Is invincible ignorance a thin line to travel for Protestants?

[guanophore]

The letter isn’t a discourse on dissent in general, it’s addressed to specific churches about ongoing dissent within those churches.

Indeed. But are we to throw out all of Paul’s Apostolic instruction, because it is addressed to particular churches and problems within them? Shall we disregard all the general instruction to the faithful in the Letters to Timothy and Titus because they are addressed to particular individuals in a specific time and place?

And if not, then who gets to decide which of the content applies to our situation here and now, and which was for there and then?

 *Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. - Philippians 2*

Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. - 1 Peter 3

Agreed, we were both called by the same shepherd, we both belong to the same Lord.

Isn’t that argument circular, as you’ll agree with it if you’re not sola scriptura and won’t if you are?

Not necessarily. I have met a number of Protestants on these threads who believe in Sola scriptura, and yet, affirm that there is to be only One Church, One Faith.

1 Tim 1:3

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons** not to teach any different doctrine**,

In the Gk, heterodiaskalein (heterodoxy). Sola Scriptura is such a different doctrine. Because it is such, it spawns more heterodiaskalein.

Like I said, circular argument, all you’re doing is rewording your premise.

You mean the premise that there is One Faith, One Church?

We cannot rerun history so we’ll never know how the world would have turned out without the reformation. Maybe better, maybe worse. Maybe is was God’s plan, maybe not. Maybe if we all went to the same church we could carpool.

No need to rerun history. The Reformation was an effort to RETURN to the historical Church of the Apostles. It was believed that this could be done by replacing corrupt Catholic Clerics in authroity with the authority of the Scriptures. Indeed the Reformation produced a great love of scripture among the faithful, however, what resulted was heterodoxy, division, separation and disunity. None of the Reformers wanted this, but could not have foreseen this consequence of the errant notion of Sola Scriptura.

I asked you to quote a Catholic commentary which confirms your conclusion on Galatians 5 and you haven’t.

How is a Catholic commentary any more authorative than a CAF member’s opinion? Perhaps you will say that such an author is educated and therefore, the opinion counts with more value?

But Catholic commentaries are not considered infallible either.

Catholics are taught to interpret the Scriptures from the point of view of those who wrote them. The Apostles taught that the disciples should receive no “different doctrine” than the one which had been divinely deposited to them through their preaching.

Gal 1:6-9

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!

The circumcision sect brought " a different gospel", just as Sola Scriptura has brought “a different gospel”. Catholics are bound to reject such heterodoxy, because it is not consistent with the once for all divine deposit of faith we have received from the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

I don't think it works like that, love reduced to commands, teaching reduced to diktat.

Indeed not, but it is interesting that you should concieve of obedience to God’s commands as a “reduction”. I wonder if this is also a consequence of Sola Scriptura? I was just reading an article of Sproul the other day which said “the meaning can be reduced to…”. It put me in mind of the Reader’s Digest version of the faith that has resulted from SS.

No. The fact that love requires obedience is not a reduction, but a lens through which we can best understand the Scriptures. If we know the one who loves Him will keep His commandments, this knowledge helps us to understand how scriptures can be applied to our lives.

In the case of Galatians, the Apostle instructs the faithful not to receive any other gospel than the one that was deliverd by the Apostles. We are commanded not to have factions and dissentions. Elsewhere the Apostle commands that we are to tolerate no heterodoxy.

Oh bless. But no, you can’t judge me, I belong to the Lord not to anonymous pixels on the internet, so thanks for your concern but you can take back your guilt trip.

Indeed not, for all I know you are just role playing a person who wants to present as a sincere Christian. For all I know you are an athiest having sport!

But my statement was not intended for you only. A person who comes into the knowledge that Jesus only founded One Church, and that upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, if he should then refuse to enter her (preferring a church founded by a man 1600 years after the fact) then such a one will be responsible for that rejection. As Jesus said, He who hears you (the Church) hears me.

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

You may not have intended it, but rather than a sumptuous feast my impression from your posts is of dour monochrome serried ranks repeating unrelenting dogma by rote, each day more pointless, party pooping by the numbers, conform or be punished for ever and ever Amen.

I can understand how it might seem that way. For a person standing outside, looking in the window, without understanding or experiential knowledge of the fullness of faith.

Such a person is also looking from without while wearing those monochrome lenses, through which one has been taught to judge the Catholic faith. I wore them at one time too, when I sojourned among my Baptist brethren.

Internet posts are not the best way to learn of the Apostolic faith, and I would not recommend them as a method, especially on an apologetics forum. It boils down to a matter of authority. In America, people have a very hard time with authority because our country is founded on principles of rugged individualism. People have the mistaken notion that the faith of the Aposltes is somehow democratic, and that everyone should have a say in what it means. This is not the case.

