Protestants, a pragmatic question

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Hi Pat,

I guess the same way Catholic’s interpret their own teaching differently. Anyway, this “me and my own Bible” view is one of the enlightenment more so than that of the reformation. The children of the reformation believe that there is authority besides apostolic authority, but not that there is anything more authoritative than apostolic authority, which is found in scripture alone. Keith Mathison has written some good stuff on this; you might check out the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as well.

The problem with this view is that it leads to confusion and error.

A contradiction means one or both parties are wrong.

Protestantism as a whole cannot be true because there is no shared doctrine that is accepted by all protestants.

 

[raderag]

The problem with this view is that it leads to confusion and error.

A contradiction means one or both parties are wrong.

Protestantism as a whole cannot be true because there is no shared doctrine that is accepted by all protestants.

Ok, then show me where to convert.

Protestants agree on certain doctrines just as Catholics agree on certain doctrines, but your answer is merely a canned one and has nothing to do with what I posted.

 

[gearhead]

How does “self interpretaion of The Bible” differ from writting your own Bible?

For one thing, while words have a range of meanings, that meaning is limited. There are only so many ways to validly interpret a given sentence.

This range is restricted even more when it’s demanded that the meaning that’s selected make sense in the larger context of the chapter, book or whole Bible.

For example, if I were to write a Bible, I’d have some fun with it. Instead of faith, sacraments, or anything else, I’d make salvation dependent on eating cupcakes while standing on your head. However, no matter how I struggle with the Bible we’ve got, I can’t come up with a coherent interpretation that says this.

Also, some Protestants claim that the seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit when trying to interpret the Bible.

There is unity among faithful Catholics on matters of faith and morals.

Any Catholic who rejects the doctrinal teaching of the magisterium is unfaithful.

IOW, all Catholics who agree with the magisterium’s teaching on faith and morals are all in agreement on matters of faith and morals?

Well, yeah. And all green cars are green. So?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Ok, then show me where to convert.

Protestants agree on certain doctrines just as Catholics agree on certain doctrines, but your answer is merely a canned one and has nothing to do with what I posted.

Not true.

There is only one Catholic doctrine.

If an individual Catholic rejects Church teaching, it doesn’t change Church teaching.

There is no such thing as protestant doctrine because protestants don’t recognize any authoritative teaching.

Is the Spirit leading the Church into all truth?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

IOW, all Catholics who agree with the magisterium’s teaching on faith and morals are all in agreement on matters of faith and morals?

Well, yeah. And all green cars are green. So?

There is a defined dogma known as the Catholic Faith.

If you are a faithful Catholic you follow this doctrine.

There is no single defined dogma for Christians outside of Catholicism, there are thousands of defined dogmas.

 

[gearhead]

There is a defined dogma known as the Catholic Faith.

If you are a faithful Catholic you follow this doctrine.

There is no single defined dogma for Christians outside of Catholicism, there are thousands of defined dogmas.

IOW, for Protestants it’s hit-and-miss, but the Catholics will all either sink or swim together.

Again… so?

 

[raderag]

Not true.

There is only one Catholic doctrine.

Do you speak in tongues?

If an individual Catholic rejects Church teaching, it doesn’t change Church teaching.

My point is that how people interpret “Church teaching”, which is a source of knowledge can vary just as how people interpret scripture. But, you are also missing the fact that Protestants do believe that the Church has authority as the pillar and foundation of truth.

There is no such thing as protestant doctrine because protestants don’t recognize any authoritative teaching.

Scripture is infallibly authoritative. The Church, its creeds and confessions, is also a source of authority (not infallible).

But, I guess it depends on how you define Protestant.

Is the Spirit leading the Church into all truth?

WIP.

 

[raderag]

There is a defined dogma known as the Catholic Faith.

If you are a faithful Catholic you follow this doctrine.

There is no single defined dogma for Christians outside of Catholicism, there are thousands of defined dogmas.

Basically, what you are saying is that since the cc claims apostolic authority, and Protestants claim it doesn’t rest in a person, the cc is correct.

This is redux at its finest. You can keep bashing us with this, but few will be convinced with such a canned argument.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

IOW, for Protestants it’s hit-and-miss, but the Catholics will all either sink or swim together.

Again… so?

It’s an important point for bible believing Christians. Jesus gave the Church authority and promised to be with the Church forever with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If the Church fell into error, then these promises would have been broken.

