M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Thanks for answering the OP question. I took the rest of the discussion to a new thread if you want to join.
- Status
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
When it dawned on me that unless it is possible to trust an infallible teacher or that it is possible that Jesus meant it when he spoke of Binding and Loosing and Keys and such then there is no reason to trust anything I converted. Non-Catholic Christianity has no appeal to me except as a hobby. It’s simply too shallow.
CDL
CDL
C
Contarini
Guest
No human can teach faith or morals infallibly when speaking simply as a human. Scripture is infallible because Scripture is divinely inspired, and thus the primary author (theologically speaking) of Scripture is God, as St. Thomas said.So for Protestants, is there no human who can teach faith or morals infallibly (besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, Isaiah, David, Jeremiah, etc…)??? And there’s actually no one today who could interpret a Scripture verse infallibly, correct?
I’m not looking for debate, just curiosity. And please go deeper than “Yes there is” or “No there isn’t.”
I myself am open to the possibility that God might protect human beings from error under certain circumstances in the way Catholics claim, but given how much confusion this idea seems to cause I’m not convinced that it’s necessary or even terribly useful.
Edwin
M
mozart-250
Guest
(1) Any belief that you must hold in order to have eternal life
(2) God
(3) Yes
See the recent thread “Do Protestants have faith”. Obviously this is an issue where Catholics disagree. So obviously this issue is a “non-essential” within Catholicism. So obviously both Catholics and Protestants have “non-essentials”.
H
heisenburg
Guest
Mozart…
What constitutes required to believe…
I would say taking communion is required because Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. But if you don’t agree with that interpretation of John 6, then communion is no longer a problem…
I would also say being baptized by water is a requirement, but then again same here, many protestants do not…
What about faith alone… is this a requirement? If so, then why is there so little agreement on what faith alone actually means. Some say it means something very close to what the Church teaches on faith+works, other take it to extremes and say it is simply believe alone.
Rapture ala Tim Lehaa(sp)… I would say not only is it a nonessential, but totally a false and untrue teaching… But other Christians have said it is an absolute for Christians… Some even calling it a litmus test for a person…
OK…lets go basic… believing in Jesus… Is this a requirement… well… yes… but wait, there are some ‘Christians’ that say he was NOT the son of God. Further more, what does that belief entail… A catholic would say believe and being obedient to his words. I have been told by a Baptist Friend that, again, it simply means believe. No action required.
There is no agreement on what ‘essentials’ are, well essential. Often, If there is a disagreement between two faith traditions… the disagreement becomes a nonessential anyway.
So, who do we look to to find out what the essential is?
I would say the teaching authority. you would say the bible or your pastor… but now we have a strange situation of who is being properly guided by the HS…
If the HS guides us all to truth… where is that truth and what is it… When you get down to what is actually taught between the different faith traditions, you will find that there is no agreement on what is ‘essential’.
It comforts me to know that there is a teaching authority. Because if there is a disagreement between me and what the church teaches, I know I am the one wrong…
The same is not true elsewhere…
In Christ
What constitutes required to believe…
I would say taking communion is required because Jesus says we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. But if you don’t agree with that interpretation of John 6, then communion is no longer a problem…
I would also say being baptized by water is a requirement, but then again same here, many protestants do not…
What about faith alone… is this a requirement? If so, then why is there so little agreement on what faith alone actually means. Some say it means something very close to what the Church teaches on faith+works, other take it to extremes and say it is simply believe alone.
Rapture ala Tim Lehaa(sp)… I would say not only is it a nonessential, but totally a false and untrue teaching… But other Christians have said it is an absolute for Christians… Some even calling it a litmus test for a person…
OK…lets go basic… believing in Jesus… Is this a requirement… well… yes… but wait, there are some ‘Christians’ that say he was NOT the son of God. Further more, what does that belief entail… A catholic would say believe and being obedient to his words. I have been told by a Baptist Friend that, again, it simply means believe. No action required.
There is no agreement on what ‘essentials’ are, well essential. Often, If there is a disagreement between two faith traditions… the disagreement becomes a nonessential anyway.
So, who do we look to to find out what the essential is?
I would say the teaching authority. you would say the bible or your pastor… but now we have a strange situation of who is being properly guided by the HS…
If the HS guides us all to truth… where is that truth and what is it… When you get down to what is actually taught between the different faith traditions, you will find that there is no agreement on what is ‘essential’.
