Infallibility of Church?

[MT1926]

The Reformers just didn’t just come along

Agreed, people were claiming authority over scripture from the very beginning.

I hit to close to home on this so let’s go back farther to the Gnostics. 100 years later they told the Catholic Church she is wrong, Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man. 300 years later Arianism taught the Christ was a creature made by God. 1000 years later Albigensians taught that spirit was created by a good god and the world by an evil god.

Sure, after the fact, we can all agree that these sects were wrong. But what about at that time in history? Did the Catholic Church have the authority to stop these other Catholic scholars, fully aware of the history and practice of the early Church?

Can you at least see, A LITTLE BIT, how these events say something about a “chain of authority”?

I don’t know which side is right… Luther believed in the real presence…

Maybe you need to look beyond the words on the page and consider the events?
Catholics believe in the real presence and the sacrifice of the mass. Luther didn’t believe in the sacrifice of the mass so he dropped it. Calvin demotes Luther’s teaching to spiritual, Baptists to sacramental and some present day evangelicals from once or twice a year to never.

Same goes with Baptism, Confession, Prayer to Saints, etc… Luther narrowed the teachings, Calvin narrowed them more until today they have disappeared (become non-essential) in some Churches.

Maybe you need to look beyond the explanations and consider the patterns of theology becoming narrower and narrower.

… it is in matters that I consider to be non-essential for salvation.

Have you ever asked yourself why you get to consider? Don’t take this the wrong way I’m not saying you can’t or you are wrong if you do, I’m simply asking if you believe you have the authority to do so? From our talks it seems you believe Baptism is essential is it OK for others to divide and think it is non-essential?

So in spite of division…

I believe there can be and is a great deal of unity, we wouldn’t be here if there wasn’t. However, I would caution that you don’t take our conversations here as a sign of disunity. After all it is an Apologetics forum.

And to be honest, each time I think through this Catholic-Protestant debate, I come down mostly on the Protestant side. But I continue to pray that God, through his Spirit, will lead me into all truth.

I find it interesting that every time you SEE and consider things on your own you lean towards the Catholic side and then every time you HEAR a Catholic- Protestant debate you lean Protestant.

Any chance what you SEE might be the spirit leading you and what you HEAR is the world leading you?

Just a thought to think and pray about.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

(Trinity not) mentioned in the Bible doesn’t mean they dont exist

Correct, that was my point.

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Alas Pandoras box, give an inch take a mile, the justification of tradition in a capital T used by many churches.

Unfortunately we are divided on just what that "tradition (s)could be, and really it’s all kind of heresay, relative to what they assuredly wrote.

I would also add that when Paul wrote this verse not sure how much more scripture was yet to be written, and if or how many gospels had been written. Why else would Barnabus, a companion of Paul, much, much later write, “Those knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”, as if scripture had been completed and misunderstandings of “tradition”, even variations, had arisen, making Writ more reliable.

 

[MT1926]

The connections I was trying to refer to are where areas of agreement can be found.

OK but why is it that where Christians agree it is consider those teachings to be “essential” for salvation. However, where they disagree they draw these “lines and boxes” and consider them non-essential?

How can essentials and non-essentials be based on what we agree on? There is no “defining” authority in a democracy. Democracies can flip flop on what is and isn’t essential, God does not.

I may not call baptism a sacrament conferring grace in Catholic and others terms…

That is what I meant about lines or boxes, and connecting lines between two opposing doctrines or “positions”/ interpretations.

OK but don’t you see that other than it being “symbolic” of something, there really isn’t any agreement.

This is what I meant by… just because you can draw a line doesn’t mean that it should be made. Trying to draw a line, that shouldn’t be there in the first place, doesn’t bring unity it brings more division.

3 days ago I asked @Glenn if Baptism was essential. He never responded to you, but I believe he does believe it is. For the past 3 days you never answered the question until today. How did alluding to we agree on Baptism, because you can draw a line, help our unity?

