How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[SolaScriptura]

Catholics certainly have no monopoly there.

Well, point it out when it happens just like I’m doing.

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.

The fallacy was in your asking me for a Protestant church that speaks for the rest. However, if you want a specific Protestant church to compare against Catholicism I offer you the Presbyterian Church in America. There is more unity amongst this denomination then what is in Catholicism.

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:

No, Jesus started one church, however this one church is now reflected in many churches. Just like there were different church in the book of Revelations.

”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.

Yeah, I’m familiar with the verse, and it doesn’t contradict anything I believe.

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;
Now this is a non sequitur. Christ’s flock is not tied to specific church, but all those who place their trust in Him. Or as He said all those who “heed my voice”.
Randy Carson;1914463:

“[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.

Of course. But what you have fail to show is that how all these different manifestations are not Christ’s church?

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.

This is just empty rhetoric. The Catholic Church speaks for no one, but Catholics. She doesn’t discipline erring members so in no real way can you say she speaks for them, besides just stating nonsense. That is like me saying I speak for all Christian churches. I can say it, but it means nothing.

 

[kaycee]

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.

Is Not the True Church (called out ones) already one with Christ?

Did Jesus come to build a temporary organization on earth that is but a vapor or did Jesus come to save sinners to be with Him forever?

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” - Augustine

Apparently the Church in Augustines day had their differences just like protestants have today! Oh my

An odd sentiment by Augustine considering he had an infallible pope and magisterium.

 

[runandsew]

First of all I would like to make the disclaimer that I realize that not all Protestant churches hold to all the following items which I am going to write about, but some of the denominations, if not many of them will teach at least one of the following issues which I am about to write about.

From some the Protestant Churches, we get the official church teachings which support divorce and remarriage, gay marriage, ordaining open gay ministers, birth control and abortion.
All of these issues, the Catholic Church teaches are inherently evil, and if a Priest teaches these then he is going against the official teaching of the Church.

How can these same Protestant churches which claim that they don’t need an infallible interpreter of scripture, find in scripture the justification to support these teachings?

Can a Church which Jesus established, officially teach evils along side with the truth?

I hear Protestants justify this by saying that there have been Popes that have been evil, or that the church did evil things, but that is a far cry from teaching that evil is good.

So go ahead my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, please defend the offical teaching of these evils.

 

[KindredSoul]

Is Not the True Church (called out ones) already one with Christ?

Did Jesus come to build a temporary organization on earth that is but a vapor or did Jesus come to save sinners to be with Him forever?

We do not believe the Catholic Church to be temporary. Sure, there may be differences after Jesus comes, but that would be true no matter which Church was the true Church. For instance, in this world, one worthy form of worship is resisting temptation, but in God’s eternal Kingdom, there shall be no temptation to resist. There may be other things about the Church that are specifically helpful in this age. So simply because some transformation in form may take place between the eternal Age and now doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church (or any other church, if it were the true church, just to be fair) is but a vapor.

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” - Augustine

Apparently the Church in Augustines day had their differences just like protestants have today! Oh my

An odd sentiment by Augustine considering he had an infallible pope and magisterium.

But there are some differences within the Church, as we have said before. But not on essential doctrines and beliefs. It is in defining the non-essentials that the beloved St. Augustine spoke of that makes a difference. We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church’s magisterium and Pope define what the essentials are and what the non-essentials are. Everyone believes it’s important to define those, do they not? And, speaking as a former Protestant, not everyone (even those well meaning, one must presume to avoid judging) can agree on what those essentials are when the Bible is the only respected source, due to differences in interpretation.

That is why Catholics do not believe the Bible was ever intended to be the only source; Sola actually agreed with that point earlier, which makes me think he (and perhaps you) espouse a form of Sola Scriptura that isn’t literally Sola Scriptura ("Bible only, with no authoritative Spirit-led interpreter). If that is so, then your rule of Faith is not strictly Sola Scriptura as most of us here (including perhaps other former Protestants as well) are familiar with it…which turns this all into a completely different debate, which would explain why we’ve been getting nowhere: We’ve failed to understand each others terminology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The fallacy was in your asking me for a Protestant church that speaks for the rest. However, if you want a specific Protestant church to compare against Catholicism I offer you the Presbyterian Church in America. There is more unity amongst this denomination then what is in Catholicism.

Ah, the Presbyterians. Let’s take a look at Wikipedia’s entry on this denomination, shall we?