John 14(speaking to the apostles)

16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him…25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 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.

Matt 28(again, speaking to the apostles)

18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

1 Timothy 3
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.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Matt 16
18And 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. **

 

[Anna_Scott]

IOW, for Protestants it’s hit-and-miss, but the Catholics will all either sink or swim together.

Again… so?

Very interesting comment.

 

[PJM]

=Non Serviam;5822858]Hmm, your taste for specificity seems to have waned when presented with a concrete example disproving your thesis.

All posters claim loyalty to the Magisterium and all cite the Magisterium as the source of their beliefs. Yet there is no unity. None of them reject anything written by the Magisterium, they all reinterpret the texts that don’t support their belief in light of the texts that do support their belief. So we have faithful, yet not untied on a matter of faith and morals.

As stated earlier, catholics believe what they think the magisterium teaches, this is clearly self-interpretation, no different from what PJM suggests about Protestants.

Anyone else want to disprove this?

Sure From the current code of Canon Law

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.

§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. **All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines. **

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

One cannot be a heritic and a Roman Catholic at the same time! SOme like to think they can; THEY ARE WRONG!

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[PJM]

Go read the thread and see that the participants are all loyal catholics and all followed the teachings of the Magisterium to come to their understandings on what the church teaches about the inerrancy of the scriptures, a point of dogma.

Unfortunately, the teachings of the Magisterium led these faithful catholics in different directions, so there is no unity among them regarding that dogma. This contradicts the cliche you’ve been repeating over and over.

No friend, these folks made personal desisions for which God will judge them. To try to blame the Magisterium is no different than blaming God. God gave me a freewill so it’s God’s fault NOt mine." That is the position of a very dim wit! Are all protestants equally informed? NO! Neither are all Catholics! Where is the surprise in this?

Friend allow me please to sahre some facts that I am not at all proud of.

Didn’t Jesus say “not everyone who calls Lord, Lord will enter heaven?” There are a GREAT many self proclaimed Catholics in Hell!

God Himself is the only arbritor of Truth. God Himself and alone can judge hearts. Not everyone proclaiming to be “Catholic” [certain politicans come to mind] are in fact, Inforend, Precticing and Roman Catholic. This should be no surprice given the secular world we live in, and the fact that there are BILLIONS of people who claim to be in good faith with the Chruch. Sadly, and factually many are not!

=CHESTERTONRULES;5823481]You are ignoring the obvious for some reason.

Faithful catholics follow the teachings of the Church.

Protestants don’t have a magesterium.

If you can be more specific as to what your confusion is I’m sure I can help you understand.

The Current Code of Canon Law

Can. 748 ***§1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it. ***
§2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.

Can. 750 Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, ***which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines. ***

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 ***While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. ***

So what one things is not necessarly as God will judge them!

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Dunnaby]

Excellent question.

God Himself thought of it before Inspiring the authors of the Bible.

The term “One Church” appears some 37 times in the NT. This is significant in response to your question. **Matt. 16:15-19 and 18:15-18 **use the term [give the mandate and power] of “loosing and or binding.”

These were common terms in Jewish law when they were used. They were binding in Jewish law, and referred to Governance. Many cites back them [and Jerusalem even today] are "walled in and fortified with a front and rear gates, that are locked every evening, and opened every morning by the Prime Minister, given rule over that cities day to day activities. They could make law, break law, enforce law and interpret the law. [This is the meaning of [**Mt.16: 15:19].

God intend to start a single world wide church. Only one. He knew that He would have to authorize a system of governance to insure orderly growth.

Thus He set up Peter as His “Prime Minister” with unlimited and complete authority, answerable ONLY to God Himself. Further, God knew the role the Bible would play and anticipated your question. He therefore chose to have His One church as the only ones to whom the entire truth could be found and trusted.

The fact that the Catholic Church is 2000 years old, still growing in number and influence attest to the Wisdom of this decision. Because the Bible came through the Church [OT] and was written by Catholics [NT] is interpretable and historically provable. There were no other Christian churches for hundreds of years, and no other bible for at least 1000 years. So as the authors and editors of the Bible, it was logical and prudent of God to place the TRUST of TRUTH in His Church.

That is why Catholics have to be of one mind, one understanding with what the Church Teaches in regards the Bible.

2Cor.4 Verses 2 to 4 “We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.”

