Protestant view on christ's sacrifice.

[Lincoln7]

And how is that different from what the Church does for Catholics?

In practice it’s not, I just dont think the Catholic Church gets it right in some places.

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

It strikes me that PRMerger and CopticChristian have very little insight into and certainly only hostility toward that varied phenomenon commonly referred to as Protestantism.

On this, you judge me incorrectly, Roy.

I have no hostility whatsoever to Protestantism. Nor to Protestants. In fact, I embrace Protestants and welcome them into my home.

While Catholicism has a definite set of dogmas that must be believed to be a ‘good Catholics’ Protestantism is very different.

As I said, its circle is just wider than Catholics. But there is a circle nonetheless of beliefs that you reject and beliefs you accept.

Why do you reserve the right for yourself, but not for Catholics?

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm… The Trinity has vast proof, it’s there. Nicea, Chalcedon, all in accord with scripture, based upon scripture.
With Papal infallibility I mean, I dont even see a papacy in the NT or early Chuch, hence why I see no papal infallibility. If that clarifies it?

After like 60 or 70 posts in this thread by me or whatever now, confusion can occur

Lincs.

Okay. Good. So your position is that there’s no Scriptural evidence for papal infallibility. NOT that it’s a “new dogma”.
**
The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture**

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by God Himself. I provide questions below each verse to illustrate why it is applicable to our understanding of infallibility.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, would that suggest that Jesus did not remain with the Church “always”?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that mean that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would that imply that Jesus actually did leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: If the Church fell into error despite this promise, would that mean the Holy Spirit failed to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Could the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth - or allow the Church to fall into error - if Jesus promised otherwise?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible for the Church to fall into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history or that the Church is fallible.

Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
-originally posted by Randy Carson

 

[Lincoln7]

With respect, I feel i should press on this…

Aren’t they all the posters private interpretations of these verses? Has the magisterium said what these do mean?

Regards

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

With respect, I feel i should press on this…

Aren’t they all the posters private interpretations of these verses? Has the magisterium said what these do mean?

Regards

Lincs

Yes, the Magisterium has spoken through the Deposit of Faith, Lincs.

The Catholic Faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

We do not extract our doctrines from the pages of a book, no matter how Holy.

Our doctrines come from Jesus Christ, as expressed through the kerygma. (There’s that word again ).

So, yes, when Jesus spoke, and revealed His Word and the Church received it, those verses were indeed given to the Magisterium to affirm the teaching on Infallibility.

 

[Lincoln7]

The Catholic Faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

Indeed, the Apostles then commited their teachings to writing,which as a Protestant, I believe contradict modern Rome.

So, yes, when Jesus spoke, and revealed His Word and the Church received it, those verses were indeed given to the Magisterium to affirm the teaching on Infallibility.

They affirm it to one Catholic, but I’m sure some others disagree that’s what they say, when placed in context…

I think we are slightly off on our sacrifice topic now however

 

[PRmerger]

In practice it’s not,

Excellent. :extrahappy:

So we have really moved forward from your initial position, which was “we don’t need any external guide to understand and correctly interpret the Scriptures”, to “it’s fine to use an external guide to understand and correctly interpret the Scriptures.”

:dancing:

I just dont think the Catholic Church gets it right in some places.

Lincs

And on this, we can discuss further!

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, the Apostles then commited their teachings to writing,

Scripture verse for this, please.

(Of course, what you mean, even though you didn’t say it above, is that they committed ALL their teachings to writing, so please add that verse, too that says ALL of it was written down.)

(If you didn’t mean that ALL their teachings were committed to writing, then you’ve just conceded the Catholic position. )

 

[pablope]

With respect, I feel i should press on this…

Aren’t they all the posters private interpretations of these verses? Has the magisterium said what these do mean?

Regards

Lincs

Just to supplement PR’s response to you: This is how the Church understands and makes use of Scriptures:mark-shea.com/tradition.html

It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19)… In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).

The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

 

[pablope]

I did? I sat down with my Bible open and let Calvin open it up for me. What he did was point me to where to go… Aka 2 Christians sat down and opened up the scriptures…

Regards

Lincs.

Let me ask a question…Why Calvin? What makes Calvin better or more learned than, let us say…Joseph Ratzinger? Scott Hahn? or Ignatuis of Antioch? Or Clement of Rome? or any of the ECFs?

What do you say Calvin possess that the others I mentioned do not possess?