It comforts me to know that there is a teaching authority. Because if there is a disagreement between me and what the church teaches, I know I am the one wrong…
The same is not true elsewhere…
In Christ
M
Mighty_Q
Guest
Well, Papal Infallibility isn’t used very often.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Amen to this anyway, Edwin!!
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree. I think teaching without error can only be done by the Power of God. I am confused, though when there are so many examples of this in the Scriptures, why people who are faithful bible beleivers do not accept that the HS can speak infallibly through people. Shoot, God can even do this through the mouth of a donkey!!
N
NDfan
Guest
Heisenburg sorry to barge in. But aside from John 6 Jesus says do this in rembrance of me. The word being used is Amnesis. So I would agree that we should be partaking the Lord’s supper. But if you aren’t then do you go to hell?
Baptism is not required to go to Heaven. You should be baptized as Jesus commands in the great commission. But suppose someone is scheduled to get baptized this weekend and they die in a car crash? Only GOD knows what’s truly in our hearts.
Works do not get you to Heaven as clearly stated in Romans. Truly believing will result in good deeds or works. This is what James is saying in his letter. Someone who claims to have faith but produces no good works has a dead faith. But that doesn’t mean they don’t believe and certainly doesn’t mean they won’t go to Heaven. Trying to add works to the equation gets into trouble because then the question is how many? What’s the quota? Then you have people trying to do good works just to run up their tally. That’s not what Christ is about.
Believing in the rapture is not required to go to Heaven. That is absurd. What would be the purpose of believing in the Rapture. That’s like saying that if someone dies today and meets Jesus HE will say “Well I’m glad you believed in ME but you didn’t believe in the Rapture so sorry you go to hell on a technicality”
That’s not our loving GOD.
What Christians believe this? Pardon my ignorance. But let me ask you this back. If someone doesn’t believe Jesus is the son of GOD but believes Jesus is their savior does that not count?
Believing will result in actions. Some are more passive in their actions than others but that does not diminish the strength of their Faith. I think it’s important to be obedient to our Faith like getting baptized and partaking in the Lord’s supper. But how about those people who truly believe but don’t go to church each week for various reasons. Are they going to hell? The Bible doesn’t say go to church every week.
Scripture.
The Bible is the teaching authority because it is the inspired word of GOD. The question is who has the “Authority” to best interpret the Bible? The Bible is just not that difficult to understand when it comes to salvation. The issue that arises is when you have doctrines getting created for purgatory, Mary, etc. that didn’t exist before the 4th century that get added to the list of required beliefs. Trying to find scriptural justification for these is where we run into trouble because they don’t exist.
Being guided into the truth does not mean interpreting scripture perfectly.
If this gives you comfort then GOD Bless. But then again if there is a disagreement maybe you should look further as to what you are disagreeing with. Do you have any examples.
PEACE
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
How does this teaching cause confusion? It causes resistence but I doubt that it causes confusion. Confusion would reign…heck, Chaos would reign if there was not an infallible teaching authority.Without an infallible teaching authority I do not comprehend how a civilization or a culture could exist.
CDL
N
NDfan
Guest
Guanophore I totally agree with you. But where in scripture does it state that only the Pope will speak infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit? And remember the Prophets and that famous donkey were not speaking on their own. GOD was speaking through them. So then based on your statement anyone could speak infallible when guided by the Holy Spirit. That means you and I can do this. Do you not believe that there are legitimate prophets in the world today?? I’d like to have you talk with my wife sometime to get a glimpse of some of the dreams she’s had. I would tell you GOD was communicating with her without a doubt.I agree. I think teaching without error can only be done by the Power of God. I am confused, though when there are so many examples of this in the Scriptures, why people who are faithful bible beleivers do not accept that the HS can speak infallibly through people. Shoot, God can even do this through the mouth of a donkey!!
What doesn’t make sense is that you argue the Holy Spirit can guide someone infallibly to teach, but then try to claim that this is only done through the Pope. So you make a universal claim but then immediately isolate it down to one person:shrug:
PEACE
H
heisenburg
Guest
Good morning ND…
I am going to go through your points, but please do not think I am ‘berating’ your understanding, but it is more simply a counterpoint. Normally, I normally don’t like going back and forth point by point because it comes off in here as "oh yea… well… ", but figured i’d give it a shot
( as a note… please don’t do that well Baptism now saves really means it is just a sign you are saved… as some do, Its like saying "this saves: really means “it doesn’t save” …
Also, please don’t say baptism by water means being born… this is a new invention… Both being twists…)
I am going to go through your points, but please do not think I am ‘berating’ your understanding, but it is more simply a counterpoint. Normally, I normally don’t like going back and forth point by point because it comes off in here as "oh yea… well… ", but figured i’d give it a shot
However, for a Catholic, as well as some protestant denominations, John 6 is crucial to Communion… Furthermore, it says you MUST eat my flesh and drink my blood. That seems to be a requirement if Jesus him self is saying we have to do it.
