Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[PRmerger]

But to completely agree that the Church is correct would put me in a category where I am able to defend the Church’s declaration by myself. It does not make me competent to say that this is an infallible declaration…

Because?

It would mean that I am declaring that there is no error in the Church’s declaration

Well, now, Jose, this puts you in a very, very tenuous position as an evangelist.

When you are in dialogue with, say, a Muslim, and you want to tell him that Christ is God and you know this because of the Resurrection…

all this Muslim has to say (if he has been reading your posts here) is: “Well, Jose, you’re not really sure that your Jesus rose from the dead, are you? You didn’t see it. You weren’t there. And you don’t know if what your holy scriptures say is correct. And you don’t know if your Church is correct…so why would I ever believe that your Jesus is divine when even you don’t know if he is?”

And his argument would be a valid one.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So you seem to be saying that 98% of Christians don’t really know if the 27 book canon of the NT is correct?

Is that your position, Jose?

That is correct. Not only that, 98% of Christians don’t know what they had for breakfast last Wednesday.

And I am being generous.

Do you think that more than 2% of Christians know the history and development of the New Testament?

I do not.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well, now, Jose, this puts you in a very, very tenuous position as an evangelist.

When you are in dialogue with, say, a Muslim, and you want to tell him that Christ is God and you know this because of the Resurrection…

all this Muslim has to say (if he has been reading your posts here) is: “Well, Jose, you’re not really sure that your Jesus rose from the dead, are you? You didn’t see it. You weren’t there. And you don’t know if what your holy scriptures say is correct. And you don’t know if your Church is correct…so why would I ever believe that your Jesus is divine when even you don’t know if he is?”

And his argument would be a valid one.

Goodness gracious.

Can you please draw an algorithm of how you reach this conclusion?

As a Catholic, I have no problem defending this position. My Church was there, we have a direct line of succession from the witnesses that actually walked, talked, ate and suffered with Jesus.

I really want to see this algorithm.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yep. That seems to be the same thing that FKB was saying.

No. FKB said that the protestant knows for certain, where I say that the protestant accepts.

 

[mlz]

But yet the Anglicans allow women to be ordained priests and same-sex marriage in their Church.

as do ELCA same-sex marriage Lutherans being pastors… but to answer the original question as to protesting…most "protestants don’t really protest the Catholic Church but rather are more into just being Christian as their radar doesn’t even consider the Catholic Church or what it teaches…early Church history isn’t understood, so mostly it is truely being ignorant of Catholic teaching which is why Catholic radio is so helpful!

mlz

 

[guanophore]

There is only one way to connect the dots to get a coherent picture.

I think we can stipulate that the picture is not coherent.

I know we've been over this before, but yet again:

“Infallible” doesn’t just mean “right.” It means “can’t be/couldn’t have been wrong.”

It is logically coherent to argue that the early Church could have gotten the canon wrong but didn’t.

Maybe I am confused with what you are saying, because it seems to me that, if it is impossible to “get it wrong” then there is no NEED for a gift of infallibility. It seems to me that the reason the gift is needed is because human beings can, and do, “get it wrong”.

It is also logically coherent to argue that the Church has been given a charism of infallibility but that it is much more limited than Catholics believe, or just functions differently.

Yes, I think it is very misunderstood, including Catholics.

 I find this argument about the canon particularly puzzling because of course Protestants _do_ reject the views of Augustine and of the local councils of Rome and Carthage, etc., when it comes to the OT. So how can you argue that they tacitly accept the infallibility of the Church with regard to the canon?

Because Augustine, like all the Fathers, Theologians, and doctors of the Church submitted their ideas and research to the Church. Augustine, Jerome, and others may have had their opinions, but always yielded to Holy Mother Church for the final rule.

That is why it seems so absurd to try to pull dissent out of the Fathers to justify modern departure from Apostolic doctrine.

That being said, sola scriptura Protestants don't have a good account of why they take the NT canon on trust. It just isn't true to argue that their position implies a belief in infallibility. That overstates the case and thus obscures the very important point that needs to be made.

Yes, and then they will just say “it is a fallible collection of infallible books” or “Sola Scriptura assumes a canon” (thereby dodging the issue entirely).

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No. FKB said that the protestant knows for certain, where I say that the protestant accepts.

