Not By Scripture Alone

[Randy_Carson]

Why do you need infallibility to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

How would you know whether you are following/believing Christ correctly? A fallible Church will err. An infallible Church will not.

We are all influenced by the communities of faith we find ourselves in. I do not deny that.

Okay. Is it possible that some faith communities teach more accurately than others? Less fallibly or more infallibly than others?

Actually I know I am saved today and am trusting Christ for the future.

So, then you were saved in the past and hope to be saved in the future. Good! This is the Catholic understanding of salvation.

Actually, I think you are correct that it can not be proved. But then again it can not be disproved. So the end result is that both Catholics and Protestants have different claims of faith sources, neither of which can be proved or disproved.

The proponents of sola scriptura hold it up as the reason why they reject the Church that Jesus founded 2,000 years ago. Consequently, Catholics, who hold to both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, do not have to disprove it. The Church was here first, so to speak. Therefore, anyone claiming sola scriptura as a justification for not submitting to the Authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals must be prepared to explain themselves. Kinda makes sense, doesn’t it?

Actually in 10 years in my church, I have not heard the term “Sola Scriptura” once. Neither have I heard a message “Why the Bible teaches the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith”. We are “Sola Scriptura” by default, meaning we have not accepted any of the claims of equivalency out there.

Cool. But you are no doubt aware that sola scriptura and sola fide are the two pillars of the “Reformation” and why they are keenly contested on a Catholic Apologetics forum.

Of course the competing claim is that the Protestant forefathers restored the faith to the apostolic roots.

I’m familiar with the claim, yes.

But then again perhaps both of these claims are oversimplifications and overreaching. What if Catholicism did drift from the apostolic roots, but at the same time the reformers overreached in their zeal to restore the faith. Then we would all be wrong to some extent.

If the Catholic Church drifted from its Apostolic roots, then it would be teaching things that the Apostles and Jesus did not say, correct? Under this theory, over time certain doctrines crept into the Church’s teaching that were actually incorrect or false. In plain language, they were lies. Satan is the Father of Lies, yes? So, Satan had gained some foothold in the Church and led her astray. Good so far? Then it stands to reason that hell had prevailed against the Church at that point, correct? Never happened. Jesus said that Hell itself would NEVER prevail against the Church and He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into ALL truth. This is the bedrock of our understanding of infallibility. Not impeccability, mind you, but infallibility.

Concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

• I think the most straightforeward reading of Scripture would read this is not true. But at least I understand that at least argument can be made from Scripture the other way. That is more than the assumption of Mary.
• I have not seen enough evidence to be convinced this is true apostolic tradition. The doctrine seems to come from the Infancy Gospel of James which from what I have read is apocryphal.
• It certainly does not bother me that some believe the other way on this, and who knows, I could be wrong here. What troubles me more is the status of this doctrine (“De Fide”) than the veracity of it. Here the RC denomination demands I must believe a doctrine that I just can not confirm from Scripture or be convinced it is apostolic.

I asked because I was wondering if you were aware the John Wesley believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? My contention is that not only have the original Reformers wandered away from the truth of the Catholic Church, but their followers today have wandered away from what THEY taught. Protestantism is a mess of tangled and contradictory viewpoints. Not what Jesus intended.

Actually the “You” was a generic you and not addressed to you personally. I apologize if I left the other impression. It was more a response to the term “satanic counterfeit” that one post used and “heretic” that a second used in this thread.

Both Catholics and Protestants can slip into polemics when their cases are weak (see CARM).

Gotcha. But I must ask…what is CARM?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Be merciful to those who doubt;

Would that the shining light of Catholicism that called me a heretic today had obeyed this…

Hoosier-

You seem to be taking great umbrage over this, because you’ve referenced it in almost every thread you are currently “working”.

You are on a Catholic Apologetics website.
You reject Catholic doctrine.
Consequently, you ARE a heretic whether you like the nomenclature or not.

I’m assuming you know the definitions of “heresy”, “schism” and “apostasy”.

