How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[Randy_Carson]

Sola-

You talk a big game and you seem pretty sure of yourself.

I invite you to Patrick Madrid’s “Speak Your Mind” forum which can be found at envoymagazine.com/forum/

Post a few of your questions and comments over there and see how the “big boys” respond to them.

Bear in mind, it’s a much quieter forum and the pace of discourse moves more slowly. There’s not much “drive-by apologetics” going on over there.

However, if one of the heavy hitters takes an interest in your ramblings, you’ll know it.

What say, Sola? Got game?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fallacious comparison once again. One church(i.e. Roman Catholicism) against many churches( i.e. all Protestants ). Can you guys make arguments without committing the same basic fallacious mistakes over and over again?

Heck, no. We enjoy tweaking your nose too much.:dancing:

But seriously, if you would please let us know which of the many thousands of Protestant fellowships (I can’t call them churches technically) can speak authoritatively on behalf of non-Catholics, we’d be happy to focus our attention on that representative group.

Could you suggest which fellowship is the “true church” , please?

Thanks in advance.

 

[KindredSoul]

Fallacious comparison once again. One church(i.e. Roman Catholicism) against many churches( i.e. all Protestants ).

Maybe that’s because most Protestants claim that all Church’s are part of the True Church and so it would only be fair to compare the Catholic concept of the True Church (The Catholic Church) to the Protestant concept (All Churches together). If Protestants claim to be all one church, it’s no fallacy to compare our One Church (Catholicism) to what Protestants call the One Church (all Bible-believing Protestants).

If you don’t agree that all Bible-believing Protestants comprise one Church, then be sure to tell us all which single Protestant Church is the One True Church in your opinion, and maybe we can then try to compare that single Church to Catholicism…either all the Protestant churches are one big confusing Church, or all but one of them (or those that are completely identical in Faith and Morals) is false. So please, tell us which ones are false, and then tell us why their interpretations of the Bible are positively, without exception vastly inferior to those of the church (or identical churches) that’s not false.

 

[kaycee]

Does protestantism have doctrines?, - teachings infallibly defined that are not open to private interpretation.

Offcourse! God Breathed Scripture!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Offcourse! God Breathed Scripture!

Great. Can you provide a list of those that are univerally accepted without disagreement by all Protestants because we hear and read a lot of contradictory statments about what individual verses mean and about which doctrines are essential and which are non-essential.

Since they’re all right there in the Bible (which is perspicuous), this should be easy enough, right?

Thanks in advance for this.

 

[mikeledes]

Hello everyone! :tiphat: I’m back from a much needed hiatus. I know, you just can’t contain your excitement. I expected that.

I see that this Catholic divisions vs. Protestant divisions argument is still going on strong. I believe there are things that are clear in Divine Revelation and things that are not. Predestination is one of them. Catholic theologians have attempted to explain the relationship between predestination and free will using various theories (i.e. Molinists, Thomists). However, all of them are required to obey the parameters established by the Church. Why does the Church allow diversity in this area? Because it is a theological point that remains unclear for now.

Protestantism, however, has experienced division in areas that would should be clear, such as the role of baptism in salvation and the impact of a post-justification obedient life on salvation. Luther upheld infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. He saw no contradiction between baptismal regeneration and justification by faith alone. Other Protestants do see a blatant contradiction between baptismal regeneration and justification by faith alone, believing its a works based Gospel. There are those who believe a life of holiness is necessary for salvation (the Wesleyan tradition), but others see that as reverting to a works based Gospel. Justification by faith alone means different things to different Protestants, and this is an “essential” doctrine.

Most of the divisions found in Catholicism have their origin in outside forces (i.e. new scientific discoveries, the sexual and cultural revolutions, etc.) The disagreements center on how the Church should respond to these challenges. Divisions in Protestantism, however, come from an internal source (i.e. Scriptural interpretation).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[KindredSoul]

Yeah, the life I live I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me. I love God’s word too much. I’ve had too many discussions with Catholics where they will denigrate the word of God or anything else to prop up the Church.