Even before Presbyterianism spread abroad from Scotland there were divisions in the larger Presbyterian family, some of which later rejoined only to separate again. In rueful self-reproach some Presbyterians refer to the divided Presbyterian churches as the “Split P’s”.

In North America, because of past doctrinal differences, Presbyterian churches often overlap, with congregations of many different Presbyterian groups in any one city. The largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States is the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)… Other Presbyterian bodies in the United States include the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP Synod), the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS). The image above shows the evolution of Presbyterianism in the United States. Charlotte, North Carolina is the historic seat of Southern Presbyterianism. The PC(USA)has, in common with other 'mainline** denominations, experienced a decline in members in recent years- nearly half in the last forty years.**

Membership has declined by half in the past forty years, Sola? Wow. The true church doesn’t appear to be very successful in attracting converts. Did I mention previously that my mom was an elder and my dad a deacon in the PCofA? They left to return to Methodism a few years ago after a brief stay.

You have, what? 311,000 members or so? The Catholic Church is 3,000 times bigger than that. You may have more unity, but it’s only because you hardly have enough people to argue. But give it some time. You’ll split again.

No, Jesus started one church, however this one church is now reflected in many churches. Just like there were different church in the book of Revelations.

“Churches” in Revelation refers to the body of believers in different geographical locations. Today, a geographic region is called a diocese; although a local parish may also be called a church.

Yeah, I’m familiar with the verse, and it doesn’t contradict anything I believe.

Let’s find out.

In this Church which “is now reflected in many churches”, would you say that doctrines aren’t really that important - that they don’t matter very much?

 

[BrianH]

Membership has declined by half in the past forty years, Sola? Wow. The true church doesn’t appear to be very successful in attracting converts.

Could not let this go
The “true church” has gone from 100% of Christians to 50%
According to you guys anyway…

 

[Spirithound]

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.

It is a fallible church.

They are not just “another fallible group of people”, even though they are fallible. The difference is that they are God’s people…However, you are correct that churches are capable of teaching erroneously and heresy, but God’s church never totally fails.

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.

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.

Hi Sola,
I think one (of possibly many) hurdle here is a difference in terms. What you appear to mean by inerrant is what we mean by infallible. “Infallible” means “not capable of making errors,” and we narrow this definition to refer specifically to matters of faith or morals.
You wrote “God’s church never totally fails”, but we believe that God’s Church never teaches heresy. Local parishes (small-c churches) can teach heresy, but we believe that the Universal Church (with a capital C) cannot teach heresy.
The Catholic Church does not claim to have been operating under the inspiration of the Holy when they were deciding which books were Scripture. Inspiration is a positive charism, meaning that the Spirit told them which books were Scripture. Infallibility, which the Church does claim, means that when they were deciding on the canon, they could not make an error.
I hope i haven’t assigned beliefs to you that you don’t hold…

Almost forgot to talk about the first quote…So, we both believe that Scripture is to be interpreted by the Church. The question is then, what does Church mean? Who comprises it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Is Not the True Church (called out ones) already one with Christ?

Did Jesus come to build a temporary organization on earth that is but a vapor or did Jesus come to save sinners to be with Him forever?

This is a false dichotomy. I am trying to understand…what do the non-Catholics think about the Church. However, the “or” is mis-used; Jesus did come to save sinners - he also came to establish a church. What does that Church look like?

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” - Augustine

Apparently the Church in Augustines day had their differences just like protestants have today! Oh myDid you think I would be unfamiliar with this quotation? When Augustine spoke of unity on essentials, he could include issues that Protestant groups are not unified on at all. Therefore, Catholics are unified on the true essentials of Christian doctrine. As you are well aware, Protestants, are not even in agreement on those. The degree and depth of fragmentation or splintering is far more profound.

An odd sentiment by Augustine considering he had an infallible pope and magisterium.

Only if you insist that the Church had to have its theology fully developed by Augustine’s day. This is one of the reasons why I believe sola scriptura to be false - the Bible is NOT a work of systematic theology.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Ah, the Presbyterians. Let’s take a look at Wikipedia’s entry on this denomination, shall we?

Do you do this on purpose or do you have a hard time reading carefully? I didn’t say Presbyterians, because that is the same problem, because there are many Presbyterian denominations. I said the Presbyterian Church in America which is a particular presbyterian denomination.

Even before Presbyterianism spread abroad from Scotland there were divisions in the larger Presbyterian family, some of which later rejoined only to separate again. In rueful self-reproach some Presbyterians refer to the divided Presbyterian churches as the “Split P’s”.

