Protestant Theologian Karl Barth on Sola Scriptura

[Abu]

JonNC #274
If the Church had not gone through a Great Schism, we could rely on a council of the whole Church to inform our faith. Currently, that is not the case.

The Catholic Church did not “go through a Great Schism” – schismatics separate themselves, as Protestants did with the Protestant Revolt.

**1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
**Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, **“An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” **The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into Schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, "Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world." [My emphases].
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Schism&db=2

we rely on scripture, not as the sole norm, but as the sole final norm.

That is the error, as the reality is as proclaimed by Christ through His Catholic Church:
CCC 95: "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62
Note:
62 *Dei Verbum *10 § 3.

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic Church did not “go through a Great Schism” – schismatics separate themselves, as Protestants did with the Protestant Revolt.

**1256. Did the Patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church at any stage after the death of Christ recognize the Pope as supreme and infallible head of the Church?
**Dr. Orchard, when a Congregationalist, wrote, **“An examination of the circumstances of the Great Schism shows that the Eastern Church did then repudiate a supremacy which it had previously been in the habit of conceding to the Roman Patriarchate.” **The First Council of Constantinople in 381, which only Eastern Bishops attended, demanded that the Bishop of Constantinople should rank next after the Bishop of Rome, and before the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given. A century and a half later Pope Gregory I. could still write, “Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?” No one then doubted it; and no one disputed it until Photius came along in 867 to plunge the East into Schism. The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, "Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world." [My emphases].
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Schism&db=2

That is the error, as the reality is as proclaimed by Christ through His Catholic Church:
CCC 95: "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."62
Note:
62 *Dei Verbum *10 § 3.

I’m sure that an Orthodox Christian would contradict your claim here, not surprisingly, and therein we find the foundation for the use of sola scriptura: that being that the Church East and West, is in Schism regarding the other. A reconciliation in that regard would go a long way to repair division within the Church.

Jon

 

[Abu]

JonNC #277
I’m sure that an Orthodox Christian would contradict your claim here,

The reality of the given facts are always open to suppositions without basis.

Not only do the Orthodox have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches

 

[JonNC]

The reality of the given facts are always open to suppositions without basis.

Not only do the Orthodox have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches

Tell you what. I have no intention of debating you on it. It takes two to tango. Its gone on for a thousand years. Fix it. Meanwhile, I’ll pray that you do.

Jon

 

[Rohzek]

I’ll KIV this.

And that says it all right here. I’ve read every word you have provided, but you can’t take the time to read what I linked to which answers every one of your objections.

Have you identified which of the one liners are out of context? You haven’t. Long essays in itself don’t prove anything. Your fallacy is in assuming that one-liners are not true and not in context.

You don’t get it do you? Your interpretation could very well still be right. But one line is not context in and of itself. They teach that since first grade. Provide it, or I won’t take you seriously. And if you don’t care, that’s fine. But keep in mind, that every time you make your claim without any sort of serious justification, I will be there to post that you’re wrong and why you are wrong with heavily contextualized evidence; so that everyone else will know that you’re wrong.

You missed the point.

I’ve provided long excerpts of exegesis, hence more context than one line. There is no bias involved on my part. You can read my excerpts as the Fathers wrote them without any mistake of their intentions. One-liners don’t provide that security.

Which one of those one-liners is out of context? Everyone of those one-liners demonstrated the intent of the person, that is, to highlight that Peter was the owner of the keys. If you can’t prove that wasn’t the message of the persons quoted, then you are just making a lot of noise. Those statements were concise and reflect the intent.

Again, your interpretation could very well still be right. I could be wrong. But one line is not context in and of itself. I provided context, you didn’t. Context involves more than just one sentence.

As above.
Then if Peter got his keys, whose keys are those fathers you quoted holding? I am saying the apostles do have powers but they don’t have Peter’s keys to shut and open.

They are holding the same keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What difficulty is it to understand what I’ve been saying this entire time?

I don’t see any keys given to the other apostles. Verse and chapter please. Please don’t assume keys and powers are the same.

I’m not assuming anything. That’s explicitly how Sacred Tradition has regarded the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, that is that they are the same as the powers. This is all in the link that I’ve provided, which you admittedly haven’t read yet.