This is an untrue insult clearly based in anti-Catholic prejudice, a deliberate misrepresentation of what Catholics believe; I know a great many Protestants who know the utter nonsense of such banter. Catholics love the written Scriptures; they’re simply not our sole Rule of Faith…we do not believe that was God’s intention. There is no denigration of Scripture in that…there would only be denigration of Scripture if we thought that God originally intended Sola Scriptura for Christians, and it just didn’t work out because the scriptures didn’t live up to God’s plan…we don’t believe Sola Scriptura was ever God’s intention for us - it’s not a flaw with the scriptures, it’s just that God never* intended *them to be used without the Church’s guidance. You might try understanding that before accusing us of denigrating the Scriptures.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Offcourse! God Breathed Scripture!

You are saying that ‘God Breathed Scripture’ is your infallible doctrine which is not open to your personal interpretation?. Is that correct.
Can you give me a list of all doctrines with which all protestants are in accord.

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Fallacious comparison once again. One church(i.e. Roman Catholicism) against many churches( i.e. all Protestants ). Can you guys make arguments without committing the same basic fallacious mistakes over and over again?

Heck, no. We enjoy tweaking your nose too much.:dancing:

LOL … yeah, well the problem is too many Catholics think they are making great points when it is not even a valid argument.

But seriously, if you would please let us know which of the many thousands of Protestant fellowships (I can’t call them churches technically) can speak authoritatively on behalf of non-Catholics, we’d be happy to focus our attention on that representative group.

LOL … you are commiting the same fallacy(i.e. which Protestant Church speak for all non-Catholics). That is like me asking you, which non-Presbyterian fellowship speaks for all non-Presbyterian? Of course this question doesn’t make much sense. Each church can only speak authoritatively for themselves. Just like the Catholic Church only speaks authoritatively for herself.

Could you suggest which fellowship is the “true church” , please?

There are many “true churches”, but they don’t speak for other churches. Which church does Catholicism speak for besides Catholicism?

 

[Dominicanis]

45,000 sects now!

Strange that the “prots” here all say pretty much the same thing in regards to doctrine! Would’nt you expect 45,000 different arguments for 45,000 sects?

Is’nt bearing false witness a bad thing around these parts?

Sorry, kaycee, but there seems to be no false witness being borne here. Although protestants generally agree on a few points of doctrine, there are a plethora of points where they deviate. Regeneration at baptism, the nature of original sin, the nature of grace, and what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally are just a small sampling. The list grows longer as more and more human ideas are added to interpretation of Scripture. It takes a divine authority to interpret the divine writings of the Bible. Such an authority is to be established by God, not men. Even the Bible doesn’t self-interpret. If it did, if it was all that was truly necessary to understand God’s Will in all things, anyone with a sincere heart seeking the truth would open the Bible and read the same truth within it. Unfortunately, this fine theory doesn’t happen in practice; there are tens of thousands of sects all claiming that they are the true interpretation of Biblical truth. Some of them even admit they have no authority. If I were a pagan examining all of the faiths, why would I choose one with no authority? If I trace back all of the protestant sects, they stop at a man or woman. The Catholic Church goes back to Our Lord Jesus Christ and the men He appointed to safeguard His Gospel truths. The reality is, Christ set up an authority to teach and bring men to Him so they could be saved. The divine authority instituted by Our Lord Jesus is described in the pages of the Bible and in the ECF, and the description is of the Catholic Church. Many fine protestant scholars set out to prove the Church false by examining the Scriptures and the Fathers and ended up converting to Catholicism.

God would not be so remiss as to send His Son to die for us and then leave us without a divine authority to continue spreading the Gospel. Christ promised He’d not leave us orphans. Leaving us divine Scriptures without divine authority to interpret them would be dangerous, as we humans have a proven track record of messing up God’s plans for us. The Bible cannot interpret itself; if it could, there’d be far fewer Bible-only sects in protestantism. And believe you me, if you check out the 45,000 different groups, you would find almost that many subtle shadings of what it means to a true Bible Christian.

