How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[Randy_Carson]

OK, no special pleading, but he decided to use the bait-n-switch the tactic. There is a difference between contradiction being acceptable and it being the will of God. The will of God is perfection, but God knows this is impossible for fallen human which is why Jesus Christ came. Notice nothing was said about the contradiction and conflicting doctrines in the Catholic Church instead Randy goes on now to talk about a different topic, that is unity, and physical unity at that. Sometimes these discussions are like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Notice that rather than responding to my question, Sola attempts to divert the discussion onto me.

This thread is about how Protestants can be sure of what they believe. Apart from an infallible Church, I do not think they can. Therefore, I am attempting to arrive at a definition of the Church as founded by Jesus Christ.

Now back to it.

You have previously agreed that doctrine matters. Therefore, in the Church as you envision it, is doctrinal unity also important, or is it okay to have believers holding conflicting and contradictory doctrines? You’ve said that it is not the will of God, but it is acceptable…is that your “final answer”?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Gottle of Geer:

1. The Church does not need to be infallible, to be the Church.​

To the contrary, the responsibility of the Church is to baptize, to preach, to make disciples of all nations, etc.

How is that contrary to his statement???

The Church must be able to speak with authority concerning the doctrines that concern faith and morals, to settle disputes, etc.

Once again Randy shows his inability at basic logic. Authority does not require infallibility. You have made this same logical error so many times I tire of repeating it to you.

If the Church cannot teach without error, then people cannot know with certainty what is and is not true.

Back to another one of his famous logical errors. If you cannot know with infallible certainty that you have the right church then how do you know with certainty what is true? As I have told you a million times in the end you have no more certainty than your own fallibility in picking the right church.

Before long, the ONE faith has fragmented into “every man is his own magisterium.”

Fallacious argument again. Let me ask you this. Were you your own magisterium when YOU decided by studying history and the Scriptures that Rome was the right church? Were you your own magisterium when you left the methodist church for Catholicism?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Notice that rather than responding to my question, Sola attempts to divert the discussion onto me.

No, I initially answered your questions in reference to contradicting and conflicting doctrines being acceptable in the church. I pointed out yes, to a certain degree(i.e. not on the essentials), and you have them in your own church. You then diverted to God’s perfect will and physical unity. I just pointed out the constant tactic employed by you and many others. When one refutes one argument you just tacitly move on to another and act as if you original point is still valid. Also you have a tendency to not answer questions but ask another list of your own questions.

So since your original point was on contradicting and conflicting beliefs in a church , then why does your church have them? You have disagreements over predestination, inerrancy of Scripture, material sufficiency of Scripture, Marian beliefs, Infallibility of Councils(e.g. Vatican II ), and many others. Now remember no special pleading and explain why your church has them?

This thread is about how Protestants can be sure of what they believe. Apart from an infallible Church, I do not think they can.

Yes, but as it typical the discussion starts to spider-web into other related issues. So once you introduce a related argument to establish a point then it is fair game.

Also this once again shows the gross contradictions and inconsistencies in your own reasoning. Wasn’t it you who posted the quote from a guy who was much “smarter than you”? Well, you should read what he said and remember it, because you are diverting back to the point he was refuting. Infallibility is not needed for one to be certain about things. If it is needed then none of us could be certain, because none of us are infallible. You have to get beyond this same basic fallacious argument. Maybe I will start to keep a count of how many times you make it and have to be correct. Sounds like a good idea to really illustrate the point.

[SIGN]Certainty requires infallibility by Randy = 2[/SIGN]

I will update the sign every time you make that fallacious argument.

Therefore, I am attempting to arrive at a definition of the Church as founded by Jesus Christ.

Now back to it.

You have previously agreed that doctrine matters. Therefore, in the Church as you envision it, is doctrinal unity also important, or is it okay to have believers holding conflicting and contradictory doctrines? You’ve said that it is not the will of God, but it is acceptable…is that your “final answer”?

Yes, doctrinal unity is important. It is okay for believers to hold conflicting and contradictory doctrines and I challenge you to show me any two individuals that believe exactly alike in every detail? Can you name two?

Yes, that is my final answer.