Chapter and verse

You won’t find an explicit Bible verse with Jesus saying, “Here are the keys rest of my apostles.” However, it has long been understood in Sacred Tradition that they were given to the rest of the apostles in John 20:22, because the Church Fathers and saints believed the powers of binding and loosing were the exact same as the keys. So when the commented on this in exegeses, they said, “here Christ gave them the keys.”

And the merit of your arguments are lacking.

How do you know? You haven’t read my argument. You just said in this very post that you’ll keep my link for viewing later, which I have said this entire time has all of the answers you are asking for. But then you say, “Oh but you haven’t provided evidence.” Yes, I have, but you have refused to read it.

All you are doing is repeating the same statement. And I will continue to use the same rebuttal: the keys were given to Peter only. No others have them. You have not succeeded in proving that keys were given to others. Claims but no proof. I am happy to concede if you can just show the evidence.

I’ve already given you proof. I even gave you a quote from the link, since you refuse to click on the link and read it, of Hilary of Poitiers explicitly stating that the keys are given to the rest of apostles. Convenient how you left out any response to that quote that I provided in my last post.

And my assumption remains valid because you haven’t proven your case that identical keys were given to others other than Peter. That those so-call “keys” contain the same powers of Peter to open/shut.

You’re all over the place. Above you said that the keys aren’t same as the powers of binding and loosing. And now you’re saying that they are. I clearly have a better and more consistent grasp of Catholic dogma than you do. Go read Catechism #553. The Catholic position says that the powers aren’t the same as the keys.

You can argue any angle you want but if you can not answer this simple question, quoting more writings not going to help your case. You only have 2 points to provide evidence:

1. keys were given to others
2. keys were identical to that of Peter’s to open/close i.e. same keys, same powers, same everything.

I’ve answered your questions with evidence in links and sometimes in quoted excerpts. If you don’t want to read it, that’s fine. But then I must ask, why are you in Non-Catholics sub-forum? This isn’t the Apologetics sub-forum of CAF. This sub-forum of Non-Catholics is for serious exchanges and honest debate between all branches of Christianity and other faiths, but so far you have shown yourself far more willing to blatantly ignore anything I say because you aren’t interested in anything I have to say at all. You’re more interested in just speaking, but not listening.

 

[Duane1966]

What we won’t do is bind the conscience of the believer to it
because, as you say, it is not explicit or implicit.
Jon

Where does Jesus say that something must be implicit, or explicit, to bind the conscience of the believer? Is it not, that in making this the criteria, actually undermining the authority that Jesus gave Peter? But Jesus said whatever, not limiting Peter, or his successors. So why do you try to limit, what Jesus has granted?

 

[Abu]

Rohzek #280
That’s explicitly how Sacred Tradition has regarded the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, that is that they are the same as the powers.
However, it has long been understood in Sacred Tradition that they were given to the rest of the apostles in John 20:22, because the Church Fathers and saints believed the powers of binding and loosing were the exact same as the keys. So when the commented on this in exegeses, they said, “here Christ gave them the keys.”

In reality, Christ commissioned His Apostles with a leader (St Peter) to whom alone was given the Keys of the Kingdom separately, the charge of binding and loosing, and of confirming his brethren – on whom He built His Church.

The Roman Theological Forum is a gold mine of trustworthy information and readers are directed to savour this for themselves, in particular, Papal Authority In The First Ecumenical Councils, by Brian W. Harrison, May 1990 at:
rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html
“In the records of the great Councils of the fifth century, we can see the Bishops of Rome coming to assume explicitly the dominant position which their successors have continued to exercise ever since in those Councils recognized by the Catholic Church as “Ecumenical.” That Roman primacy of jurisdiction was widely accepted in the East at this time is clear from the negotiations before and during the Council of Ephesus. Cyril of Alexandria appeals to Celestine of Rome to deal with Nestorius in Constantinople; and Celestine replies, delegating Cyril to excommunicate Nestorius if he fails to recant within ten days, equating his own judgment with “the divine sentence of our Christ,” and stating that he has written in similar terms to four other major Bishops. 1 In the ensuing Council of Ephesus, we find that Cyril presides in the place of Celestine, 2 and that the whole Council accepts as “suitable” 3 and worthy of confirmation by all, the words of the Roman legate Philip, in presenting for conciliar approval (not debate) Celestine’s prior condemnation of Nestorius:
“ ‘It is doubted by no one, but in fact has been known to all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter … received from our Lord Jesus Christ … the keys of the kingdom, and that power was granted to him of binding and loosing sins; who up till this time and always lives in his successors and exercises judgment.’ 4”

