Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[clem456]

Yes, further proof that **individual Church’s **come to a decision regardless of what the CC teaches. I would say that the said link’s Church is wrong, while I would say yours is right in regards to the NT books. We happen to have come to the same decision.

What is an individual Church? Is Christ divided into pieces now? Paul decries this position in his letters. If Christ is the head and we are the body, and Christ cannot by nature be divided, how can there be individual Churches? There can only be one Church because there is only one Head.

When God created mankind, he created a man, and a woman, so that man would not live an individual life. Point of fact, man requires a community to even exist. An individual has no meaning apart from the community God has established around him. Individualism is an insane denial of reality.

To be created in the image of God means by definition, to live in community with others, with all that implies. The individuals in the community are blessed with various gifts, areas of competence, authority, but the body is one. We depend on one another to know Christ.

 

[clem456]

How do you know that Jesus is the source of the fact?

Because the Church points it out.
How do you know ancient Greece existed?
?
Surely you trust someone for that knowledge.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because the Church points it out.

How do you know that the church is accurate in pointing it out?

 

[dronald]

Well, I would submit my will to that of the Holy Spirit and the Christ-promised guidance of His Church.

You are self-determining things based on … what?

The same way you do. You study the Bible, history, etc and have come to a conclusion and have joined a certain Church due to that conclusion.

 

[dronald]

What is an individual Church? Is Christ divided into pieces now? Paul decries this position in his letters. If Christ is the head and we are the body, and Christ cannot by nature be divided, how can there be individual Churches? There can only be one Church because there is only one Head.

When God created mankind, he created a man, and a woman, so that man would not live an individual life. Point of fact, man requires a community to even exist. An individual has no meaning apart from the community God has established around him. Individualism is an insane denial of reality.

To be created in the image of God means by definition, to live in community with others, with all that implies. The individuals in the community are blessed with various gifts, areas of competence, authority, but the body is one. We depend on one another to know Christ.

You’ll need to pay close attention to what I was responding to. It’s the claim that Evangelical Church’s submit to the CC’s authority. I don’t agree with this; we just happen to agree on the same books.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

How do you know that Jesus is the source of the fact?

See post 180

 

[Per_Crucem]

See post 180

Are history and universality infallible?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The same way you do. You study the Bible, history, etc and have come to a conclusion and have joined a certain Church due to that conclusion.

Would you rather join the Church that AUTHORED that Bible, or one that came along 1800 years later and said: hey, let me tell you what it really means?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You’ll need to pay close attention to what I was responding to. It’s the claim that Evangelical Church’s submit to the CC’s authority. I don’t agree with this; we just happen to agree on the same books.

So sad. To submit to the CC’s authority would be to follow the teachings of Christ.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Are history and universality infallible?

Nope, but taken as a whole, the failure possibility becomes diminishingly small.
From that point on, KNOWING that Jesus existed and gave those directions to, by, and of the Church, we can count on veracity.

Your approach leaves us with very great possibilities for ALL our beliefs to be wrong.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Nope, but taken as a whole, the failure possibility becomes diminishingly small.
From that point on, KNOWING that Jesus existed and gave those directions to, by, and of the Church, we can count on veracity.

Your approach leaves us with very great possibilities for ALL our beliefs to be wrong.

I haven’t even said what my approach is.

Be that as it may, however, you said taken as a whole, the failure becomes diminishingly small. If history, universality, and Scripture are fallible (going on Scripture as only a fallible historical document that requires the infallible church to say it is infallible) sources for your knowledge of the infallibility of the church, would you say you have fallible certainty that the church is infallible, or something else?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I haven’t even said what my approach is.

Yes, I’ve noted your reluctance to post anything close to an answer. Very Clinton-esque.

Be that as it may, however, you said taken as a whole, the failure becomes diminishingly small. If history, universality, and Scripture are fallible (going on Scripture as only a fallible historical document that requires the infallible church to say it is infallible) sources for your knowledge of the infallibility of the church, would you say you have fallible certainty that the church is infallible, or something else?

I have fallible certainty that I won’t suddenly teleport miles away, too.

What’s the point?

If a possibility of error is diminishingly small, there’s no practical doubt.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes, I’ve noted your reluctance to post anything close to an answer. Very Clinton-esque.

At least you’re not Clinton-esque with ad hominem argumentation.

