Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[benhur]

Can I point out the elephant in the room…

If we are all teachers led by the Holy Spirit.

Well I said we all can teach and that there are also teaching offices for those more gifted in it…

.why do two prayerfully fervent and sincere people come to wildly different conclusions on what the faith is and how to practice it?

Well I wouldn’t then see a need to justify a referee mechanism beyond what has been set up for any mechanism is still conditional about correctly deciding.

Cain and Abel heard and saw the same “message” yet one pleased God and the other did not. Was the message mechanism wrong ? Was the message, even the voice of God, weak, ambiguous, in need of an interpreter, a referee?

Why did the Corinthians need correction by Paul?

What, a church can have doctrinal and practice problems?

If your church needed correction Ben hur who would give it?

That could be asked of any church, even the CC.

Blessings

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well I said we all can teach and that there are also teaching offices for those more gifted in it…Well I wouldn’t then see a need to justify a referee mechanism beyond what has been set up for any mechanism is still conditional about correctly deciding.

Cain and Abel heard and saw the same “message” yet one pleased God and the other did not. Was the message mechanism wrong ? Was the message, even the voice of God, weak, ambiguous, in need of an interpreter, a referee?

What, a church can have doctrinal and practice problems?
That could be asked of any church, even the CC.

Blessings

So who would correct your church?

Paul clearly had authority to correct the Corinthians just as the pope and bishops (apostolic successors) have the authority to correct the churches in their area.

So who corrects yours…or is yours infallible?

 

[Peter_J]

Sorry, I was not clear. The OP’s argument seems to be that if I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church, then I have no basis on which to believe what the Scripture teaches

Well, I haven’t read more than (I’m guessing) 70 or 80 of the posts on this thread, so I can’t say for sure that no one has said that, but I strongly doubt it. But my thinking is: *if *someone did say that, does it matter? I’m pretty sure nobody on this thread is a bishop. (And for that matter, I don’t think I would care very much even if one of our bishops said it.)

 

[adf417]

Well, I haven’t read more than (I’m guessing) 70 or 80 of the posts on this thread, so I can’t say for sure that no one has said that, but I strongly doubt it. But my thinking is: *if *someone did say that, does it matter? I’m pretty sure nobody on this thread is a bishop. (And for that matter, I don’t think I would care very much even if one of our bishops said it.)

This could go a long way in describing some the differences in defining “church” the way the CC defines it vs the way a protestant defines it and the differences in “church teachings” vs practices.

Peace!!!

 

[Contarini]

Can I point out the elephant in the room…

If we are all teachers led by the Holy Spirit…why do two prayerfully fervent and sincere people come to wildly different conclusions on what the faith is and how to practice it?

Why did the Corinthians need correction by Paul? If your church needed correction Ben hur who would give it?

If the bishops of the Catholic Church are led by the Holy Spirit, why did they condone and even encourage the execution of heretics, discourage laypeople from reading Scripture, etc.?

In other words, infallibility is very narrow. It doesn’t touch on lots of the ways in which the Church desperately needs to be led by the Holy Spirit. It may seem more important to you that the Pope and bishops not make a mistake about the Immaculate Conception than that they proclaim the Gospel clearly and live it out with love and grace. But to a lot of other Christians, that definition of what it means to be “led by the Holy Spirit” seems pretty weird.

Edwin

 

[rcwitness]

Fine, just that I would apply the same to a “leader”.

They are not to question their office, but whether they are following the Holy Ghost faithfully because their obedience has bearing on their leading. Examine their conscience so that they can realign to and thru the Holy Ghost.

This thread is good, and has led to lots of good discussion related to Christian discernment and what leads us. I think we should focus on a balance of following our conscience, the Holy Spirit and our leaders in harmony.

Let’s create a thread about that!.. ???

 

[PRmerger]

You might. But no I don’t. Walking by faith. Not by sight.

Firstly, that’s a pretty black and white paradigm, don’t you think?

Secondly, you still need to have the archetype–faith in…what, exactly?

What do you compare the books in question to?

But people can be different in what they need in their faith walks. Some need black and white. Others are at peace with gray. Peace,

Another black and white view of things.

