How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[Libertas]

1 Cor. 2:13 – Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.

Eph. 4:13,15 – Paul indicates that attaining to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood is a process. We are to grow up in every way into Christ. Doctrine (which means “teaching”) develops as we understand God’s Revelation.

Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.

Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter’s evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter’s teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile’s salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying “Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!” The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter’s leadership in the Church.

Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).

Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.

Eph. 3:20 - God’s glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church’s leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.

Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.

Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.

1 Thess. 5:21 - Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.

1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.

1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us” (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.” But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error.

Matt. to Rev. - we must also note that not all Christian doctrines are explicit in Scripture (for example, the dogma of the Blessed Trinity). However, infallibility is strongly inferred from the foregoing passages. Non-Catholic Christians should ask themselves why they accept the Church’s teaching on the three persons of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ in one divine person, and the New Testament canon of Scripture (all defined by the Catholic Church), but not other teachings regarding the Eucharist, Mary, the saints, and purgatory?

 

[Libertas]

How you think this refutes sola Scriptura is beyond me.

Do you understand the English language at all?
Those two verses are showing how there is zero private interpretation of scripture. eg. Bible Christians, Protestants, basically anyone who isn’t the Catholic Magisterium.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Do you understand the English language at all?
Those two verses are showing how there is zero private interpretation of scripture. eg. Bible Christians, Protestants, basically anyone who isn’t the Catholic Magisterium.

Oh, I understand English, the problem is I understand fallacious arguments also. For example, you used your private interpretation of 2 Peter to prove private interpretation is not to be used. Wanna try again Mr/Mrs English teacher?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

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.

The church has the truth the universal church and the local churches. But my point is the bible says

Read Acts 2: 38–447

Acts 2 :38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Act 2:40 ¶ And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Act 2:41 **Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls. **

Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Act 2:43 And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

Act 2:44 **And all that believed were together, and had all things common; **

Act 2:45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.

Act 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Act 2:47 **Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. **

it was after they accepted the gospel message that they believes and were added to the church. It wasnt the church that saved them it was the Lord that saved them.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Psst, the Church talked about all throughout the Bible is not “A body of believers”, that’s a Protestant invention.

The actual phrase may be new but the concept is of Christ.

Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Here we are all equal in God’s eye and are the same body by believing in the gospel of Christ

Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

---

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

---

Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

---

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

---

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

---

Phl 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death.

---

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn

Right here he links the 2

If the body is not the body of believers who are also part of the church then who are they?

 

[Spirit_Driven]

By His doing you are in Christ Jesus (1 Corinthians 1:30).

Just a reality Check people.

 

[estesbob]

The actual phrase may be new but the concept is of Christ.

Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Here we are all equal in God’s eye and are the same body by believing in the gospel of Christ

Eph 4:4 [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

---

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

---

Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

---

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

---

Eph 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

---

Phl 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and [my] hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but [that] with all boldness, as always, [so] now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether [it be] by life, or by death.

---

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn

Right here he links the 2

If the body is not the body of believers who are also part of the church then who are they?

So one is to ignore 2,000 years of History (1,500 years of which there was little dispute as to what the “Church” was ) and embrace your definition of “Church” based on your personal interpertation of 7 Scripture verses? 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

Protestants have access to tradition as well.

What traditions are you speaking of Edwin?

Could they be the oral traditions of Protestantism? Such as:

1.) The acceptance of homosexual clergy?
2.) The acceptance of abortion and contraception?
3.) The acceptance of female clergy?

While still a Catholic, during the years 1513-16, Martin Luther delivered theological lectures on the Psalms in which he described from time to time the peculiarities and distinguishing features of heretics.

“The principle sin of heretics is their pride. In their pride they insist on their own opinions. Frequently they serve God with great fervor and they do not intend any evil; but they serve God according to their own will . . . Even when refuted, they are ashamed to retract their errors and to change their words . . . They think they are guided directly by God . . . The things that have been established for centuries and for which so many martyrs have suffered death, they begin to treat as doubtful questions. They interpret [the Bible] according to their own heads and their own particular views and carry their own opinions into it.”

So, please, tell us, what traditions do Protestants have access to?

As I have mentioned on another thread to a different person, Protestants have never rejected tradition. Oh, they have rejected Sacred Tradition as the Church understands and teaches it. But Protestants have not rejected tradition. What Protestantism has done is replace Sacred Tradition with man made traditions, such as Sola Scriptura, which by the way is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

 

[Reformed1]

Protestants have access to tradition as well.