 

[shocktrooper]

At the same time, it seems clear that you have not done so because your studies and prayers have not yet led you to such a conviction. Each man must follow his conscience above all, since it is by that you will be judged.

I think you meant that one must follow a well-formed conscience. If we follow a poorly formed conscience and are culpable in that formation, then we will be judged accordingly.

 

[JonNC]

Since the topic of this thread:
“is invincible ignorance, a thin line to travel for Protestants”

I took the approach of discussing Protestantism’s division from the Catholic Church in the interest of dispelling any lack of knowledge in the area of

• the seriousness of the sin of division from the Catholic Church,
• and once a person knows they are divided, and knows the consequence to one’s soul if they remain divided
• then the person can make their decision.

(διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division) used in both [Rom 16:17-21] and [Gal 5:19-21] and as we see the act is condemned

By asking me for a commentary on that word, I think you’re thinking that word ONLY applies to 1st century Judaizers. That interpretation would be like saying the other sins listed in the same string of sins, "sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions,(διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division), factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like". only applies to 1st century Judaizers as well. That interpretation would be silly. All those sins apply to everyone in any century.

And Judaizers were just one of a whole bunch of other Christians in history, who divided (διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division.) from the Catholic Church because they insisted on applying their own agenda.

to name a few of these groups

judaizers
Gnostics
Palageonists
Arianists
Montanists
Marcionists
Donatists
Manichaeists
Sabellianists
Nestorianists
Docetists
etc
etc
Protestants of all stripes.

Paul condemned (διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division).

All those groups have one thing in common. They divided from the Catholic Church.

I think, though I may be wrong, that the Catholic Catechism makes a distinction regarding “protestant of all stripes”.

In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable.** But in subsequent centuries **much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

Jon

 

[steve_b]

I think, though I may be wrong, that the Catholic Catechism makes a distinction regarding “protestant of all stripes”.

Jon

As you point out

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

That’s true. It doesn’t end there however. Baptism and faith requires of that person, another action

emphasis mine, Re: (Outside the Church there is no salvation).
**846 **How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Protestant’s regardless of stripe, aren’t regarded as Churches by the Catholic Church, but ecclesial communities. #818 is a step, and the fulfillment is #846 one entering fully into the Catholic Church, not remaining seperated from her… IOW, there is no such thing as seperate but equal in this language.

 

[guanophore]

I think you meant that one must follow a well-formed conscience. If we follow a poorly formed conscience and are culpable in that formation, then we will be judged accordingly.

Yes, of course, but this statement was directed specifically toward a member with whom I have conversed for years now (?). It is clear from reading his posts that he works daily on forming that conscience.I have no reservations that he will do as God calls him to do, and that the HS will bring his conscience to whatever point is necessary for that to happen.

 

[inocente]

Since the topic of this thread:
“is invincible ignorance, a thin line to travel for Protestants”

I took the approach of discussing Protestantism’s division from the Catholic Church in the interest of dispelling any lack of knowledge in the area of

• the seriousness of the sin of division from the Catholic Church,
• and once a person knows they are divided, and knows the consequence to one’s soul if they remain divided
• then the person can make their decision.

(διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division) used in both [Rom 16:17-21] and [Gal 5:19-21] and as we see the act is condemned

By asking me for a commentary on that word, I think you’re thinking that word ONLY applies to 1st century Judaizers. That interpretation would be like saying the other sins listed in the same string of sins, "sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions,(διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division), factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like". only applies to 1st century Judaizers as well. That interpretation would be silly. All those sins apply to everyone in any century.

And Judaizers were just one of a whole bunch of other Christians in history, who divided (διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division.) from the Catholic Church because they insisted on applying their own agenda.

to name a few of these groups

judaizers
Gnostics
Palageonists
Arianists
Montanists
Marcionists
Donatists
Manichaeists
Sabellianists
Nestorianists
Docetists
etc
etc
Protestants of all stripes.

Paul condemned (διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division).

All those groups have one thing in common. They divided from the Catholic Church.

So I’m sat in church minding my own business thinking about the letter from Paul that was read out warning me about guys going around saying my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better.

Then this guy I don’t know from another church walks up and says my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better.

I think wow, that’s a coincidence and tell the guy about the letter warning me about guys saying my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better. He says don’t worry about that, I misunderstood the letter and his take is much better, I must dissent from my teachers or my crops will fail or some such.

The guy tells me I’m committing a sin of the flesh just by sitting in church minding my own business. I think and wonder if his church really does say all the things he’s telling me, so I ask where I can look them up but the guy says don’t worry about that, everything he says is pure gold.

I find some websites on my smartphone that are associated with his church and ask him which ones agree with him, thinking maybe I already know the answer . He goes away for a while and when he comes back his understanding of the letter seems a bit different from before, but he won’t cite any websites even though I ask him again.

