Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LDemontfort
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We’re not Gonna Protest!! We’re not gonna protest!! We’re not gonna protest!! We’re not gonna protest!!😃
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trust in what? Trust that the 27 books the Church chose are the inerrant word of God. And why would one place such trust in the Church if we are not convinced that the Church was led by the Holy Spirit in choosing the canon? IOW you must trust in the infallibility of the Church or you have no reason to trust that the canon is correct. Unless your position is “I don’t know if the canon is correct, I just trust that it is for no particular reason.” That would be a tenuous position to assume, IMO.
 
LDemontfort said:
As a Catholic in an area with many non-Catholic’s I often hear that Martin Luther was a great man that saved the church through reformation. However, when the question is posed about the “need” for Martin Luther’s protest I hear explanations like… “Because the Catholic Church was corrupt” or “the church lost its authority”, et. Al. What I don’t understand, and my question is if the issue was corruption why change the dogma? If the issue was loss of authority, whether through corruption or some other reason, how do they explain Matthew 16:18. Would that not mean the church fell due to evil (“the gates of hell”)? If it did not fall then the teachings of the church were still sound, so why did Martin Luther (with no authority if his own) decide it truthful and appropriate to change teaching? If it did fall, how could that be, as it runs contrary to Jesus’s own words, which is “truth”?
Click to expand...
A Protestant might tell you, for example, that there is support for two sacraments in the bible. Those who prefer to follow the Pope, prefer the Catholic version which would find evidence for seven sacraments. This is one of many examples.

Personally, I would suggest that minor differences are not that important, between differing Christian sects. Getting hung up by such things is a disservice to the spirit of Christianity, which was taught by Jesus to be more ecumenical than divisive.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
IOW, I am not tacitly conceding infallibility. I am tacitly conceding trust.
Click to expand...
How much trust?
Complete trust? Why, unless the Church is infallible.
Less than complete trust? Then you don’t have a guaranteed-to-be-correct and complete list of the books in the NT.

So, either you have an infallible Church and an inspired Bible, or you have neither.
 
SteveVH said:
Trust in what? Trust that the 27 books the Church chose are the inerrant word of God. And why would one place such trust in the Church if we are not convinced that the Church was led by the Holy Spirit in choosing the canon? IOW you must trust in the infallibility of the Church or you have no reason to trust that the canon is correct. Unless your position is “I don’t know if the canon is correct, I just trust that it is for no particular reason.” That would be a tenuous position to assume, IMO.
Click to expand...
Whoops, sorry. I posted my reply before I read yours. I think we’re saying the very same thing.
 
SteveVH said:
Trust in what? Trust that the 27 books the Church chose are the inerrant word of God. And why would one place such trust in the Church if we are not convinced that the Church was led by the Holy Spirit in choosing the canon? IOW you must trust in the infallibility of the Church or you have no reason to trust that the canon is correct. Unless your position is “I don’t know if the canon is correct, I just trust that it is for no particular reason.” That would be a tenuous position to assume, IMO.
Click to expand...
You guys are truly obsessed with infallibility, lol.

I trust the Church is correct with the 27 books. I have found no reason to contest the Church’s declaration.

How exactly this tacitly concedes infallibility?

You guys are starting to sound like the OSAS people… lol
 
FathersKnowBest said:
How much trust?
Complete trust? Why, unless the Church is infallible.
Less than complete trust? Then you don’t have a guaranteed-to-be-correct and complete list of the books in the NT.

So, either you have an infallible Church and an inspired Bible, or you have neither.
Click to expand...
What infallible source tells you that the church is infallible?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
You guys are truly obsessed with infallibility, lol.

I trust the Church is correct with the 27 books. I have found no reason to contest the Church’s declaration.

How exactly this tacitly concedes infallibility?

You guys are starting to sound like the OSAS people… lol
Click to expand...
If two groups come to the same conclusion then it obviously follows that one must have submitted to the authority of the other.
 
Per_Crucem said:
What infallible source tells you that the church is infallible?
Click to expand...
More importantly, like I asked before:

Has the Church declared the Canon infallible?

I don’t care about opinions. Only the Church can say what is and isn’t infallible.
 
dronald said:
If two groups come to the same conclusion then it obviously follows that one must have submitted to the authority of the other.
Click to expand...
IKR!? Whether one of the groups want to admit or not, they are tacitly (Word of the day, byw :)) submitting to what is already in place by whom put it in place.

The jump to infallibility is just not there. You know what, I’m gonna go Luther for a second, lol.

Why did Clement I not make it to the NT?

😃
 
Per_Crucem said:
What infallible source tells you that the church is infallible?
Click to expand...
Jesus.

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (MT 16:19)

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26)

The one main point that many seem to forget is that this is Christ’s Church. He is the Head. That is why the Church is infallible. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, protects HIS Church from error.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
More importantly, like I asked before:

Has the Church declared the Canon infallible?

I don’t care about opinions. Only the Church can say what is and isn’t infallible.
Click to expand...
What exactly would be proof of infallibility in regard to the compilation of the canon?
 
SteveVH said:
Jesus.

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (MT 16:19)

"But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26)

The one main point that many seem to forget is that this is Christ’s Church. He is the Head. That is why the Church is infallible. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, protects HIS Church from error.
Click to expand...
But it was earlier said that you cannot know that Scripture is infallible unless the Church is infallible. On what basis, then, are you saying the words of Jesus above are infallible? If you say the Church, then you are assuming what you are seeking to prove.
 
dronald said:
If two groups come to the same conclusion then it obviously follows that one must have submitted to the authority of the other.
Click to expand...
Lets place this in reality. Who came to the same conclusion? Has there ever been an authoritative Protestant organization who studied the over 400 texts that were considered by the various councils for inclusion in the canon and came to the same conclusion that only 27 of those texts should be included? No. You accept what the Church determined because the Church determined it and for no other reason.
 
SteveVH said:
Lets place this in reality. Who came to the same conclusion? Has there ever been an authoritative Protestant organization who studied the over 400 texts that were considered by the various councils for inclusion in the canon and came to the same conclusion that only 27 of those texts should be included? No. You accept what the Church determined because the Church determined it and for no other reason.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Per_Crucem said:
But it was earlier said that you cannot know that Scripture is infallible unless the Church is infallible. On what basis, then, are you saying the words of Jesus above are infallible? If you say the Church, then you are assuming what you are seeking to prove.
Click to expand...
If we extracted our faith from the Bible I would tend to agree with you. But we don’t. We possessed this truth long before the texts were chosen. That is the basis on which the texts were chosen; did they authentically reflect the truth already received by the Church from the Apostles. So this is not some circular argument for the simple reason that our faith does not originate from the Bible.
 
Just FYI, the canon of scripture, or anything else Catholic for that matter, does not require a specifically infallible declaration to require the assent of the faithful.
The concept of infallibility is widely misunderstood and is a red herring here.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11454258&postcount=61
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11185812&postcount=17
Many people live under the mistaken idea that only that which is declared infallible binds Catholics, nothing can be further from the truth. There is very little that the Church covers with the umbrella of infallibility and much less has been declared that is Ex Cathedra. Other than the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the only other Ex Cathedra pronouncements that the Church has made are canonizations.
Click to expand...
However, this does not mean that we can choose to comply or not comply. The Council of Trent and Vatican I made it very clear that Catholics have an obligation to comply with what Church authority asks of us. It was never said that we get to pick and choose when we comply, nor that we can refuse to comply because something is not infallible. That’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Again, read the CCC as well (Catechism of the Catholic Church, it’s current teaching document) which gives an explanation of infallibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top