Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LDemontfort
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveVH said:
Correct. Nor do you. What other source would you suggest than those who walked, ate, lived and were taught by Jesus himself? What we received from Apostles is what has been preserved, guarded and protected throughout the centuries. What other source would there be?
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree. My point is not that you’re wrong. My point is saying that the church is infallible is not only unnecessary, but illogical.
But let me ask you. Why do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? What source do you use that gives you confidence that this is the case?
Click to expand...
Jesus.
 
JonNC said:
Thanks. It is, of course, a Catholic document, and I’m not sure how it applies to my repeating the statement that the Fathers were not infallible.

Jon
Click to expand...
Wait a minute…i thought you claim to be catholic?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Not in an of themselves. But through the Church, they have made statements that could be categorized as infallible.
Click to expand...
Hi Jose,
I suspect the problem is with the word “infallible”. Someone can be right about something, but that doesn’t make them infallible.

Jon
 
spina1953 said:
Hi Jon: I wonder who or what Bishops were not united with Peter if as you said "As not all Bishops united with Peter, even if not united with the Bishop of Rome? Or am not understanding just what you are actually referring to?
Click to expand...
I referring, probably quite poorly stated, to the fact that not all bishops are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though that doesn’t mean they’re not united with St. Peter.

Jon
 
JonNC said:
I referring, probably quite poorly stated, to the fact that not all bishops are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though that doesn’t mean they’re not united with St. Peter.

Jon
Click to expand...
Hi Jon: OK I think I understand what you are saying. But I am not sure that if a Bishop is not united with the Bishop of Rome, it seems to me that then he is not united with Peter. But that is just my opinion.
 
JonNC said:
Hi Jose,
I suspect the problem is with the word “infallible”. Someone can be right about something, but that doesn’t make them infallible.

Jon
Click to expand...
I agree Jon, I’m not saying they are infallible. But what clem456 is saying is correct. Christ is infallible, He speaks through the Church: “he who hears you, hears Me”.
 
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...
Yep.

It always comes down to this, with respect to Protestants diverging from Catholicism: the question of authority.

Connect the dots: if you believe in the 27 book canon of the NT, it’s because you give tacit submission to the authority of the CC.
 
JonNC said:
I referring, probably quite poorly stated, to the fact that not all bishops are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though that doesn’t mean they’re not united with St. Peter.

Jon
Click to expand...
What bishops are in rebellion from Rome that are still united with Peter?

And what does that look like, being united to Peter while divorced from Rome?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
I agree Jon, I’m not saying they are infallible. But what clem456 is saying is correct. Christ is infallible, He speaks through the Church: “he who hears you, hears Me”.
Click to expand...
True, though we humans sometimes garble things in the retelling

Jon
 
SteveVH said:
I 100% have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion. 🤷
Click to expand...
Because circular arguments are illogical. Saying the church is infallible because the church has interpreted Scripture and tradition to say that the church is infallible and since the church is infallible that interpretation is right, is complete nonsense.
And when did he do that? Did he tell you that there were to be 27 books in the New Testament and what they were?
Click to expand...
No, but do you know of any other books that can be traced either to an apostle or one of their disciples?
 
Per_Crucem said:
No, but do you know of any other books that can be traced either to an apostle or one of their disciples?
Click to expand...
Which Apostle or disciple wrote Hebrews? And how do you know?

Also, why is the Epistle of Barnabas not theopneustos?

And who determined that a book of the NT must be written by an Apostle or one of their disciples? From whence does that criterion come?
 
PRmerger said:
Which Apostle or disciple wrote Hebrews? And how do you know?

Also, why is the Epistle of Barnabas not theopneustos?

And who determined that a book of the NT must be written by an Apostle or one of their disciples? From whence does that criterion come?
Click to expand...
The Lutheran approach to this problem is surprising in that we don’t seek to establish such a table of contents. We hold that the lack of definitive historical evidence cannot simply be eliminated by properly consecrated people getting together and taking a Spirit-guided vote, and so there ultimately isn’t anything we can do about it. In other words, no amount of voting, liturgical development, or theological reflection can answer for us whether Hebrews was written by an apostle or at least a close associate. The evidence just isn’t there.

So what’s our answer? Well, go back to that word, “canon.” “Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like. Thus the Lutheran approach to the canon is to have a rule of interpretation essentially defined by the certainty to which we can establish a book’s origin:
  1. A dogma must be established by the universally attested books (homolegomena).
  2. Dogma may be corroborated by the contested books (antilegomena), and they may be read for historical background, advice, and other edifying purposes, but no dogma can be established from the antilegomena alone, nor can the antilegomena be pitted against the homolegomena.
 
Per_Crucem said:
So what’s our answer? Well, go back to that word, “canon.” “Canon” means “rule.” So the point of a canon isn’t to just have some final Table of Contents on which to draw up a dogma and so that we can excommunicate everyone who refuses to stop asking the historical questions, it’s to have a rule of faith for settling doctrinal disputes and the like.
Click to expand...
But you need to have the rule of faith first, no?

IOW: you need the kerygma first. Then you discern which of the texts are in coherence with this kerygma.
 
PRmerger said:
But you need to have the rule of faith first, no?

IOW: you need the kerygma first. Then you discern which of the texts are in coherence with this kerygma.
Click to expand...
Yes. However, by the very fact that the Scriptures align with what was passed down in the churches by the apostles tells us that the content of the kerygma and the content of Scripture are coterminus. What is contained in the kerygma is what is contained in the Scriptures.
 
JonNC said:
True, though we humans sometimes garble things in the retelling

Jon
Click to expand...
Yes that is true. But because Christ shares in our humanity, and gives his gifts to humanity in a real way, not a theoretical way, we are promised and guaranteed the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the structure that Christ established, even while humans are imperfect. Only in Christ is the imperfect brought to perfection.

Really the whole debate here is about whether or not the structure (human and divine) Christ established really exists, and whether we can bring ourselves to trust it. Yes we are called to give our assent to flawed human beings because Christ has immersed himself in our condition and gifted all of us. The Church’s authority is a sharing in Christ’s gifts. We human beings find this extremely hard to accept, and we do not give our trust easily to others, even though it is Christ who asks us.
And the end question is, do you believe Christ was truly Incarnated in human flesh, or do you not? Was he just a spirit dude? Is he just a book or set of ideas, or is he real?
If he intended to accomplish his mission from afar in a purely spiritual and theoretical way, he did not have to take human nature and die, passing the baton to humans.

It seems Gnosticism is the issue.
 
Per_Crucem said:
Okay, so instead of focusing on Scripture, may I ask what infallible authority tells you that Sacred Tradition is what you claim it to be? You say Jesus, but apart from the Church telling you “Jesus taught this,” you have no other source.

You see, ISTM that, ultimately, no matter how you cut it, the infallibility argument is hopelessly circular. In the end, you’re going to be left with “the church is infallible because the church says so.” You can say it’s because Jesus says so, but you also say you can’t know what Jesus actually said unless the church infallibly tells you.
Click to expand...
I posted my answer in #412. I haven’t seen a response to it. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top