Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[moondweller]

The Scripture could not shut up everyone under sin except for a person’s belief that the Scripture is true.

WOW, that’s a good one, SHW. That’s like saying one’s not a sinner unless one believes it.

The Scripture has no authority by itself.

Really?

Either you believe Paul when he states that this Scripture is the Word of God or you do not.

Not believing doesn’t change the reality of it.

So-called “Scripture” by itself is but words in a book.

All SCRIPTURE is theopneustos (God-breathed, 2 Tim. 3:16). That’s hardly just words in a book.

Oh, and, btw, you guys who tried to present the argument that Adam was “God-breathed” because the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life at the time of his creation, sorry, but that’s not the same thing as the Scriptures being theopneustos. They weren’t first authored by men and then the Holy Spirit breathed life into them. Theopneustos means they originated with the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, He authored them all. That’s why they’re the Word of God.

A book cannot vouch for its own authentication. It has no power to do so.

The Word of God does.

So, since Paul states that Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, we believe what this Scripture states, but we only believe this Scripture to be true because we believe that Paul is telling us the truth about it.

If you think the Pauline Epistles are just the words of Paul you’re denying their ultimate Author. They’re the Word of God whether one believes what is written in the Scriptures or not. Belief in Christ alone changes one’s salvation status, but belief doesn’t change the divine status of the Scriptures. They were from the moment they were penned the written Word of God, hence, they hold the authority of God Himself.

 

[SHW]

but what now that the church is divided? Aren’t protestants after all a splinter faction of your body & hence when the church speaks it doesn’t speak as one, but rather it’s flawed because it’s incomplete?

I don’t know … just tossing that out there for fodder

Jesus founded only one Church. He founded it upon Peter and promised him that the gates of Hades would not prevail against this Church. Jesus’ Church is the Church which holds “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Since the Pope is the only person who has possession of these keys, I am Catholic.

Protestants are those who have made up their own doctrines according to their own private interpretations of Scripture. They have left Jesus’ Church of their own free will.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing (evil clergy) are dangerous since they try to pervert the truth from within. The Church was already warned about this in the Apostles’ time. Heretics are those who draw people away from His Church through dogma contamination. Neither will prevail; His Church will remain until He returns at His Second Coming just as He has promised.

Acts 20:28-31 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.”

 

[SteveGC]

you sound like a nice person, and very pious (the type who understands his fallibility and has a good dose of humility). I would only say not all people need religion. It makes some people better & others worse. This is just my real world observation.

You might say it only makes one worse if they understand and apply it incorrectly, which of course I would agree with (isn’t it the same with everything). Knowledge is usually great; but in the wrong hands it can be horrific. How come there are so many bad religious people and so many good non-theists out there? Obviously most very religious people are great – but again many are terrible people. So what’s the real distinction?

The distinction is that there is something called “religious” and something called “righteous”. Religious is a self-declared title, or at best, a title given by man to a person or group who appear to have a spiritual dimension or proclivity about them. Righteous is a characteristic of man known only by God, signifying purity, love, charity and holiness in the individual. So when you look at “religious” people, just as you look at non-religious people, you will find all sorts, horrific and holy. The public display of spirituality is not a benchmark for righteousness. Both the theist and non-theist are capable of righteousness. The theist is more capable of attaining righteousness completely, but the non-theist nonetheless has this potential as well, whether he realizes he’s actually cooperating with the natural goodness God created within him, or not. So, you’re right…not everyone needs “religion”…but everyone needs God.

 

[moondweller]

We don’t disagree with you, moon, that there will be false teachers. I think the rest of the verse even says something about those who teach these heresies will result in “bringing swift destruction on themselves.” (2 Pet 2: 1) It would seem that the existence of the CC for 2000 years is proof enough that this verse does not refer to her!

Destruction is very quick when compared to eternity. And to God a thousand years is like one day.

What does that even mean? How can a church be built on someone’s confession?

It’s built on the strong foundation of the divine truth of who Christ is. All who will make up that church He was about to build will have made that same confession of belief.

It’s not that difficult, PR.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Galileo was not totally correct in his theory either. From: catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

Indeed Galileo was “wrong” in his theory … but the CC was far more wrong (and to my knowledge Galileo didn’t claim to be infallible)

Heliocentrism isn’t right either … since the sun isn’t the center of the universe (only our solar system). There’s a galaxy then an entire universe … of which we’re the center of nothing (well except for the moons orbit).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The distinction is that there is something called “religious” and something called “righteous”. Religious is a self-declared title, or at best, a title given by man to a person or group who appear to have a spiritual dimension or proclivity about them. Righteous is a characteristic of man known only by God, signifying purity, love, charity and holiness in the individual. So when you look at “religious” people, just as you look at non-religious people, you will find all sorts, horrific and holy. The public display of spirituality is not a benchmark for righteousness. Both the theist and non-theist are capable of righteousness. The theist is more capable of attaining righteousness completely, but the non-theist nonetheless has this potential as well, whether he realizes he’s actually cooperating with the natural goodness God created within him, or not. So, you’re right…not everyone needs “religion”…but everyone needs God.

can’t say I agree or disagree?