Well, remember scripture says “Baptism now saves you” and “Must be born again of water” however, We must also remember that God created the Sacraments for Us, but HE is not bound to him. The Thief is a good example. That is why the ECF’s refer to things like Baptism by Blood (unbaptized martyr) and baptism of desire (Thief: scheduled baptism, but died before hand). However, if it is available to us, and we do not take it, how does that look when scripture DOES say we are to be baptized by water, and that Baptism now saves…
( as a note… please don’t do that well Baptism now saves really means it is just a sign you are saved… as some do, Its like saying "this saves: really means “it doesn’t save” …
Also, please don’t say baptism by water means being born… this is a new invention… Both being twists…)
I agree that NO ONE, and i mean NO ONE can earn their way to heaven… hat is what the Church has always taught. However, Scripture says if you do not do what is right (and works are PART of what is right), you sin… If you do not do what is right… you place yourself in sin… and revelations says you cannot enter heaven with sin. But still the point is, there is no agreement on Faith Alone
Oh, I am in agreement with you. but there are people that say if you can’t believe in something as obvious as rapture, how can you believe the rest…
JW… Or they believe something similar to this… but they claim to be ‘true’ according to scripture as well
This is a common misconception… I can believe but never do… Saying you cannot does not hold up to real life as there are countless examples of people believe something, but not following through… believe is a mental assent… it says nothing about your actions…
But all of our contentions thus far are from looking at scripture… If I do not agree with your understanding of scripture, and you do not agree with mine… who is looking at scripture properly
H
heisenburg
Guest
The bible is a teaching authority… but you are also correct in the “who is best to interpret” I believe the CC. however, even scripture says scripture can be hard to understand so saying it is easy is false. Other wise scripture wouldn’t say there is a need for teachers/Elders/bishops… Furthermore… if it was so easy, why is there so many differing opinions on what qualifies as salvific.
As a note… saying the teachings about mary, purgatory, etc weren’t created till later is false… keep in mind there is the proto of James, and Mac which also talks about prayers for the dead and purgatory. but they were there LONG before people like to say the Church created them in the middle ages.
But you just said we CAN look to scripture for salvation as it is easy…
yes… but i do test it… my former belief that ABC was ok and I held to it… I looked sternly at the churches teachings, but ultimately after MUCH consternation agreed the church is right… but thats just one example.
Anyway… I am pointing to scripture and so are you… and we are not in agreement of essentials… so how can saying ‘we all agree on essentials’ be true…
Thanks for your replies
In Christ
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Is your wife the Vicar of Christ? Does she declare and define a universal dogma of the Church?
Martin Luther, a defrocked German monk, mistakenly thought he was infallible before Calvin, Zwingli, and et.al. came along to challenge each other’s personal beliefs. We know what historically happened as a result of fallible individuals presuming to be infallible: a disunity of faith. But Christ prophesied that he would establish only one Church on his apostles and their validly ordained successors. And our Lord did so for a reason as acknowledged by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians: to form a community that is “one body” and “one faith” guided by “one Spirit” under “one God”. :yup: In all, there are 254 infallibly declared dogmas of the Catholic Faith. (Most of them are accepted by mainstream Protestants today.) Only seven of them have been declared by a pope apart from the College of Bishops in the Universal Magisterium or in an Ecumenical Council. Did you know this? 
Pope John XXlll said: “I never speak infallibly.” He is one pope who has never proclaimed a dogma on his own. He convoked the Vatican ll Ecumenical Council.“Simon, Simon, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”
{Luke 22, 31-32}
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” {Matthew 16, 17-18}.
It is no coincidence that the dark spirit of Lassaize-faire in economics infected religious thought in the Middle Ages.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
M
mozart-250
Guest
Interesting point…but…it is easy to confuse concepts…I agree. I think teaching without error can only be done by the Power of God. I am confused, though when there are so many examples of this in the Scriptures, why people who are faithful bible beleivers do not accept that the HS can speak infallibly through people. Shoot, God can even do this through the mouth of a donkey!!
