Protestant disagreements with their founders.

[MariaG]

I have to say, the first thread I saw after posting was this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80947

It really hit my sense of the ironic!

posted by Gilbert Keith
Our Protestant friends ought not to complain about the Catholic notion of papal infallibility. They practice it themselves all the time. The difference is that every Protestant calls *himself *infallible. Now you will never hear him admit it, but if he did not believe it, he would have to say from time to time, “I might be wrong.”

Has anyone ever heard a Protestant make such an admission?

The only time I ever hear one admit it is when he shops around for a different Protestant church (where he will adopt another stance of infallibility for himself) or just before he chooses to enter the Catholic Church (where he will finally resign himself to the one and changeless infallibility of Rome).

Catholic or Protestant, one cannot escape being an infallibilist.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello Angainor;

Angainor:

I can see how you, as a Catholic looking out over a sea of Protestanism can see only rough waters, it appears “unstable”. What are appearances?

It’s not just appearances. There are serious disagreements in doctrine among the protestant denominations. Just compare the Anglican Church on one end of the spectrum to the LDS and SDA Churches, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses at the other end. It’s not just the appearance of disagreement. It is fundamental core doctrinal dispute.

Angainor:

Can the Holy Spirit not guide the rough waters of Protestantism?

Yes. The HS can guide the protestant churches back into unity - a.k.a. catholicity. But I do not believe the HS had any hand in creating the doctrinal anarchy of reformed christianity that exists today. In other words, the HS is not stirring up the “rough waters” of Protestantism. Individuals working alone within that schism are creating the sea foam.

Angainor:

Does the unstable appearance really seem out of place from scripture?

Yes. Christ intended a doctrinal uniformity among christians. I think the Scriptures are pretty clear:

Jn 10:16 - there shall be one fold and one shepherd
Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissention
1 Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of the same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may all be one, as we are one
1 Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ

I don’t mean to throw “proof texts” at you. I am simply responding to your suggestion that God intended there to be so many different and conflicting versions of christianity. To me it seems obvious that something is wrong. Even if you don’t concede the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church you must concede that it certainly is apparent that the state of all of christianity is splintered and divided.

Angainor:

We are told to stay on our guard. We are told to “test everything”. We are told being a Christian is not easy.

This is true, but these statements are not inconsistent with a Church that is led by one with authority conferred by Christ to settle doctrinal disputes. This is because even the Popes must “be on guard” and “test everything” against Scripture - especially in the role of Vicar of Christ.

Angainor:

Who said there would be a final human arbiter on truth?

Jesus Christ. (Mt. 16:18-19.) But, of course, Peter and his successors are not affirming doctrines apart from the HS, rather they do so with the guidance and direction of the HS. It is the HS that is speaking infallibly through the very human popes - just as the HS spoke infallibly through the four very human gospel evangelists. If you can concede that the inerrant gospels were written by the divine inspiration of the HS, then why can’t you accept that the HS is still able to use a fallible human being to declare infallible doctrine to the people of God today?

Angainor:

Who said the Church Paul mentions in 1 Tim 3:15 would be a human being you could go to and ask for the truth? Is the Church incarnated into the person of the Pope? The Church is the foundation of the truth. The truth of the Gospel has survived 2000 years, so I know the Church is doing its job.

(1)Jesus Christ implicitly acknowledges the human aspect of His Church in Matthew’s gospel. (Mt 18:16-20) (2) The Church is not just the Pope. The Pope is the visible head of Christ’s Church and a father figure, but he is not the Church incarnate. (3) Yes. I agree that the Church is the piller and bulwark of truth. But you and I have a very different understanding of just what that Church is. You think the “Church” is simply a body of “believers” and refuse to define the limits of that belief, whereas I see a body of believers that are spiritually guided by a physically real and present teaching authority. I think my understanding of the Church comports with Scripture and yours is just the rationalization of men who want to make up a comfortable church that “fits” the times - without being bound to the authority that Christ founded.

Angainor:

As to the charge of subjectivism, true Christian Protestants seek objective truth with the tools God gave them. True Christian Protestants recognize the existance of an objective truth, and hope their undertanding of that truth is correct.

They may acknowledge the existence of objective truth, but they have no way to confirm it. I also believe that 500 years of bias, prejudice and mistrust (granted that some of it was well-earned) have blinded many protestants to the fullness of truth that still exists in the Catholic Church.

 

[Angainor]

ComradeAndrei:

As to Lutheranism, if you disagree with Luther’s theology then how can you be Lutheran, except just by arbitrary label that you give to yourself?