**1Pet.4 Verses 17 to 18 “ For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God? And “If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?”
**
2Pet.1 [20] “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,”

Am I saying we are not to read the bible? NO! But we should do so by first praying for Wisdom and Understanding. Secondly, most Bible passages have multiple meaning. One for everyone [the common meaning / obvious and apparent meaning , literal meaning such a Mt. 16:15-19, Jn. 3:5, Jn. 20:22-23, John 6: 40-68.] There is also at times, but not every time a special message from the Holy Spirit to us individually. Here we must apply reason and caution. If there is an apparent meaning as is obvious in the above noted verses, the private meaning cannot in truth ** 2 Tim. 3:16-17] contradict it], it may expand, deepen understanding, even give evidence how it applies to your own life, but as there is only a single truth for every issue, it must somewhat conform to the obvious. When in doubt I use a Catholic Bible Commentary [Haydock’s] which can be Googled.

As an FYI, I’m not pushing the Catholic Church as much as explaining where to find Biblical truth. Hope you find this information useful?

Love and prayers friend,

Pat

Hello,

pardon me for stepping in (newbee) but i noticed you said that there is more than one meaning and that is not true. there is one truth which can have many applications; perhaps that is what you meant?

 

[Dunnaby]

Anna my friend,

It is historically proveable that the Bible was, is, and remains a Catholic Book. assembled by Catholics, the NT written by Catholics for Cathoics. History and logic affirm that there were no other Christian Churches when the Bible was written in full. Because there was only one Church at the time [The present day Catholic Church] one can KNOW that it was written speciffically, and Inspired by God, for instruction of Catholics.

Everything in the Catholic catechism conforms to the right understanding of the Bible. Please review 2 Cor. 13: 8, Jn. 14: 16-17, Jn. 16: 12-15, Jn. 17: 14-17, 2 Cor. 4:2-3, 1 Thess.1:5.

Christ Himself is personally guarenteeing is complete and total truth! [John 17: 14-17]

Christ Himself says so. That’s good enough for me and “us C:thumbsup:atholics”

can you explain to me why the catholic church does not look like the church throughout the book of acts? there was no mention of a priesthood, no mention of a resacrifice of jesus, no mention of a central authority, no mention of peter being a prime minister. they were a group on poor fishermen for the most part and the catholic church appears to be very wealthy and very ceremonious and i just do not see any of that. do you?

 

[Dunnaby]

here is the jist of what the bible says concerning interpretation of Gods word.

10But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.

13These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16For “who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. -
1 Corinthians 2

this is the primary reason for so many different interpretations because many people do not have the Holy Spirit to teach them or help them to discern truth from error.

When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"Mt 19:25

And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, "Who then can be saved?"Mr 10:26

And those who heard it said, “Who then can be saved?” Lu 18:26

26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matthew
27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.” Mark
27 But He said, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” Luke

Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them,"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Luke 13

i believe the Lord teaches that only a few will make it into His kingdom and most that seem to believe they know Him are surprised to find out He doesn’t know them…what a shocker.

 

[Dunnaby]

You are ignoring the obvious for some reason.

Faithful catholics follow the teachings of the Church.

Protestants don’t have a magesterium.

If you can be more specific as to what your confusion is I’m sure I can help you understand.

can you show me in the Bible especially in the book of acts where there was a magisterium? i have read extensively conerning the new testament and the churchs and there is no mention of a magesterium explicitly or implicitly. i wonder how this came about? thanks

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

can you show me in the Bible especially in the book of acts where there was a magisterium? i have read extensively conerning the new testament and the churchs and there is no mention of a magesterium explicitly or implicitly. i wonder how this came about? thanks

Read Acts 15.

I’m sure you know the story. Christians in Antioch came had a doctrinal dispute regarding the circumcision of adult converts. Rather than just pray about it and form their own doctrine, they sent representatives to the leaders of the Church for the answer.

Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us **without our authorization **and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

I believe that this makes it explicitly clear that the leaders of the Church are asserting authority for doctrinal decisions. How do you read this?

 

[Newbie2]

All posters claim loyalty to the Magisterium and all cite the Magisterium as the source of their beliefs. Yet there is no unity. None of them reject anything written by the Magisterium, they all reinterpret the texts that don’t support their belief in light of the texts that do support their belief. So we have faithful, yet not untied on a matter of faith and morals.