 

[Dominicanis]

1. The Church does not need to be infallible, to be the Church. To be the Church, it does need to be chosen and called by God, according to His good pleasure. So the Church is strong in God, not in any qualities of its own. Human feebleness & fallibility do not stop God working through His Church at all - what they do stop, right at its source, is any human boasting in our own excellence, rightness, wisdom, knowledge. God chose Israel not because it was great, but because it was nothing at all: because it was completely inconsiderable. The Bible makes this very clear. All glory is to God alone - not to man at all; our weakness, ensues that we cannot take the credit for His works. This is a wonderful protection against boasting of God’s Mercy as though it were somehow to our glory, & not His.​

1. Infallibility is in itself of no religious importance, & no Christian importance. If Congress were infallible, it would not be the Church. It would not acquire the mission of the Church, or the origin of the Church, or the character of the Church, by being infallible - it would still be Congress.

Congress can’t forgive sins, or save us from the wrath of God, or preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God, or mediate between us and the Father - Jesus Christ can & did & does. These are important for the Church. If infallibility is so vastly important, why is not one word said about it in the NT ? A lot is said about Christ, & a lot about the Church - nothing, about that. So it looks very much as if it might be nothing more than a “cleverly devised myth” - especially as it seems to glorify man, & not God. No - the praise is His, & His alone ##

This post demonstrates that protestants do not understand infallibility as the Church does. Point 1 is that to be the Church, the Church must be chosen by God. Indeed! As Israel was chosen by Y’hw’h in the OT, so too was the Church chosen by God to bring His truth to mankind and bring men to salvation via His Son Jesus Christ. How does infallibility enter into it? The truth God gives us must be protected. This protection is from HIM, not from the Church; it is conferred on her as a GIFT to protect HIS teachings from error. Without this gift, nothing, not even the New Testament, can be trusted, for it was the Catholic Church that gave the world the NT canon. Therefore, point 2 is also nullified. Infallibility MUST be present in the teaching of God’s truth because without it, His truth would be untrustworthy, an impossibility, for God is Truth and utterly trustworthy, therefore so is His truth. To claim that the Bible can function entirely on its own without an infallible interpreter is disproven by the myriad of protestant denominations.

Infallibility is not put in place to “glorify man”, but to only and always protect the glorious truth God has given us for our salvation. To claim it is a myth to put man in God’s place is to demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of what the concept of infallibility truly is. It is an attribute of God given to His Church via the Holy Spirit as promised by the Son in John’s Gospel, chapter 14, verses 16-17. The Catholic Church does not trumpet infallibility as something she can or has attained, but humbly holds it dear as the precious gift it is. Without her relationship to God, she would have no infallibility, and she knows it.

Yours in Christ,

Dominicanis

 

[I_Leatherman]

Gottle of Geer:

The Church does not need to be infallible.

Infallibility is a necessary function of a living Church founded by a Living God - Christs living Body is His Church.
‘…I in you and you in me…’
As such, Saul was reprimanded for attacking Christs living Body, - not for attacking a dead, dry institution of Man which was remote from God.
=> The living Church is Christs living Body, He is its Head - and there is no error in Him, or from Him.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

1. The Church does not need to be infallible, to be the Church. To be the Church, it does need to be chosen and called by God, according to His good pleasure. So the Church is strong in God, not in any qualities of its own. Human feebleness & fallibility do not stop God working through His Church at all - what they do stop, right at its source, is any human boasting in our own excellence, rightness, wisdom, knowledge. God chose Israel not because it was great, but because it was nothing at all: because it was completely inconsiderable. The Bible makes this very clear. All glory is to God alone - not to man at all; our weakness, ensues that we cannot take the credit for His works. This is a wonderful protection against boasting of God’s Mercy as though it were somehow to our glory, & not His.​

1. Infallibility is in itself of no religious importance, & no Christian importance. If Congress were infallible, it would not be the Church. It would not acquire the mission of the Church, or the origin of the Church, or the character of the Church, by being infallible - it would still be Congress.

Congress can’t forgive sins, or save us from the wrath of God, or preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God, or mediate between us and the Father - Jesus Christ can & did & does. These are important for the Church. If infallibility is so vastly important, why is not one word said about it in the NT ? A lot is said about Christ, & a lot about the Church - nothing, about that. So it looks very much as if it might be nothing more than a “cleverly devised myth” - especially as it seems to glorify man, & not God. No - the praise is His, & His alone ##

WOW!! That was a fantastic statement. God really gave you the gift of words. I didnt get that gift AMEN!!