Similarly:
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Keys&db=1
**‘The Council of Ephesus in 431, embracing all Bishops and not even held at Rome, decreed, “No one can doubt, indeed it is known to all ages, that Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles and Foundation of the Catholic Church, received the Keys of the kingdom from Christ our Redeemer, and that to this day and always he lives in his successors exercising judgment.” ’

**‘In 451 Pope Leo wrote his decision to the Bishops of the Church assembled at Chalcedon, and when the letter was read all cried out, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” ’

‘109. In Matt., XVIII, 18, Jesus said to all the Apostles: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven,” giving equally to all the power He had given to Peter.
He gave equally to all the Apostles some of the power He had given to St. Peter; but not the whole of it. In Matt., XVI, 19, He had said to St. Peter individually: “I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” These words, proper to St. Peter, were not said to the other Apostles. St. Peter was given the unique privilege, after Christ Himself, of being the principal foundation stone of the Church, and of possessing the Keys symbolizing supreme authority in the Church. The other Apostles were to share as a group in the authority to teach and rule in the Church. But it was not given to them independently of St. Peter as it had been given earlier to St. Peter independently of them. Where they had it as members of the Apostolic body, he had it as head of the Apostolic body and where their universal jurisdiction died with them, his continued perpetually in the Church in the persons of his successors.’
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Keys&db=4

247. Was not the authority of “binding” and “loosing”, i.e., of legislating, given equally to all the apostles, just as to Peter (Matt., 18:18)?
Although it was extended to all collectively, Christ nevertheless gave more to St. Peter than to the others. **To St. Peter, whose name He had changed from Simon to “Rock”, He had said in the singular: “Thou are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He did not say those additional words to the other apostles. Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.”
**radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Keys&db=5
[My bold throughout].

 

[Duane1966]

I’m sure that an Orthodox Christian would contradict your claim here, not surprisingly, and therein we find the foundation for the use of sola scriptura: that being that the Church East and West, is in Schism regarding the other. A reconciliation in that regard would go a long way to repair division within the Church.

Jon

A foundation obviously built on sand. Thus since the advent of sola scriptura, not surprisingly, we see the birthing of denomination after denomination.

Jon, in theory, shouldn’t we actually see more unity from those who adhere to sola scriptura, then we actually do? Or is the problem that everyone that adheres to sola scriptura, in actuality practices solo scriptura?

As an example where you, yourself, practice solo scriptura, I give you this:

1.) In scripture, we seemingly find Jesus, and St. Paul, saying the Church is the final authority, and not scripture.

2.) We see, in scripture, Jesus giving the power to the Church, to bind and loose. We do not see anywhere, Jesus saying, what you choose to bind and loose must be implicit, or explicit, from scripture. From scripture, Jesus seemingly gives carte blanche, on the binding and loosing.

3.) The Church, has exercised her authority in binding the faithful on the Marian dogmas. I might add that the Church does feel those dogmas are implicit, in scripture.

4.) On an earlier post, you intimated, that something must be implicit, or explicit, in scripture, for the Church to bind one’s conscience. Which is why you feel it is okay for Christians to reject number three.

5.) Since nowhere in number one or number two, from scripture, do we find what you espouse in number four, the logical conclusion is that in reality you practice solo scriptura.

 

[JonNC]

Where does Jesus say that something must be implicit, or explicit, to bind the conscience of the believer? Is it not, that in making this the criteria, actually undermining the authority that Jesus gave Peter? But Jesus said whatever, not limiting Peter, or his successors. So why do you try to limit, what Jesus has granted?