“Lutheran” is an arbitrary label. At first we called ourselves “Evangelical” (not to be confused with the modern understanding of Evangelical).

There are a set of confessions that Lutherans agree to. Congregations freely associate with the Lutheran Church because they agree with the truth of those confessions. If they did not agree to their truth, they would have no reason to associate with the Lutheran Church.

Even though Martin Luther himself may have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that teaching does not appear in the Lutheran confessions (for or against).

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Angainor:

Even though Martin Luther himself may have believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, that teaching does not appear in the Lutheran confessions (for or against).

This leads to some interesting speculation. What if the Lutheran confessions did specifically require belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary? There’s no reason why such a belief should be excluded - except perhaps the possibility that it would cause numbers of individuals to leave the Lutheran Church. All that matters - apparently - is that those who wish to associate agree that a belief is something they can agree upon. The issue of the fullness of truth is set aside for the sake of the lowest common denominator - i.e. what is the minimum that must be accepted while still maintaining the appearance of christianity? In that sense the confessions are just evidence of consensus.

Another hypothetical: What if the confessions excluded a belief in the trinity? Would Lutherans still be “christians?”

 

[Angainor]

Robert in SD:

I don’t mean to throw “proof texts” at you. I am simply responding to your suggestion that God intended there to be so many different and conflicting versions of christianity. To me it seems obvious that something is wrong. Even if you don’t concede the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church you must concede that it certainly is apparent that the state of all of christianity is splintered and divided.

I absolutely agree. This is a fallen world. All will not be completely right until the second coming. God has been managing “shepherding” human chaos since the fall.

Jn 10:16 - there shall be one fold and one shepherd
This is not particularly Catholic. I count “one fold” with one shepherd (Christ) Matt 2:6, John 10:14
How many folds do you count? [post=1032834]Jesusluv[/post] (presumably Catholic) counts “thousands of puddles, a few ponds, and even fewer lakes”.

Eph 4:3-6 - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father
Amen.

Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissention
1 Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of the same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may all be one, as we are one
Unity is a worthy goal, agreed. But it must be free. “You must submit to the authority of Catholicism” just doesn’t work.

1 Cor 12:13 - in one spirit we are baptized into one body
Amen.

Rom 12:5 - we, though many, are one body in Christ
Amen.
Robert in SD:

They may acknowledge the existence of objective truth, but they have no way to confirm it.

“Confirm” the existance of objective truth? My first reaction is that is what faith is for. We need faith in Jesus who is the Truth.
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Sprit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2 Cor 3:1-3 (NIV)

 

[Angainor]

Robert in SD:

This leads to some interesting speculation. What if the Lutheran confessions did specifically require belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

The short answer is: I would not be Lutheran. Why would I be? I am only Lutheran because I agree that the Lutheran confessions express the truth.
Robert in SD:

There’s no reason why such a belief should be excluded - except perhaps the possibility that it would cause numbers of individuals to leave the Lutheran Church.
All that matters - apparently - is that those who wish to associate agree that a belief is something they can agree upon. The issue of the fullness of truth is set aside for the sake of the lowest common denominator - i.e. what is the minimum that must be accepted while still maintaining the appearance of christianity?

I would not put it exactly the way you did, but you are essentially correct. The confessions are those things that Lutherans believe to be “indisputable”. Everything else is assumed to be “disputable”.
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters.
Romans 14:1
Robert in SD:

In that sense the confessions are just evidence of consensus.

:clapping: YES! You got it (almost) exactly! The confessions are “just” evidence of consensus.
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissention
1 Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of the same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may all be one, as we are one
Robert in SD:

Another hypothetical: What if the confessions excluded a belief in the trinity? Would Lutherans still be “christians?”

It is not for me to judge who is a Christian. Honestly. How can I be expected to say? I seek to understand the truth the best I can, that is what I am called to do.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Angainor, can you point me to the truths that Luther did teach and those that he did not.

after all he is largly responsible for the break away protestant groups, so therefor to create such upheaval in Christendom one would think that he was acting at Gods command, now if he was acting at Gods command, I find it hard to believe that God actually allowed him to teach untruths, which obviously he must have if next to ALL other protestants disagree with him, so now that we must therefor accept that he did teach some erors I would like you yo point out to me exactly how youknow what errors he did teach, in fact if we accpet that he taught any error at all then we are only left with one choice, he was just a very naughty man who did not have God with him.

If we accept the oppositeand say God was with him, then one would assume that he couldn’t have taught any doctrinal error.

I seek to know your objective response.

In Christ

Tim

 

[cheddarsox]

Luther was the father of the Reformation, but certainly not the first protestant, nor the father of all the faiths that Catholics call Protestant. If Luther had never come along, many after him would have broken away, just as many before and since him have.