#irony

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I was not clear. The OP’s argument seems to be that if I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Church, then I have no basis on which to believe what the Scripture teaches, at all; not even in the Resurrection.

Can you please then explain how you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired but that the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Strangely enough I came to Christ by reading the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church, I simply heard and believed and just believed, there was no strenuous debating with myself as to whether or not Christ died and rose from the dead for us. That stuff came later and I have found that no matter how hard you try, it ultimately comes to faith, simply trusting in Jesus.

Reasons can be offered, but how do I know it? The grace of God primarily.

 

[PRmerger]

Strangely enough I came to Christ by reading the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church, I simply heard and believed and just believed, there was no strenuous debating with myself as to whether or not Christ died and rose from the dead for us. That stuff came later and I have found that no matter how hard you try, it ultimately comes to faith, simply trusting in Jesus.

Reasons can be offered, but how do I know it? The grace of God primarily.

What you are proposing is contrary to Scripture. It is also a heresy called Fideism.

Scripture commands us to use our reason:

Come, let us reason together.

And to be able to provide a defense for our position:

Always have a reason for the hope that lies within you.

And to use our MIND to try to apprehend the teachings revealed by God.

Love God with our entire heart, soul, strength and MIND.

So to simply say “it comes down to faith primarily” is to contradict Scripture.

 

[Peter_J]

Strangely enough I came to Christ by reading the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church, I simply heard and believed and just believed, there was no strenuous debating with myself as to whether or not Christ died and rose from the dead for us. That stuff came later and I have found that no matter how hard you try, it ultimately comes to faith, simply trusting in Jesus.

Reasons can be offered, but how do I know it? The grace of God primarily.

Strange? Well maybe so, but I don’t think I can fault you for turning to the best Catechism in the world.

 

[benhur]

This thread is good, and has led to lots of good discussion related to Christian discernment and what leads us. I think we should focus on a balance of following our conscience, the Holy Spirit and our leaders in harmony.

Let’s create a thread about that!.. ???

Well maybe. Glad to see you state conscience (some would call that private interpretation) and some have said our consciences should not be “free”.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So who would correct your church?

I suppose there are two parts to that, the giver of correction and the receiver. The Lord is the ultimate giver of correction , and has His man for all seasons (a prophet, a blind man, an Elihu, a jack–/donkey, another church/congregation, a presbyter/bishop, etc etc). Then of course the receiver must “receive” and implement the correction, from the presbyter down to the least in the congregation. Some churches have other heirarchy’s with which to send or receive correction.

So who corrects yours…or is yours infallible?

Look, no one can compete with CC institution when it comes to the possibility of good correction, or bad, or fast, or slow. Yet we are all in the same boat of "conditionality’’. An institution or lack of it does not guarantee infallible results, or good ones or fast ones.

 

[PRmerger]

No that is you being either or again.

I am so utterly amazed at the error that is always brought up with the ONLYs.

Scripture ONLY.
Science ONLY.
English ONLY.
Faith ONLY.

And now, ben, you keep insisting on the Both/And ONLY.

The Catholic position is that there are some things that are either/or. And some things are both/and.

You need to stop with this mentality of “ONLY” thinking.

It leads to so many heresies and an unnecessary dichotomy.

 

[benjohnson]

What you are proposing is contrary to Scripture. It is also a heresy called Fideism.

Can you answer this from a Catholic perspective - Was is Abraham’s knowledge or faith that compelled him to obey God and bind his son and draw the knife?

Most Lutheran theologians hold Mary and Abraham as examples of pure faith - Mary’s example being her response during the Annunciation.

For myself, while my faith has never led me contrary to knowledge, If I had to chose I’d rather be a faithful idiot rather than a agnostic genius.

 

[PRmerger]

Can you answer this from a Catholic perspective - Was is Abraham’s knowledge or faith that compelled him to obey God and bind his son and draw the knife?

Most Lutheran theologians hold Mary and Abraham as examples of pure faith - Mary’s example being her response during the Annunciation.

For myself, while my faith has never led me contrary to knowledge, If I had to chose I’d rather be a faithful idiot rather than a agnostic genius.

I think my answer, coincidentally, lies in the post I just made above to (another) ben (also coindentally ?): because there’s no reason to assign an ONLY where one is not needed.