He doesn’t, though He often did say, “it is written…”

The problem with your question,Duane, is that it requires me to acknowledge that the Catholic perspective regarding the authority granted St. Peter, and his successors in Rome, is correct. So, I am not trying to limit Christ at all. In fact, I believe Christ sent his apostles out as equals (Great Commission) with equal power of the Keys (John 20). Therefore, Councils may have the power to bind the conscience to things implicit, but not individual bishops.

Jon

 

[Topper17]

Hi Just,

Thanks for your response.

Topper, I’m not sure how this addresses the post I made. I am not speaking historically. I am speaking of the here and now.
Let me simplify it.
Protestants have a Catholic book: the Bible.
Despite the rejection of authoritative interpretation, it remains a Catholic book with the seed of Catholic authoritative teaching in it. Once the boundaries were established prior to SS, even the most fundamentalist of Christians are still following Catholic teaching.
Obviously the weakness of SS cannot insure that following, it is nonetheless there.
I came back to the Catholic Church BY READING the Bible. What I thought was my own interpretation was in fact God leading me back to His Church.

First of all, I think that the history is important as it informs us as to how we got ‘here’.

Of course the Protestants have the Catholic Bible. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to be able to understand what it says. Many years ago, a priest friend of mine with a PhD in Theology put it this way:

“Protestants have taken the Bible out of the Church. Some of them didn’t go very far. They are sort of camping out in the back yard protesting.” He went on to make the point that the Bible is a document OF the Church and that outside of it, the interpretation will always be faulty. Of course, some interpretations are better or worse than others, but once the Scriptures are removed from the Church, defective interpretations and doctrines are inevitable.

So, I agree that Sola Scriptura Protestants DO “follow the Bible”, but given their wide range of interpretations, on each and every issue, it is clear that none of them should be confident that they are interpreting it correctly. The Catholic Church relies on a ‘system’ that actually COULD work rather than one which obviously does not.

As for me, I will and have put my ‘money’ on a means of learning God’s Absolute Truth that actually COULD be right rather than one which has proven, without a doubt, to be wrong. Of course SS Christians can claim that the Catholic means of discovering Truth is faulty also, but the only thing that they can use to ‘prove’ that is a means (SS) which is already PROVEN to be false.

About 25 years ago I read Karl Keating’s ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”’. In it he claimed that about 80% of what we believe we share with most Protestants. I have come to see that as being true. Whereas some people seem to think that that is enough, I think that it is ALL important. That ‘other 20%’ after all includes the seven Sacraments and many other things of similar importance. If God’s Absolute Truth is important, then ALL of it is important. I’m sure you agree.

God Bless You Just, Topper

 

[Wannano]

Hi Just,

Thanks for your response.

First of all, I think that the history is important as it informs us as to how we got ‘here’.

Of course the Protestants have the Catholic Bible. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are going to be able to understand what it says. Many years ago, a priest friend of mine with a PhD in Theology put it this way:

“Protestants have taken the Bible out of the Church. Some of them didn’t go very far. They are sort of camping out in the back yard protesting.” He went on to make the point that the Bible is a document OF the Church and that outside of it, the interpretation will always be faulty. Of course, some interpretations are better or worse than others, but once the Scriptures are removed from the Church, defective interpretations and doctrines are inevitable.

So, I agree that Sola Scriptura Protestants DO “follow the Bible”, but given their wide range of interpretations, on each and every issue, it is clear that none of them should be confident that they are interpreting it correctly. The Catholic Church relies on a ‘system’ that actually COULD work rather than one which obviously does not.

As for me, I will and have put my ‘money’ on a means of learning God’s Absolute Truth that actually COULD be right rather than one which has proven, without a doubt, to be wrong. Of course SS Christians can claim that the Catholic means of discovering Truth is faulty also, but the only thing that they can use to ‘prove’ that is a means (SS) which is already PROVEN to be false.

About 25 years ago I read Karl Keating’s ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”’. In it he claimed that about 80% of what we believe we share with most Protestants. I have come to see that as being true. Whereas some people seem to think that that is enough, I think that it is ALL important. That ‘other 20%’ after all includes the seven Sacraments and many other things of similar importance. If God’s Absolute Truth is important, then ALL of it is important. I’m sure you agree.

