How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[runandsew]

Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. If the Catholic Church became corrupted, then the gates of hell *have *prevailed against his church, which would make Jesus a liar.

I see that there is disagreement on this passage, but there doesn’t have to be disagreement, it doesn’t have to be “either/or”, it can be “both/and”. Scripture can have different senses to it. In the literal sense it would appear that Jesus is referring to the “church”. But in the spiritual sense, it can mean "Every Sin—Every False Doctrine is a “Gate of Hades”, and therefore be referring to every Christian, or all of Christianity.
Origen - Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII)

 

[kaycee]

Indeed; why so shocking? Of course, you’ll take this to vindicate your claim; however, you’d be missing one small (well, rather large) detail. The Church Tradition is God’s tradition, not ours.

An interesting observation considering you can only guess at what the apostles taught via oral Tradition

does not apply in any sense to Catholic Tradition. You cannot nullify the command of God for the sake of His own Tradition; that’s impossible, and is a contradiction. The argument only works if one first believes in the manmade tradition (uh oh) of Sola Scriptura and lets it nullify the word which God has spoken through His Church and His Tradition.

Apparently Christ believed it was man made tradition even though the jews thought it was from God!

The “tradition” handed down by the Apostles in none other than the same message as recorded in scripture, which is to be expected!!!

This concept of unwritten oral tradition that “develops” within the church then 400 years later the papacy appears or 1000 years later a sinless Mary has much more in common with man mad traditions rejected by Christ than the “faith which was once and for all delievered to the saints”

 

[kaycee]

What does the Bible say? How do you read it?

“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.’ " (John 20:21-23)

Jesus “breathed” on the disciples – an odd thing to do given that the day of Pentecost and the descent of the promised Holy Spirit were still several weeks away. Was He anointing them with the Holy Spirit at this very moment? Perhaps there is another explanation for this anointing: Jesus has just established a “God-breathed” Church.

Granted, John does not use the word “theopneustos” in this passage, but this would not be required in the text since it is obvious that God the Son was the one who was breathing upon the Apostles. Paul, on the other hand, was trying to explain the nature of scripture as being from the very breath of God, and thus used a different word to convey his meaning adequately.

Your claim is something more than “Receive the Holy Spirit” is alluded to here?

Apostles = Inspired Revelation??? I think thats a bit past a stretch.

 

[runandsew]

Your claim is something more than “Receive the Holy Spirit” is alluded to here?

Apostles = Inspired Revelation??? I think thats a bit past a stretch.

I posted this in another thread, but I see the same issues are being raised here, so here is my post again.

Here is a Jimmy Akin article on this subject

INSPIRATION, TRADITION, AND SCRIPTURE

"Technically, the word “inspiration” does not appear in Scripture. The term that is translated “inspiration” is theopneustos, but “inspiration” is not best translation of this term. “God-breathed” is, and even that term only appears in 2 Tim. 3:16. "

“Is Apostolic Tradition inspired? In one sense it is, but in another it isn’t. When God initially revealed doctrines to the apostles he determined the form in which these teachings came to them, so the original giving was inspired. But God did not directly fix the way the apostles expressed these teachings to others. The apostles might express a single doctrine from God in a variety of ways. So while the original giving of Apostolic Tradition was inspired, the words in which it has been passed down to us are not inspired.”

 

[KindredSoul]

An interesting observation considering you can only guess at what the apostles taught via oral Tradition

One could just as easily say that you can only guess that additional apostolic writings, containing information vital to salvation, weren’t excluded when the (according to you) non-God-inspired, “can-only-guess” Church put the Bible together. Seems the Church’s “guessing” is God inspired in your opinion after all…when it’s convenient for you.

Apparently Christ believed it was man made tradition even though the jews thought it was from God!