No one is accusing you of denying Christ, but you don’t hold what Christ’s Church teaches. That, my friend, is heresy.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Not quite. They believe they are badly misinformed. We are told we should love Catholics and share the truth with them. If I can find some links to sermons from my church you are welcome to check them out.

I believe the same can be said in reverse by the Church.

Catholics believe Protestants are badly misinformed. We are told we should love Protestants and share the truth with them.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hoosier-

You seem to be taking great umbrage over this, because you’ve referenced it in almost every thread you are currently “working”.

Working? You are a very disrespectful ogre aren’t you? I think you’ll be next on the ignore list.

You are on a Catholic Apologetics website.
You reject Catholic doctrine.
Consequently, you ARE a heretic whether you like the nomenclature or not.

Come to a Protestant site then. We’ll have fun calling you what you definitely are. A heretic. Oh…and Scripture would call you one too.

I’m assuming you know the definitions of “heresy”, “schism” and “apostasy”.

Yes, I do. I’m assuming you know the definitions of “disrespectful”, “bullying” “ogre”, no?

No one is accusing you of denying Christ, but you don’t hold what Christ’s Church teaches. That, my friend, is heresy.

I don’t hold what your Church teaches. That makes me a Christian; not a heretic. And you’re not my friend. When you start trusting Christ for your “eternal” salvation, then you can call yourself a Christian. I think it’s time to ignore you now though.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I believe the same can be said in reverse by the Church.

Maybe so. And maybe one day they’ll stop the double speak and actually believe the Bible.

 

[JoeyWarren]

For the record, I am a Programmer/Analyst by profession. It is my life and work to think logically.

Catholicism is logical.

Protestantism is not.

I once was a Pentecostal. Nuff said.

The average Protestant has no clue. The average Catholic has no clue either.

Only a deep study of History, Judaic Culture of Christ’s time and a study of Scripture did I arrive at the logical conclusion that Catholic was Correct. The average Protestant has his salvation protected because according to Scripture the Ignorant can not be faulted.

God Bless.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Maybe so. And maybe one day they’ll stop the double speak and actually believe the Bible.

We do believe the Bible. Afterall we did create it thru the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**

I don’t hold what your Church teaches. That makes me a Christian; not a heretic. And you’re not my friend. When you start trusting Christ for your “eternal” salvation, then you can call yourself a Christian. I think it’s time to ignore you now though.

**The real problem is that you’ve been ignoring us all along.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Im not sure what to say here…if it is for MY sake, yet you dont go to a Methodist church nor are “tied to one denomination” what am I to conclude other than you pick and chose what you as an individual personally feel

Looking back I guess I did a poor job of getting my point across, I will try to clear it up…

In short it centers around the “tied to one denomination” notion. I never meant it to mean you church hopped around from denomination to denomination.
What I understand “not tied to one denomination” to mean is that there is no one denomination that you could point to their “statement of faith” and say “I agree with everything on this list”…what does that translate into?..that means you hold to your own personal “statement of faith”.

If every Christian was free to hold to their own personal statement of faith then as a result Truth would be dependent on personal opinion.

And whether you recognize it or not you do admit to be “more right” than people like Wesely (and the Weslean denominations) because though you agree with some of what he taught to be the Truth…you dont agree with all he taught…and in short you are claiming he got some stuff wrong that you cant accept and therefore you are technically claiming to be “more right”.

At the end of the day if we have a dispute over any given doctrine and we pull out the Bible and show our “proof texts” who is right me or you? Who decides which of us has it right? Certainly Jesus didnt leave Christians in such a conundrum of not knowing who’s interpretation is correct.

Actually those are really good questions for Christians who believe that any type of central church government is unscriptural.

I’ve heard it said that Assemblies of God and Southern Baptists are unscriptural because they both have a central government system, and I question that. But then again church government is not my forte.

But it does seem that when the Christian church divides upon itself, you obviously lose a global central authority (since interdenominational authority is an oxymoron). The best you can get is an intradenomination authority. But then if denominations are unscriptural, the best you can get is intra-local-church authority. Hmm…that doesn’t really pass the smell test.