 

[Contarini]

This post demonstrates that protestants do not understand infallibility as the Church does.

FYI: Gottle of Geer is a Catholic.

Edwin

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is a great argument. I wonder what smart Protestant thought of that.

Are you sure? Also human wisdom is foolish compared to God’s wisdom. So mere intellect doesn’t impress concerning the things of God.

OK, I will give you a list of questions to ask your infallible magisterium. How long will it take you to get back to me?

Saying doesn’t make it true. Just think if your magisterium is not infallible then you are in worst position then all others, because you are being hoodwinked.

No, your argument is the silly one. See you don’t seem it is possible to arrive at sure knowledge without an infallible teacher. However, we learn many things with confidence and we are not infallible nor are out teaches.

This is my point exactly. We can know things without the need for an infallible interpreter. God’s people throughout history never had an infallible interpreter and yet they were held accountable for knowing the truth about the Scriptures by Jesus.

Baloney!! How is that for a refutation My argument is exactly the opposite. Just like I can read any other work in its sitz im leben an understand it without being infallible I can do the same with Scripture.

Yeah, whatever that means

Oh, I get it. Using ordinary human intelligence, the average person can understand everything contained in the Catechism, but they can’t understand the main things in Scripture? But the Catechism is the easy part what about the Fathers and Oral Tradition. They too are part of the rule of faith for Catholics. However, as the Apostle Paul said about Scripture:

2 Corinthians 1:13
For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end;

Now that is someone under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore he is smarter all of us, yes even the person who wrote the above inconsistent piece.

Someone way smarter than me responded to you this way:

I wanted to comment on the nonsensical responses to my points by the Protestant on the other board.

In the Protestant world, there are MAJOR disagreements on FUNDAMENTAL doctrines such that certain groups (eg, the Baptists, some Reformed) doubt the “salvation” of other Protestants (These groups usually pick on the Lutherans and the Wesleyans.) That is why there is so much “sheep stealing” among these Protestant groups.

If the Bible was so easy to interpret, why don’t all Protestants agree on all matters of religion? The answer is that it is easy to form an opinion about what the Bible says but it is hard to prove it DEFINITIVELY.

Your Protestant friend brags that he can easily understand the Bible, but then he likely disagrees with the guy in the next pew at his place of worship and has major issues with the folks at “Good Book Bible” down the street.

Why do we need an infallible authority? To settle disputes. To definitively say “Thus sayeth the Lord!” No Protestant religion can do that. All they can do is give human opinions.

I think it takes real dishonesty to pretend that the Bible is easier to understand than the Catechism. In fact, if he claims that the Bible is so easy to interpret, then he MUST acknowledge that the Catechism is easier.

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS better to have an infallible final arbiter on doctrine than to depend on mere human opinion. In fact Jesus himself told us that he would give us such assistance:

**Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
Jhn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

Jhn 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
Jhn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour;
Mat 10:20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
**

Tell your friend that when all Protestants can agree on all points of doctrine he should get back to us. Until then, he is being unbiblical and he should “beware lest [HE IS] carried away with the error of lawless men and lose [HIS] own stability.” (2Pet 3:17)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I didn’t ask you whee “presbyteros” is used, because that is the word under discussion.

Oh, my apologies. I thought when you wrote in post #225, “Where in the NT is the office of priest mentioned except for Jesus Christ and the priesthood of all believers? In the NT presbyterus is always translated Elder.” that you actually expected an answer. So I gave it to you.

The point is the correct translation of presbyteros in New Testament Greek is Elder, not Priest. Catholic translation leave the word as presbyteros, because they know it is invalid to use priest, but they don’t want to use the word Elder.

I have no problem with the fact that presbyteros should be literally translated as “elder”. I also have no problem with the fact that the word has come down to us as the English word, “priest”, either. “Presbyteros” and “Priest” are just two different language versions of the same word. The one is derived from the other and is used differently today, but the connection is straightforward.

"Great bluff. Yes, not only provide the Strong’s reference number, but also the definition. Believe me it will only hurt your case. So by all means, please do.

No worries for me. Presbuteros is 4245 and it means “elder”. That is not the issue. The Greek word, “Presbuteros”, evolved into our English word, “Priest”.