God Bless You Just, Topper

Thank you for being honest enough to share that you are gambling that the belief system you have adopted COULD actually be right! To me that helps explain most of the content of your posts and the manner in which they are delivered.

 

[JustaServant]

Hi Just,

About 25 years ago I read Karl Keating’s ‘Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”’. In it he claimed that about 80% of what we believe we share with most Protestants. I have come to see that as being true. Whereas some people seem to think that that is enough, I think that it is ALL important. That ‘other 20%’ after all includes the seven Sacraments and many other things of similar importance. If God’s Absolute Truth is important, then ALL of it is important. I’m sure you agree.

God Bless You Just, Topper

The ‘other 20%’ is dependent on which Protestant group you are looking at. An Episcopal or Lutheran has much more in common with Catholics than the Hell-fire and Brimstone KJV-only Baptist Church down the road. Fundamentalists reject Sacraments and Tradition (though they have their own version) and would be at the extreme end of Bible-only. So my inter-change with a fundamentalist is far different than a Lutheran or Episcopal since Catholicism is more foreign to the fundamentalist.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I never said it was an always and everywhere doctrine. Again, you are asking me to defend an understanding of sola scriptura that is not mine.

But ANY positive understanding of sola scriptura is a problem, Jon, because it is simply an error that was never practiced, taught or remotely envisioned by the Apostles.

See, I kinda feel like (happily) your position on many doctrines is so near to that of the Catholic Church as to be virtually indistinguishable to the casual forum member. Seriously, we are splitting some mighty fine hairs at times. And that is a good thing, IMO. I haven’t christened you the “ninja Catholic” for nothing!

Now, whether your views are representative of all Lutherans I cannot say, but here is the problem: some Protestants hear the term “sola scriptura” spoken with a LOT more emphasis on the word “sola” than you do. (I’m thinking of Suthren Babdists here.)

IOW, the usually articulate and overly prolific writer, Martin Luther, may have been too clever when he came up with this ham-handed term “sola scriptura”. It fit well enough with his other “solas”, but it has led many people to minimize the role of the Church and Tradition to such a degree as to be unhelpful and perhaps even dangerous.

If the Apostles themselves were here on Earth today, I would simply go up to them and ask. They are not. If the Church had not gone through a Great Schism, we could rely on a council of the whole Church to inform our faith. Currently, that is not the case.

And why you give a rip about this is puzzling. I’ve noted this problem before but I’ll paint a different word picture now: your insistence on Catholic and Orthodox re-unification as a pre-condition for your own conversion amounts, IMHO, to insisting that you would have remained outside the Church until Arius and Athanasius had worked out their differences. If the Arian bishops were in the wrong, why would you not side with Athanasius from the get-go? Well, as much as our EO brothers protest to the contrary (hmmm…maybe that’s what you admire?), their patriarchs are in the wrong. And you know the verses I would cite as well as I do.

So, here’s my version of Pascal’s Dilemma for Lutherans:

If either the Catholics or the Orthodox are “right” and re-unification would be the sign you need to enter that Church, doesn’t that leave you standing on the outside in the interim - regardless of the terms under under which a Catholic-Orthodox reunion occurs?

If you become a Catholic today and next year, the EO concede on papal supremacy, you’ll have your sign that Catholics were right all along. But if we Catholics have to agree to some “diminished” understanding of the papacy, then you can say “I told you so” till your heart is content if you like.

But either way, you’ll still be a member of the united Church founded by Jesus Christ.

The only way you “lose” is to remain where you are - in the Protestant camp. Because neither the EO nor the Catholics - the two groups you are looking to for your sign - believe that Protestantism is what Jesus sought to establish.

Further, you yourself have said that no Church teaching contradicts scripture, and the CC teaches that the Church serves scripture, not the other way around.

Part of me wants to point out that the Church serves Jesus Christ and not a book. Okay, all of me.

As that is the case, we rely on scripture, not as the sole norm, but as the sole final norm. With division and Schism the state of Christ’s one Holy Church, scripture gives us the most trustworthy evidence what what the Gospel is.

Jon

And how is that working out in practice for you sola scripturists, Jon?

Been to any infant baptisms at a Baptist Church lately? Ever?