Yours in Christ,

Dominicanis

 

[Libertas]

I think we’ve seen Sola’s true colours. An ardent Anti-Catholic.
Let Gods will be done, let him go off thinking he is right.
For we know we truely are right brothers, we’ve no more need to sit here and take his insolence.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This is an untrue insult clearly based in anti-Catholic prejudice, a deliberate misrepresentation of what Catholics believe; I know a great many Protestants who know the utter nonsense of such banter.

How do you know my experience is nonsense? It doesn’t matter how many Protestants you know and what they believe that doesn’t prove anything. Also isn’t it ironic that you Catholics spew misrepresentation after misrepresentation out about Protestants and even after I correct them you continue to make them, however when I speak about my experience, not official Catholic dogma I’m ant-Catholic and all the others things. The inconsistencies and unevenness is breath taking.

Catholics love the written Scriptures; they’re simply not our sole Rule of Faith we do not believe that was God’s intention.

I know that and I never said they were, so quit stating the obvious and make a real argument.

. … There is no denigration of Scripture in that…there would only be denigration of Scripture if we thought that God originally intended Sola Scriptura for Christians, and it just didn’t work out because the scriptures didn’t live up to God’s plan…we don’t believe Sola Scriptura was ever God’s intention for us - it’s not a flaw with the scriptures, it’s just that God never* intended *them to be used without the Church’s guidance. You might try understanding that before accusing us of denigrating the Scriptures.

I don’t believe God intended for the Scriptures to be used without the Church’s guidance either. The Scriptures were written for the church, not private individuals so once again you don’t even seem to grasp what you are swinging at. The denigration of the Scriptures are in practice not theory.

 

[Libertas]

I don’t believe God intended for the Scriptures to be used without the Church’s guidance either. The Scriptures were written for the church, not private individuals so once again you don’t even seem to grasp what you are swinging at. The denigration of the Scriptures are in practice not theory.

But what is the Church if it is not infallible?
Just another fallible group of people. And that doesn’t help any.
The Catholic Church is the “pillar and ground of truth”, and has Christs’ promise that he will be with us until the end, and that when we speak it is not us, by the Holy Spirit speak.

How can you be so ardently anti-Catholic yet proclaim the Scriptures were made for the Church, and then turn right around and profess Sola Scriptura?
You are one big hypocrisy and contradiction my friend.

 

[SolaScriptura]

But what is the Church if it is not infallible?

It is God’s people who live by faith in the promises of God. This was true for God’s Old Covenant people, and it was true for the church for the 4 or 5 centuries, before anything about infallibility was ever mentioned in reference to the church. Here once again we see Catholics are locked into the illogical position of believing infallibility is absolutely necessary for there to be a church that perseveres in faith. However, this is alien from the Scriptures and church history.

Just another fallible group of people. And that doesn’t help any.

See what I meant above Randy and let the really “smart guy” you quoted come and read this. For Catholic if you are fallible, you cannot know anything with much certainty. But again they must face the facts. What do you say about the Old Covenant Church? Where was this infallibility for the first 4 or 5 centuries? It wasn’t an official dogma until the 1800s

The Catholic Church is the “pillar and ground of truth”, and has Christs’ promise that he will be with us until the end, and that when we speak it is not us, by the Holy Spirit speak.

Now you are preaching.

How can you be so ardently anti-Catholic yet proclaim the Scriptures were made for the Church, and then turn right around and profess Sola Scriptura?

Because the two are not at odds! They are only at odds in the mind of Catholics because they misrepresent what sola Scriptura means and they misrepresent what many Protestants mean. Sola Scriptura means the Scripture are the sole infallible rule of faith in the possession of the Church. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that simple point.

You are one big hypocrisy and contradiction my friend.

You obviously don’t know what hypocrisy or a contradiction is, which is sad because you are the one who “knows what he/she is talking about”.

 

[Libertas]

It is God’s people who live by faith in the promises of God. This was true for God’s Old Covenant people, and it was true for the church for the 4 or 5 centuries, before anything about infallibility was ever mentioned in reference to the church. Here once again we see Catholics are locked into the illogical position of believing infallibility is absolutely necessary for there to be a church that perseveres in faith. However, this is alien from the Scriptures and church history.

