How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[estesbob]

Hi,
He actually gave us free will to accept Him and accept the free gift of salvation of Christ or not. If you accept this free gift you become part of the church(body of believers)

And God, in his infinite wisdom, yet man founder around and suffer eternal damantion for 1,500 years until the Holy Spirit finally decided to reveal this truth. i think not.

 

[estesbob]

Hi,
He actually gave us free will to accept Him and accept the free gift of salvation of Christ or not. If you accept this free gift you become part of the church(body of believers)

And God, in his infinite wisdom, let man founder around and suffer eternal damantion for 1,500 years until the Holy Spirit finally decided to reveal this truth. i think not.

 

[Tomster]

Either you have the same knowledge everyone does, based on a reasonable examination of the evidence in community guided by the Holy Spirit, or you have a special infallible knowledge assured by the Magisterium. That is what Randy was claiming and that is the only thing I’ arguing against.

Protestants have access to tradition as well, you know.

Edwin

So, Protestants have access to tradition as well !

I’m so glad you said that ! There goes Sola Scriptura right out the window. Thank you very much !

 

[SolaScriptura]

God inspired members of the Church to write Scripture and God guided the Church to recognize the canonical books as inspired.

I noticed that you correctly mentioned that God “inspired” the writers of Scripture, but “guided” the church. Can God guide inerrantly? If so, why is it necessary to grant infallibility upon the church? The only people throughout history before Rome’s claim to ever have been considered infallible were those who were inspired of God.

 

[Libertas]

Can God guide inerrantly? If so, why is it necessary to grant infallibility upon the church? The only people throughout history before Rome’s claim to ever have been considered infallible were those who were inspired of God.

Uhm…maybe because it is promised to us in the Bible?
And so that the people can have a “Pillar and ground of Truth” in which to properly guide them and instruct them in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Sola Scriptura refutes itself.
2 Peter 1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

And God, in his infinite wisdom, let man founder around and suffer eternal damantion for 1,500 years until the Holy Spirit finally decided to reveal this truth. i think not.

Of course not. How else would you account all of the prophets from the Old Testament? They were chosen by God and inspired by the HS in their teachings.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

So that one could freely accept his Church or reject it for personal interperation and/or man made religions.

A purely Catholic statement.

estesbob:

You are free to misinterpert God plan for us all you want. in doing so you are settling for a pale shadow of the truth BUT that is you choice.

As do we all. This statement applies to ALL of mankind.

 

[estesbob]

Of course not. How else would you account all of the prophets from the Old Testament? They were chosen by God and inspired by the HS in their teachings.

So why did a loving God wait 1,500 years after the Death of Jesus to “reveal” sola scriptura and sola fidelis?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

It’s called the Holy Bible.

That’s the directions. God is the one who came up with them. He’s the mapmaker and the Bible the map.

 

[estesbob]

A purely Catholic statement.

As do we all. This statement applies to ALL of mankind.

It does apply to all of mankind-it does not apply to the Church. Ands that is the point of this whoile discussion.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

So why did a loving God wait 1,500 years after the Death of Jesus to “reveal” sola scriptura and sola fidelis?

Define sola scriptura and sola fidelis for me real quick before we proceed any further. I have a feeling your definition is going to be different than what we believe.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

It does apply to all of mankind-it does not apply to the Church. Ands that is the point of this whoile discussion.

So what are we arguing about then?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Uhm…maybe because it is promised to us in the Bible?
And so that the people can have a “Pillar and ground of Truth” in which to properly guide them and instruct them in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ?

I don’t see the promise of infallibility to the church anywhere in Scripture. As a matter of fact, there are more warnings about the church having those teaching error than anything else.

Sola Scriptura refutes itself.
2 Peter 1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

How you think this refutes sola Scriptura is beyond me.

 

[KindredSoul]

There were many splits(e.g. Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, EO, Old Catholic Church, Feenyites, etc) in the early church since the time of the Apostles. If you want to use splits as a reason for dismissing sola Scriptura as a workable rule of faith, then you must likewise say the same thing about your rule of faith since you claim it has always been used.

Nice dodge, but when I responded that all of those churches came from splitting off from the Catholic Church, I was talking (clearly) about the churches you mentioned before, which were not Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, etc. None of that does absolutely anything to bolster your claim for Protestantism; as for Old Catholic Church and Feenyites, these have clearly broken away from the Magisterium.