And those manmade traditions weren’t the Catholic Tradition. Arguing that just because the Jewish tradition was manmade means that the Catholic Tradition is also manmade is a ridiculous argument. The Jews had some flawed expectations of the Messiah too, as a result of fallacious interpretations of their scriptures. Should we Christians doubt our view of the Messiah just because once upon a time the Jews got it wrong? Of course not, and Divine Tradition is no different.

The “tradition” handed down by the Apostles in none other than the same message as recorded in scripture, which is to be expected!!!

You clearly believe that yes…though very few “Christians” (Gnostics and such that even you would consider heretical) until around the 1500’s limited the Divine Tradition to written Scripture. I suppose I’m supposed to just take your word for it…but wait, then I’d be trusting in what you say - if I can’t trust what the 2000 year old Church says, why should I trust you and other Protestants?

This concept of unwritten oral tradition that “develops” within the church then 400 years later the papacy appears or 1000 years later a sinless Mary has much more in common with man mad traditions rejected by Christ than the “faith which was once and for all delievered to the saints”

First of all, you well know the Catholic viewpoint that a Dogma can be around as a concept long before it’s declared infallibly.

And before you attack that, here’s a problem: The Canon wasn’t put together until some 300 years later…so it looks like, if the Sola Scriptura is the rule of Faith, the ruling stick for that Faith wasn’t Once and for all delivered to the Saints for about 300 years after Christ’s death.
Canon was a developed Revelation, which, according to your logic, makes it very similar to a manmade tradition!

 

[Randy_Carson]

An interesting observation considering you can only guess at what the apostles taught via oral Tradition

Kaycee-

Would it be reasonable to assume that all Christians believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

Isn’t this a truth that is binding upon the consciences of all Christians?

 

[Libertas]

Sure, since you asked.

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

1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit
No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

Straight from here.

GG

 

[SolaScriptura]

1:20. Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
Hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria interpretatione non fit
No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation… This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise.

Straight from here.

GG

Sorry Libertas, but this doesn’t work. This is only the private interpretation of someone else. If this is your criteria of your church teaching something then I can equally quote Catholic commentaries on Scripture(i.e. New Jerome Study Bible) that teach things that you wouldn’t like at all. Do you understand what official church interpretation is?

 

[kaycee]

Kaycee-

Would it be reasonable to assume that all Christians believe that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle?

Isn’t this a truth that is binding upon the consciences of all Christians?

Would’nt it be more reasonable to answer my original question instead of posing another diversion?

 

[kaycee]

Originally Posted by kaycee
An interesting observation considering you can only guess at what the apostles taught via oral Tradition

Actually, i thought it would be fairly easy for you or anyone here to list out the Oral Tradition taught by the Apostles instead of launching a new topic. guess not.

And those manmade traditions weren’t the Catholic Tradition.

This statement seems to imply that you know what the Catholic Traditions were. Is’nt there an ifallible canon of infallible tradition anywhere?

You clearly believe that yes…though very few “Christians” (Gnostics and such that even you would consider heretical) until around the 1500’s limited the Divine Tradition to written Scripture. I suppose I’m supposed to just take your word for it…but wait, then I’d be trusting in what you say - if I can’t trust what the 2000 year old Church says, why should I trust you and other Protestants?

Well, you could take the Early Church Fathers word for it.

First of all, you well know the Catholic viewpoint that a Dogma can be around as a concept long before it’s declared infallibly.

Were the doctrines of the Assumption, purgatory and indulgences part of the dogmatic faith necessary for salvation in the year 100?

And before you attack that, here’s a problem: The Canon wasn’t put together until some 300 years later…so it looks like, if the Sola Scriptura is the rule of Faith, the ruling stick for that Faith wasn’t Once and for all delivered to the Saints for about 300 years after Christ’s death.
Canon was a developed Revelation, which, according to your logic, makes it very similar to a manmade tradition!

First of all, you well know that the Church was already using most of the NT long before it was officially declared. I am sure you also know that the books in question did not add any new doctrine.