What traditions are you speaking of Edwin?

Could they be the oral traditions of Protestantism? Such as:

1.) The acceptance of homosexual clergy?

Tom,

Considering the current state of affairs in the RCC, I don’t think I would bring up “homosexual clergy”.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Does Rome speak for all the groups I mentioned above?

As a matter of fact, yes. Rome does speak for the christian world. She is Christ’s present here on earth.

The problems start when “free will” leds people away from that belief and into their own beliefs.

 

[Tomster]

Tom,

Considering the current state of affairs in the RCC, I don’t think I would bring up “homosexual clergy”.

After forty years of the Vatican’s total failure to enforce its own 1961 instruction that homosexuals should not be ordained or admitted into the seminary, the homosexual infiltration of the hierarchy is now international in scope, with criminal convictions, lawsuits and payouts worldwide.

Why not bring up the question? Church teaching has never changed on homosexuality. It appears Church practice has.

 

[KindredSoul]

While still a Catholic, during the years 1513-16, Martin Luther delivered theological lectures on the Psalms in which he described from time to time the peculiarities and distinguishing features of heretics.

“The principle sin of heretics is their pride. In their pride they insist on their own opinions. Frequently they serve God with great fervor and they do not intend any evil; but they serve God according to their own will . . . Even when refuted, they are ashamed to retract their errors and to change their words . . . They think they are guided directly by God . . . The things that have been established for centuries and for which so many martyrs have suffered death, they begin to treat as doubtful questions. They interpret [the Bible] according to their own heads and their own particular views and carry their own opinions into it.”

That is one of the most tragic and ironic quotes I have ever heard. He was so on target with those words, and yet he still fell to the exact same fatal error…a reminder of how careful we all ought to be not to fall away from the Church’s teachings; if someone who wrote those faithful and wise words could become a heretic, anyone could. It is very tragic; we might live in a different world today, where Christians worked against corruption and abuses from within the Church instead of breaking off from it, had he kept those words in mind.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

After forty years of the Vatican’s total failure to enforce its own 1961 instruction that homosexuals should not be ordained or admitted into the seminary, the homosexual infiltration of the hierarchy is now international in scope, with criminal convictions, lawsuits and payouts worldwide.

Why not bring up the question? Church teaching has never changed on homosexuality. It appears Church practice has.

Has todays “protestant church teaching” changed in the last fifty years? Ministers today steal money from the churches, runing away with the organist, abuse children, criminal convictions, lawsuits and payouts. Did the bible teachings change to allow this?

Care to rephrase the question or can you answer your own question with your response from this one.

 

[estesbob]

Tom,

Considering the current state of affairs in the RCC, I don’t think I would bring up “homosexual clergy”.

Why not? Is it Church teaching that Priests should rape boys? If we start judging the Truth by the actions of some of the adherents of the Faith we might as well shut down every church in the world.

 

[KindredSoul]

Tom,

Considering the current state of affairs in the RCC, I don’t think I would bring up “homosexual clergy”.

Tomster said “Acceptance of homosexual clergy” (emphasis mine) had cropped up in Protestantism.

Keep in mind the following points:

1. From a Catholic stance, “Homosexual” primarily means not an orientation, but rather those who practice homosexuality and who condone the practice.
2. Within Protestantism, several churches, making surprising Biblical arguments (usually appealing to slight amiguities in the original languages to cause confusion which can leave a Sola Scripturist quite vulnerable) have accepted such people from Point #1 into the clergy by claiming it isn’t wrong.
3. If someone who fits the description of point #1 ever makes it into Catholic priesthood, it is not because they were accepted willingly, but because they slipped through the cracks.

The scandals that have unfortunately arisen in the Church bear no resemblance to the deliberate acceptance of practicing, proudly homosexual clergy in some Protestant churches. The Catholic Church is horrified by the scandals that have taken place; for those Protestant churches mentioned, accepting practicing homosexuals as clergy is “progress” and being “open to the Holy Spirit.” No similarity.

 

[Bishopite]

And that’s what I’m objecting to, and that’s why your defense of him is beside the point. He seems to be suggesting that without a charism of infallibility one cannot have certainty, and that this lack of certainty is an intolerably bad thing. If he’s not saying this, then I’m at a loss as to what he is saying or what his point might be.