Isn’t that a self-evident statement? If no one had ever broken from Judiasm, Christianity wouldn’t exist. See what I mean?

You’re right…Catholicism, the original Christianity, came from Judaism as a result of the New Covenant, not just because we arbitrarily decided to split. So do Protestants claim to be the Third Covenant?! Never heard that one before…

This argument doesn’t carry much weight and it is self-refuting. If your rule of faith( remember I’m arguing based on your logic) was successful there wouldn’t be any of the churches and heretics I mentioned above

Yes there would…due to free will, people can reject what they know to be the Church’s teachings. In your rule of faith, people who think Abortion is okay (or not), Homosexuality is okay (or not), Birth Control is okay (or not) all believe they are going by the Bible’s teachings. Christ hasn’t stripped people of Free will in founding His Church–He just gave us the means not to be confused about issues like those mentioned and more; in Catholicism no such confusion exists. If someone rejects the Church’s teachings, they know they’re rejecting it. With the Bible by itself, things are apparently not so clear.

Yeah, we can see you rule of faith is so stable that there are never split offs from it. Even today we see Feenyites and Traditionalists breaking off from your church based on the rule of faith.

Stable rule of Faith doesn’t mean no splits…it means that there are no major disagreements as long as that rule of Faith is kept. Before you respond to this point out of context, read my whole message further down; this is no license or opportunity for you to bring in the Mormons or whatever, as you’ll then see.

Splits are sometimes necessary when and institution is no longer held captive to the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. However, it most definitely is not only unfair it is a fallacious comparison. You can either make the comparison at a denomination level(i.e. Catholicism vs Presbyterianism ) or at a rule of faith level( sola Scriptura vs Scripture+something else). I understand your hesitance of not wanting to compare apples to apples. Catholics have been getting away with this fallacious comparison to prop up their case for many years. It has been successful and hoodwinking those who have not seen what is going on. As a matter of fact most of the Catholic arguments that individuals have failed for and therefore converted are fallacious at their core. I demonstrated this in my thread on the canon, another argument that has been used to fool many.

Firstly, you demonstrated nothing in your thread on the canon. As I recall, that post consisted of you repeating yourself, thus forcing us to repeat ourselves, and no one walked away convinced, and we Catholics certainly weren’t shaken or defeated as you make it sound. You may say we were just being stubborn and blind. Then it’s just a name-calling game in which that claim could go both ways. See how pointless it is claiming a demonstration that you failed to provide?

Anyway, with that aside, let’s address this apples to apples business, since you are so obsessed with it. For one thing, we are not comparing churches, we are comparing a rule of Faith to another. “Rule of Faith” being the Apple.

That said: The Catholic Rule of Faith is NOT “Trust in an infallible authority.” The Catholic Rule of Faith is specifically “Trust in the infallible authority of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and in the Magisterium which consists of the Bishops in communion with the said Pope.” If you replace that with any other infallible source whatsoever, you have changed the whole rule of Faith. Mormons do not possess our rule of Faith. Sorry, they don’t. Now it is you making a fallacious argument. Now, Mormons do not possess Sola Scriptura either, so they don’t have your rule of Faith…but they definitely don’t have the Catholic one. Nor does any other church except for the Catholic Church have it, not even the Orthodox (or else they’d be Catholic; our rule of Faith kind of automatically makes that true for those who follow it, you’ll notice).

Continued

 

[KindredSoul]

Their own local church or denomination depending on how they are organized. But see once again you are making a fallacious comparison. You want one Protestant denomination to speak for all Protestant denominations, but that is silly. Does Rome speak for all the groups I mentioned above?

So it’s not Sola Scriptura? If someone disagrees with the local church or denomination, that denomination can consider that person indefinitely wrong, and say that it’s wrong (to the point of being heresy) for that person to join another denomination (which is the only logical conclusion, because the other denomination must be wrong if the current one is right)? If that’s the case, I’m sorry, but such a church does not hold up to Sola Scriptura…such a church clearly values church tradition and infallibility of the church–just not the Catholic Church. Of course, another difference is that such a church will probably claim to be Sola Scriptura, which is untrue. Catholics least admit the fact that we trust Tradition and the Magisterium.