I see the same thing when people try to allude to being a member of the catholic church. Sure catholic means universal but do any of us honestly believe that draws a line between the term universal and what Catholic was meant to stand for? Go up to any Christian, not on this forum, and ask were is the catholic universal church do we honestly believe the majority of them will say all Christians are a members of the catholic church?

Not ranting, my point here is just because a line can be drawn between Catholic and catholic doesn’t mean using the word catholic in a discussion is going to be seen as a sign of agreement and unity.

Or just like I do not believe in and am not under papal office, I believe I am to submit or honor any bishop, even the pope, when he extols Christian virtues and truths and behaviors that please our Lord.

Sure it is admirable that you say you submit or honor here. But we both know the line you draw means…when they extol Christian virtues and truths and behaviors that YOU agree with.

The Pope says Baptism is a sacrament that pleases the Lord and confers Grace to us. Right here in this post you say, no it doesn’t. Which tell us you don’t submit or honor what the Pope says about Baptism, because you don’t agree.

Now here is the bigger question…what if it does confer grace? Aren’t you saying, to the Lord, I want your grace but not in the way you want to give it to me? Is that pleasing to our Lord?

God Bless

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Prior to the 4th century canonization of 27 books of the NT, and 46 books of the OT, there was no “bible”.

Then how does the Vatican have a bible that is thought to have been made around 350 ad, before any cannonizing council?

The canon was not closed, prior to 382. Keep in mind there was no single “book” then, as we know it today.

scroll down to “[“Decree of DAMASUS” from the acts of the Roman Synod, in the year 382]” Denzinger - English translation, older numbering

 

[Wannano]

Gorgias:

Umm… and that the Eucharist existed, and that it was considered the Body and Blood of Jesus. (The explanation for how it occurred – that is, ‘transubstantiation’ – didn’t arise for another millennium, but the belief that it was Christ’s Body and Blood was there from the beginning!)

Well that is pretty big admission I think, that the how of Real Presence was not really clear at first, that it indeed developed.

I agree with those who suggest that there were at several views, and up to four, of just how His words are to be interpreted, in the earliest church. I mean scripture itself says “This is my body” , and really early fathers repeat this. If any context or explanation is given, it is varied amongst writers, just as today. For sure, after centuries, the dominant view was the Catholic developed view in the western church. Even that was not with out a few hiccups, that is dissenting Catholic opinions along the way, later having to be deemed heretical.

This just makes so much sense to me. I think you have captured the reality of the history.

 

[Gorgias]

This just makes so much sense to me. I think you have captured the reality of the history.

Except that, framing up like this – as if the various statements of belief regarding the Eucharist were each exclusive, and were meant to be held and all others thrown away – is a mischaracterization of the historical situation.

So, if you want to put blinders on and say “such-and-such says it’s a symbol!”, as if it proves that it’s only a symbol, or as if the Church held various and contradictory doctrinal positions… well, then your argument really is poorly constructed and ahistorical.

 

[John_Martin]

God did not “leave us with a book” - he left a group of people with his Spirit, who had walked with Him.

If one desires to participate Jesus, one Must find those people.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew was written to someone else, but from looking into the information relayed, although I am an outsider to the text of Matthew, if I can find one of those eleven, I am going to ask that Apostle to baptize me and teach me. I will find him, or one of the people he baptized and taught and sent.

If one desires to understand, one who knows must explain:

And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

I am going to find an Apostle who understands, who was appointed and taught to know all things that Jesus knows, and he will explain all things to me, everything Jesus taught; he will correctly explain the Scripture just the same as Jesus correctly explained the Scripture on the way to Emmaus. Many people read the Bible, but only these who Jesus authorized, and those he again appointed will really know what is true.

John Martin

 

[Wannano]

I

This just makes so much sense to me. I think you have captured the reality of the history.

Except that, framing up like this – as if the various statements of belief regarding the Eucharist were each exclusive, and were meant to be held and all others thrown away – is a mischaracterization of the historical situation.