In North America, because of past doctrinal differences, Presbyterian churches often overlap, with congregations of many different Presbyterian groups in any one city. The largest Presbyterian denomination in the United States is the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PC(USA)… Other Presbyterian bodies in the United States include the Presbyterian Church in America, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Bible Presbyterian Church, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP Synod), the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (RPCUS). The image above shows the evolution of Presbyterianism in the United States. Charlotte, North Carolina is the historic seat of Southern Presbyterianism. The PC(USA)has, in common with other 'mainline** denominations, experienced a decline in members in recent years- nearly half in the last forty years.**

Red herring, wanna deal with the PCA? However, even if you look at all the Presbyterian Churches they are pretty much in agreement on doctrine, because all of them I know subscribe to the same Confession and Catechism.

Membership has declined by half in the past forty years, Sola? Wow. The true church doesn’t appear to be very successful in attracting converts. Did I mention previously that my mom was an elder and my dad a deacon in the PCofA? They left to return to Methodism a few years ago after a brief stay.

Actually the PCA is growing. What exactly is the “PCofA”?

You have, what? 311,000 members or so? The Catholic Church is 3,000 times bigger than that. You may have more unity, but it’s only because you hardly have enough people to argue. But give it some time. You’ll split again.

Well, the Catholic church has it share of split off also. With every new dogma there has been groups that split off.

“Churches” in Revelation refers to the body of believers in different geographical locations. Today, a geographic region is called a diocese; although a local parish may also be called a church.

Yes, and they were different Churches. You don’t see any instructions to a magisterium to straighten out the issues, but instead the appeal to local churches. This is my point.

Let’s find out.

In this Church which “is now reflected in many churches”, would you say that doctrines aren’t really that important - that they don’t matter very much?

Of course not, doctrine does matter. My point is even though Christ is building his church the verse does not say anything about each local church having to be under one single organizational head. That is why I pointed you to the book of Revelations. They are all part of God’s church, but each is their own local representation of the universal church.

 

[Libertas]

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

Did I say they were infallible back then?
I said the Scriptural support for it was always there, it was only better known and defined later on. Refer to mustard seed example once again.

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.

An example?

Third, the Marian dogmas are not part of the Apostolic church, they are late inventions.

Wow, you really do not know anything about Church history do you?

Luke, for instance, likens her to the Ark of the Covenant in recording that the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” her. The same word in Greek is used to describe the way the Shekinah (glory of God) overshadowed the tabernacle in Luke 1:35. Likewise, John makes the same connection between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant when he announces in Revelation 11:19-12:2:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.

So, for instance, in the **fifth century **there arose (yet again) the question of just who Jesus is. It was a question repeated throughout antiquity and, in this case, an answer to the question was proposed by the Nestorians. They argued that the mortal man Jesus and the Logos, or Second Person of the Trinity, were more or less two persons occupying the same head. For this reason, they insisted that Mary could not be acclaimed (as she had been popularly acclaimed for a very long time) as Theotokos, or God bearer. Instead, she should only be called Christotokos, or Christ bearer. She was, they insisted, the Mother of Jesus, not of God.

The problem with this was that it threatened the very witness of the Church and could even lead logically to the notion that there were two Sons of God, the man Jesus and the Logos who was sharing a room with Him in His head. In short, it was a doorway to theological chaos over one of the most basic truths of the Faith: that the Word became flesh, died, and rose for our sins.

So the Church formulated its response. First, Jesus Christ is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person possessing two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. Second, it was appropriate to therefore call Mary Theotokos because she’s the Mother of the God-Man. When the God-Man had His friends over for lunch, He didn’t introduce Mary saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”

Why did the Church do this? Because, once again, Mary points to Jesus. The dogma of the Theotokos is a commentary on Jesus, a sort of “hedge” around the truth about Jesus articulated by the Church. Just as Nestorianism had tried to attack the orthodox teaching of Christ through Mary (by forbidding the veneration of her as Theotokos), now the Church protected that teaching about Christ by making Theotokos a dogma. That is a vital key to understanding Marian dogmas: They’re always about some vital truth concerning Jesus, the nature of the Church, or the nature of the human person.