I ask because they search the scriptures just as diligently as you Lutherans as their “final norm”.

And I could ask similar questions drawing out your views of the mere symbolism of Baptist “communion” vis-a-vis your own Eucharistic theology.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Further, you yourself have said that no Church teaching contradicts scripture, and the CC teaches that the Church serves scripture, not the other way around.

Jon

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.” (Dei Verbum 21)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The ‘other 20%’ is dependent on which Protestant group you are looking at. An Episcopal or Lutheran has much more in common with Catholics than the Hell-fire and Brimstone KJV-only Baptist Church down the road. Fundamentalists reject Sacraments and Tradition (though they have their own version) and would be at the extreme end of Bible-only. So my inter-change with a fundamentalist is far different than a Lutheran or Episcopal since Catholicism is more foreign to the fundamentalist.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Wanna,

Thank you for being honest enough to share that you are gambling that the belief system you have adopted COULD actually be right! To me that helps explain most of the content of your posts and the manner in which they are delivered.

Apparently I have not explained my reasoning well enough, so I will give you a more complete explanation.

First of all, it was you who used the term ‘gambling’ to describe the way that I have made my decision. To me its more like placing a bet that the sun is going to come up again tomorrow. It is THAT obvious.

I believe that Christ wants us to know his teachings accurately. Being True God, He therefore must have designed a means by which we can know FOR SURE what those teachings are. In other words, he could not possibly have designed a means for us to know His Absolute Truth which would result in massive confusion about his Teachings.

Sola Scriptura has resulted in that massive confusion and so, it cannot possibly be a teaching of Christ, or the Apostles, or Scripture. As we have seen, even Protestant scholars admit that Sola Scriptura was not part of Christian teaching in the early Church, and that Sola Scriptura was a 16th century development.

Sola Scriptura, by its results, has proven itself to be something that Christ could NOT have sanctioned or designed.

For me, that eliminates ANY of the Sola Scriptura communities as being bearers of the FULL Truth. And yet, that does not automatically mean that the Catholic Church is what it says it is. So, what is next? Eastern Orthodoxy, which has FAR fewer individual competing Churches, is, on the surface at least, a possibility as being what Christ intended. However, even though their disunity is practically nothing compared to the Sola Scriptura communities, it still reveals or indicates that it is NOT something that Christ would have designed for us ALL to have Unity. This leads directly to the Roman Catholic Church, but while the failure of the Reformation communities and the Orthodox to maintain Unity proves them to be false, it still does not prove that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.

In order to determine if the Roman Catholic Church is what it claims to be, it is necessary to compare its teachings to Scripture and also to logic and reason, and then, finally to the teachings of the Early Fathers. What I discovered, is that the teachings of the Catholic Church match up FAR better with Scripture than that of the Reformation communities. Logic and reason also favors a Church which actually HAS been able to hold an internal Unity of belief, and in fact, actually HAS a mechanism by which that unity of doctrine can and WILL be maintained. Lastly, in spite of the proof texting of many, the Early Fathers exhibit Catholic beliefs and not Protestant teaching.

So many people who come from the Reformation communities look at Catholic arguments about Scripture, reason and Church history and automatically dismiss them without a fair hearing, because, they are convinced that it is THEIR particular communion which ‘does it best’. That being the case, it seems that possibly the place to start is whether that particular communion, or Protestantism, really is True.

With all that being said, the only way that the Reformation communities can claim that their beliefs are ‘more Scriptural’ than the teachings of the Church is by the use of their Personal Interpretation, which has already been proven to NOT be a teaching of Christ.

So, rather than having ‘gambled’, which was a term that you applied to my decision process, I see it more as following a set of undeniable certainties. What I would consider to be a ‘gamble’ would be to stay in a communion which is known to be based on a false means of understanding Scripture and establishing doctrine.

If you think that this line of reasoning is faulty, then please explain specifically and exactly why and then we can discuss those specifics.

God Bless You Wanna, Topper

 

[Wannano]

Hi Wanna,

Apparently I have not explained my reasoning well enough, so I will give you a more complete explanation.

