G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
If we are TOTALLY DEPRAVED, what does that make the Devil?
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
We must reflect on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Would the Holy Spirit protect and reveal all truth to the successors of the Apostles? Or would He reveal this truth to Joseph Smith, Roger Williams, John Calvin, etc. Demons can deceive us by appearing as angels of light.I certainly see what you mean, however, I’ve studied many denoms and their claims. I’ve found not one denom that was free from error. What I have found is that many different groups make some really good points and based on the evidence given - I cannot decide who is truthful and accurate.
It reminds me of Joseph Smith Jr. He looked around at the competing denoms and said to himself that surely one must be right and so he asked God about it. While the rest of the story is debateable and to me is without merit, it was a very human response to the situation.
I actually see a lot of myself in him, except I don’t want to start another denomination or priesthood. I really liked the article of faith he wrote in which he said (paraphrasing because I don’t have my Book of Mormon with me) that “let all men worship whomever they choose to worship”. That is very profound and I believe he was at least an intelligent, thoughtful man.
Whether he was right or not is debateable.
Peace and blessings to you friend…
**You should also know the following subterfuge of the demons: at times they divide themselves into groups. Some come with a temptation; and when you ask for help others come in the guise of angels and chase away the first, to make you believe that they are true angels, and fall into vainglory, through having been granted such a thing. **
"153 Texts on Prayer", St Nilus of Mt Sinai,
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
ahimsaman
*What I have found is that many different groups make some really good points and based on the evidence given - I cannot decide who is truthful and accurate.
*
But they DO decide … and they are infallibly certain of their claims or they would not long remain what they call themselves.
The same is really true for yourself. You would not call yourself a Baptist, as opposed to a Methodist or a Catholic, unless you were absolutely certain there was more truth in the Baptists than there is in the Methodists or in the Catholics. The only difference is that all Protestants believe they are entitled to private interpretation of Scriptures, which means that every man is his own pope in deciding what is true and what is not true. So Protestantism has millions of popes all disagreeing with each other, whereas Catholicism only claims one with whom Catholics hardly ever disagree because they recognize in him the voice of the Holy Spirit.
You see, we simply cannot escape being infallible. Even the atheist is infallible about his atheism, claiming there is no God without the slightest proof, and would like all the world to join him in his infallible revelation.
*What I have found is that many different groups make some really good points and based on the evidence given - I cannot decide who is truthful and accurate.
*
But they DO decide … and they are infallibly certain of their claims or they would not long remain what they call themselves.
The same is really true for yourself. You would not call yourself a Baptist, as opposed to a Methodist or a Catholic, unless you were absolutely certain there was more truth in the Baptists than there is in the Methodists or in the Catholics. The only difference is that all Protestants believe they are entitled to private interpretation of Scriptures, which means that every man is his own pope in deciding what is true and what is not true. So Protestantism has millions of popes all disagreeing with each other, whereas Catholicism only claims one with whom Catholics hardly ever disagree because they recognize in him the voice of the Holy Spirit.
You see, we simply cannot escape being infallible. Even the atheist is infallible about his atheism, claiming there is no God without the slightest proof, and would like all the world to join him in his infallible revelation.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Here are a couple of verses (among many) which allude to this total depravity:
*Matthew 19:17- And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. *
Romans 3:12* - They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.*
There are many verses, both OT and NT that describe this situation.
However, I’m afraid this is outside the topic of the thread. I admit I have let this kind of debate lead us away from the OP’s original intent.
I myself will try to keep this on track…
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
The father of lies and the source of depravity.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I know of no protestant who would claim he is free from error. Simply stating a position doesn’t equate to infallibility. It is simply stating an opinion - an educated guess. I don’t see where opinions are equal to infallibility. Just because I believe X is true, doesn’t mean I’m making an infallible statement or that the statement is inherently infallible.
It’s absurd to assert that claims or opinions are by nature infallible.
I don’t understand this line of reasoning given the defintion.