So, if you want to put blinders on and say “such-and-such says it’s a symbol!”, as if it proves that it’s only a symbol, or as if the Church held various and contradictory doctrinal positions… well, then your argument really is poorly constructed and ahistorical.

---

Interesting that I never said what you suggested at all. Blinders anyone?

 

[Gorgias]

Interesting that I never said what you suggested at all. Blinders anyone?

Let’s review: you said that what “captured the reality of the history” was the assertion that “there were several views, up to four, of how [Jesus’] words [regarding the Eucharist] are to be interpreted.”

I replied that, regardless of the number of views (historically, in the early Church), none trumped the Church’s view in the literal presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. That’s what @mcq72 was getting at – that the Protestant position on the Eucharist, and not just the Catholic position, was present in the early Church. That’s simply false.

So… who has blinders on, again?

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Interesting that I never said what you suggested at all. Blinders anyone?

Let’s review: you said that what “captured the reality of the history” was the assertion that “there were several views, up to four, of how [Jesus’] words [regarding the Eucharist] are to be interpreted.”

I replied that, regardless of the number of views (historically, in the early Church), none trumped the Church’s view in the literal presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. That’s what @mcq72 was getting at – that the Protestant position on the Eucharist, and not just the Catholic position, was present in the early Church. That’s simply false.

So… who has blinders on, again?

I took my blinders off to take another look at what I was agreeing too and I don’t see a mention of symbolism at all in his post.

 

[steve-b]

Wannano:

Interesting that I never said what you suggested at all. Blinders anyone?

Let’s review: you said that what “captured the reality of the history” was the assertion that “there were several views, up to four, of how [Jesus’] words [regarding the Eucharist] are to be interpreted.”

I replied that, regardless of the number of views (historically, in the early Church), none trumped the Church’s view in the literal presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. That’s what @mcq72 was getting at – that the Protestant position on the Eucharist, and not just the Catholic position, was present in the early Church. That’s simply false.

Also

From the beginning, history and scripture, shows the Catholic position on the Eucharist, because that’s who the Church is, CATHOLIC. HERE

 

[Glenn]

I hit to close to home on this so let’s go back farther to the Gnostics. 100 years later they told the Catholic Church she is wrong, Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man. 300 years later Arianism taught the Christ was a creature made by God. 1000 years later Albigensians taught that spirit was created by a good god and the world by an evil god.

I am acquainted with the early controversies in the Church. Arianism was so widespread that the Church became functionally Arian. The heresy involved a majority of its members, from common believers, to priests and bishops. It was the persistence of one man, Athanasius, who brought the church back to its Trinitarian roots. “Athanasius against the world!” Even after Nicea, he was banned from his bishopric several times for resisting Arian doctrine. We might say that the Church is formally infallible, but it appears that it is has not been materially infallible.

I find it interesting that every time you SEE and consider things on your own you lean towards the Catholic side and then every time you HEAR a Catholic- Protestant debate you lean Protestant.

Any chance what you SEE might be the spirit leading you and what you HEAR is the world leading you?

I agree completely with the Catholic Church’s moral teaching. But I see the logic of both Protestant and Catholic teaching in regard to the matters of doctrinal controversy. Every time I wrestle with the issues, they remain unresolved. I believe Jesus knows my heart, and he understands my intellectual struggles. But when I go back to Scripture, I believe he speaks to my heart and says, “rest in Me.” So I have Christ and nothing else. I belong to him. As Paul said, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

 

[mcq72]

The Pope says Baptism is a sacrament that pleases the Lord and confers Grace to us. Right here in this post you say, no it doesn’t. Which tell us you don’t submit or honor what the Pope says about Baptism, because you don’t agree.

Well, I did not call it a sacrament but I mostly certainly did say it confers grace as all obedience can, and mostly certainly can be pleasing to the Lord

Aren’t you saying, to the Lord, I want your grace but not in the way you want to give it to me? Is that pleasing to our Lord?