I tell him I’m not really interested, having had the warning from the letter, and he’s not even given me any way to know whether what he says is what his church teaches. He says don’t worry about that, my teaching was all wrong and his is better.

I wonder when the guy will realize he lost this sale a while back.

 

[inocente]

Indeed. But are we to throw out all of Paul’s Apostolic instruction, because it is addressed to particular churches and problems within them? Shall we disregard all the general instruction to the faithful in the Letters to Timothy and Titus because they are addressed to particular individuals in a specific time and place?

And if not, then who gets to decide which of the content applies to our situation here and now, and which was for there and then?

We each follow our conscience.

You mean the premise that there is One Faith, One Church?

Yes. You would need to give me a brilliantly robust and polished argument of arguments as this is all detail to me, insignificant. Sorry, I just find it difficult to believe Almighty God cares. In fact I believe He would be disappointed if I cared - who are any of us to tell others how to worship?

*No need to rerun history. The Reformation was an effort to RETURN to the historical Church of the Apostles. It was believed that this could be done by replacing corrupt Catholic Clerics in authroity with the authority of the Scriptures. Indeed the Reformation produced a great love of scripture among the faithful, however, what resulted was heterodoxy, division, separation and disunity. None of the Reformers wanted this, but could not have foreseen this consequence of the errant notion of Sola Scriptura. *

So you’re saying you know it wasn’t God’s plan and you know it’s the worst of all possible worlds. Well, that clears that up.

Now I come to think about it I guess free will is a troublesome little critter.

*How is a Catholic commentary any more authorative than a CAF member’s opinion? Perhaps you will say that such an author is educated and therefore, the opinion counts with more value?

…]*

Please see post #87.

 

[GoodME]

I had a thought related to the OP that is to not dismiss how powerful our early childhood socialization and culturization is. I mean, after all, we are social beings, and immediate family and people like elementary teachers can form some indelible impressions upon us.

In my dealings with many Protestants, they base the entirety of faith upon some very simple errant precepts. As the foundation is questionable, the building cannot stand, but must fall if it is built to sufficient heft, while noting that many Christians (Catholics as well) do not get much further along with catechism than pitching a pup tent…

…and pitching a pup tent does not reveal the stability of the foundation…

Certainly in the people I have dealt with, they don’t want to discuss or even attempt to develop faith beyond a particular level, even if that level is 3rd grade catechism. Is that their fault or doing?

Thankfully…a merciful and just God judges all, and not any human, internet poster, or a particular creed…

 

[inocente]

Indeed not, but it is interesting that you should concieve of obedience to God’s commands as a “reduction”. I wonder if this is also a consequence of Sola Scriptura? I was just reading an article of Sproul the other day which said “the meaning can be reduced to…”. It put me in mind of the Reader’s Digest version of the faith that has resulted from SS.

The Readers Digest condensed version of Gone With The Wind: There was a war. I don’t give a heck said Scarlett. The End.

No. The fact that love requires obedience is not a reduction, but a lens through which we can best understand the Scriptures. If we know the one who loves Him will keep His commandments, this knowledge helps us to understand how scriptures can be applied to our lives.

*On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.” - Luke 10*

Nothing needs to be added to the law or Jesus wouldn’t have said the expert was correct. Straight after, Jesus teaches, not with a set of rules but exactly the opposite - the parable of the Good Samaritan, a story in which those with sets of rules pass on by while the Samaritan, from a group despised by Jesus’ audience, does what’s right by making it up as he goes along.

In the case of Galatians, the Apostle instructs the faithful not to receive any other gospel than the one that was deliverd by the Apostles.

Not really. Paul is concerned about his own position as leader, but rises above it to argue for his understanding of Christ.

Indeed not, for all I know you are just role playing a person who wants to present as a sincere Christian. For all I know you are an atheist having sport!

Oh I wish I were an atheist, I’d get a much easier ride. Actually I’m a bottlenose dolphin working for Mossad.

*But my statement was not intended for you only. A person who comes into the knowledge that Jesus only founded One Church, and that upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, if he should then refuse to enter her (preferring a church founded by a man 1600 years after the fact) then such a one will be responsible for that rejection. As Jesus said, He who hears you (the Church) hears me.

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” *

Yes, I get the idea but still don’t believe God will have me gnashing my teeth for ever over such matters.

*I can understand how it might seem that way. For a person standing outside, looking in the window, without understanding or experiential knowledge of the fullness of faith.

Such a person is also looking from without while wearing those monochrome lenses, through which one has been taught to judge the Catholic faith. I wore them at one time too, when I sojourned among my Baptist brethren.*

No, as I said the religion of my real-life Catholic friends is way more colorful.

Internet posts are not the best way to learn of the Apostolic faith, and I would not recommend them as a method, especially on an apologetics forum. It boils down to a matter of authority. In America, people have a very hard time with authority because our country is founded on principles of rugged individualism. People have the mistaken notion that the faith of the Aposltes is somehow democratic, and that everyone should have a say in what it means. This is not the case.