“But nothing is sure, based on the text alone. It’s still ambiguous,” says the critic. Right. The biblical text alone doesn’t supply an unambiguous answer to this or a myriad of other questions, including “Is the Holy Spirit God?,” “How do you contract a valid marriage?,” and “Can you be a polygamist?” But the Tradition of the Church in union with the biblical text does supply an answer: Mary had no other children, a fact so commonly known throughout the early Church that when Jerome attacks Helvidius for suggesting otherwise, nobody makes a peep. In a Church quite capable of tearing itself to pieces over distinctions between homoousious and homoiousious, you hear the sound of crickets in response to Jerome, punctuated with the sound of other Fathers singing hymns to “Mary, Ever-Virgin.” The early Church took it for granted and thought Helvidius as credible as Dan Brown.

 

[Libertas]

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

As you insist on this digression, I toss out just one example of a Marian doctrine present in “kernel” form (at the very least) in the Fathers (in this case, from the 4th century):

**You alone and Your Mother are good in every way; for there is no blemish in Thee, my Lord, and no stain in Thy Mother. **
{St. Ephraem, Nisibene Hymns, 27:8}

**O virgin lady, immaculate Mother of God, my lady most glorious, most gracious, higher than heaven, much purer than the sun’s splendor, rays or light . . . you bore God and the Word according to the flesh, preserving your virginity before childbirth, a virgin after childbirth. **

{St. Ephraem, “Prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God”}

{cited from Hilda Graef, MARY: A HISTORY OF DOCTRINE & DEVOTION (London: Sheed & Ward, 1965) }

Why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there were no bones to claim and people knew it…Here was Mary, certainly the most priveleged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.
Negative historical proof ftw.

Mary had to be sinless in order to be in such close proximity to God Himself. The whole Bible teaches this (e.g., Ex 3:5; Deut 23:14). God’s Presence imparts and requires holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17; 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Jewish high priest entered the Holy of Holies (where the Ark and God’s Special Presence were) only once a year, under threat of death if God’s instructions were violated (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark itself was so holy that only a few were allowed to touch it (Num 4:15; 2 Sam 6:2-7). Thus, Mary, due to her ineffable physical and spiritual relationship with God the Son, the Holy Spirit (as “Spouse”), and God the Father (as “Daughter of Zion”), necessarily had to be granted the grace of sinlessness from conception, just as we all will be cleansed utterly in order to be present with God in heaven (Rev 21:27). Seen in this light, the Immaculate Conception, though still technically a deduction from the Bible, is a very biblical doctrine indeed.

Over the centuries, the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church spoke often about the fittingness of the privilege of Mary’s Assumption. The speculative grounds considered include Mary’s freedom from sin, her Motherhood of God, her perpetual virginity, and—the key—her union with the salvific work of Christ.

The dogma is especially fitting when one examines the honor that was given to the ark of the covenant. It contained the manna (bread from heaven), stone tablets of the ten commandments (the word of God), and the staff of Aaron (a symbol of Israel’s high priesthood). Because of its contents, it was made of incorruptible wood, and Psalm 132:8 said, “Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the ark of thy might.” If this vessel was given such honor, how much more should Mary be kept from corruption, since she is the new ark—who carried the real bread from heaven, the Word of God, and the high priest of the New Covenant, Jesus Christ.

Some argue that the new ark is not Mary, but the body of Jesus. Even if this were the case, it is worth noting that 1 Chronicles 15:14 records that the persons who bore the ark were to be sanctified. There would be no sense in sanctifying men who carried a box, and not sanctifying the womb who carried God himself! After all, wisdom will not dwell “in a body under debt of sin” (Wis. 1:4 NAB).

But there is more than just fittingness. After all, if Mary is immaculately conceived, then it would follow that she would not suffer the corruption in the grave, which is a consequence of sin [Gen. 3:17, 19].

Pseudo-Melito

“If therefore it might come to pass by the power of your grace, it has appeared right to us your servants that, as you, having overcome death, do reign in glory, so you should raise up the body of your Mother and take her with you, rejoicing, into heaven. Then said the Savior [Jesus]: ‘Be it done according to your will’” (The Passing of the Virgin 16:2–17 [A.D. 300]).

Ephraim the Syrian

“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

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

staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm
godfearin.blogspot.com/search/label/church%20history

 

[Libertas]

From the Didache
Chapter 15.—Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof

1. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. 2. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. 3. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repent. 4. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

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

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.

Stop dancing around the bush, your answer is so vague it’s depressing.
What the hell is “God’s Church”, and how can your definition of it never failing being true when there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations? Sure as hell looks to me like you guys failed somewhere down the line. Oh yea, about 1521.
Please do define for me “God’s Church”, and “God’s people”.
You are sounding more like a “Papist” than you even realize.