 

[Lincoln7]

So we have really moved forward from your initial position, which was “we don’t need any external guide to understand and correctly interpret the Scriptures”, to “it’s fine to use an external guide to understand and correctly interpret the Scriptures.”

My position always has been that its perfectly fine to have external guides to help us understand them… I just don’t think Rome is said infallible guide. I hope I’ve never stated something along the lines of we don’t need help sometimes, but again, that Rome is not this guide. She has departed from scripture in my opinion, respectfully. My vocal response to guides has always been in the context of me saying this… Not lambasting all forms of help from others… My issue is with Rome setting itself as an authority over the scriptures.

Scripture verse for this, please.

I don’t see any convincing argument from other church bodies that there is teaching I need not contained in them. I see that churches which all claim Tradition capital T, are also rather divided on what is right and who’s got it right…

 

[pablope]

In practice it’s not, I just dont think the Catholic Church gets it right in some places.

Lincs

How do you know the CC does not get it right?

Or is it this:

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation.** His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.**

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[Lincoln7]

This is how the Church understands and makes use of Scriptures:mark-shea.com/tradition.html

That’s how Mark Shea views it, don’t see any official magisterial stuff in there.

Let me ask a question…Why Calvin? What makes Calvin better or more learned than, let us say…Joseph Ratzinger? Scott Hahn? or Ignatuis of Antioch? Or Clement of Rome? or any of the ECFs?

I think he aligns best with scripture… Can I also just say, don’t see me as looking at Clement and Ignatius and dismissing them. Their letters are fascinating.

He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

So to put it simply: Private interpretation is wrong. The option now being to privately interpret church history and scripture to conclude which infallible or ultimate church authority to pick. Catholic, Orthdox, Coptic, JW… All claim in some way to be the true church and expression of it.

Hope this does not sound sarcastic, not my intention just genuine thoughts I have on this.

Regards

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

My position always has been that its perfectly fine to have external guides to help us understand them…

Excellent.

So what you find objectionable is that the Church claims this charism of infallibility?

Firstly, you already acknowledge that men can be infallible, each and every time you quote Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Oh, and Peter and Paul. And David.

Right?

So what verse in Scripture says that this charism ended with the death of the last inspired author?

 

[PRmerger]

Just to supplement PR’s response to you: This is how the Church understands and makes use of Scriptures:mark-shea.com/tradition.html

It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19)… In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.

The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).

The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

Beautiful! Eloquently spoken! :clapping:

 

[pablope]

That’s how Mark Shea views it, don’t see any official magisterial stuff in there.

Mark Shea is a catholic…and reflects and does not contradict the teaching of the CC.

Here is the CCC on Sacred Tradition…and point to me if he contradicts the Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#80

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#113

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

By Mark Shea…Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.

 

[Lincoln7]

So what you find objectionable is that the Church claims this charism of infallibility?

I object because in some cases, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice for example, I think Rome is not in alignment with scripture.
I seem to be answering a lot here and not asking much… Can I ask as I did earlier how one knows Rome is the true church? Isn’t it just private interpretation of church history and scripture that leads to one embracing it?

This is my issue with all this questioning… The decision to chose Rome was fallible and private…

 

[Lincoln7]

Mark Shea is a catholic…and reflects and does not contradict the teaching of the CC.

In the same way Calvin does with scripture then?

Are these Traditions traceable to the firs century? If they really are the sort of things Paul tells people to hold to in Thessolonians it should be pretty easy to find them very early in church history…

Regards

Lincs

 

[pablope]

Let me ask a question…Why Calvin? What makes Calvin better or more learned than, let us say…Joseph Ratzinger? Scott Hahn? or Ignatius of Antioch? Or Clement of Rome? or any of the ECFs?

I think he aligns best with scripture… Can I also just say, don’t see me as looking at Clement and Ignatius and dismissing them. Their letters are fascinating.

So let me ask…how did you come to the conclusion Calvin aligns best with Scripture? and not Clement of Rome? Or Ireneus? or Ratzinger?

Or is it because…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for -]Mohler/-] Lincoln7 is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.

 

[PRmerger]

I object because in some cases, the nature of Christ’s sacrifice for example, I think Rome is not in alignment with scripture.

But you’ve already admitted you’re fallible.

So why should I believe your interpretation versus any other man’s (whether he claims fallibility or not)?

I seem to be answering a lot here and not asking much…

Fire away.

But if you could one of the questions I asked— where do the Scriptures say that the apostles committed all their teachings to writings?

Oh, and another would be a quite citation for how many Christian denominations there actually are in the world?