No it is not alien from Scriptures and Church history.
If you are all about the Church history, why don’t you believe in the things we say about Mary? Everything we profess about Mary today was common knowledge in the early Church.
And you are dodging the question, what is the Church if it is not infallible? Just another fallible group of people that can fall into sin and heresy and teach erroneously. This was not true for the Old Covenant Church, what are you talking about? Ever hear of the Councils?

See what I meant above Randy and let the really “smart guy” you quoted come and read this. For Catholic if you are fallible, you cannot know anything with much certainty. But again they must face the facts. What do you say about the Old Covenant Church? Where was this infallibility for the first 4 or 5 centuries? It wasn’t an official dogma until the 1800s

Ever heard of the thing called the mustard seed?
Starts small, but sprouts into a the largest of plants.
I do believe Jesus himself said that one.
The Catholic Church started off with its core faith, and as it grew and became larger it found deeper and deeper meanings of the Scripture. Infallibility was always there, we had just never really found it until later on. The faith gets deeper as it grows in understanding.
Nice logical fallacy about fallibility. I’m fallible yes, but I can know things for certain. For example, you can never have a square circle, it can never be raining and not raining at the same time.
Try talking some philosophy before you talk to me about that.

Because the two are not at odds! They are only at odds in the mind of Catholics because they misrepresent what sola Scriptura means and they misrepresent what many Protestants mean. Sola Scriptura means the Scripture are the sole infallible rule of faith in the possession of the Church. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that simple point.

However the Scriptures are not the sole infallible rule of faith, Sacred Tradition also has a place. And once again, what is the Church? How can a fallible Church teach and understand infallible doctrine? How does a fallible Church discern what is really infallible? How can an infallible Scripture come from a fallible Church?
Logic defeats you.

 

[Dominicanis]

Sola Scriptura stated that infallibility wasn’t around as a dogma until the 1800’s. That is incorrect. It existed from the moment God established His Covenant with mankind, as it comes from Him. God is the only One Who is infallible.

The concept of infallibility as connected to the office of the pope was formally defined in 1870, but it existed before its definition. Just as the animals existed before Adam named them, dogmas exist and when they are named, they are codified as being beyond further inquiry and speculation. To state that a dogma is “invented” when it is actually defined is an old protestant error that goes back to Lorraine Boettner’s Romanism book.

The idea that the Catholic Church is the authentic voice of God’s infallible authority is not contrary to Scripture, and is a logical extension for the protection of the Gospel that Christ entrusted to us. How else could fallible men be capable of proclaiming God’s truth other than under His infallible guidance and protection? SS has admitted that this infallibility is not entrusted to individuals so that would mean it would then be invested in a group. The group would be therefore God’s choice, not man’s.

The Catholic Church makes no claim that the infallible protection her teachings enjoy comes from her, but only from her relationship to Christ and the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. She is the repository for God’s infallibility because He willed her to be so. Protestants naturally resent and reject this claim and that is understandable, but it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the Church invented infallibility, when all she did was formally define it.

As one of the “smart guys” Randy cited earlier in this thread, I respectfully suggest you click on my name and read my profile. The results might surprise you, and may do something to dispel assumptions.

Yours in Christ,

Dominicanis

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOL … yeah, well the problem is too many Catholics think they are making great points when it is not even a valid argument.

Catholics certainly have no monopoly there.

LOL … you are commiting the same fallacy(i.e. which Protestant Church speak for all non-Catholics). That is like me asking you, which non-Presbyterian fellowship speaks for all non-Presbyterian? Of course this question doesn’t make much sense. Each church can only speak authoritatively for themselves. Just like the Catholic Church only speaks authoritatively for herself.

Oh, come now. Are you saying that all the Protestant “churches” are equally accurate in their understanding of the Deposit of Faith? I commit no fallacy here for I’m simply asking you to identify that group which is most reliable so that we can compare Catholic Church to the “best of the best” among Protestant denominations.

There are many “true churches”, but they don’t speak for other churches.