All three offices of the Catholic clergy appear within the pages of the New Testament.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

Since I have provided not only the etymology of the words in question but also the examples of their use in scripture, I do not see that MY case is hurt at all.

In fact, the Biblical model of the New Testament Church is Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

And yours?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, doctrinal unity is important. It is okay for believers to hold conflicting and contradictory doctrines and I challenge you to show me any two individuals that believe exactly alike in every detail? Can you name two?

Well, let’s see what the Word of God has to say. If you have your Bible handy, you can highlight these passages for future reference.

First, He prayed for unity among his own disciples:

“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.” (John 17:11)

Jesus prayed that the Apostles might have the depth of unity that He shares with the Father. Was He praying for unity among his Apostles only? No! He prayed for all who would hear and believe these Apostles:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

Jesus is saying that the unity of a single, visible church would be proof that He really was sent into the world by the Father. The unity of the church is supposed to be a witness to this fact. In order for the world to know the truth, it must be able to see a visible, unified church.

Just as Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, so God desires for the Apostles and those who come to believe in Jesus through them to be united. The reason for this unity is clear: to let the world know that you sent me”. Without this unity, the witness of the Christian Church to the world is weakened and as a result, the souls who fail to recognize the truth may be lost. Thus, the world must be able to see the unity of a visible, authoritative Church and hear the truth it proclaims. What are signs of this unity that the world should see?

One of the signs must be doctrinal unity on matters of faith and morals. In the pages of Scripture, we read:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind.” (Acts 4:32)

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4-6)

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)

The Father desires that the Church should be of one mind regarding the faith and doctrinal matters such as the “one baptism” just as He and the Son are one.

The Father and the Son do not disagree on any issue. Does the Father prefer infant baptism while the Son does not? In the same way, we should have no divisions, no denominations, that separate us from one another. Paul’s appeal is not about some idealistic, invisible unity but a real, visible, tangible unity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Further, what happens when there is a disagreement that requires a decision from the church as shown in the passage above. Let’s say that a wife becomes pregnant but does not want any more children; she wants to have an abortion. The husband goes to the Catholic Church which teaches that abortion is absolutely wrong. But the wife chooses a church that teaches that abortion is a matter of personal choice.

How can this matter be resolved since the “invisible” church – which is bigger than any one denomination – does not have doctrinal unity? How decided what is and is not true concerning the Christian faith? How decides what is and is not good doctrine? What is and is not moral? Who decides what is right and wrong? Who speaks for the church in these matters? Or what happens when everyone claims to speak for the church? This latter issue is actually what is occurring within Christianity today. Each pastor of every congregation is acting essentially as if he is the shepherd of his own flock. There are thousands upon thousands of pastors deciding upon the basis of their own individual understanding of scripture as to what is and is not good for their flocks.

This is why it was proposed earlier that if Jesus established one, invisible, “spiritual” church, then either doctrine does not matter or conflicting doctrine is okay. This is exactly why there are 25,000+ Protestant denominations – because with each new interpretation of scripture, a new denomination is born.

Moreover, an “invisible, spiritual” church cannot lead others into all truth because in order to have any unity at all, the members of this “church” must strip their faith down to the bare minimum that everyone can agree on. One member cannot impose his or her views on another. This is why one frequently hears statements such as, “Well, that’s what you believe; we think differently.” While this may give everyone involved a warm, fuzzy feeling of unity while holding hands around a campfire singing “Kumbaya”, it is clearly not the fullness of the gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ. People who do not know Christ need to hear the truth from an authoritative source and are hindered in coming to salvation if they cannot see and find an invisible Church.

However, most Protestants believe that conflicting doctrine can and does exist within the one true church. They won’t phrase it that way, but this is exactly what they believe: that conflicting doctrine is acceptable within the body of Christ, the church. How do they justify this belief? By dividing their beliefs into essential and non-essential doctrines. The Baptist will say to the Presbyterian, “Well, at least we agree on the essentials or the “main things”. This means it is okay to disagree on the non-essentials. Is this correct? What does the Bible say about this? Ask to see the list of “essential” doctrines found in the Bible…there is none! So, who gets to decide which doctrines are essential and which aren’t? Doesn’t this sound like some people are trying to justify all of the division within the Body of Christ and to justify not making a true attempt at reconciliation or reunification?

