t have said “might be,” if Paul believed the Church was infallible. He would have said, WILL BE…

The Church must answer the call to be holy, (as Peter said) before God could use her effectively. … without holiness and without true obedience coming from the CHURCH, she can be disqualified from any good work… There is no such thing as an infallible Church, to the contrary!

The only reason why you believe this is because I’m sure somewhere down in history, a pope said it was true. But he forgot to study it from the scriptures before speaking is ex-cathedra. it is sad.

 

[Vonsalza]

key word here: MIGHT… be… the manifold wisdom of God MIGHT be known through the Church. He didn’t have to say might be he Paul believed that the Church was infallible. He would have said, WILL BE…

What a terribly odd translation you’ve made here…

“Might be” refers to our sinful will to reject the Church’s teaching. It does not refer to ambiguity on the Church’s authority to teach.

There is no such thing as an infallible Church, to the contrary!

The bride of Christ is without blemish. You be careful how you talk about our Lord’s wife.

The only reason why you believe this is because I’m sure somewhere down in history, a pope said it was true. But he forgot to study it from the scriptures before speaking is ex-cathedra. it is sad.

This is obviously so off-the-hoof that no one is going to take this remark very seriously. I suggest you delete it for sake of preserving your own credibility…

 

[MT1926]

The Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone. Eph. 2:20

Paul’s inference here is that the Church is build upon the teachings of the apostles and Christ being the supporter of all of it. Those twelve men were the pillars and Christ was/is their foundation.

The problem here is how the word Church is treated. For you there is the Church (=hieratical organized system founded in Rome by Peter) and then there is us … on the outside.

This definition is fictional at best.

Fair enough. This is a valid argument. But verse 21 says… in whom the whole structure is joined together …this joining together implies unity.

So what is your “outside” unified “structure” that joins you together in ONE, Jesus did pray that we be one, unified truth?

Also, what is fictional? That Jesus founded a Church that is the pillar and foundation of the truth? or That the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

If it is not the Catholic Church I am all ears as to which Church it is, but your claim that this verse is saying any Church that uses the Bible only, is no where in the text.

 

[MT1926]

Anything, or anyone who comes along after the eye-witnesses to the truth, must be filtered through the inspired record. The idea that the Church today is infallible is heretical on its face.

Agreed. But it seems you are saying the Catholics are using the wrong filter.

That’s the whole meaning of the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth, the Church holds the filter.

If you are going to make claims like this then the you have to abide by your own rules. You need to prove that you were given the authority to claim which filter is to be used.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You’re wrong tgG. The Catholic Church does not interpret Scripture. The Catholic Church Teaches the Word of God which is contained in Sacred Tradition and Scripture.

You can believe that all you want, but I’ve seen examples of their interpretation of scripture and much of it is not interpretation at all. It is (via decree) invention!

The inventions come from Protestants.

I’m not sure what world you are living in, but every single one of those cardinals throughout all of history, have no choice but to read the N.T. manuscript and make an interpretation.

I think you’re speaking in a literal sense. Of course, they have to read the Scripture to know what page we are talking about.

But, when they read the Scripture, they know that it is the part which describes a certain Catholic Doctrine. And they know that the Doctrine preceded the verse.

For example. Jesus Christ was not baptized because it says so in Scripture. Scripture describes the Baptism of Jesus Christ, because it actually happened.

Then they go and teach what they believe it means.

No, that’s what Protestants do.

Catholics Teach what Jesus Christ commanded the Catholic Church to Teach and point to it in Scripture.

This process is fallible and requires checks and balances. But they do not believe they are fallible or their tradition. It is a deception at a dangerous level.

It is the Protestant process which is fallible.

You read Scripture to discover your doctrines.

Catholics read Scripture and find our doctrines therein, confirmed.

 

[De_Maria]

One more thing on this point.

De_Maria:

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God

key word here: MIGHT… be… the manifold wisdom of God MIGHT be known through the Church. He shouldn’t have said “might be,” if Paul believed the Church was infallible. He would have said, WILL BE…

I showed you the Protestant Olde English translation. The KJV. In Olde English, the word “might” means “will”.

Look at your Lexicon. What word is translated, “might be”?
gnōrizō
to make known
to become known, be recognised
to know, to gain knowledge of, have thorough knowledge of
in earlier Greek it means “to gain a knowledge of” or “have thorough knowledge of”

The Church must answer the call to be holy, (as Peter said) before God could use her effectively. … without holiness and without true obedience coming from the CHURCH, she can be disqualified from any good work… There is no such thing as an infallible Church, to the contrary!

And yet, the Scripture calls the Church the Pillar and Foundation of truth.

Pillars hold up and foundations support. Thus the Church holds up and supports the truth.

The only reason why you believe this is because I’m sure somewhere down in history, a pope said it was true. But he forgot to study it from the scriptures before speaking is ex-cathedra. it is sad.

Well, you’ve failed to provide anything that says that we are to believe in Scripture ALONE from Scripture.

We’ve provided various things such as the Scriptural principle of holding Tradition and Scripture for doctrine. The Biblical principle of upholding doctrine for salvation. The verses which highlight the value of the Church.

Can we see one verse which says that Scripture alone is inspired or that Scripture alone is the source of doctrine? Or whatever you deem that shapeshifting doctrine/principle/concept to be.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s were you are wrong again … I agree that the scriptures are profitable for doctrine, reproof etc. but it still takes the Church to interpret it. The problem is, the Church is NOT filled with inspiration to interpret. They can be, but not necessarily are.

What you are saying is that Jesus lied, that he had no intention of guiding His Church into all Truth.

You said the CC is the infallible teaching Church. On what scriptural bases?

All authority is given from Jesus to the Church. Jesus has appointed those He intends to do the work of the ministry. Although this is reflected in Scripture, the Scripture is not the basis, Jesus is the basis. This is what the Apostolic Succession is all about.

But I do not agree that those making the interpretation are also flawless. The “Teaching Church” as you call it, a are also sinners who need to constantly be in a state of repentance just like everyone else.

You are right, any individual can make a flawed interpretation, and all members of the Church are sinners who need constant repentance. This is why we need Sacred Tradition, which is the teaching of Jesus preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit in the Church.

But on what scriptural bases do you say the teaching Church, and by the way, that too needs to be clarified. We have the office of teacher I agree, but for the Church itself to be a teacher,

I don’t think you can receive this teaching, because it is based on the concept of Jesus’ authority imparted to the Church. It is based on Apostolic succession, and the Councils of the Church that you have rejected.

We are all part of the same Universal Church but not all of us answer to R. and we are not suppose to answer to R. because R wasn’t suppose to force the world (of Churches) to answer to them.

Rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff.

Yes, all of us believers were given into the care of the Shepherds of the Church. Shepherds don’t appoint themselves, they are appointed.

They imposed themselves in a headship role never given to them.

It is true that there have been some less than Holy Bishops.

They were all walking after the flesh when they demanded control over all things in the 4th. Century.

I am not sure where you get this. The only dogmas that were pronounced in the fourth century were the Trinity and the canon of Scripture, and these happened in the East (though Rome was a part of that).

What makes you think that the Bishops had less responsibility for the faithful in the fourth century than they did in the first?