Since this is a hypothetical, you could be right.

But I’m willing to bet that the next, say, 10 protestants in a row, who are adamant about their faith, would say that they know for certain that the 27 books of the OT are inspired and that they know that for certain.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Since this is a hypothetical, you could be right.

But I’m willing to bet that the next, say, 10 protestants in a row, who are adamant about their faith, would say that they know for certain that the 27 books of the OT are inspired and that they know that for certain.

Until we start to analyse what they mean by “know for certain”.

One single answer can solve this:
“Because they were received and declared by the Church”.

How many out of those 10 will say that?

These are the dots PR was talking about. Where you can’t have a complete picture if you separate Scriptures and the Church. I get that.

However, the dot that I think is out of the grid lines is the concession of infallibility.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Until we start to analyse what they mean by “know for certain”.

One single answer can solve this:
“Because they were received and declared by the Church”.

How many out of those 10 will say that?

None. That is the point.

They are tacitly admitting that the Church is infallibly correct in this instance, but won’t admit (even to themselves) that it is necessarily so.

They have no other means by which to say that they are SURE of the NT canon.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

None. That is the point.

They are tacitly admitting that the Church is infallibly correct in this instance, but won’t admit (even to themselves) that it is necessarily so.

They have no other means by which to say that they are SURE of the NT canon.

I wouldn’t say none. Especially within this board. But on average, probably 2-3 would.

Of course I disagree with that they [understand] or [imply without statement] -which is what tacit means- that the Church is infallible in this instance. Church infallibility is an alien concept in most (if not all) of protestants beliefs.

 

[clem456]

I seems to me that Sola Scriptura is superstitious. It gives an idolatrous power to the written word, separating it from the reality of the Incarnation. Jesus takes on human nature and lives the Gospel among us. He is real and lived among real men. If we separate the two, the special place of humanity in God’s plan is de-emphasized.

Or, if one believes that only the Apostles had the gift of Inspiration insofar as they completed the Scriptures, then the whole idea of the risen Christ guiding his Church through the ages is in question. Is he with us always, or is he not? Is he not in continuity with his Church?

If I could anticipate the objection, a protestant might say he is with “us” only in a collective way, not with any particular person (Pope, bishop) in any particular charism.
But Christ interacted with specific apostles in specific ways, giving them specific gifts suitable to their office. He breathed on them and commanded them, which is a specific action.
And Paul tells us there are gifts. Even among the laity we have a diversity of gifts. We are not all the “same” in that regard. Sometimes our democratic sensibilities get in the way of our faith. We don’t like when others have gifts that we don’t have. But gifts are given to persons for the edification of the whole Body of Christ, not for the oppression of it.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I wouldn’t say none. Especially within this board. But on average, probably 2-3 would.

Of course I disagree with that they [understand] or [imply without statement] -which is what tacit means- that the Church is infallible in this instance. Church infallibility is an alien concept in most (if not all) of protestants beliefs.

I guess the usage of tacit that I’m used to is more akin to the British English usage:
British English: tacit If you refer to someone’s tacit agreement or approval, you mean they are agreeing to something or approving it without actually saying so, often because they are unwilling to admit to doing so.

 

[guanophore]

Since this is a hypothetical, you could be right.

But I’m willing to bet that the next, say, 10 protestants in a row, who are adamant about their faith, would say that they know for certain that the 27 books of the OT are inspired and that they know that for certain.

Yes, I think you are right. And they would forward the recognition of what is Scripture, by the grace of God:

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us…Hebrews 10:15

I seems to me that Sola Scriptura is superstitious. It gives an idolatrous power to the written word, separating it from the reality of the Incarnation. Jesus takes on human nature and lives the Gospel among us. He is real and lived among real men.

I have never thought of it as superstitious, but it is true that it is an attempt to force the Scriptures into a role they were never meant to play. The Scriptures cannot “rule” in the sense that they can make decisions. The are authorative, ,but they cannot wield authority (this requires a person). It is expecting the Scriptures to play a role that they do not have the quality to play.

If we separate the two, the special place of humanity in God’s plan is de-emphasized.

And this is complicated by the errant doctrine of total depravity. The apostolic concept of the nature of man has also been lost.

