Do modern Protestants know what they are protesting?

[Per_Crucem]

I posted my answer in #412. I haven’t seen a response to it.

It’s the same starting point that Steve and PR have mentioned. However, unless you claim infallible knowledge in regard to that starting point, I don’t see how it’s a superior position to the typical evangelical response. You argue with the evangelical that his knowledge of the extent of Scripture is fallible, and you’re right. So, however, is your personal knowledge of the extent of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. The evangelical is as certain of the canon as you are certain of the Church.

 

[steve_b]

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.

As far as scripture being Infallibile vs inerrant, is discussed here #1

 

[steve_b]

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.

Here’s a quick 1st 400 years of Catholic i.e. Christian history **#34 **open up all the internal links to show the evidence for scripture + Tradition
P:

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.

The Catholic argument is linear not circular. The only Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church (the pillar and foundation of truth [1 Timothy 3:15](1 - - Bible Gateway Timothy+3:15&version=RSVCE)). The HS which Jesus promised doesn’t speak on His own, but only speaks what He hears from Jesus John 16:12-15 . And we know Jesus wants zero division in what He established John 17:20-23 . Therefore we know, the HS doesn’t inspire ANYONE to divide from the Catholic Church Jesus established. The Church is Jesus bride. He is absolutely faithful to His bride. That makes this a linear process from Jesus, His Church, and forward and will be forever.

 

[clem456]

As far as scripture being Infallibile vs inerrant, is discussed here #1

Yes I wish everyone would take time to read the above link.
The word infallible is frequently misused here.

 

[dronald]

Here’s a quick 1st 400 years of Catholic i.e. Christian history #34 open up all the internal links to show the evidence for scripture + Tradition

The Catholic argument is linear not circular. The only Church Jesus established is the Catholic Church (the pillar and foundation of truth [1 Timothy 3:15](1 - - Bible Gateway Timothy+3:15&version=RSVCE)). The HS which Jesus promised doesn’t speak on His own, but only speaks what He hears from Jesus John 16:12-15 . And we know Jesus wants zero division in what He established John 17:20-23 . Therefore we know, the HS doesn’t inspire ANYONE to divide from the Catholic Church Jesus established. The Church is Jesus bride. He is absolutely faithful to His bride. That makes this a linear process from Jesus, His Church, and forward and will be forever.

And you came to believe this how?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It’s the same starting point that Steve and PR have mentioned. However, unless you claim infallible knowledge in regard to that starting point, I don’t see how it’s a superior position to the typical evangelical response. You argue with the evangelical that his knowledge of the extent of Scripture is fallible, and you’re right. So, however, is your personal knowledge of the extent of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

Ours is fallible, but with the very same sources of knowledge as is our belief (and yours) in Christ.

So again, if our basis for belief in the Church is wrong, so too is our belief in Christ. Yours, too.

The evangelical is as certain of the canon as you are certain of the Church.

HOW???

There’s fallible and then there’s fallible. Your drawing some kind of equivalence is not logical. I can say that I know what the winning lottery ticket numbers were yesterday, but I could be wrong (the newspaper could have had a misprint, for example).
That would be far, far different from saying that I know tomorrow’s winning numbers, because I have it on a good inside source, or a “system”.

 

[steve_b]

And you came to believe this how?

Does that mean you do not believe this?

 

[dronald]

Does that mean you do not believe this?

I believe much of what you said, yes.

So again I ask; how did you come to believe all that?

 

[SteveVH]

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.

That is not the argument I made. We start with Jesus. Jesus founded a Church upon the Apostles. The Apostles handed on what they had received. We have many writings of the early Christians as evidence of how the early Church understood what they had received. We also have a measure as to how the modern Catholic Church lines up with the doctrines of those first Christians. We can determine, with our rational minds, that what the Church now believes is the same as what the early Church believed which means we can live our faith in confidence that we are the original Church. With this confidence we then listen to what it teaches and submit our lives to it. This Church claims infallibility and we accept it because the voice of the Church is the voice of Christ.

No, but do you know of any other books that can be traced either to an apostle or one of their disciples?

First of all you are avoiding the question. You claim that Jesus told you that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I would love to hear about this experience. Once again, Per Crucem, how do you know that you can rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God?

As far as other writings from an Apostle or one of their disciples? Yes, actually. The Didache for one. Any of the writings of Polycarp who was a student of John for another. That’s off the top of my head. Throw in the writings of Clement, who was contemporary of the Apostles. The fact is that there were over 400 documents considered for inclusion in the canon and only 27 of those made it.

 

[spina1953]

I think one must remember that not all of the Apostles wrote. John wrote and Matthew wrote, Mark wrote for Peter and Luke wrote for Paul, yet the rest of the Apostles did not write anything at all so far we know. However, I think the Apostles like Jesus said a great many things that were never written down but nonetheless passed on, this is Tradition in helping one to understand Scriptures that were considered inspired and became canon.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

2 things are pretty obvious so far:

1. Some Catholic posters don’t want to admit they made an individual personal decision to join the CC.
2. Some Protestant posters don’t want to admit that without the Church they would not know what is and isn’t Scriptures.