 

[Libertas]

1. The Church does not need to be infallible, to be the Church. To be the Church, it does need to be chosen and called by God, according to His good pleasure. So the Church is strong in God, not in any qualities of its own. Human feebleness & fallibility do not stop God working through His Church at all - what they do stop, right at its source, is any human boasting in our own excellence, rightness, wisdom, knowledge. God chose Israel not because it was great, but because it was nothing at all: because it was completely inconsiderable. The Bible makes this very clear. All glory is to God alone - not to man at all; our weakness, ensues that we cannot take the credit for His works. This is a wonderful protection against boasting of God’s Mercy as though it were somehow to our glory, & not His.​

1. Infallibility is in itself of no religious importance, & no Christian importance. If Congress were infallible, it would not be the Church. It would not acquire the mission of the Church, or the origin of the Church, or the character of the Church, by being infallible - it would still be Congress.

Congress can’t forgive sins, or save us from the wrath of God, or preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God, or mediate between us and the Father - Jesus Christ can & did & does. These are important for the Church. If infallibility is so vastly important, why is not one word said about it in the NT ? A lot is said about Christ, & a lot about the Church - nothing, about that. So it looks very much as if it might be nothing more than a “cleverly devised myth” - especially as it seems to glorify man, & not God. No - the praise is His, & His alone ##

Thanks for the strawman.

 

[Libertas]

Libertas,

I read through your 3 page post and it would be a waste of time to respond to such fallacious rambling. You cut-n-paste gobs of stuff and want me to spend hours refuting it. No thanks. Pick a single point and make a concise argument and I will deal with it.

In reference to God’s church. God’s church has both a physical and a invisible aspect to it. A physical manifestation is a local body of believers that gather together for worship and hold to the essentials of the faith. The preach the true Gospel and administer the sacraments. The invisible church is all those that God has called out from the world. Every member of the physical church is not necessarily a member of the invisible church. The invisible church consist of the elect.

It’s not fallacious rambling and you know it.
You asked me some questions, I responded. What’s the matter, too hard to respond too? If it is such fallacious rambling why not slice through it? Why would it take you hours to defeat such an easy argument?
Thanks for conceding the argument.
You now know the truth, and reject it. Have fun on judgement day.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Someone way smarter than me responded to you this way:

I wanted to comment on the nonsensical responses to my points by the Protestant on the other board.

In the Protestant world, there are MAJOR disagreements on FUNDAMENTAL doctrines such that certain groups (eg, the Baptists, some Reformed) doubt the “salvation” of other Protestants (These groups usually pick on the Lutherans and the Wesleyans.) That is why there is so much “sheep stealing” among these Protestant groups.

First of all, he is committing the same tired fallacious argument that you often commit. Did you learn apologetics from him? Notice he talks about there are “MAJOR disagreements on FUNDAMENTAL doctrines” in the Protestant world. Of course there are, because as you guys put it there are 33,000 denominations. Now if we include Catholicism as one of every denomination that was before the Reformation one could make the same argument. That is there are “MAJOR disagreements on FUNDAMENTAL doctrines” amongst the them. And their salvation was not only doubted, but they were assured of going to hell. Catholics have been playing these apologetic games on uneven ground for too long. Any one denomination could compare itself to 33,000 different denominations and they would come out of it looking good.

If the Bible was so easy to interpret, why don’t all Protestants agree on all matters of religion? The answer is that it is easy to form an opinion about what the Bible says but it is hard to prove it DEFINITIVELY.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Furthermore, it is ALWAYS better to have an infallible final arbiter on doctrine than to depend on mere human opinion. In fact Jesus himself told us that he would give us such assistance:

yeah, and it would be better if we were all infallible and perfect, but that isn’t the case either.

**Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
Jhn 14:17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

Jhn 14:25 "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you.
Jhn 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

Mat 10:19 When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour;
Mat 10:20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
**

Yeah, I’ve read all those verses before and none of them teaches a only Bishop in Rome will be granted with the gift of infallibility.