…f the risen Christ guiding his Church through the ages is in question. Is he with us always, or is he not? Is he not in continuity with his Church?

I always ask, what happened to the powerful Jesus we see in the Book of Revelation? How come He lost the ability to get the attention of His Church, and to guide them? I never get an answer.

If I could anticipate the objection, a protestant might say he is with "us" only in a collective way, not with any particular person (Pope, bishop) in any particular charism.

This is certainly a good arguement, but how is it manifested? Is Christ divided?

I find myself mystified about the common claim that each denomination has some of the Truth, and that " We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known." 1 Co 13:12.

so we won’t know who is “right” until we are home in heaven. I just cannot fathom that Jesus would leave His Church with such splintering and confusion.

 

[PRmerger]

That is correct.

That is ridiculous.

All Christians know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired. And that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired. And that the other 25 books are inspired.

Do you think that more than 2% of Christians know the history and development of the New Testament?

I do not.

I agree with you. Not more than 2% of Christians know the history and development of the NT.

 

[PRmerger]

Goodness gracious.

Can you please draw an algorithm of how you reach this conclusion?

As a Catholic, I have no problem defending this position. My Church was there, we have a direct line of succession from the witnesses that actually walked, talked, ate and suffered with Jesus.

I really want to see this algorithm.

All the Muslim has to say is, “But you think the Church could be wrong about this. QED.”

 

[PRmerger]

None. That is the point.

They are tacitly admitting that the Church is infallibly correct in this instance, but won’t admit (even to themselves) that it is necessarily so.

They have no other means by which to say that they are SURE of the NT canon.

Egg-zactly.

No other means.

But because they haven’t connected the dots they aren’t able to say, “Therefore, I believe that some men have been given the charism of infallibility.”

There is a cognitive dissonance that they don’t recognize, that is quite astonishing to me.

A parallel would be this conversation:

Person C: All cows are mammals.

Person P: No. Cows are not mammals.

Person C: But (female) mammals produce milk, right?

Person P: Of course.

Person C: Cows produce milk, right?

Person P: Yes, yes. No doubt about that.

Person C: Then…that means that cows are mammals.

Person P: No. Female mammals produce milk. And cows produce milk. But that doesn’t mean that cows are mammals. It just means that God did this in some way.

Person C: Huh?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

That is ridiculous.

All Christians know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired. And that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired. And that the other 25 books are inspired.

Right, but I thought we were discussing the why

I agree with you. Not more than 2% of Christians know the history and development of the NT.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

All the Muslim has to say is, “But you think the Church could be wrong about this. QED.”

The Muslim can say that but that’s not what I am implying by not finding error.

Maybe I’m not being clear enough.

Hopefully this analogy can help,

How do you know a $1 bill is false (Or has errors)?

By knowing what a real one looks like. There is no way around it.

You can say that a false $1 is false because you can find an [error] in it.

Let’s go back to what I’m saying.

I’m saying that I am not able to say, as a lay person, that the 27 books are in error because I really don’t know how many books should be there and/or if some of those 27 books should not be there.

Why?

Because I don’t know the original.

The NT itself doesn’t have the list of the books that it is composed of. The original we have is the declaration of the Church of what books are to be considered at the time of the declaration to the present.

What I am saying is that I am not able to find error. But that same inability to find error doesn’t entail that I know enough to say that it is a perfect inerrant declaration. IOW, I am not tacitly conceding infallibility. I am tacitly conceding trust.

 

[PRmerger]

Right, but I thought we were discussing the why

Actually, I have no idea what we’re discussion.

It sounds like you’re objecting to something I’m arguing, but I’m not quite sure what your point is, vis a vis my position.

 

[PRmerger]

IOW, I am not tacitly conceding infallibility. I am tacitly conceding trust.

Well, then, I have no problem with that.

And this means that the Protestant is tacitly conceding trust.

Which means he gives his submission to the authority of the CC.

Which means he is not a Bible Alone advocate.

Which also means that he has decided to pick and choose when he wishes to trust the CC and when he decides he wants to trust himself.

That’s an incoherent and arbitrary paradigm.

As Mark Shea says, paraphrasing: the Protestant wants throw the bishop’s miters to the floor, stomp on our altars, but inexplicably take our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Incoherent.