 

[Libertas]

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?

Hey talk to Jesus pal, he is the one that said the stuff about the Mustard seed, and Jesus having said this, supports Catholic notion and practice of deeper understanding faith and doctrine.
JOHN 16 12`**I have many other things to tell you, but you cannot understand them now. **

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.

Yea you’re right, Christendom has been doing just swell since Luther made that claim.

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?

Uhm, It’s called Church Councils. Ever heard of them?

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.

No rememer when Jesus said “And not even the gates of hades will triumph over you”. And his promise of being with us unto the end of times?
Are you telling me Jesus lies and breaks his promises?
Remember when God said he keeps all promises? Yea I do too.
If God was with us then, why was he not the rest of the journey when he said he would be?

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.

And once again, how are we still not guided by the Holy Spirit?

 

[mikeledes]

Red herring, wanna deal with the PCA? However, even if you look at all the Presbyterian Churches they are pretty much in agreement on doctrine, because all of them I know subscribe to the same Confession and Catechism.

Sola, if the Presbyterian churches are pretty much in agreement on doctrine and subscribe to the same catechism and Confession, then why are they divided?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[kaycee]

We do not believe the Catholic Church to be temporary. Sure, there may be differences after Jesus comes, but that would be true no matter which Church was the true Church. For instance, in this world, one worthy form of worship is resisting temptation, but in God’s eternal Kingdom, there shall be no temptation to resist. There may be other things about the Church that are specifically helpful in this age. So simply because some transformation in form may take place between the eternal Age and now doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church (or any other church, if it were the true church, just to be fair) is but a vapor.

You missed the point. The Church universal is already in perfect unity! The earthly organizations are meaningless in eternity. Is the Church perfect while on earth? offcourse not.

1 Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

But there are some differences within the Church, as we have said before. But not on essential doctrines and beliefs. It is in defining the non-essentials that the beloved St. Augustine spoke of that makes a difference. We Catholics believe that the Catholic Church’s magisterium and Pope define what the essentials are and what the non-essentials are. Everyone believes it’s important to define those, do they not? And, speaking as a former Protestant, not everyone (even those well meaning, one must presume to avoid judging) can agree on what those essentials are when the Bible is the only respected source, due to differences in interpretation.

And we believe popes and the magisterium can and do err. So believing the God breathed words of scripture are offcourse a safe haven for the essentials.

That is why Catholics do not believe the Bible was ever intended to be the only source; Sola actually agreed with that point earlier, which makes me think he (and perhaps you) espouse a form of Sola Scriptura that isn’t literally Sola Scriptura ("Bible only, with no authoritative Spirit-led interpreter). If that is so, then your rule of Faith is not strictly Sola Scriptura as most of us here (including perhaps other former Protestants as well) are familiar with it…which turns this all into a completely different debate, which would explain why we’ve been getting nowhere: We’ve failed to understand each others terminology.

I am fairly certain we agree. I am not sure in what point or context you mean.

 

[E.E.N.S]

And we believe popes and the magisterium can and do err. So believing the God breathed words of scripture are offcourse a safe haven for the essentials.

We do not believe that the popes cannot err, no that would make them impeccable. We believe when speaking on faith and morals the Church cannot err.

But if it is as you say, that the Scriptures are a “safe haven for the essentials” why is it that we disagree on what the essentials even are? I agree that the Scriptures do contain infallible truth, but who’s interpretation do we trust?

 

[KindredSoul]

You missed the point. The Church universal is already in perfect unity! The earthly organizations are meaningless in eternity. Is the Church perfect while on earth? offcourse not.

1 Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

If you view Doctrines and Ethical teachings of any given Church to be a mere earthly organization, then of course you will think them meaningless in eternity. However, if you believe (and you clearly don’t, but this is simply to make the point) that the Catholic Doctrines and Ethical teachings are true and God-given, and the Church’s authority God-established, it can make all the difference in eternity.

And we believe popes and the magisterium can and do err. So believing the God breathed words of scripture are offcourse a safe haven for the essentials.

We clearly disagree on this point (when it comes to Infallible teaching on Faith and Morals, that is). Unless one agrees that the magisterium and the Popes err on matters of Doctrine and Morals, which Catholics do not agree to, then there is no reason to believe that Written Scripture is the only safe haven for the essentials, nor even that all people will be able to realize the essentials from Scripture alone (Ex: Is coming to an agreement on Abortion an essential or isn’t it? Fundamentalists say “Yes”, while more liberal, but still allegedly Bible-Faithful [unless we try to read their minds] Protestants, say “No” - who/what settles this, seeing as how both sides claim to follow scripture but to interpret it differently? And assuming that God doesn’t directly speak in a booming voice to settle it )

I am fairly certain we agree. I am not sure in what point or context you mean.