Peace…
What is our definition of infallibility? I’ve posted it before. It means to be free from error.
I know of no protestant who would claim he is free from error. Simply stating a position doesn’t equate to infallibility. It is simply stating an opinion - an educated guess. I don’t see where opinions are equal to infallibility. Just because I believe X is true, doesn’t mean I’m making an infallible statement or that the statement is inherently infallible.
It’s absurd to assert that claims or opinions are by nature infallible.
I don’t understand this line of reasoning given the defintion.
Peace…
M
Mickey
Guest
Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. **Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
**
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Catholic Answers
Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope “enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. **Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter.”
**
The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 (“I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail”), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").
Catholic Answers
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
From post# 2:
in·fal·li·ble
adj. **1. **Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
**2. **Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
**3. **Roman Catholic Church Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.
Now, incapable means exactly that - unable, incapable, certain
Which, to me is opposite of doubt, uncertainty, unsure.
I have doubts that the Baptist faith is 100% correct. I also have doubts that the Catholic Church is 100% correct. I consider neither to be infallible in their statements and dogma. I simply make an informed decision (based on evidence) about which is closer to the truth or is the truth. That doesn’t mean I’m infallibly defining something as true or untrue. It means I’m making a decision based on what I can possibly know.
If I were incapable of erring in thought or behavior I would be God. I’m quite sure that’s not the case.
Peace…
in·fal·li·ble
adj. **1. **Incapable of erring: an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.
**2. **Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.
**3. **Roman Catholic Church Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.
Now, incapable means exactly that - unable, incapable, certain
Which, to me is opposite of doubt, uncertainty, unsure.
I have doubts that the Baptist faith is 100% correct. I also have doubts that the Catholic Church is 100% correct. I consider neither to be infallible in their statements and dogma. I simply make an informed decision (based on evidence) about which is closer to the truth or is the truth. That doesn’t mean I’m infallibly defining something as true or untrue. It means I’m making a decision based on what I can possibly know.
If I were incapable of erring in thought or behavior I would be God. I’m quite sure that’s not the case.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
What bothers me to no end is the last paragraph. It’s admitted that the doctrine is “implicit in the early church”. That’s the substantial amount of evidence in favor of infallibility? For something so large in scope, I would think explicit Scriptures and explicit early teachings would verify the doctrine.
But, what I find is statements like the one I quoted above - which is disturbing. It’s implicit in three passages of Scripture among the volumes of Scripture available to us? And, I don’t see the logic of bishops not being infallible, but speaking doctrine infallibly. That just seems like an oxymoron to me.
Peace…
M
Mickey
Guest
St Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the Apostle St John:
** Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church.**
(St Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
M
Mickey
Guest
The theory of total depravity holds that when Adam and Eve sinned and fell, our human nature was left in a state of complete corruption; we can do nothing towards our own salvation. As Catholics, we believe that it is God’s grace that first moves us to conversion rather than any action or merit of our own. But we part company with Calvin on the next point: our response. We are free to accept or reject God’s gift of grace, and our acceptance or rejection affects all of our actions that follow.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that original sin did not leave us totally corrupt but rather left us with a wounded nature. We are “subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death; and inclined to sin-an inclination to evil that is called ‘concupiscence.’” The sacrament of baptism is necessary to wipe out original sin. It “turns a man back to God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle” (CCC 405).
In other words, though the aftereffects of original sin cripple us, through baptism we are armed, in a real and tangible way, for the battle that is our spiritual life. It is through the grace imparted at baptism that we become “an adopted son” (CCC 1997). The adopted son is justified, and “justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom” (CCC 1993). It is this cooperation that is at the core of the conflict between the Catholic doctrine of justification and Calvin’s theories.