First of all, it was you who used the term ‘gambling’ to describe the way that I have made my decision. To me its more like placing a bet that the sun is going to come up again tomorrow. It is THAT obvious.

I believe that Christ wants us to know his teachings accurately. Being True God, He therefore must have designed a means by which we can know FOR SURE what those teachings are. In other words, he could not possibly have designed a means for us to know His Absolute Truth which would result in massive confusion about his Teachings.

Sola Scriptura has resulted in that massive confusion and so, it cannot possibly be a teaching of Christ, or the Apostles, or Scripture. As we have seen, even Protestant scholars admit that Sola Scriptura was not part of Christian teaching in the early Church, and that Sola Scriptura was a 16th century development.

Sola Scriptura, by its results, has proven itself to be something that Christ could NOT have sanctioned or designed.

For me, that eliminates ANY of the Sola Scriptura communities as being bearers of the FULL Truth. And yet, that does not automatically mean that the Catholic Church is what it says it is. So, what is next? Eastern Orthodoxy, which has FAR fewer individual competing Churches, is, on the surface at least, a possibility as being what Christ intended. However, even though their disunity is practically nothing compared to the Sola Scriptura communities, it still reveals or indicates that it is NOT something that Christ would have designed for us ALL to have Unity. This leads directly to the Roman Catholic Church, but while the failure of the Reformation communities and the Orthodox to maintain Unity proves them to be false, it still does not prove that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.

In order to determine if the Roman Catholic Church is what it claims to be, it is necessary to compare its teachings to Scripture and also to logic and reason, and then, finally to the teachings of the Early Fathers. What I discovered, is that the teachings of the Catholic Church match up FAR better with Scripture than that of the Reformation communities. Logic and reason also favors a Church which actually HAS been able to hold an internal Unity of belief, and in fact, actually HAS a mechanism by which that unity of doctrine can and WILL be maintained. Lastly, in spite of the proof texting of many, the Early Fathers exhibit Catholic beliefs and not Protestant teaching.

So many people who come from the Reformation communities look at Catholic arguments about Scripture, reason and Church history and automatically dismiss them without a fair hearing, because, they are convinced that it is THEIR particular communion which ‘does it best’. That being the case, it seems that possibly the place to start is whether that particular communion, or Protestantism, really is True.

With all that being said, the only way that the Reformation communities can claim that their beliefs are ‘more Scriptural’ than the teachings of the Church is by the use of their Personal Interpretation, which has already been proven to NOT be a teaching of Christ.
Possis
So, rather than having ‘gambled’, which was a term that you applied to my decision process, I see it more as following a set of undeniable certainties. What I would consider to be a ‘gamble’ would be to stay in a communion which is known to be based on a false means of understanding Scripture and establishing doctrine.

If you think that this line of reasoning is faulty, then please explain specifically and exactly why and then we can discuss those specifics.

God Bless You Wanna, Topper

I guess I was raised in a church that sees placing bets as gambling and not an activity that a Christian should desire to be involved in. However, as you point out my church is based on false teaching and cannot possibly have any value or truth so if I were you I wouldn’t concern yourself with my opinion. To be honest, Topper, there is something I cannot figure out. If you are so convinced you have everything down pat and correct why do you even bother bashing Protestant teaching and experience. If Jesus is not a the head of anything Protestant as you say is obvious and proven then you have nothing to worry about. To smash and bash like you seem to like to do makes me wonder what you really need to convince yourself of. If I were looking to join Catholicism I would not be drawn to it by what you write here about the competition.

 

[Duane1966]

He doesn’t, though He often did say, “it is written…”

The problem with your question,Duane, is that it requires me to acknowledge that the Catholic perspective regarding the authority granted St. Peter, and his successors in Rome, is correct. So, I am not trying to limit Christ at all. In fact, I believe Christ sent his apostles out as equals (Great Commission) with equal power of the Keys (John 20). Therefore, Councils may have the power to bind the conscience to things implicit, but not individual bishops.

Jon

Jon, can you honestly tell me that you can deduce from scripture that Jesus limits the authority He gave Peter? If, yes, give me book, chapter, and verse, and how you arrive at your conclusion. Also, show me from scripture, where Jesus tells the Apostlles to hold councils.