Are you saying that Jesus started many churches? Are there really lots of churches all teaching pretty much the same thing and which are virtually indistinguishable when it comes to teaching the truth we need for salvation? Let’s see what the Bible has to say:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

Jesus did not say “churches”; he said, “church” – singular. Notice that Jesus did not say, “and on this rock I will build what I must call my loosely-affiliated network of non-denominational fellowships.” He said, “I will build my church.” Each word of that little phrase is packed with implication.

He also said:

“And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16)

Jesus, the one shepherd, has one “flock” - not 25,000 flocks. Also, we know that the church is the body of Christ because scripture tells us;

“[the Father] has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body” (Ephesians 1:22-23)

“He is the head of the body, the church” (Colossians 1:18)

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Colossians 1:24)

“For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.” (Ephesians 5:23)

Scripture never mentions the “bodies” of Christ; it confirms that there is one – and only one – body of Christ. So, by this we can see that Jesus did not establish more than one church.

Which church does Catholicism speak for besides Catholicism?

The Catholic Church speaks for all of Christianity. Different groups and individuals accept or reject her teaching to varying degrees. Anything less than pure Catholicism, however, is only a partial gospel.

 

[mikew262]

The Catholic Church speaks for all of Christianity. Different groups and individuals accept or reject her teaching to varying degrees. Anything less than pure Catholicism, however, is only a partial gospel.

Try posting that on a non-Catholic Christian forum. I bet that would generate lots of discussion.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No it is not alien from Scriptures and Church history.

OK, show a verse that teaches the Bishop of Rome in infallible from Scripture or the first 4 centuries of the church?

If you are all about the Church history, why don’t you believe in the things we say about Mary?

First, I’m not all about church history, but I do respect the history of the church. Second, you are the ones who claim Tradition is one of your infallible rule of faith and that all of your teachings are Apostolic therefore you should be able to document them from either the Scriptures or the Apostolic churches, but instead we see the opposite. Third, the Marian dogmas are not part of the Apostolic church, they are late inventions.

Everything we profess about Mary today was common knowledge in the early Church.

OK, show me in the first 2 or 3 centuries where the common knowledge of the Bodily Assumption or the Immaculate Conception was?

And you are dodging the question, what is the Church if it is not infallible?

It is a fallible church. I’m not dodging anything, that is a direct answer to your questions.

Just another fallible group of people that can fall into sin and heresy and teach erroneously.

They are not just “another fallible group of people”, even though they are fallible. The difference is that they are God’s people. Your problem is that your concept of church is so narrow that it only means the teaching magisterium therefore if it fails the church has failed. That is the problem with bad theology it leads to other bad theology in order to cover problems. However, you are correct that churches are capable of teaching erroneously and heresy, but God’s church never totally fails.

This was not true for the Old Covenant Church, what are you talking about? Ever hear of the Councils?

Which infallible council or teaching magisterium did the Old Covenant church have?

Ever heard of the thing called the mustard seed?
Starts small, but sprouts into a the largest of plants.
I do believe Jesus himself said that one.
The Catholic Church started off with its core faith, and as it grew and became larger it found deeper and deeper meanings of the Scripture. Infallibility was always there, we had just never really found it until later on. The faith gets deeper as it grows in understanding.

That is a non sequitur, are you brushed up on your philosophy? Anybody can make this type of argument about almost everything. The JWs and Mormons could make the same argument about their doctrines. They were always there, we had just never really found them until later. Do you think that is the least bit cogent and rationale?

Nice logical fallacy about fallibility. I’m fallible yes, but I can know things for certain. For example, you can never have a square circle, it can never be raining and not raining at the same time.
Try talking some philosophy before you talk to me about that.

It is not a logical fallacy. You are now basically refuting your previous argument. Remember it was you who said, another group of fallible people can’t help. This insinuates that being fallible means you can’t arrive at truth by the grace of God. However, now you are making the argument that we can know things with certainty even though we are not infallible. Well, that is my whole point. We don’t need an infallible church to know things about the faith.

However the Scriptures are not the sole infallible rule of faith, Sacred Tradition also has a place. And once again, what is the Church? How can a fallible Church teach and understand infallible doctrine?