For a Catholic who believes that God has by his grace moved us to cooperate with him in our sanctification and salvation, every action of every moment of every day moves us either closer to or away from God. Ultimately, our choices could lead us so far from God as to endanger our salvation. Some choices are pretty minor (“Do I want fries or onion rings?”). But every act with a moral dimension is a meaningful choice. God gave us an intellect and a will, and he gave us the freedom to exercise both. With every exertion of my will I can either cooperate with his grace and grow in virtue or I can reject his grace and sink into sin.
**Catholic Answers
**
M
Mickey
Guest
This was in my files. I copied and pasted it from somewhere but I don’t remember where. I apologize ahead of time for not giving credit where credit is due:
Five Point Calvinism teaches that man is totally depraved, and that people are completely unable to make any sort of approach to God because of our sin. “His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore he will not – indeed he cannot – choose good over evil in the spiritual realm”.The best justification for this is found in chapter 3 of Romans, in which Paul strings together a number of Old Testament passages, beginning with
There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have all together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.
This is from Psalm 14 (and also Psalm 53; the two passages are identical); I guess it to be from the Septuagint version of those psalms, because the version we have now is different, though it doesn’t differ much in content. It might be a paraphrase rather than a direct quotation, too. I do not consider that this proves the case. The Psalms are full of hyperbole; the next verse of Psalm 14 refers to “those who devour my people as men eat bread”; Psalm 12 says that "the godly are no more; the faithful have vanished from among men", but presumably the Psalmist isn’t entirely ungodly and faithless; in Psalm 18 David says he has “beaten [my enemies] as fine as dust borne on the wind”; Psalm 26 says “I have led a blameless life”; and so on.
It seems likely that what the psalmist meant in this case was not so extreme as the doctrine of total depravity. Of course, Paul might intend to imply total depravity even if the psalmist did not. But does he? Well, the context gives no unambiguous answer. Note, however, that in the same bunch of OT quotations we read:
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know. (Isaiah 59:7-8, altered)
That, taken with complete literalism, implies that all men are vicious murderers; which is not the case. I do not think we have any warrant to assert that in this passage of Romans every quotation is to be taken as completely literal and unexaggerated.What, then, is Paul saying here? To this, the context does give an answer. He is pointing out the fact that living under the Law does not make Jews righteous in God’s sight; that “Jews and Gentiles alike are living under sin” (Romans 3:9b). He says immediately after that group of quotations:
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
In other words: the point of these quotations is to show that the Jews, despite having the Law, are not exempt from God’s judgement, and that the same Law in which they trust contains a declaration of their guilt.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Hi,
By Luther’s time there were already 14 German translations of the Holy Bible. The Douay-Rheims was published in English 2 years before the KJV (which copied a lot from the Douay-Rheims).
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Thanks Mickey for the info…it’s a pretty good summation.
Peace…
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
This thread seems to be getting split in half. It’s intended for discussion about whether protestants also believe in infallibility and practice it, not about whether we are born totally depraved, which should be the subject of another thread.
Can we stay on track here?
Thank you,
Gilbert
Can we stay on track here?
Thank you,
Gilbert
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
The problem for protestants is the same as the problem for all relativists … those who say there is no such thing as absolute truth. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then how can there be no such thing as absolute truth without that being absolutely true?
Just as relativism paints itself into an illogical corner, so does protestantism by declaring infallibility impossible in the Roman Church and then acting as though they and they alone (each and every conflicting branch, each and every conflicting protestant) is in possession of God’s absolute truth.
Just as relativism paints itself into an illogical corner, so does protestantism by declaring infallibility impossible in the Roman Church and then acting as though they and they alone (each and every conflicting branch, each and every conflicting protestant) is in possession of God’s absolute truth.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Gilbert Keith:
I really need to study logic and philosophy - care to recommend a layman’s guide to these? I never made it past high school and never paid attention even then - so I have a lot to learn :yup: .
Till then I can’t logically argue against your position…
Peace - Ahimsaman OUT!!!
You may be on to something here. I looked on the web to find some philosophy definitions and sure enough found a site that proposes exactly what you are here. I suppose you’re not making up this silly notion after all
I really need to study logic and philosophy - care to recommend a layman’s guide to these? I never made it past high school and never paid attention even then - so I have a lot to learn :yup: .