The “smell test” is exactly what this thread regarding Sola Scriptura is all about…and it appears the stench is starting to reach you.

Denominations are unScriptural by the very fact their solution regarding doctrine is to split rather than submit. If getting around any doctrinal controversy is as simple as splitting off then the heresy of “itching ears” St Paul warned about has taken hold (2 Tim 4:3).

 

[mozart-250]

In short it centers around the “tied to one denomination” notion. I never meant it to mean you church hopped around from denomination to denomination.
What I understand “not tied to one denomination” to mean is that there is no one denomination that you could point to their “statement of faith” and say “I agree with everything on this list”…what does that translate into?..that means you hold to your own personal “statement of faith”.

Actually it means that my own personal “statement of faith” is pliable enough so that I can in good conscience theoretically join several denominations.

In my city I could theoretically be a member of the Methodist, Assembly of God, Nazarene, and Baptist denominations without batting an eyelash.

Sheesh, I could even theoretically be a Catholic if you didn’t have a whole list of “De Fide” dogma that is totally unverifiable.

To me what a church is doing to impact their community,county,world for Christ is at least as important (probably more) than fine points of their “statements of faith”.

 

[mozart-250]

Getting to this if I don’t have time for anything else

If the Catholic Church drifted from its Apostolic roots, then it would be teaching things that the Apostles and Jesus did not say, correct? Under this theory, over time certain doctrines crept into the Church’s teaching that were actually incorrect or false. In plain language, they were lies. Satan is the Father of Lies, yes? So, Satan had gained some foothold in the Church and led her astray. Good so far? Then it stands to reason that hell had prevailed against the Church at that point, correct? Never happened. Jesus said that Hell itself would NEVER prevail against the Church and He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into ALL truth. This is the bedrock of our understanding of infallibility. Not impeccability, mind you, but infallibility.

Actually I want to address this if I don’t have time to address anything else.

By distinguishing between infallibility and impeccability, what you are in effect saying is that a breach in testimony by the church does not represent the gates of hell prevailing while a breach in doctrine does represent the gates of hell prevailing.

This seems very inconsistent both in theory and in practice. Have you ever been to a local church that is torn apart because of immorality in the leadership. On some level the gates of hell have most certainly prevailed in that situation.

It would seem to me that a more consistent interpretation of this passage is to distinguish between “gaining some foothold in the Church” and “prevailing against the Church”.

Satan can gain a foothold in the Church by either getting it to depart from the true apostolic gospel message or by causing it to fail morally. This does not mean that Satan has prevailed against the church.

Sort of like a football game. Just because the Jets may score a field goal or a touchdown against the Patriots this Sunday does not mean the Jets will prevail against the Patriots.

At the end of the age in Revelation 7:9 we see a great multitude from every nation and all tribes and people standing before the throne of God. This is the church that has successfully fulfilled its message of spreading the gospel to all the earth that Satan has not prevailed against.

 

[mozart-250]

How would you know whether you are following/believing Christ correctly? A fallible Church will err. An infallible Church will not.

…and also a church that claims it is infallible when in reality it is not infallible will also err.

Okay. Is it possible that some faith communities teach more accurately than others? Less fallibly or more infallibly than others?

Actually there is no such thing as more or less fallibly. Either you are capable of error or you are not.

More accurately than others, yes.

The proponents of sola scriptura hold it up as the reason why they reject the Church that Jesus founded 2,000 years ago. Consequently, Catholics, who hold to both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, do not have to disprove it. The Church was here first, so to speak. Therefore, anyone claiming sola scriptura as a justification for not submitting to the Authority of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals must be prepared to explain themselves. Kinda makes sense, doesn’t it?

If I claim sola scriptura as a Biblical Principle, since I am one making the assertion, the burden of proof rests on me.

However, as I have said, I can also be sola scriptura because none of the other claims of equivalency out there have been proved. In that case I have no burden of proof.

I asked because I was wondering if you were aware the John Wesley believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

Yup. Which is why I don’t have a cow over this one either way.