Well, the same could be said if you are wrong, particularly this infant baptism. It is very dangerous to tell someone if they were baptized as an infant they most assuredly are born again. If there is no evidence of it as adult you just tell them to start being good and doing the other sacraments, even though he/ she is a Nicodemus.

 

[mcq72]

Sure it is admirable that you say you submit or honor here. But we both know the line you draw means…when they extol Christian virtues and truths and behaviors that YOU agree with .

Well we have gone over this what seems fit to believe, individual conscience and conviction. Even the CC does not want you to go against your convictions. It would be a sin. Of course having the wrong convictions is also a sin.

I do what you do, believe what you believe, with all the same (name removed by moderator)uts.( did not mean I believe what you believe in, but the process of " you believe what you believe".

 

[Gorgias]

I took my blinders off to take another look at what I was agreeing too and I don’t see a mention of symbolism at all in his post.

No, just a mention of alternative theories of what the Eucharist is. I filled in the blanks. Hope that helped…

 

[MT1926]

Well, I did not call it a sacrament but I mostly certainly did say it confers grace as all obedience can, and mostly certainly can be pleasing to the Lord

I think this is the issue we are having here. You see baptism as an obedient act where as we see Baptism as a Sacrament. That’s why no line can be drawn between the two. The Sacraments aren’t some obedient act we do for God. The Sacraments are God’s gift to us. These gifts are the way in which God chose to share Himself with us.

This mindset (different definitions)is the reason we can’t get on the same page with Catholic Sacraments. We don’t get Baptized so God OWES us grace. In fact the Church teaches that if you perform the Sacraments for purely superstitious reasons, basically as an obedient act for the sole purpose of what you get in return, then it won’t work. Basically, No Grace for You.

Well, the same could be said if you are wrong, particularly this infant baptism. It is very dangerous to tell someone if they were baptized as an infant they most assuredly are born again.

I can’t see why this would be dangerous unless someone believes in OSAS. Which I would argue it is even more dangerous to tell an adult they are assuredly saved, even though it is possible that the evidence, as you call it, might eventually no longer be present.

You know Catholics do not believe being “born again” = OSAS, so why would you think this is very dangerous for us?

If there is no evidence of it as adult you just tell them to start being good and doing the other sacraments, even though he/ she is a Nicodemus.

Don’t know what you mean by being a Nicodemus because no matter how many times you explain it, I still don’t see how the meaning behind John 3 is based on “Jesus was chidding Nicodemus”.

Although I will ask why would God need “evidence” of being “born again” before we are born again in Baptism? Why is being born again subject to our actions and evidence?

Let’s compare…

The Catholic Church Baptizes babies. We basically say Lord we trust in you so much that we Baptize this baby in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. We know you are so loving and so powerful dear Lord that you are willing to confer grace on this baby and bring him into your covenant family, just like you did in days of old with circumcision. We believe so much so that grace is purely a gift from you, that can not be earned, that we bring before you a baby, who has no way of doing anything to earn this grace.

Now on your end we have no we don’t baptize because that would be works righteousness. Instead the person must first have evidence, can’t imagine what that could be without them lifting a finger, then they must have more than mere intellectual and emotional assent of what they believe.

Please explain how baptizing a baby, who can’t do anything, is works righteousness but all of that stuff you claim a person has to do first before they are born again isn’t?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

The Sacraments aren’t some obedient act we do for God.
The Sacraments are God’s gift to us. These gifts are the way in which God chose to share Himself with us.

Well of course obedience is required in the technical sense that God asks, even commands it (like communion ). And of course it is a gift, but a gift you must receive by participating. I mean salvation is a gift, yet it is still a command. The bible is a gift, yet we are exhorted to study it. And of course it is all an experience with God, a joint venture, a two way “sharing”.

We don’t get Baptized so God OWES us grace. In fact the Church teaches that if you perform the Sacraments for purely superstitious reasons, basically as an obedient act for the sole purpose of what you get in return, then it won’t work. Basically, No Grace for You.