 

[KindredSoul]

Actually, i thought it would be fairly easy for you or anyone here to list out the Oral Tradition taught by the Apostles instead of launching a new topic.

Sure is; just look at Catholic Tradition. You need look no further.

Well, you could take the Early Church Fathers word for it.

The Early Church Fathers were clearly Catholic, clearly believed in one visibly unified Church, not just a collection of churches that agree on a set of written scriptures but not on what those scriptures say…I indeed trust this; do you?

Were the doctrines of the Assumption, purgatory and indulgences part of the dogmatic faith necessary for salvation in the year 100?

Perhaps, perhaps not…they were certainly around in some form; dogmatically declared could be a different story. But then, was Sola Scriptura dogmatically declared then? No, as it has never been; in that line of thought, why do you deem it such a necessary rule of Faith now?

First of all, you well know that the Church was already using most of the NT long before it was officially declared.

But there’s no such thing to know. You’d have been hard pressed to have found any one local church that both used all the scriptures from the New Testament today and neglected to use other scriptures that are not in the Canon today. You’d also have been hard pressed to find any church that relied only on the scriptures…but that point doesn’t impress you, now does it?

I am sure you also know that the books in question did not add any new doctrine.

That’s debatable. Of course, just like all other doctrines (Purgatory, etc., though you question them) the doctrines were likely always around in the community; however, it’s debatable as to whether or not every doctrine in the NT was always declared as doctrine. A lot was determined by the Early Church Fathers and Councils before those books were Canonized; who knows what books might not have been added (or what books now absent might have been) had the Canon came about earlier, before some of those developmental decisions were made?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Since there was only one flavor of Christianity when Jesus was establishing His church (not churches), then it stands to reason that he was speaking of that group which became known as the Catholic Church before the end of the first century.

Your opinion, not mine.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

I understand your viewpoint, but for the first 1000 years of Christianity, there was only One Church, the Catholic Church. Outside of the church there were heretics and false teachers. Both the writers of Sacred Scripture and the ECF urged unity and to avoid factions.

Thanks for understanding where I’m coming from, at least. I know you don’t agree but thanks for at least understanding.
The heretics and false teachers have been “within” the CC as well. History can show that.
I honestly don’t know what happened to cause the rifts that happened 1000 years ago. I’m still studying all of that.

 

[Libertas]

Sorry Libertas, but this doesn’t work. This is only the private interpretation of someone else. If this is your criteria of your church teaching something then I can equally quote Catholic commentaries on Scripture(i.e. New Jerome Study Bible) that teach things that you wouldn’t like at all. Do you understand what official church interpretation is?

Uhm…no this is the interpretation of the Church, not someone else.
Here would be the fine text at the bottom of each Bible page from my source:
The Holy Bible
Old Testament First Published 1609 by the English College at Douay
New Testament First Published 1582 by the English College at Rheims
Revised and Annotated 1749 by Bishop Richard Challoner
Online Edition Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Knight
Imprimatur. +James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899
Something tells me if it is revised and given the a-ok by a Bishop, and an Archbishop, it is the Church’s teachings.

Furthermore, from the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
"St. Augustine wrote, “I would not believe the authority of the Scriptures except for the authority of the Catholic Church.”
It is unreasonable to believe, as most Protestants do, that the Bible is infallible but the Church is not. For
a. Why would God leave us an infallible book in the hands of fallible teachers and interpreters? That would destroy the whole purpose of an infallible book: to give us certainty about the things God knew we needed to know.
b. It is a matter of historical fact that the Church (the apostles) wrote the New Testament. But a fallible cause cannot produce an infallible effect.
c. It is also a historical fact that the Church “canonized” the Bible (defined which books belong to it). If the Church is merely fallible, how can we be sure what this infallible book is?
d. The Bible itself calls the Church, not the Bible, “The pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15)
e. Scripture never teaches the Protestant principle of sola scriptura (Scripture alone). Thus sola scriptura contradicts itself.