If you claim the Catholic church is the real church because it has unity of belief, but there is not unity among the many nonCatholic groups, I beg to differ. If there was true unity of belief, there would be far fewer threads on these forums!

All of us have beliefs that are a combination of what our religion teaches, and what amounts to “private revelation”, what we feel the spirit has made known to us over the course of our faith lives.

So the question of why doesn’t the spirit make known the same thing to everyone applies to ALL believers, not merely the protestants. It is a good question, a valid question, and more useful I think when we stop playing us/them games and look at it as a commonunal situation.

Are we honest enough, and bold enough to ask ourselves that question? It is always easier to pose it to the other guy and ignore its validity in our own circumstance.

cheddar

 

[Mickey]

cheddarsox:

If you claim the Catholic church is the real church because it has unity of belief, but there is not unity among the many nonCatholic groups, I beg to differ. If there was true unity of belief, there would be far fewer threads on these forums!

Threads on this forum and individual opinions of certain Catholics have nothing to do with “unity of belief” in the Catholic Church. We are called to be obedient to the teaching authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is called the deposit of faith. Catholic disunity cannot be proven by the views of dissenting Catholics.

 

[cheddarsox]

Mickey:

Threads on this forum and individual opinions of certain Catholics have nothing to do with “unity of belief” in the Catholic Church. We are called to be obedient to the teaching authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. It is called the deposit of faith. Catholic disunity cannot be proven by the views of dissenting Catholics.

So, it is questionable that protestants sometimes don’t agree with certain protestant leaders…and proves disunity, and how misguided it is to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide individuals…but when Catholics disagree, they can just point back to the church, and have their disunity “covered” because the church has the right interpretation even if they don’t personally agree. Do I have that right?

It sounds as if the Catholic church is a sort of sheild of truth, even for the dissenting Catholics, but protestant discrepancies are out there for all to see.

Again, I think the real question for all is, why hasn’t the Holy Spirit revealed the same to all serious and devoted seekers?

Or is the idea that if a person was REALLY serious, and devoted enough, they would be in perfect union with the Catholic church?

cheddar

 

[Mickey]

cheddarsox:

So, it is questionable that protestants sometimes don’t agree with certain protestant leaders…and proves disunity, and how misguided it is to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide individuals…but when Catholics disagree, they can just point back to the church, and have their disunity “covered” because the church has the right interpretation even if they don’t personally agree. Do I have that right?

The reformed churches don’t have a teaching authority with a 2000 year history that is protected by the Holy Spirit as the pillar and foundation of truth.

cheddarsox:

It sounds as if the Catholic church is a sort of sheild of truth, even for the dissenting Catholics, but protestant discrepancies are out there for all to see.

That’s the beauty of the Church. Dissenting Catholics can right themselves once again by obedience to the teaching authority. Protestants must continue to debate amongst themselves and sadly, the result is further division.

cheddarsox:

Again, I think the real question for all is, why hasn’t the Holy Spirit revealed the same to all serious and devoted seekers?.

The banquet is there for those who wish to attend.

cheddarsox:

Or is the idea that if a person was REALLY serious, and devoted enough, they would be in perfect union with the Catholic church?

I can’t answer that. I am not capable of reading people’s hearts’.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Angainor:

The confessions are those things that Lutherans believe to be “indisputable”. Everything else is assumed to be “disputable”.
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters.
Romans 14:1

But that leaves you with the problem of authority. How can you just assume that everything else is “assumed to be disputable.” Is baptism disputable when the scriptures so clearly indicate to millions of people that it is necessary for salvation? What about the Eucharist which is also supported by scripture and believed by millions to be necessary for salvation? You seem to be conceding that what you believe is the “lowest common denominator” among Lutherans. In other words, the absolute minimum is stated in the confessions. Where does that leave the fullness of truth? You are sacrificing the fullness of truth for the sake of joining a visible community of believers.

:clapping: YES! You got it (almost) exactly! The confessions are “just” evidence of consensus.
Rom 16:17 - avoid those who create dissention
1 Cor 1:10 - I urge that there be no divisions among you
Phil 2:2 - be of the same mind, united in heart, thinking one thing
Rom 15:5 - God grant you to think in harmony with one another
Jn 17:17-23 - I pray that they may all be one, as we are one

It is not for me to judge who is a Christian. Honestly. How can I be expected to say? I seek to understand the truth the best I can, that is what I am called to do.

I certainly acknowledge your right to dissent, but I’ll close by saying I think that it is really very sad - that you believe Christ left you without a visible church that holds the charism of a teaching authority.