This is only true because of your fallacious comparison. A Protestant denomination(e.g. Presbyterianism) most definitely can say “The Church allows it” or the “The Church denies it.”

See my previous paragraph - such an attitude isn’t in line with Sola Scriptura.

Yes, because of your fallacious comparison. Individual Protestant denominations have ruled on such things, but instead you want all of these different denominations to totally agree based on their rule of faith, but if that is the case then we must lump Catholics together with all those who use Scripture+something else as their rule of faith.

So those individual Protestant denominations’ “ruling” carries authority to interpret the scriptures truly? Wow!! Sounds a lot unlike Sola Scriptura.

As for lumping Catholics together with all those who use Scripture+something else, now it’s you being Fallacious. The Catholic Rule of Faith is by definition more specific than that. Presbyterians do not on any level or by any means call their rule of faith “Scripture plus the Presbyterian Church” nor do Baptists say similarly…they both claim “Sola Scriptura”, the same identical rule of Faith, word for word- “Sola Scriptura”. There is absolutely no variation in the rule of Faith they both claim. It’s not like Presbyterians mean the Hindu Scriptures when they say it, and Baptists mean the Bible, while Lutherans mean the Koran. They all mean the exact same thing. Why should they not be compared? If I were grouping you with Muslims, whose rule of Faith is “Sola Scriptura” (in a sense) but to a different scripture, your complaint would be valid…but I’m not doing that at all.

In that same light, why should Catholics be grouped with someone whose rule of faith is “Scripture plus the Mormon Church” or “Scripture plus the Orthodox Church?” Unlike the Protestant Rule of Faith, those rules of faith are similar in theory, but far from identical. All Sola Scriptura Protestants claim the same exact identical rule of Faith, using the same exact source. There is a difference between the two attempts at “lumping” as you call it…if you’ll see it.

Wanna try and do apples to apples my friend?

I’ve done that already…for the second time. Try not mistakenly calling one of the apples an orange, and you’ll see that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

]

If you mean that I cannot be certain of opening to any passage in Scripture and knowing exactly what it means, then of course I can’t. That would be an irrelevant argument, since Catholicism doesn’t demand or offer such certainty either.

The question is a bogus one, because it assumes that we are supposed to be able to interpret every single passage in Scripture with absolute certainty. I took it to be a general epistemological question because you phrased it in general terms.

It would be a meaningful question if you asked it about a specific passage. I’d be happy to share my reasons for my interpretation of any given passage of Scripture, and to tell you just how certain I am in each case that my interpretation is correct (i.e., very certain in some cases, not at all in others).

Edwin

How about if I just ask a different question?

If you and a brother who is of a different denomination disagree about a passage, and for fun, let’s say it’s a verse in the Bible that is actually important, how would you come to a determination about whose interpretation was correct?

 

[Bishopite]

[Contarini;1893147]]

If you mean that I cannot be certain of opening to any passage in Scripture and knowing exactly what it means, then of course I can’t. That would be an irrelevant argument, since Catholicism doesn’t demand or offer such certainty either.

Actually you are incorrect. Catholicism does declare a certainty faith given to it infallibly by God that’s why it has dogmatically declared doctrines in ecumenical councils, i.e., the Trinity, theotokos, the canon.

The question is a bogus one, because it assumes that we are supposed to be able to interpret every single passage in Scripture with absolute certainty. I took it to be a general epistemological question because you phrased it in general terms.

No that’s not what he is saying, you are making that false assumption. Catholicism nowhere claims it has or can give an interpretation of every verse in Scripture; John Calvin
did, but not Catholicism. Yet there are a few verses that have been infallibly defined, very few but not every verse.

It would be a meaningful question if you asked it about a specific passage. I’d be happy to share my reasons for my interpretation of any given passage of Scripture, and to tell you just how certain I am in each case that my interpretation is correct (i.e., very certain in some cases, not at all in others).

Bottom line is the best epistemological guesses doesn’t get to the truth, infallibility does. After Jesus resurrected, He didn’t leave us without a shephard to wander off and to make our best guesses on faith and morals that’s why (along with the Scriptural evidence) we have a Pope who is the shephard who not only shephards the sheep but is final say on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Veritas41]

How can Protestants be sure of their understanding of Scripture?