 

[Libertas]

AND FUTHERMORE!:
In the light of all this, surely it is not difficult to understand the objections of the Catholic Church to the idea that each reader individually should constitute himself an independent judge as to the meaning of the Bible. As I have suggested earlier, this is practically to claim that each reader is rendered infallible by the Holy Spirit as often as he devotes himself earnestly to the reading of Holy Scripture, a claim far in excess of any claim made by Catholics even for that one man only, the pope, whose infallibility is exercised on isolated occasions only and within the limits of the most exacting conditions.

Even Bernard Shaw was fully alive to this aspect of the subject. “Perhaps,” he wrote, in the preface to his play Saint Joan, “I had better inform my Protestant readers that the famous dogma of papal infallibility is by far the most modest pretension of the kind in existence. Compared with our infallible democracies, our infallible medical councils, our infallible astronomers, our infallible judges, and our infallible parliaments, the pope is on his knees in the dust confessing his ignorance before the throne of God, asking only that as to certain historical matters on which he clearly has more sources of information open to him than anyone else his decision shall be taken as final.”

What, then, does the Catholic Church say? She permits and encourages the private reading of Scripture. But she says definitely that no one has the right to interpret the Bible for himself in any way opposed to the official teachings of the Catholic Church. Passing over the fact that the majority of people lack the required training in the many different sciences bearing upon scriptural interpretation necessary even for a merely natural understanding of the Bible, we have to reckon with the positive provision made by Christ for our instruction in his religion.

**The Bible itself tells us that “no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation” (2 Pet. 1:20). **It tells us that Christ established and guaranteed his Church, that he commissioned that Church to “teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19) in his name, and that he said of it, “he that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16), and also, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen” (Matt. 18:17). No wonder St. Paul declared the “Church of the living God” to be “the pillar and the ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

That, then, is the Catholic position. Christ never made his religion dependent upon each individual’s private interpretation of the Bible. His infinite wisdom would not choose a method which would lead, and has led, as we have seen, to division, chaos, and driftage from religion altogether. He established the Catholic Church, and that Church can say with her divine Master to those who profess to believe in the Bible that the very Scriptures upon which they claim to rely bear witness of her (John 5:39). She is the appointed guide to which, in obedience to Christ, we Catholics submit.

Speaking of the sixteenth-century Reformers, the eminent Congregationalist Scripture scholar, Professor C. H. Dodd, says, “In placing the Bible at the disposal of the uninstructed they took a fateful step. It could now be read, and was widely read, ‘without note or comment,’ without the guidance which had been supplied by tradition. To allow and encourage this was inevitably to admit the right of private judgment in interpreting it. [It was now] exposed to the possible vagaries of private interpretation, an absolute authority displacing the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church of Rome replied by an increased rigidity in its control of Bible-reading. The cleavage which ensued had unfortunate results. In the churches of the Reformation…the claim that the Bible could be read, just as it stood, without the guidance of tradition…exposed it to the dangers of a chaotic individualism. Where there was no longer a common standard or perspective, the line was not easily drawn between a just freedom of responsible judgment and the play of arbitrary preference…The demand for unqualified freedom opened the way to limitless aberrations. An extreme example is to be found in the exploitation of the more obscure ‘apocalyptic’ writings such as the Book of Daniel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New, which became the licensed playground of every crank” (The Bible Today, 21-23).

It is true that Professor Dodd stops short of the final goal to which such thoughts should logically lead. But that merely means that he has not yet attained to the positive and supernatural grace of the Catholic faith in all its fullness. What is encouraging is to find a Protestant biblical scholar glimpsing something of the Catholic outlook on this subject.