I have a theory that there’s an Anglo-American Catholicism and a Mediterranean Catholicism, one influenced by puritan work ethics and the other not. Or it could just be the difference between those who take part in forums and those who don’t.

 

[guanophore]

So I’m sat in church minding my own business thinking about the letter from Paul that was read out warning me about guys going around saying my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better.

Then this guy I don’t know from another church walks up and says my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better.

I think wow, that’s a coincidence and tell the guy about the letter warning me about guys saying my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better. He says don’t worry about that, I misunderstood the letter and his take is much better, I must dissent from my teachers or my crops will fail or some such.

The guy tells me I’m committing a sin of the flesh just by sitting in church minding my own business. I think and wonder if his church really does say all the things he’s telling me, so I ask where I can look them up but the guy says don’t worry about that, everything he says is pure gold.

I find some websites on my smartphone that are associated with his church and ask him which ones agree with him, thinking maybe I already know the answer . He goes away for a while and when he comes back his understanding of the letter seems a bit different from before, but he won’t cite any websites even though I ask him again.

I tell him I’m not really interested, having had the warning from the letter, and he’s not even given me any way to know whether what he says is what his church teaches. He says don’t worry about that, my teaching was all wrong and his is better.

I wonder when the guy will realize he lost this sale a while back.

I often wonder what St. Paul would have done with some internet access.

If you see anyone selling the mp3’s from the lectures in the hall of Tyrannus, let me know because I have been looking for them everywhere.

Gal 1:6-9

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel - 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

 

[steve_b]

So I’m sat in church minding my own business thinking about the letter from Paul that was read out warning me about guys going around saying my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better.

Paul is writing to people in the Church against those who are either causing division or have already divided. Paul is the one who says stay away from them.

Rom 16:17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions ,(διχοστασία dichostasia = seditions,dissension, division) and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

Paul is writing to the Church of Rome. He doesn’t like division, or people who cause it. As a Catholic, I’m thinking whether it’s ex Catholics like Henry the VIII, or Luther, or Calvin, etc, the Protestant revolt from the Church of Rome in the 16th century happened, and the act is serious business for one’s soul. So I’m thinking, no way would I ever divide from this Church, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about those outside the Church. That would be most uncharitable on my part. Therefore, I’m thinking, I should let as many people know as I can, how important it is to be in the Catholic Church and remain in the Church, and why that’s so important
i:

Then this guy I don’t know from another church walks up and says my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better.

I think wow, that’s a coincidence and tell the guy about the letter warning me about guys saying my teaching was all wrong and theirs is better. He says don’t worry about that, I misunderstood the letter and his take is much better, I must dissent from my teachers or my crops will fail or some such.

Does Paul justify division, no matter who or when they do it? NO
i:

The guy tells me I’m committing a sin of the flesh just by sitting in church minding my own business. I think and wonder if his church really does say all the things he’s telling me, so I ask where I can look them up but the guy says don’t worry about that, everything he says is pure gold.

Wasn’t it Paul that identified sins of the flesh? If someone is informed of their situation, then they can take steps to deal with it…true? If one doesn’t know their situation, how can they correct the situatiion, unless or until they are given the necessary information they need to make a decision?
i:

I find some websites on my smartphone that are associated with his church and ask him which ones agree with him, thinking maybe I already know the answer . He goes away for a while and when he comes back his understanding of the letter seems a bit different from before, but he won’t cite any websites even though I ask him again.

How is it different?
i:

I tell him I’m not really interested, having had the warning from the letter, and he’s not even given me any way to know whether what he says is what his church teaches. He says don’t worry about that, my teaching was all wrong and his is better.

I wonder when the guy will realize he lost this sale a while back.

In the interest of increasing information, and landing the plane, here’s what the Church teaches.

from the Catechism.

Re: “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

(all emphasis mine)

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

If one regards [Rom 16:17-21], and [Gal 5:19-21] , obviously it’s necessary to be in the Church and remain in it. And the Holy Spirit inspired Paul in those passages, which means the HS received that from Jesus. John 14:26

btw, I used the NIV thinking that might be the translation you use,

 

[inocente]

I often wonder what St. Paul would have done with some internet access.

If you see anyone selling the mp3’s from the lectures in the hall of Tyrannus, let me know because I have been looking for them everywhere.

You conjured up an image of the crowd at the Sermon on the Mount tweeting away on their phones.

And it turns out there actually is a hashtag #galatians.

 

[inocente]

Paul is writing to people in the Church against those who are either causing division or have already divided. Paul is the one who says stay away from them.

Top marks for persistence, but I’m surprised you didn’t understand from my last post to you that I think everything that could be said has been said and we’re just repeating ourselves, sorry.

Good talking to you Steve, see you around.