First you have teaching without error. This is the kindergarten teacher teaching the alphabet correctly to her class. This happens all of the time. I would call this an event.
Second there is “incapable of teaching incorrectly”. Although hightly unlikely…I could construct scenarios where this same teacher could mess up on the alphabet to her class (probably involving some level of impairment). This phrase implies a process.
But I agree that it is possible to teach without error through the power of god. The problem is that “incapable of teaching incorrectly” implies a process not an event (the pope speaking ex-cathedra on the subject of faith and morals is a process).
And I guess my issue is that I just don’t see where “the pope speaking ex-cathedra on an issue of faith or morals” is a process that guarantees that God will always insure that the teaching is without error. In fact to me it seems quite presumptuous to take any process involving humans…add God to the equation…and assume a desired result will occur. The more I think about it, I think this nails my objection.
But never fear…us Protestants do the same thing with our own magic processes.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Heisenberg:
You actually give a quite compelling argument for a separate issue.
This is the issue on how precisely did Jesus design the church.
Did Jesus design one church with a central authority? If not what precisely did Jesus design? I would love to see that issue debated out. I quite honestly am inclined to believe that he did…but…since I am a computer geek and not a theologian…I am not sure what the ramifications are here…and that big long theological word that means the study of the church tends to put me to sleep.
If he did design a centralized church…the conundrums you describe go away. But this is a separate issue.
But even if he did design a centralized church, it does not necessarily follow that this church exists in entirety in one denomination (I know you don’t like the word denomination to refer to y’all, but I’m using the dictionnary definition here). Let alone it does not necessarily follow that the central authority of this centralized church has the ability to be incapable of being incorrect when teaching on a matter of faith and morals.
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree that works cannot get us to heaven, and that real faith does express itself in works. However, I thinkthe next statement is representative of why people say that the OSAS doctrine is a road to perdition. If a person has a “dead faith” then how in the universe will they go to heaven? I think scripture is clear that, without faith, it is impossible to please God. On the role of works, I think that needs to go to a different thread. Clearly you don’t appear to distinguish between works of the flesh, and Sacred Works.
It does say not to forsake the assembly of yourselves together. The Catholic Church does not say who is in hell, or who is not. However, Jesus is clear that certain actions and attitudes will result in hellfire.
The problem with looking to scripture to find out what is essential is that some people don’t have the whole Bible, and many misunderstand the contents. A case in point, there are people who believe they are Christians, but also believe that Jesus is not God, and that the HS is not a member of the Trinity.
That would be the Authority appointed by Christ. It is not accurate to say that these beliefs did not exist before they were officially promulgated. The Nicean Creed took hundreds of years to dogmatize, but it was believed from the beginning. So too, the canon of scripture is mentioned centuries before it was dogmatized.
Catholics do not need to find “scriptural justification”, since we are not saddled with being a “bible based church” as others are.
I think it does. Since that Guide is the Source of the scripture, how could they possibly be opposed?
I don’t find that in scripture, just as I don’t find the table of contents of what belongs in there, the word Trinity, the hypostatic union, and a number of other doctrines. However, like all of those, I can see the required elements. Jesus promises to lead the Church into “all truth” and that the HS will give them what they need to say, and that the gates of hell will not prevail. Putting all these together, just like putting all the passages about the HS together to understand Trinity, it is clear that this means God will protect the Church from teaching error. Jesus never promised that the individual believers would speak infallibly. He made this promise to the Church. This is not to say that the HS cannot, or does not move me to do so from time to time. This is by His grace.
Actually, I never made any such arguement about the Pope,and I would find it hard to beleive that any person knowledgeable of the Teachings given to us by the Apostles would do so. We all believe that the HS speaks infallibly through the ecumencal councils as well.
N
NDfan
Guest
Good morning
I cut your opening text to make room for one post.As long as it is done in a good spirited way we’re good. It’s the only way we learn from one another.
Eat my flesh and drink my blood refers to believe in ME. Jesus says that eating HIS flesh and blood gives eternal life and will cause you to be raised up on the last day. Now if we do an analysis of scripture we see that early in John 6 Jesus says that in order to receive eternal life and be raised up on the last day we must believe. So which is it, eating or believing? Nowhere else in scripture do we see eating flesh as a means of being saved. That would also imply that anyone could eat the Eucharist and get eternal life without regard to faith.
So let me ask you. If someone is not partaking in the Eucharist but they have a strong Faith in Jesus are they going to hell? Just looking for your honest opinion.