I have fallible certainty that I won’t suddenly teleport miles away, too.

What’s the point?

If a possibility of error is diminishingly small, there’s no practical doubt.

The point is I’m applying your standard of certainty to your own position. Your standard of certainty for Protestants is, apparently, infallible certainty. i.e., “you can’t know that the Bible is infallible, or the canon or etc., unless the church has infallible authority to tell you these things.” Well, your own standard seems to be diminishingly small doubts as to the infallibility of the church.

If you can’t be infallibly certain that the church is infallible, I don’t see how you’re any better off than dronald.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If you can’t be infallibly certain that the church is infallible, I don’t see how you’re any better off than dronald.

I am absolutely certain that I am certainly correct when I am absolutely correct.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am absolutely certain that I am certainly correct when I am absolutely correct.

I am absolutely certain that you are always infallibly certainly right.

 

[steve_b]

Hi peace2u2,
If you are referring to whether tithing is practiced or not, here is a previous CAF thread that I started a few months ago that you might find interesting. In short, I asked whether tithing was still practiced in Catholic parishes and the majority of Catholics who responded said it was an Old Testament requirement and that Christians are no longer obligated to do it, although there were still some that do.

As far as my faith tradition (AOG) is concerned, tithing is encouraged but it is not a requirement. It is not considered a sin if you don’t tithe, although the clergy sometimes have tithing church members share how God has blessed them after they began tithing.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=898814

Giving for a Catholic is based more on the following passage than a “tithe”.

(all emphasis mine)

2 Cor 9: 5 So I thought it necessary to urge the brethren to go on to you before me, and arrange in advance for this gift you have promised, so that it may be ready not as an exaction but as a willing gift. 6 The point is this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 Each one must do as he has made up his mind, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance, so that you may always have enough of everything and may provide in abundance for every good work.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

At least you’re not Clinton-esque with ad hominem argumentation.

At least mine are applicable. And make sense.

The point is I’m applying your standard of certainty to your own position.

No, you’re not.

Your standard of certainty for Protestants is, apparently, infallible certainty. i.e., “you can’t know that the Bible is infallible, or the canon or etc., unless the church has infallible authority to tell you these things.”

It is? Funny, I don’t seem to recall saying such a thing.

Well, your own standard seems to be diminishingly small doubts as to the infallibility of the church. If you can’t be infallibly certain that the church is infallible, I don’t see how you’re any better off than dronald.

I have diminishingly small doubts that I am actually typing this, and that I’m not part of a “matrix” scenario where the physical universe is all a computer-generated reality.

You can’t possibly compare that “standard” with dronald’s much less yours, where you need to determine for yourselves each and every doctrine.

It’s nearly insane to think that there’s any similarity.

 

[clem456]

How do you know that the church is accurate in pointing it out?

Because Christ is the truth. The Church is his body. Christ is one with his Church, He and the Church are in communion. They live together, Christ with His body.

Is Christ the truth, or he is not truth? Does Christ live, or is he dead? Does he have one mystical body, or is there division in Christ?
How do you answer these questions?

 

[Per_Crucem]

It is? Funny, I don’t seem to recall saying such a thing.

See #136 and #163

 

[FathersKnowBest]

See #136 and #163

OK: Post 136:

Actually, no. We cannot.

Jesus didn’t speak Greek in normal, everyday conversation.

What we have are Greek translations of Jesus’ “exact words.”
And, as any translator will tell you, there is a certain latitude that MUST be taken in any translation.

Now, we believe that these translations are themselves theopneustos, and thus accurately convey the teachings of Christ. But that in itself is a revelation through the Church. (Other than Matthew 27:46)

What PRmerger has been offering are themselves the accurate teachings of Christ, also not in His exact words.

To demand His “exact words” is a bit disingenuous.

Nope, not there.

How about post 163?

But they were obviously not the actual words of Christ, since He pronounced them in Aramaic, and they were translated by the writers to Greek.

You know, the actual words of Christ, the very thing you insist on?

Why?

As for me, it is because I know that those to whom Christ entrusted Divine Authority have determined that. You can’t possibly deny that same Authority and yet have “absolute faith” in the very things that they, through the promised protection of the Holy Spirit, have determined.

Nope. Not there, either.
Unless you believe you can’t “know” something that is “only” 99.99999999999999% sure.