Till then I can’t logically argue against your position…
Peace - Ahimsaman OUT!!!
M
Mickey
Guest
That’s amazing ahim! Your contibution to the discourse on this forum is always insightful and highly intelligent. (I’m not saying that those who do not finish highschool are incapable of insightfulness or intelligence). Anyway, I did finish college and believe me, logic and philosophy can have a very unique effect on the human brain–by frying it like an egg!You may be on to something here. I looked on the web to find some philosophy definitions and sure enough found a site that proposes exactly what you are here. I suppose you’re not making up this silly notion after all
I really need to study logic and philosophy - care to recommend a layman’s guide to these? I never made it past high school and never paid attention even then - so I have a lot to learn :yup: .
Till then I can’t logically argue against your position…
Peace - Ahimsaman OUT!!!
That being said, Gilbert is on to something here. If one does not believe there is such a thing as absolute truth–then all reasoning becomes relative.
G
Gilbert_Keith
Guest
Ahimsiman
catholic.net/the_pope_page/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=18
At this web site you will find Pope Benedict referring to the “Dictatorship of Relativism.” It’s an apt phrase since it means that even relativism, which routinely denies all absolutes, regards itself as absolute (infallibly true).
But if relativism is absolute, why can’t othere things also be absolute? For example, why can’t Christian doctrines also be absolute?
The question is: WHO DECIDES WHAT IS ABSOLUTE?
It makes no sense that everyone should decide, because everyone left to themselves will make a point of disagreeing, the human spirit being so contentious as it is. Therefore it only makes sense that Christ, desiring to protect the unity of his flock and prevent it from straying in a thousand different directions, would lodge the souce of infallibility in a single person at a single place.
The single person is Peter and his successor. The single place is wherever the rock (petros) is enthroned upon which Christ said he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
catholic.net/the_pope_page/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=18
At this web site you will find Pope Benedict referring to the “Dictatorship of Relativism.” It’s an apt phrase since it means that even relativism, which routinely denies all absolutes, regards itself as absolute (infallibly true).
But if relativism is absolute, why can’t othere things also be absolute? For example, why can’t Christian doctrines also be absolute?
The question is: WHO DECIDES WHAT IS ABSOLUTE?
It makes no sense that everyone should decide, because everyone left to themselves will make a point of disagreeing, the human spirit being so contentious as it is. Therefore it only makes sense that Christ, desiring to protect the unity of his flock and prevent it from straying in a thousand different directions, would lodge the souce of infallibility in a single person at a single place.
The single person is Peter and his successor. The single place is wherever the rock (petros) is enthroned upon which Christ said he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
That’s amazing ahim! Your contibution to the discourse on this forum is always insightful and highly intelligent. (I’m not saying that those who do not finish highschool are incapable of insightfulness or intelligence). Anyway, I did finish college and believe me, logic and philosophy can have a very unique effect on the human brain–by frying it like an egg!
That being said, Gilbert is on to something here. If one does not believe there is such a thing as absolute truth–then all reasoning becomes relative.
:tiphat:Hey, thanks for the kind remark - you are absolutely too kind I believe and I’ve seen moving, articulate posts from you that I haven’t seen elsewhere. Your faith is incredible and I surely envy that about you. I always enjoy your comments and thoughts.
Well, I think the thing that finally struck me was the idea that by simply making a statement such as “I believe God exists” is an absolute statement that I’m unknowingly making - leaving no room for the statement “God does not exist”.
I’ve always believe in absolute truth, just that it was either unrecognizable by all people and so veiled that it was useless to pursue. So, I certainly admit I could be wrong and will begin some study into logic. Philosophy is difficult to me. It sometimes makes my head swim! I’ve got a couple of philosophy books, but became disinterested within a short amount of time.
Peace and blessings…
- Status