Tell your friend that when all Protestants can agree on all points of doctrine he should get back to us. Until then, he is being unbiblical and he should “beware lest [HE IS] carried away with the error of lawless men and lose [HIS] own stability.” (2Pet 3:17)

And tell your “really smart friend”( I’m really beginning to doubt he is that smart) that when Catholics can agree on all points of doctrine he can point at the speck in my eyes.

 

[SolaScriptura]

It’s not fallacious rambling and you know it.

Of course it is. Tell you what, pick out your strongest argument in the 3 pages of rambing and I will show you how easy it is to refute it.

You asked me some questions, I responded. What’s the matter, too hard to respond too?

Yeah, you answered, but any answer doesn’t count. You seem to think as long as you throw out some quotes you have provided a good answer. Skimming through those quotes they are not even addressing the issue at hand, but of course you already stated if it is not there these are things that Jesus told us he would reveal later. For all your big talk you are about as illogical as they come. It is not too hard just not worth the time. I actually prefer the tougher and more rational responses because I believe the individual will understand a rational response. Yours just doesn’t qualify, sorry.

If it is such fallacious rambling why not slice through it?

If it was shorter I would, but I’m not going to spend hours explaining basic things to you.

Why would it take you hours to defeat such an easy argument?

Because it is a long post I have to explain to you basic points. It doesn’t talk long because it is hard, but because of the length and your making so many irrational points.

Thanks for conceding the argument.

If that makes you feel good then go ahead. I’ve dealt with a number of people on this board that have a better handle on things then you do.

You now know the truth, and reject it. Have fun on judgement day.

Ooooohhhhh, that was great.

 

[Randy_Carson]

First of all, he starts off with a caricature. No one ever said it was "so easy to interpret"if by that he means any Joe Blow can pick up a bible without understanding sitz em leben of when it was written and understand it. This is true for any historical document. Furthermore, the Scriptures themselves state one should study to show themselves approved and the unstable and unlearned will distort the Scriptures.

Oh, silly me.

I thought the Westminster Confession said, "“those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due course of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Upon reading this, I took it to mean precisely that “any Joe Blow can pick up a Bible” and understand it. Thanks for stating the opposite. It certainly conforms with my view. I’m also confused…the Lutheran minister who baptizes infants and believes in baptismal regeneration, the Baptist minister who does not baptize infants and does not believe in regeneration, the Presbyterian minister who “christens” infants but does not believe in regeneration, the non-denominational minister who doesn’t really have a preference one way or the other…which of these seminary-trained men is an approved man of God? Which of them is rightly dividing the Word of God and which of them is WRONGLY dividing it? Shouldn’t they just be able to pick up the Bible and come to a unanimous position on an essential thing like the sacrament by which one is baptized into Christ?

By the way, don’t look now, but you are now arguing a position that is in direct contradiction to that taken by James White in his debate on sola scriptura with Patrick Madrid.

So, the unlearned can distort the scriptures to their own destruction, eh? Patrick would be pleased to find you planted so firmly in his corner.

Let’s see…by my count: 1) you don’t think sola scriptura can be proven from the Bible, 2) you don’t think 2 Timothy 3:16-17 can be used to support *sola scriptura *and 3) you think scripture can be misinterpreted to one’s “own destruction.”

So much for perspicuity. So much for Sola Scriptura.

Thanks for playing.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Oh, my apologies. I thought when you wrote in post #225, “Where in the NT is the office of priest mentioned except for Jesus Christ and the priesthood of all believers? In the NT presbyterus is always translated Elder.” that you actually expected an answer. So I gave it to you.

I expected an answer to the question, not just any answer. You are confusing the two. Please show me one NT Greek scholar that would say presbyterous in the NT should be translated as Priest?

I have no problem with the fact that presbyteros should be literally translated as “elder”.

I hope you don’t have a problem with it since that is the way it is translated

I also have no problem with the fact that the word has come down to us as the English word, “priest”, either.

But that is contrary your argument. We were not discussing how it came down to you, but what offices are mentioned in the NT. There office of Elder in the NT is not synonymous with Priest. There is a completely different word used for Priest and it is not Presbyteros.

“Presbyteros” and “Priest” are just two different language versions of the same word. The one is derived from the other and is used differently today, but the connection is straightforward.

Not in the NT. The two words come from completely different words. This is what I mean by your denigration and disrespect for the word of God. You have no care for handling it accurately as long as you are propping up Rome.