And… the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Novocastrian]

1. Some Protestant posters don’t want to admit that without the Church they would not know what is and isn’t Scriptures.

Depends what you mean by ‘Church’. And ‘know’, I suppose.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Depends what you mean by ‘Church’. And ‘know’, I suppose.

 

[clem456]

And you came to believe this how?

How I came to accept the Church:

I came to believe that Christ is a real living person through an intense conversion experience. The experience was both personal and communitarian, through priests, sacraments, parishioners, scripture studies.

Since I believe that Christ lives and he desires an intense personal relationship with me, it is a logical next step that his Church is an ongoing and continuous living reality, not a theoretical game (I have a science degree and I wanted infallible proof of everything).

I was thus inspired to give my trust and assent (faith) to Christ along with those who are Christ’s body.

So, I came to believe that Christ is real, that he lives, and that I am not God.
Since I am not God, I owe my trust and assent to something outside myself, something besides my own intellect.

Pride is the main stumbling block to Christian unity.
Like Thomas we say “Show me! And do it in an infallible and unmistakable way, so my faith is not required!” Faith requires a tremendous amount of trust, and it doesn’t coexist well with pride, which wants it’s own answers.
We refuse to accept that Christ could possibly ask us to humbly accept the charism of authority from others.

 

[dronald]

How I came to accept the Church:

I came to believe that Christ is a real living person through an intense conversion experience. The experience was both personal and communitarian, through priests, sacraments, parishioners, scripture studies.

Since I believe that Christ lives and he desires an intense personal relationship with me, it is a logical next step that his Church is an ongoing and continuous living reality, not a theoretical game (I have a science degree and I wanted infallible proof of everything).

I was thus inspired to give my trust and assent (faith) to Christ along with those who are Christ’s body.

So, I came to believe that Christ is real, that he lives, and that I am not God.
Since I am not God, I owe my trust and assent to something outside myself, something besides my own intellect.

Pride is the main stumbling block to Christian unity.
Like Thomas we say “Show me! And do it in an infallible and unmistakable way, so my faith is not required!” Faith requires a tremendous amount of trust, and it doesn’t coexist well with pride, which wants it’s own answers.
We refuse to accept that Christ could possibly ask us to humbly accept the charism of authority from others.

Yeah, so it all begins with faith. We both have faith that the books we read are inspired and Jesus built a Church.

If it was entirely based on logic then we could assume that everyone who has looked into Christianity would be a Christian. Many intellectual individuals turn out to be Atheists, Catholics or Protestant alike. Many historians doubt this and that about the Canon of Scripture, but we both accept it on faith as our starting point.

As for your pride reasoning; I think it takes guts for the most powerful, largest organizations to crush their pride. The Catholic Church imo has always been one of the proudest organizations and its leaders have reflected that in the past.

The beautiful outfits that Popes have worn for centuries, dressing like kings etc. Others kiss their ring when (like Francis) he should be washing the feet of others. I believe that Cardinals and Popes have lorded their authority over others instead of becoming a servant.

So dropping pride is a two way street. Francis is a good start I think.

 

[steve_b]

I believe much of what you said, yes.

So again I ask; how did you come to believe all that?

In those links it clearly gives the reason for my belief. Scripture + sacred Tradition (i.e. the Catholic Church) properly referenced in those links

You say you believe in much of what I said. What part do you NOT believe?

 

[clem456]

Yeah, so it all begins with faith. We both have faith that the books we read are inspired and Jesus built a Church.

It doesn’t all begin with my faith. It begins with Christ. My faith is in Christ. Faith is a theological virtue, which is a gift from God. I need to give my assent and trust to have faith. The Church is the real and present body of Christ that I unite my faith to, the instrument he established for our salvation.
The Church is Christ’s body, not a creation of my own beliefs.

If it was entirely based on logic then we could assume that everyone who has looked into Christianity would be a Christian. Many intellectual individuals turn out to be Atheists, Catholics or Protestant alike. Many historians doubt this and that about the Canon of Scripture, but we both accept it on faith as our starting point.

As for your pride reasoning; I think it takes guts for the most powerful, largest organizations to crush their pride. The Catholic Church imo has always been one of the proudest organizations and its leaders have reflected that in the past.

The beautiful outfits that Popes have worn for centuries, dressing like kings etc. Others kiss their ring when (like Francis) he should be washing the feet of others. I believe that Cardinals and Popes have lorded their authority over others instead of becoming a servant.

So dropping pride is a two way street. Francis is a good start I think.

Of course everyone without exception is called to humility. Of course Catholics contribute to disunity through pride.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Very Catholic, this!

Which still leave the Protestant with a cognitive dissonance: you reject the authority of the Church, yet you accept the authority of the Church.

Incoherent.

 

[dronald]

Very Catholic, this!

You say this a lot to Protestants, myself included. It’s because we’re a lot alike.

 

[clem456]

• Faith

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God."78 For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith "work through charity."79

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it.80 But “faith apart from works is dead”:81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks."82 Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."83