Totally agree, and sorry if I misrepresented my convictions. Actually then the ones who expect the least perhaps are freest to be the least with a “whats in it for me” attitude. I mean if you believe you are born again, or have your sins forgiven, or to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, or get out of hell card with water baptism, then one might be tempted to see what you get out of it.

On the other hand, if it is a symbolic rite, a sealing rite, of confessing what has already occurred (new birth, faith and assurance of sins forgiven at Calvary, declaring Jesus as personal Lord and Savior by the power of the Spirit in you), then the “whats in it for me” is minmized (to sealing ones salvation by confession of the mouth of what has occurred, out of a clean conscience). So baptism for such a person is not what they get out of it, but more the mouth speaking out of an abundant heart.

But for sure, any baptismal view must be guarded against any carnal or ingenuine motive. If the flesh ain’t killed totally by your baptism, or in your confession of faith, you aren’t their yet , not in saving grace yet, for no flesh shall enter the kingdom.

 

[mcq72]

I can’t see why this would be dangerous unless someone believes in OSAS. Which I would argue it is even more dangerous to tell an adult they are assuredly saved, even though it is possible that the evidence, as you call it, might eventually no longer be present.

Well, has nothing to do with OSAS. But agree that the problem I have suggested is applicable to a believer in any church.
It is a problem for anyone to think they are born again when they are not.

Just stating that if you are wrong, that infant baptism is not necessarily effectual, then you may have a lot of frustrated Catholics trying to be holy in the flesh, never having been born in the spirit, like Nicodemus. We have many Catholics in my church who would say they were not born again, even though baptized as infant. When they are told by some Protestant person that they are not spiritually alive, it begins to make sense how as Catholic they never seemed to be free from sin, or had the desire to be holy naturally (in the spirit), or they lacked full assurance (no indwelling Spirit). This then is received as good news, that it is not their fault, these shortcomings, but a natural consequence of trying to be a Christian in the flesh. They have not experienced God’s easier yolk, of “let go, stop trying, and let God” do it in you.

To understand this you must understand Nicodemus. You yourself say baptism is like the OT circumcision in many respects. I agree. What Nicodemus faced is what many Catholics and many Protestants have come to face. They both were in God’s One True religion of the time. Both were religious since youth and both were fervent for God, maybe even zealous at one point. Both did all the rites and sacraments offered by God in their perspective covenants. But they are carnal, and have not been drawn to Jesus by the Father, and therefore have not experienced spiritual rebirth ( and certainly did not understand that it was necesary, being righteous in the flesh)

Sounds shocking, but so it was for Nicodemus. He was not born again, even though he was a rabbi/ priest type. Circumcision only made him self righteous, not totally dead to His flesh, not totally dependent on God.

So, from the lips of Jesus, we see that an outward rite, even though God ordained, is not indicative of any inward working.

 

[mcq72]

Please explain how baptizing a baby, who can’t do anything, is works righteousness but all of that stuff you claim a person has to do first before they are born again isn’t?

Again, we misunderstand each other. Not sure what you mean by all the stuff one must do before one is born again. I think I only mentioned that upon self examination one may see that they have not been very good according to the religious standard they were brought up in. From there they may want to repent, but of what, the sins they habitually commit, or that indeed their very nature is sinful, and needs a new birth, even a new nature, as commanded?

For one who has been infant baptized, the latter could only be seen as a stumbling block, as it was for Nicodemus.

 

[John_Martin]

For one who has been infant baptized, the latter could only be seen as a stumbling block, as it was for Nicodemus.

The stumbling block for Nicodemus was that he was trying to figure out baptism and being born again as a theological concept, rather than taking Jesus at his word as authority. Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Truly, truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, and yet you people do not accept our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?”

The authoritative word is that babies are born again when they are baptized, receiving the Holy Spirit, Grace, and their parents and sponsors teach them to observe all that Christ has commanded the disciples. The Holy Spirit worked in John the Baptist in his mother’s womb, and worked in me when I was a baby, and I am here today to tell about it.

John Martin