No worries for me. Presbuteros is 4245 and it means “elder”. That is not the issue. The Greek word, “Presbuteros”, evolved into our English word, “Priest”.

Only for Catholicism and that was because she needed to justify her office of Priest that is not found in the NT as an office.

All three offices of the Catholic clergy appear within the pages of the New Testament.

Flatly wrong.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Bishops are Elders who function in a role as overseers. It is not a separate office.

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Presbyterous is not translated as Priest. I gave you the words last time that are translated a priest, they are archiereus or hiereus. These are facts Randy and no amount of obfuscation can change that.

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

Well, you got one right.

Since I have provided not only the etymology of the words in question but also the examples of their use in scripture, I do not see that MY case is hurt at all.

Sometimes I wonder about you Randy. You seem unable to grasp some basic points. You have proven nothing in reference to presbytereus being translated as priest.

In fact, the Biblical model of the New Testament Church is Bishop, Priest and Deacon.
You can repeat this falsehood until the cows come home and it will not be true.
Randy Carson;1919951:

And yours?

Elders and Deacons, those are the biblical offices for the New Covenant Church.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Well, let’s see what the Word of God has to say. If you have your Bible handy, you can highlight these passages for future reference.

First, He prayed for unity among his own disciples:

“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.” (John 17:11)

Jesus prayed that the Apostles might have the depth of unity that He shares with the Father. Was He praying for unity among his Apostles only? No! He prayed for all who would hear and believe these Apostles:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

Jesus is saying that the unity of a single, visible church would be proof that He really was sent into the world by the Father. The unity of the church is supposed to be a witness to this fact. In order for the world to know the truth, it must be able to see a visible, unified church.

Just as Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, so God desires for the Apostles and those who come to believe in Jesus through them to be united. The reason for this unity is clear: to let the world know that you sent me”. Without this unity, the witness of the Christian Church to the world is weakened and as a result, the souls who fail to recognize the truth may be lost. Thus, the world must be able to see the unity of a visible, authoritative Church and hear the truth it proclaims. What are signs of this unity that the world should see?

One of the signs must be doctrinal unity on matters of faith and morals. In the pages of Scripture, we read:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind.” (Acts 4:32)

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4-6)

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)

The Father desires that the Church should be of one mind regarding the faith and doctrinal matters such as the “one baptism” just as He and the Son are one.

The Father and the Son do not disagree on any issue. Does the Father prefer infant baptism while the Son does not? In the same way, we should have no divisions, no denominations, that separate us from one another. Paul’s appeal is not about some idealistic, invisible unity but a real, visible, tangible unity.

Randy,

I don’t deny any of those verses. I don’t deny that we should have unity. I don’t deny the Father and Son have perfect unity on everything. I don’t deny that we should strive for perfect unity. I don’t deny that there is physical unity. You have proven nothing in the above. Here is what you need to deal with and leave the straw men alone.

If it is your argument that perfect unity on all doctrines is the requirement of the true church then tell me of the church where all its member are in perfect agreement on all doctrines?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Originally Posted by Randy Carson

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

Well, you got one right.

Let’s talk about this one for a moment, shall we?

Did Jesus establish this office in the Church? No. Who did? The Apostles. By what authority? By the authority given to them by Jesus Himself. Initially, the Bishops appointed helpers. Later, they also appointed priests creating another new office.

You may wish to deny the priesthood of the Catholic Church, but I don’t see what good it does you to do so. The fullness of the Apostolic Succession resides within the Bishop, the priest does not have all of the faculties of a Bishop - though he can say mass, hear confessions, etc.

So, if you really want to attempt a mortal blow at the Catholic hierarchy, it has to be aimed at the Bishops and not the priests. But this you cannot do since the Word of God is plain that the office of Bishop existed at the time that Paul was writing his epistles.

Therefore, 1) you have granted that the Bishops had authority to create the office of deacon which by logical extension means they could create the office of priest as well if they chose to do so (and they did), and 2) the Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles in whom Apostolic Authority resides and they skate right past the guard you have posted bringing the power to administer all seven sacraments fully with them.

And all of this stands completely independent of your objections to the translation of the word “presbyteros.” Even if I conceded your point (which I don’t), I would still arrive at the same point: Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

You can repeat this falsehood until the cows come home and it will not be true.

Moo.