As stated earlier, catholics believe what they think the magisterium teaches, this is clearly self-interpretation, no different from what PJM suggests about Protestants.

Anyone else want to disprove this?

Sure.

It depends, IMHO, on what we’re talking about when we say “teachings”. For example, let’s take abortion; it’s pretty clear on what the Church teaches on that. It doesn’t take much or really any interpretation to understand what she says about purposefully taking the life of an innocent.

Now if you’re saying that we, in our human intellect, have to “interpret” every bit of information that comes to us through our senses, yes, of course, there is interpretation involved. We have to read it or hear it and understand it as it is meant to be understood. I think that is key; understanding teachings as they were meant to be understood. Does that take interpretation? Arguably, perhaps.

But the Church is pretty clear on her teachings, for the most part, but if you’re making the point that there are (some, many) Catholics that misinterpret such teachings, either innocently or on purpose, you won’t get an argument from me.

And click, click, click go those ruby slippers yet again CR, what you should be saying is that “faithful” catholics follow their personal interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic Church as found in its catechism and elsewhere…but you seem blind to that reality.

It would be more accurate to say that “some ‘faithful’ Catholics follow their interpretation of the teachings of the Catholic Church…”, no?

Scripture is infallibly authoritative. The Church, its creeds and confessions, is also a source of authority (not infallible).

But, I guess it depends on how you define Protestant.

WIP.

OK. Can you explain how we can therefor trust an infallible book since it was compiled by a fallible authority?

 

[gearhead]

Acts 15
23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us **without our authorization **and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

I believe that this makes it explicitly clear that the leaders of the Church are asserting authority for doctrinal decisions. How do you read this?

I notice you didn’t bold the “from us” bit; were they claiming authority over all Christians, or just over their own congregation/community?

Also, while the verse describes the leaders’ actions, it doesn’t say whether they were right to do so or how God felt about what they did.

The passage you quoted doesn’t say where their authority came from, either. Verse 22, just before the section you quoted, seems to imply that authority was also invested in the laity. Was the leaders’ authority bestowed on them directly by God, or by the consent of the community they governed? If the latter, then final authority really rests with the people, the individual believers.

Something else occurs to me: the passage you quoted describes the decision to send a group of people to the Christian communities in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia telling them that the gentiles need not be circumcised and that they should avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols or that has been strangled.

Elsewhere, in the Epistles, Paul goes on at length about how there is nothing immoral about eating meat sacrificed to idols and that no food is “unclean” or forbidden. It seems to me that there’s a conflict here.

With that in mind, it might be reasonable to conclude that the group of Christian leaders in your passage from Acts were incorrect in their determination of proper Christian attitudes toward food. And if they were fallible enough to be incorrect about this, it stands to reason that there’s at least a chance they were incorrect in their determination of their own authority.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I notice you didn’t bold the “from us” bit; were they claiming authority over all Christians, or just over their own congregation/community?

Also, while the verse describes the leaders’ actions, it doesn’t say whether they were right to do so or how God felt about what they did.

The passage you quoted doesn’t say where their authority came from, either. Verse 22, just before the section you quoted, seems to imply that authority was also invested in the laity. Was the leaders’ authority bestowed on them directly by God, or by the consent of the community they governed? If the latter, then final authority really rests with the people, the individual believers.

Something else occurs to me: the passage you quoted describes the decision to send a group of people to the Christian communities in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia telling them that the gentiles need not be circumcised and that they should avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols or that has been strangled.

Elsewhere, in the Epistles, Paul goes on at length about how there is nothing immoral about eating meat sacrificed to idols and that no food is “unclean” or forbidden. It seems to me that there’s a conflict here.

With that in mind, it might be reasonable to conclude that the group of Christian leaders in your passage from Acts were incorrect in their determination of proper Christian attitudes toward food. And if they were fallible enough to be incorrect about this, it stands to reason that there’s at least a chance they were incorrect in their determination of their own authority.

There is no conflict. Paul states that it is good to act in a way that does not scandalize others. This is what the instructions from the Church leaders did. They attempted to provide teaching that would unify the Christians in Antioch, both Jew and Gentile, in the faith.

The elephant in the room is that the early Church was clearly hierarchical. We continue to see this in the writings of the early church fathers.

If you reject this Church, how can you claim to be following Jesus? Jesus told us that if we reject those he sent we are rejecting him.