There is no reason why Faith ONLY needs to be part of our paradigm. We have been given so much more and to state that “reasons can be offered but how do I know it” is to bury part of our treasure under a hill.

God gave us the use of our human reason.

While it is not sufficient, it is not to be dismissed.

 

[benhur]

Personally I don’t know any Catholic who believes that. We recognise all those baptised with water in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Ghost to be christians who possess some of the Truth. We believe the CC holds the fullness of Truth. Obviously many Protestants do not believe the Catholic Church is infallible in it’s teachings.

How do I know the Church is infallible? You mean how do I know the Church’s Teachings are infallible? The word* infallible* in the Catholic context can only ever be used to describe how the Teachings (Doctrine) of the Magisterium are without error.

**How do I know the Church’s Teachings are infallible? Some reasons are below, can’t list all due to time constraints:

1. Everything rests with authority** given by Jesus (keys to Heaven) to Peter and passed from Peter to Linus and so and so on and onto Francis…Matt 16:19
2. Apostolic succession from the Apostles replacing Judas with Matthias who laid hands over and ordained bishops and so and so on…Acts 1: 21-22
3. Teaching authority passed from Jesus to Peter (Matt 16:19) and ALL the Apostles (whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven)…Matt 18:18.

Binding is an ancient term used by Rabbis for religious Teachings.

1. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against the rock (Kepha/Peter) upon which Jesus built his Church…Matthew 16:18
2. Jesus asks Peter 3 times to watch over his flock…John 21:15-17
3. Isaiah 22 also confirms the role of the papacy.

"What’s happening here in Isaiah 22? Well, in verse 19 it says, “I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.”

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It’s a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, what is going on here? I’ll just summarize it in rather simple terms. Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers. Like David Cameron is the Prime Minister, so there are other ministers under the Queen in Great Britain. Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that’s why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. Albright says, “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying.” Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it’s undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, “The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” In other words, the Prime Minister’s office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister’s office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession."
(Scott Hahn)

While many P historians have come around to say Peter was rock and was given keys many are still not papists nor believe in succession of that office.

Form my understanding there are many keys (david, heaven, kingdom, of knowledge, of death and hades etc) peter was given “keys” plural Isaaih was key , singular(key of david , which Christ has in Rev 3)

reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/does-matthew-16-teach-peter-is-rock.html

 

[benhur]

I am so utterly amazed at the error that is always brought up with the ONLYs.

Scripture ONLY.
Science ONLY.
English ONLY.
Faith ONLY.

And now, ben, you keep insisting on the Both/And ONLY.

The Catholic position is that there are some things that are either/or. And some things are both/and.

You need to stop with this mentality of “ONLY” thinking.

It leads to so many heresies and an unnecessary dichotomy.

Actually reformers have said it is faith only, grace only, Christ only, scripture only, and for His glory only.

Otherwise we are on same page of there being “both/and” and “either/or”. Sometimes we are even on the same page as to when to apply them. Sometimes not, and you know I can not stop my mentality to suit yours.

Blessings

 

[benjohnson]

While it is not sufficient, it is not to be dismissed.

Thanks!

From the Lutheran standpoint ‘faith only’ is more about repudiating works-rightiouness. We don’t deny that given a the gift of faith from God that experiences and virtues (love, good works, knowledge) can lead us closer to Him.

 

[Abu]

benhur #248
Glad to see you state conscience (some would call that private interpretation) and some have said our consciences should not be “free”.

Yet another source of confusion for the poster as Christ teaches through His Catholic Church that consciences have to be properly formed before their owners can judge correctly.

Those may be saved who try to seek truth, do good and follow their consciences, being linked to His Church in some way, even pagans, through baptism of desire, implicit faith etc. But, “The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC1783).

CCC1785 teaches that the formation of conscience must be “guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church,” thus those without such clear guidance provided by Christ may feel they are right when they are wrong.

CCC1792 identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”

Only the Magisterium defines what is truth and what is error on which conscience can be formed correctly with certainty. Engaging conscience is an act of responsible moral judgment as to whether to do good or evil. Conscience has to be formed by truth, it is not independent nor an infallible whim. It is not a god.