My contention is that not only have the original Reformers wandered away from the truth of the Catholic Church, but their followers today have wandered away from what THEY taught. Protestantism is a mess of tangled and contradictory viewpoints. Not what Jesus intended.

I am aware that the term “Protestant” is sometimes used as sort of bucket where anything that is not Catholic or Orthodox is places (why that bucket exists I am not sure). But this is just a term of convenience.

I know of no entity or creed called “Protestantism”. Certainly in the statement of faith in my church, we don’t have a line that says “We believe in Protestantism”. Sheesh, I have not even heard the term “Protestant” used in my church.

I wouldn’t ascribe too much meaning to “Protestant” other than “not Catholic or Orthodox”.

Gotcha. But I must ask…what is CARM?

Oh that is another forum out there that basically believes Catholicism is a non-Christian religion. I posted there for a while, but it got very grating to me.

Everytime I hear the word “heretic” or “satanic counterfeit”, here, although I react negatively, I do remember that protesting too loudly can be sort-of-like the pot calling the kettle black.

I can forgive you guys when you get into polemics, but it is a different story to hear the same type of language (if not worse) coming from those supposedly like me.

 

[Randy_Carson]

…and also a church that claims it is infallible when in reality it is not infallible will also err.

Correct. I believe the Mormons fall into this category. Now, the real bottom line is: can I demonstrate to your satisfaction from scripture, history and reason that Jesus did convey the characteristic of infallibility upon the Catholic Church. Everything else sort of falls into place - one way or the other - after that, doesn’t it?

Actually there is no such thing as more or less fallibly. Either you are capable of error or you are not.

More accurately than others, yes.

Bingo! I didn’t state that previously because I wanted to see if you would pick up on it. Good eye! Infallibility does not have degrees; it is absolute.

If I claim sola scriptura as a Biblical Principle, since I am one making the assertion, the burden of proof rests on me.

However, as I have said, I can also be sola scriptura because none of the other claims of equivalency out there have been proved. In that case I have no burden of proof.

We may have to disagree here. I think that sola scriptura is a presupposition of Protestantism. It is the basis for rejecting the Authority of the Catholic Church. Therefore, it seems incumbent upon the Protestant to prove his case.

Yup. Which is why I don’t have a cow over this one either way.

The troubling aspect of this, for me at least, is that people call themselves “Wesleyan” or “Lutheran” yet they don’t actually adhere to the teaching of their namesake. More importantly, this illustrates the shifting sands of Protestant belief. (For consequences of building upon sand or rock, see the parable about the man who built his house upon the sand, etc.) The Catholic Church does not abandon doctrine like this. It is built upon “rock” and is the “pillar and foundation of truth”. (1 Tim 3:15)

I’m good with everything else you wrote.

Peace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mozart-

Imagine, if you will, John Calvin, Bible in hand, visiting the church of Corinth in the year 125. Calvin notices some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture, and he rebukes the church for “adding to God’s word.”

On of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, “Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Corinthians 11:34) Dear brother, I was a young man when the apostle visited this church. These church practices you condemn came from the apostle’s very lips. Are you greater than Paul? We also have in our possession Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians. He commands them to continue in the traditions, whether delivered by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Are we to obey you or the apostle?”

from “A Defense of Roman Catholic Doctrine Against Reformed Protestantism” by Gregory A. Krehbiel as quoted in Not By Scripture Alone, Robert A. Sungenis, p.48.

 

[mozart-250]

Mozart-

Imagine, if you will, John Calvin, Bible in hand, visiting the church of Corinth in the year 125. Calvin notices some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture, and he rebukes the church for “adding to God’s word.”

On of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, “Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Corinthians 11:34) Dear brother, I was a young man when the apostle visited this church. These church practices you condemn came from the apostle’s very lips. Are you greater than Paul? We also have in our possession Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians. He commands them to continue in the traditions, whether delivered by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Are we to obey you or the apostle?”

from “A Defense of Roman Catholic Doctrine Against Reformed Protestantism” by Gregory A. Krehbiel as quoted in Not By Scripture Alone, Robert A. Sungenis, p.48.