Now you are going back on what you just affirmed. Make up your mind. Can a fallible person understand things with certainty? If yes, then you answer your own question above when you ask, "How can a fallible Church teach and understand infallible doctrine? ". How do fallible people understand anything? How did the Old Covenant church understand infallible revelation?

How does a fallible Church discern what is really infallible? How can an infallible Scripture come from a fallible Church?
Logic defeats you.

Seems like you are suffering from schizophrenia. A fallible church being guided by God can be inerrant. Have you ever made a 100 on a test? Well, you were inerrant, even though you are not infallible. Likewise, I believe the church was inerrant on recognizing the canon even though she is not infallible.

The infallible Scripture didn’t come from a fallible church they came from infallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Even your church does claim she is operating under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[KindredSoul]

How do you know my experience is nonsense? It doesn’t matter how many Protestants you know and what they believe that doesn’t prove anything.

I apologize (write that one down somewhere )

I jumped to a conclusion that you were talking about your discussions on the thread and elsewhere on the forums; apparently you’re talking about Catholics you’ve met elsewhere. For all I know they’ve outright insulted the Bible in some way that every Catholic here would also find offensive, so you’re right, I cannot say whether or not your experience is nonsense without knowing it. I took it somewhat as directed toward those of us in this discussion, which was wreckless of me. So, I repeat: I apologize.

Also isn’t it ironic that you Catholics spew misrepresentation after misrepresentation out about Protestants and even after I correct them you continue to make them, however when I speak about my experience, not official Catholic dogma I’m ant-Catholic and all the others things. The inconsistencies and unevenness is breath taking.

I’m sincerely sorry if I have given the impression that I was just spouting off personal misrepresentations about Protestantism as though I made them up. I was Protestant until very recently, and you know what they say: “There’s no true believer like a convert.” So I am truly sorry if I come off as frustrated or harsh. My frustration, perhaps, is with my own past self that kept up defenses for too long and kept me from the beautiful Truth that is Catholicism.

I will say that all of the things I’ve said about Protestantism, I would have said the same (and did) as a Protestant. And I was always serious about my faith, mind you, I wasn’t skeptical of Christianity. I simply mourned the obvious disunity of doctrine and morals even back then that characterized the supposed “Invisible One True Church”…the only difference between then and now is that then I didn’t think there was an answer; in fact that lack of a united Church in spite of Christ’s prayer gave rise to some of my most significant doubts in Christianity. Now I rejoice in that Catholicism is the answer to such confusion. So please believe me when I say that I’m not saying these things merely as an outsider. I’m glad you’ve apparently been protected or sheltered from all the inconsistencies (many significant) of Sola Scriptura Protestantism, even though it makes you all the more resistant to Catholicism, because at least you’ve not been subject to as much of the utter confusion that easily comes with Protestantism. However, I saw those inconsistencies, and I am quite well versed in scripture - I wasn’t imagining it or just being awed by tricks beyond my intellect when I saw the confusion. It is very real.

I know that and I never said they were, so quit stating the obvious and make a real argument.

I wasn’t trying to make an argument…I thought (mistakenly, for which I’ve apologized) that you were suggesting that Catholics don’t love scripture as much as Protestants, and I was stating the simple fact to the contrary, and apparently you weren’t challenging that fact to begin with.

I don’t believe God intended for the Scriptures to be used without the Church’s guidance either. The Scriptures were written for the church, not private individuals so once again you don’t even seem to grasp what you are swinging at. The denigration of the Scriptures are in practice not theory.

I admit that this section is somewhat puzzling. If the scriptures were written for the Church, then you admit that the Church should interpret the scriptures and not the individual? So you’re only differing with the Catholic viewpoint is that you don’t think that Church is the Catholic Church, but some other unified Church? So you do not believe in the Invisible Church (which many many Protestants do) which includes many different denominations? I do sincerely wonder, which church (or group of identical churches) do you believe is the One True Church and has the valid interpretation?

As for your last sentence, I can’t challenge that, since apparently it’s Catholics I’ve never met or spoken to (online or otherwise) who you say have denigrated scripture. Maybe you’ve had a poor sampling of Catholics away from these forums (or away from the threads I’ve read).