They acknowledge no infallible Church to interpret the Bible without error, so how do they determine with certainty what the Word of God really says?

They can’t. They just presume they’ve correctly followed the leading of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. When I came to realize that, it wasn’t long until I became Catholic:thumbsup:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

We can be reasonably sure in the same way we are sure of anything. Presumably you are asking for some special, infallible, miraculous certainty. We don’t have this about anything so why about Scripture? God hasn’t seen fit to make the world that way.

No infallible authority has told me that my wife loves me, or that my parents are really my parents, or that I was really born in the city of Blackburn on May 13, 1974. Yet I firmly believe all these things.

The question is an illegitimate one from the start.

Never mind that (as Protestant apologists have pointed out over and over to no avail) Catholics are in the same boat. You believe in the infallible Magisterium either because the Magisterium says it is infallible (logically prior to your decision that it is infallible, and hence inadmissible as an “infallible authority”) or because you have concluded this on the basis of the historical, Biblical, experiential (etc.) evidence, which is exactly how Protestants interpret Scripture. And then there’s the fact that the Magisterium’s statements need to be interpreted, and that this applies ad infinitum to the Magisterium’s explanations of its own statements (even assuming that all such statements were infallible, which they aren’t).

I have seen this line of reasoning often mocked, but never refuted. The degree of certainty you are demanding for the interpretation of Scripture (i.e., verification by an infallible authority so that it cannot possibly be doubted) is impossible. It is logically incoherent and leads to total skepticism.

1. Certainty need not be infallible - it need only be certain in its own field; and that means it has the sort of certainty proper to its subject-matter

2. So there are different kinds of certainty (as Aristotle pointed out 2300 years ago); the certainty one has of the truth of a theorem in Euclid is as certain, though it is not the same sort of certainty, as the certainty of a moral judgement. Neither sort of certainty can be transposed into the other’s question - yet each is certain within the limits of their own questions.

3. Logic alone cannot prove the existence of Australia - logic can give certainty of a kind, the kind that is proper to logic; but not about geography. To be certain of the logical validity of one’s conclusions about geography, one needs geography as well as logic.

4. The Catholic reasoning falls down because it tries to assimilate all different kinds of certainty to one kind only - as though knowing people’s height or weight were the same sort of thing as know them. It’s reductionist - it doesn’t allow certainty that is not proper to its own mode of knowing, to be certainty at all. And because it’s reductionist, it has no place for certainty that it cannot test - & there is no way of testing for the the inrternal illumination of the Holy Spirit.

**5.**The Catholic argument is really an attempt to have “Religion within the Limits of Pure Reason”. Trying to be certain more than is appropriate or possible, only leads to losing what light one has already - & if we don’t have fully articulate knowledge of our own relation to God, we cannot expect to have it about others. “Knowledge puffs up - love builds up”. Knowledge, love, obedience, faith, all go together - they cannot be made the small change of theological warfare, for this trivialises them. They are given us for our growth in Christ - not so we can dispute over them.

6. Which is why the question is illegitimate - it’s enough that Protestants can be sure; otherwise we end up with the same sort of empty nonsense as in questions
about what caused God. The nearest to an answer there seems to be, is in Romans 8.15 ff.

7. This question is probably more important for those who reject it, than for those who live with it. Disagreements often are of this kind - they make what a body of Christians takes in its stride look vastly more complicated than it is in practice The people who don’t have the practice in their own form of religion, are the ones who see it as complicated. Or they see as of major importance something which those whose religion they look at, regard as comparatively unimportant ##

There are plenty of fatal problems with Protestantism (fatal to any claims it might have to be a self-standing version of Christianity, that is) without this. You don’t need to embark on half-baked epistemology in order to defend Catholicism or even (which is not the same thing) attack Protestantism.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Libertas]

I don’t see the promise of infallibility to the church anywhere in Scripture. As a matter of fact, there are more warnings about the church having those teaching error than anything else.

Uhm…have you read the Bible?
Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.

Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.

Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).

John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.

1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?

Gen. to Deut.; Psalms; Paul - Moses and maybe Paul were murderers and David was an adulterer and murderer, but they also wrote infallibly. God uses us sinful human beings because when they respond to His grace and change their lives, we give God greater glory and His presence is made more manifest in our sinful world.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.

John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.