Okay…here’s how we will see if we agree on the term:

Catholics and many Protestants hear Sola Scriptura, and it means:
“You can use only the Bible for Faith and Morals. If someone disagrees with you, even about something major like Abortion, Divorce, etc., but that person can substantiate their claim from scripture (even if by, in your personal/church’s opinion, abusing ambiguities in the original languages), nothing can be said for sure against their view if you’re honest; they can only be told how you personally feel, for which you mustn’t claim greater authority…because it could just as easily be they who are lead by the Holy Spirit, since Scripture alone, and no interpretation thereof, is to be your sole authority of Faith.”

To Sola Scriptura (the person, not the term) and apparently others, it seems to mean:
“The Bible is your main rule of Faith, but you can look to a given Church/Christian/Personal Feeling to give you the correct interpretation. If that interpretation is presumed to be correct, anyone else’s interpretation must be wrong, even if they can justify it from scripture; they must be twisting the words of scripture if they come to a different conclusion on major issues like Abortion, Divorce, Sexuality, etc., because only your Church/Historian/Personal Opinion’s interpretation is the authentic one led by the Holy Spirit, and if it’s true, it logically can’t be contradicted (This isn’t arrogance, but mere common sense).”

There are apparently Protestants who use the second terminology, and there are some entire denominations like this, no doubt. However, it is not literal Sola Scriptura (again: Bible only). A literal Sola Scripturist, as made evident from the first term in which the Bible is the sole authority independent of interpretation, would be heavily on the liberal side - perhaps not in personal beliefs, but in being very liberal in defining what is and isn’t scriptural, not wanting to limit it to his/her own personal view or his/her church’s view, etc.

If someone holds to the first term, we Catholics believe it leads to spiritual confusion and moral chaos of which God could clearly not be the author. Does God approve of Abortion or doesn’t He? Is the answer to that question even important, or isn’t it? This is only one example of the possible confusion.

If someone holds to the second term (which, no mistake, is far more stable and practical than the first), they are not really using the Bible alone for their authority (even if it’s their main authority, it doesn’t stand alone), and the only thing ultimately separating their Rule of Faith from Catholics is that the extra-Biblical, Spirit-led authority isn’t believed by them to be the Magisterium and the Pope.

I don’t know if we’re using the same terminology or not, but that may clear things up, hopefully

 

[kaycee]

This is a false dichotomy. I am trying to understand…what do the non-Catholics think about the Church. However, the “or” is mis-used; Jesus did come to save sinners - he also came to establish a church. **What does that Church look like?/**COLOR]
We all wear the same funny hat and know the secret handshake offcourse.

When addressing the church, does Jesus ever distinguish between the Roman, Orthodox, Old Catholic, etc. churches?
And yet you agree there are (heaven bound) believers in all “churches”.

Unfortunately, you NEED to see an organization all wearing the same uniform and marching in lockstep. We are happy with the biblical model.

Was not the early church riddled with error, even while it had the Apostles? Paul apprently knew it was going to get worse. Did he point to Peter, ever, as the antidote?

Did you think I would be unfamiliar with this quotation? When Augustine spoke of unity on essentials, he could include issues that Protestant groups are not unified on at all. Therefore, Catholics are unified on the true essentials of Christian doctrine. As you are well aware, Protestants, are not even in agreement on those. The degree and depth of fragmentation or splintering is far more profound.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sola, if the Presbyterian churches are pretty much in agreement on doctrine and subscribe to the same catechism and Confession, then why are they divided?

God Bless,
Michael

The reasons vary and I’m not even sure of all of them. Some of them are just stupid if you ask me. However, some are valid. For example even though the PCUSA uses the same confession and catechism they are just liberal. They don’t respect the Confession or the Scriptures and flatly contradict both. Kinda like Catholic priests who promote gay marriages, abortions, and the like.

 

[Libertas]

Furthermore Sola, What church are you a member of?
If you are such a fan of the Early Church, why doesn’t your Church have deacons, priests, and bishops?
This sort of stuff is straight out of the Bible, I would think you would have caught that considering you’re so concerned with Sacred Scripture.