 

[Angainor]

Robert in SD:

You seem to be conceding that what you believe is the “lowest common denominator” among Lutherans. In other words, the absolute minimum is stated in the confessions. Where does that leave the fullness of truth?

As Paul said in Romans 14:1, some things are left “disputable”. Complete fullness of all truth is unattainable.

I would not call Lutheran Confessions the “absolute minimum”. I don’t know what the actual “absolute minimum” is. In any case, it would be a mistake to aim low. Lutheran confessions simply state the Lutheran understanding of God’s truth. Mary’s perpetual virginity is regarded as disputable not because of a desire to please everybody. It is regarded as disputable because Scriptures are unclear on the matter one way or another. Lutherans cannot confess to the truth of Mary’s perpetural virginity with any confidence one way or another.

 

[Angainor]

Tim Hayes:

if we accpet that he taught any error at all then we are only left with one choice, he was just a very naughty man who did not have God with him.

Because I believe in independant, objective truth, I can dismiss this comment as nonsense.

I do not believe certian things Martin Luther taught because Martin Luther taught them. I believe certian things Martin Luther taught because I agree that they are correct expressions of independant, objective truth.

 

[MariaG]

Angainor:

Because I believe in independant, objective truth, I can dismiss this comment as nonsense.

I do not believe certian things Martin Luther taught because Martin Luther taught them. I believe certian things Martin Luther taught because I agree that they are correct expressions of independant, objective truth.

Lutherans view Baptism as when we are born again, correct?

Is this an objective truth? Is it undisputable or disputable?

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Angainor

your repsonse is a sad indictment on us as humans becasue it clearly reveals that when push comes to shove we generally will believe whatever we want becasue it suits us.

In all your responses if you are not willing to give authority to teach(interpret) infalliably to eiither a single human or group/church then you must accept that there is no objective truth or att he very least objective turth regarding christianity that will or could cost you your salvation.

The Jehovas witness for eg. must according to your belief be saved in their belief, they have to be becasue according to them selves they are undoubtedly following the objective truth of christianity,

Now are they or aren’t they, that is the question, please tell me whether they are Christians according to you and if not why not and on who’s guaranteed authority that they are not, it can’t be the bible becasue they have proof positive guarantee (according to themselves) that they are following the bible and you and I are not.

Please answer the question, I want to know why you are here involving yourself in conversations with catholics and others.

thanks

 

[Angainor]

Tim Hayes:

In all your responses if you are not willing to give authority to teach(interpret) infalliably to eiither a single human or group/church then you must accept that there is no objective truth or att he very least objective turth regarding christianity that will or could cost you your salvation.

I reject this reasoning. Truth is truth independant of a teaching authority. What if everyone alive were sucked into a black hole? Would the truth cease to be the truth because there is no infallible teachers?
Tim Hayes:

The Jehovas witness for eg. must according to your belief be saved in their belief, they have to be becasue according to them selves they are undoubtedly following the objective truth of christianity,

Now are they or aren’t they, that is the question, please tell me whether they are Christians according to you

Why “according to me”? I have no authority to declare anyone Christian or non-Christian. You must have an idea for yourself if Jehova’s Withesses are Christian.
Tim Hayes:

I want to know why you are here involving yourself in conversations with catholics and others.

Call it a hobby. I have a boring job and bouncing ideas back and forth with intelligent people feeds my brain.

 

[Mystophilus]

jesusluv:

That is all well and good and I know you meant that lightheartedly by the smiley at the end, but on a serious note, does it not make it good for us as Christians, who are supposed to show unity since our Saviour asked for that, to disagree because we can?

It is important to remember that unity and uniformity are not the same thing. While there is necessity in unity (it being the thing which Jesus prayed for but which we, his ‘followers’, have so carefully avoided), there is no necessity in uniformity.

Unity in diversity is achieved by the application of that most vital of all values, love.

 

[Angainor]

Tim Hayes:

In all your responses if you are not willing to give authority to teach(interpret) infalliably to eiither a single human or group/church then you must accept that there is no objective truth or att he very least objective turth regarding christianity that will or could cost you your salvation.

Don’t you see that what you are describing is subjectivism (that is–truth dependandant on a subject)? The only difference is you are not talking about many subjects each proclaiming facts that are true for them. Your subjectivism just happens to have only one subject that the truth is dependant on–the magisterium.

 

[MariaG]

MariaG:

Lutherans view Baptism as when we are born again, correct?

Is this an objective truth? Is it undisputable or disputable?

Is being born again in Baptism an objective truth? Is this truth independent of teaching authority?