Actually Jesus is quite clear that they are not all equal.

The Greatest in the Kingdom.w 46* An argument arose among the disciples about which of them was the greatest.x 47Jesus realized the intention of their hearts and took a child and placed it by his side 48and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me. For the one who is least among all of you is the one who is the** greatest.”**

Nor does he treat them as equals, as witnessed to by Chrysostom.

A question for you Jon. If Jesus sent them all out as equals, were they all bishops?

Am I the only one that finds it odd that Jesus explicitly gives Peter the keys, something the gospel writer records, yet if he gave the other Apostles the same keys, the gospel writer chooses to ignore that? If it is so important Peter getting them, that it has to be recorded, why is it ho-hum no need to record this when the other Apostles get them? Unless their power to bind and loose is different from Peter’s power to bind and loose.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Just,

Thanks for your response.

The ‘other 20%’ is dependent on which Protestant group you are looking at. An Episcopal or Lutheran has much more in common with Catholics than the Hell-fire and Brimstone KJV-only Baptist Church down the road. Fundamentalists reject Sacraments and Tradition (though they have their own version) and would be at the extreme end of Bible-only. So my inter-change with a fundamentalist is far different than a Lutheran or Episcopal since Catholicism is more foreign to the fundamentalist.

I agree that there are varying degrees of agreement with the Church, as I pointed out in an earlier post. The 20% is really only some kind of a rough average. Some are ‘closer’ and some are further away from the teachings of the Church.

Let’s look at the number of Sacraments as an example though. Some communities hold to their being 2 Sacraments and some hold to none. To my knowledge, none of them hold to the full 7 that we and the Orthodox to and have the same understanding of what a Sacrament really is.

It seems to me that the doctrinal ‘distance’ between us and the various Reformation communities is based on, in part at least, the number of splits they have gone through since their initial break from Rome. Those who have gone through only one split are generally closer to us in doctrine than are those who have gone through several.

You mention the Baptists. I have some really wonderful Baptist Christian friends and we really love to go round and round on these issues. From what I can tell, the various Baptist communities tend to make their own decisions on matters of doctrine and practice. This is not to say that they don’t hold to a general set of doctrinal beliefs, but the fact is, as I understand it, they are not required to.

As for what you call “the extreme end of Bible-only”, I don’t think it is any of the established communities. A few years ago I read a report which indicated that roughly 20% of the Protestants in the US are now, basically limited to mostly being ‘home churchers’, which means that they are very much into Private Interpretation, without being ‘encumbered’ by a community affiliation. That seems like a very high percentage but that is what it said. I have a very good friend who almost falls into that category. While he belongs to a community which is several iterations away from the Church, he spends a LOT of time reading TONS of old school Bible commentaries and is convinced that there are some sort of secrets in the Bible that can be discovered by sorting out some sort of ‘code’ in the order of the letters on the text. There are ‘mysteries’ in the Bible and he thinks that HE is going to discover them. Needless to say, his beliefs are very far from his Catholic roots. Our discussions on these kinds of things are very difficult because of terminology and the fact that half the time, I have no idea what he is talking about. His beliefs are MUCH further from the beliefs of Lutheranism than mine are from Lutheranism. I doubt that they would understand where he is coming from either. In addition, he tends to place a very low importance on doctrine. As devoted as he very much is to Christ, unfortunately, I think that he is very far from the Truth with regard to doctrine.

God Bless You Just, Topper

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I guess I was raised in a church that sees placing bets as gambling and not an activity that a Christian should desire to be involved in. However, as you point out my church is based on false teaching and cannot possibly have any value or truth so if I were you I wouldn’t concern yourself with my opinion. To be honest, Topper, there is something I cannot figure out. If you are so convinced you have everything down pat and correct why do you even bother bashing Protestant teaching and experience. If Jesus is not a the head of anything Protestant as you say is obvious and proven then you have nothing to worry about. To smash and bash like you seem to like to do makes me wonder what you really need to convince yourself of. If I were looking to join Catholicism I would not be drawn to it by what you write here about the competition.

That’s not what he said and nobody here believes that.

This forum as a whole is extremely well behaved, unlike some of the anti-Catholic forums I have seen.