The key phrase here being:

some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture,

Actually, except for practices explicitely commanded or explicitely forbidden, there is otherwise a wide amount of discretion given in the Bible on how a local congregation can conduct worship.

This makes sense because worship in Africa should not be expected to be the same as worship in the United States. Also worship in 300AD should not be expected to be the same as worship in 2007AD.

John Calvin would be out of line in that hypothetical. I would hope the hypothetical would be unrealistic…but not knowing the man…

Anyway if it were my pastor the interchange would be something like this.

“Hey, I notice you doing something in communion I have never seen done before”
“Oh that, well actually the apostle Paul told us to do this when He visited our church”
“Awesome, we’ll have to try this when the Lord beams me back to Vermont”
“Where’s Vermont?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

The key phrase here being:

Actually, except for practices explicitely commanded or explicitely forbidden, there is otherwise a wide amount of discretion given in the Bible on how a local congregation can conduct worship.

This makes sense because worship in Africa should not be expected to be the same as worship in the United States. Also worship in 300AD should not be expected to be the same as worship in 2007AD.

John Calvin would be out of line in that hypothetical. I would hope the hypothetical would be unrealistic…but not knowing the man…

Anyway if it were my pastor the interchange would be something like this.

“Hey, I notice you doing something in communion I have never seen done before”
“Oh that, well actually the apostle Paul told us to do this when He visited our church”
“Awesome, we’ll have to try this when the Lord beams me back to Vermont”
“Where’s Vermont?”

Would it surprise you to learn that there was actually a remarkable degree of similarity in the liturgical practices of the early Church? A similarity that cannot be accounted for except by oral tradition that pre-existed scripture? Or that the mass today is remarkably similar in structure and form to that of the early Church?

 

[Reformed1]

Or that the mass today is remarkably similar in structure and form to that of the early Church?

Which mass?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which mass?

Your pick.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Getting to this if I don’t have time for anything else

Actually I want to address this if I don’t have time to address anything else.

By distinguishing between infallibility and impeccability, what you are in effect saying is that a breach in testimony by the church does not represent the gates of hell prevailing while a breach in doctrine does represent the gates of hell prevailing.

This seems very inconsistent both in theory and in practice. Have you ever been to a local church that is torn apart because of immorality in the leadership. On some level the gates of hell have most certainly prevailed in that situation.

It would seem to me that a more consistent interpretation of this passage is to distinguish between “gaining some foothold in the Church” and “prevailing against the Church”.

Satan can gain a foothold in the Church by either getting it to depart from the true apostolic gospel message or by causing it to fail morally. This does not mean that Satan has prevailed against the church.

Sort of like a football game. Just because the Jets may score a field goal or a touchdown against the Patriots this Sunday does not mean the Jets will prevail against the Patriots.

At the end of the age in Revelation 7:9 we see a great multitude from every nation and all tribes and people standing before the throne of God. This is the church that has successfully fulfilled its message of spreading the gospel to all the earth that Satan has not prevailed against.

I do not think the Catholic Church puts as much stock in the “Testimony” of an individual leader as I have seen in Protestantism. After 2,000 years, we have a “great cloud of witnesses” to remind us of the goal. Younger churches do seem to be more focused on the Charisma of the local leader (Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard). Protestants put far more emotional stock in “their pastor” so the trauma is greater when he falls.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sheesh, I could even theoretically be a Catholic if you didn’t have a whole list of “De Fide” dogma that is totally unverifiable.

Mozie-

Start at the top of the list. Put all the other things on hold.

If you can get your arms around Apostolic Succession, you will make a good first step.

After Apostolic Succession, then you realize that Apostolic Authority begins to make sense. Then infallibility.

Once you have belief in the possibility of an infallible Church, then you take the doctrines one at a time knowing that an infallible Church cannot mislead you.

At least that seems logical to me.

So, what are the Petrine verses and what do they really mean?