Edwin

Well, certainly the Scriptural evidence and reason does mandate an infallible interpretation of infallible Scripture and is the MOST reasonable and rational of the two, which is all Catholicism is saying and no one has a strict and frequent absulute direct revelation from God.
We all (I hope) appeal to reason; look at history and Scripture (both pointing to an authoritative Church and by reason which shows us which authoritative Church Christ established, the early Church (only being Catholic) held its ground against the heretics of arians, donatists, pelagians, collyridians, monphysites et al who tried to infiltrate the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church held its ground. Catholicism doesn’t claim to be over Scripture but the servant and correct interpreter of Scripture…

“Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)
But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.”
(Dei Verbum 10, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation)

And then the Scriptural evidence for the charism of infallibilty…
47. Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
48. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.
"That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage. The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. Peter is the only one of the apostles who is given the keys of the kingdom. These keys are directly related to the power of binding and loosing of which Peter is given a singular prerogative not given to any other apostle. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)"

In fact, it was an infallible act by Catholicism that determined the canon and it is the MOST reasonable that this same authoritative Church be the guardian of Scripture. What other Church makes such a claim and shows its evidence?

 

[Libertas]

Oh, I understand English, the problem is I understand fallacious arguments also. For example, you used your private interpretation of 2 Peter to prove private interpretation is not to be used. Wanna try again Mr/Mrs English teacher?

That’s not my private interpretation there big guy.
That is Church teaching.

Want to try to sound like an arrogant smart *** again?

 

[kaycee]

That is one of the most tragic and ironic quotes I have ever heard. He was so on target with those words, and yet he still fell to the exact same fatal error…a reminder of how careful we all ought to be not to fall away from the Church’s teachings; if someone who wrote those faithful and wise words could become a heretic, anyone could. It is very tragic; we might live in a different world today, where Christians worked against corruption and abuses from within the Church instead of breaking off from it, had he kept those words in mind.

A far more tragic quote.
"Matt 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? …Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”

 

[SolaScriptura]

Want to try to sound like an arrogant smart *** again?

Sure, since you asked.

That’s not my private interpretation there big guy.
That is Church teaching.

OK, show me where your church interpreted that verse like you did? Waiting …

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Tomster said “Acceptance of homosexual clergy” (emphasis mine) had cropped up in Protestantism.

Keep in mind the following points:

1. From a Catholic stance, “Homosexual” primarily means not an orientation, but rather those who practice homosexuality and who condone the practice.

Not according to the 1986 letter of the SCDF, which uses the word “homosexual” several times for the orientation.​

1. Within Protestantism, several churches, making surprising Biblical arguments (usually appealing to slight amiguities in the original languages to cause confusion which can leave a Sola Scripturist quite vulnerable) have accepted such people from Point #1 into the clergy by claiming it isn’t wrong.
2. If someone who fits the description of point #1 ever makes it into Catholic priesthood, it is not because they were accepted willingly, but because they slipped through the cracks.

As to 3 - there are counter-examples of this; & (equally important) that statement is impossible to prove or disprove, because what it says can always be redefined - it’s a version of what an OP has called the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. So even though there are counter-examples, they can always be ruled out by the simple expedient of redefining one’s terms so as to exclude them.​

3 is also aprioristic: whether X can happen is not discussed; the possibility that it might, is ruled out from the very start, which means that because it has been decided in advance that it cannot happen, no examples of its happening need be considered. ##

The scandals that have unfortunately arisen in the Church bear no resemblance to the deliberate acceptance of practicing, proudly homosexual clergy in some Protestant churches. The Catholic Church is horrified by the scandals that have taken place; for those Protestant churches mentioned, accepting practicing homosexuals as clergy is “progress” and being “open to the Holy Spirit.” No similarity.

No similarity ? None whatsoever ? This is a very dangerous game to play - if there is so much horror, why the quickness to say what amounts to: “Omigod, I know we are scum - but at least we are not as scummy as those pervs over there”. There may be horror - but is it any different from the horror of the self-righteous being red-handed in the act of proving they are as morally useless as those they despise ? And how do the sins of others - no matter how great - make us whiter than white ? They don’t. We fool only ourselves if we imagine that they do. We’ve every reason for humility, but none at all to chuck stones at others. Doing that may distract attention - it doesn’t make our failings any less real. ​