So I think we agree that as long as the intent is there that is sufficient. If someone claimed to have Faith but will not get baptized then we both would be scratching our heads
Well Baptism itself does not save us. By that I mean someone cannot just get baptized and expect to go to Heaven. We have to confess with our heart that Jesus is our savior. Getting baptized is not just a sign, it is a spiritual death of our old sinful ways, and a re-birth into Christ. I think we’re on the same page here.( as a note… please don’t do that well Baptism now saves really means it is just a sign you are saved… as some do, Its like saying "this saves: really means “it doesn’t save” …
What do you mean here? Jesus says unless you are born again of water and spirit.
Yes I agree with your points here. We cannot enter Heaven as a sinner. But remember we all die as sinners. There’s just no getting around that. At the end of the day we commit sin. And when we die no matter how you look at it, GOD still sees us as sinners. But that’s why Jesus came to us. To pay the final price for sin so that GOD could redeem us. That doesn’t mean we continue to live in sin as Paul rightfully states in Romans. But Paul also recognizes that he himself will sin and gives thanks for Jesus. There’s no way you can die as a non-sinner. That’s impossible.
Yeah that’s a little too crazy for me.
I think you’re right. They believe Jesus is the first creation of GOD based on Colossians and that HE was given GOD powers or something like that. But I don’t think they see HIM as GOD’s son. Well you and I do
GOD plainly states “This is my beloved Son, [3] with whom I am well pleased.” Right from Matthew. But I guess JWs would say we are all sons and daughters of GOD.So are you saying it’s impossible to believe but not act? That if you believe you will act?
I think we can help one another understand what we’re seeing. We may never agree on some of the finer points of scripture and we may in fact both be wrong in what we’re seeing. But I don’t think we need to perfectly understand scripture to go to Heaven. We both agree that Jesus is the only way and that we should do our best to live our lives as disciples of Jesus. I fully respect that you believe certain things are required and in many cases wouldn’t disagree with you. But in the end as I said above we all die as sinners. There’s just no getting around that. Sin is sin no matter how you slice it.
I once read a quote that really hit home for me with regard to the levels of sin i.e venial vs. mortal:
“Don’t try to understate your minor sins while overstating someone else’s major sins to try and justify yourself as a ‘good person’ in GOD’s eyes. At the end of the day GOD still sees you both as sinners.”
PEACE
G
GregoryPalamas
Guest
I certainly agree with what Protestants try to do in this regard. That’s why I left. But without an infallible teaching office what are you left with? Personal preference? Nihilism? What? Certainly not truth. And without truth we’re just slaves to whatever. Without truth we aren’t.
CDL
N
NDfan
Guest
I agree that teachers, Elders and Bishops can help us understand scripture. But that doesn’t mean that we have no shot at understanding without them. As far as what’s salvific? I don’t think there are that many differing opnions. We both agree it’s Faith as our works never get us to Heaven. But some misunderstand when you say works are important because the question becomes how much.
Actually this is incorrect and here’s why. The proto of James or infancy Gospel of James as it is sometimes called was ruled as a heterical work initially by the church. It was never accepted by the early church Fathers. It also contradicts Matthew which is a canonical work. No early church father that could have had contact with the Apostles ever mentions doctrines of Mary.
Mac is a good historical work but it does not mention purgatory. It mentions prayers for the dead implying a place like purgatory. But you have to understand Jewish culture to know why this is written. The Jews believe that when you die you go to Sheoul which is the abode of the dead. This is also called Hades which is the Greek word for Sheoul in the NT. Now there are 2 levels of Sheoul, Abraham’s bossom as we see in the OT and hell.
The Jews believed that as long as you lived by the law you would be with GOD once the Messiah came. But you would be waiting in Sheoul with Abraham until that time. It was also important that they make their sin offerings to GOD at the Temple to be considered cleansed. So when someone died it was customary for the Jews to offer sacrifices on behalf of their deceased ones to atone for sin. But remember when Jesus died he preached the good news to the souls in Sheoul and they were released. Since the Messiah has come now Sheoul is empty.
We’re talking 2 different things here. Scripture gives us what we need to know for salvation. But being guided into the truth doesn’t mean though you will interpret scripture down to the very last detail perfectly. As far as salvation I think we are guided to the truth which is Jesus.
Then if you believe the church is correct you must consider yourself misinformed or misguided. I meant give me an example of something you believe now that contradicts the church.
What essentials are we not agreeing on?
Thanks for yours.
PEACE
- Status