Sounds like official Church teaching to me.
I know what I’m talking about, don’t insult me.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Uhm…no this is the interpretation of the Church, not someone else.
Here would be the fine text at the bottom of each Bible page from my source:
The Holy Bible
Old Testament First Published 1609 by the English College at Douay
New Testament First Published 1582 by the English College at Rheims
Revised and Annotated 1749 by Bishop Richard Challoner
Online Edition Copyright © 2006 by Kevin Knight
Imprimatur. +James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899
Something tells me if it is revised and given the a-ok by a Bishop, and an Archbishop, it is the Church’s teachings.

Oh, so are you saying a Nihil Obstat and/or an Imprimatur by a Bishop or Archbishop means it is the official Church’s teaching? No when you answer this question remember you told me not to insult you( and I didn’t, but sometimes the truth hurts), because you told me, “I know what I’m talking about”. I await your answer since you are person who knows what he/she is talking about.

 

[Spirithound]

No, it’s very bad logic, because infallibility is a charism and one that operates only under restricted circumstances. Infallibility is not some sort of intrinsic power residing in the Church–it is the Holy Spirit preventing the Church from erring. It is a gift of grace humbly received by the Church. That at least is the impression I get from official Catholic teaching such as Vatican II and the Catechism, and that is what orthodox and learned Catholics whose opinion I trust have told me. Your argument would only work if the Church were intrinsically infallible by virtue of its own inherent powers.

God inspired members of the Church to write Scripture and God guided the Church to recognize the canonical books as inspired. Similarly, God prevents the Church from falling into fatal error. Just what errors would count as fatal and just what means God uses to do this are the points at issue between us. These cannot be solved by the sweeping arguments you and others on this thread are using.

Your understanding of the doctrine of infallibility is correct, but I fail to see how your point really makes sense. I don’t see any Catholic on here trying to make papal infallibility seem any more than it is.

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.

Infallibility is the word we use to describe God guiding the Church.

We embrace the CC for what it was 800 A.D. and before. Events in history have changed what the CC was originally when it was established. We believe the historic CC was Christ’s Church but men have corrupted it and now it has split into Christianity as we know it today.

So now there’s just a 700-year gap. That’s only slightly less untenable than the full 1500 years.

 

[Spirithound]

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

CCC 105: (paragraph 2) “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and cononical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
Footnote references this to 2Pet.1:20 and 3:16, among several other sources.

Look at the last clause: “…and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” The Church is therefore the keeper of the Scriptures, and as such, is also the interpreter thereof.

 

[RNRobert]

Thanks for understanding where I’m coming from, at least. I know you don’t agree but thanks for at least understanding.
The heretics and false teachers have been “within” the CC as well. History can show that.
I honestly don’t know what happened to cause the rifts that happened 1000 years ago. I’m still studying all of that.

Yes there have been false teachers within the CC, but Jesus himself warned us of this (the parable of the wheat and the tares).
As far as the Orthodox/Catholic split in 1054, I think distance and language had alot to do with it. Rome and Constantinople were hundreds of miles apart, and this was before telegraph, radio, etc., which made communication difficult. This problem was compounded by language. The primary language of the Western Church was Latin, and that of the Eastern was Greek. As time went on, fewer Latins spoke Greek and fewer Greeks spoke Latin. On the one hand it made it difficult when church officials were signing documents in a language they couldn’t read. Also, I think language influenced religious thought. The Greeks tended to be more mystical while the Latin church had the great thinkers like Aquinas. As a result, the churches believed much the same thing, but expressed it differently.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Libertas]

Oh, so are you saying a Nihil Obstat and/or an Imprimatur by a Bishop or Archbishop means it is the official Church’s teaching? No when you answer this question remember you told me not to insult you( and I didn’t, but sometimes the truth hurts), because you told me, “I know what I’m talking about”. I await your answer since you are person who knows what he/she is talking about.

It is Church teaching…
Those websites are not checked over and authorized by the Church for no reason. It means it contains no errors, and is proper teaching.
And I just showed you many verses from the CATHECISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and yes, that is official.