 

[josie_L]

oh come on Memaw … you’re the type who needs someone to pick on

I bet you would have been a Templar back in the day … fighting for the holy roman church (heck I would have probably been one too … just because I love the military).

I would have fought for the Holy Roman Church too, if they would have allowed girls to fight!

 

[SteveGC]

WOW, that’s a good one, SHW. That’s like saying one’s not a sinner unless one believes it.Really?Not believing doesn’t change the reality of it.All SCRIPTURE is theopneustos (God-breathed, 2 Tim. 3:16). That’s hardly just words in a book.

Oh, and, btw, you guys who tried to present the argument that Adam was “God-breathed” because the Lord breathed into his nostrils the breath of life at the time of his creation, sorry, but that’s not the same thing as the Scriptures being theopneustos. They weren’t first authored by men and then the Holy Spirit breathed life into them. Theopneustos means they originated with the Holy Spirit. Ultimately, He authored them all. That’s why they’re the Word of God.The Word of God does.If you think the Pauline Epistles are just the words of Paul you’re denying their ultimate Author. They’re the Word of God whether one believes what is written in the Scriptures or not. Belief in Christ alone changes one’s salvation status, but belief doesn’t change the divine status of the Scriptures. They were from the moment they were penned the written Word of God, hence, they hold the authority of God Himself.

Let’s state things more clearly.

Sacred Scripture is authoritative. It is a truly living thing, God-breathed from the moment it was penned. It is the written Word of God. It is inerrant. It contains within it all that we need for salvation. But it is not the ONLY thing we need as Christians. We also need something outside of Scripture to accompany it, because what Scripture does NOT have, by itself, is teaching authority. If it possessed that charism by itself, all faithful, prayerful persons would acquire the same understanding of faith and morals as everyone else, without any outside human influence, by simply picking it up and reading it. This is clearly not the case. Scripture was never meant to be used in this way.

The reason Scripture is theopneustos is because God inspired the men. God did not inspire the men specifically, or even necessarily, for writing. He inspired them for teaching, preaching and shepherding. The OT is written down because God’s people were becoming scattered and persecuted, and there was legitimate fear that the ORAL tradition (which is all it was for a long time) would be lost, not because God declared there to be written scripture. Oral tradition has always preceded written Scripture, and indeed without this tradition, Scripture itself would not exist today. So it follows that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable, and will forever remain so.

 

[SteveGC]

All who will make up that church He was about to build will have made that same confession of belief.

It’s not that difficult, PR.

Most scholars from your protestant lineage disagree with you. They clearly see the Church built on Peter himself, not a confession.

Here’s a link for you.

 

[PRmerger]

How come there are so many bad religious people and so many good non-theists out there?

Certainly there are many good non-theists out there. But I haven’t found any *saintly *non-theists. By “saintly” I mean in the same way that, say, Maximilian Kolbe was saintly in that he gave up his life for another for no other reason than Love.

In fact, I challenged atheists to come up the names of a few “saintly” atheists, and none could be named. See thread here.

It seems that in order for one to Love one’s neighbor for his own sake, it requires religion.

 

[PRmerger]

A book cannot vouch for its own authentication. It has no power to do so.

The Word of God does

That statement begs the question, moon.

As was stated earlier, just because something says it’s the word of God does not make it so.

 

[Peter_J]

as we used to say in law school – ad hom attacks are usually the last desperate clutches of a losing argument

Hey HID, glad you know there’s something we agree on.

 

[SHW]

WOW, that’s a good one, SHW. That’s like saying one’s not a sinner unless one believes it.Really?Not believing doesn’t change the reality of it.All SCRIPTURE is theopneustos (God-breathed, 2 Tim. 3:16). That’s hardly just words in a book.

I believe that Scripture is true, but both my belief in and Scripture’s claims for itself do not make Scripture true.

They’re the Word of God whether one believes what is written in the Scriptures or not. Belief in Christ alone changes one’s salvation status, but belief doesn’t change the divine status of the Scriptures. They were from the moment they were penned the written Word of God, hence, they hold the authority of God Himself.

I personally believe that it is true that the Scriptures are the Word of God. But, if I believe that they are not true, this will not make them untrue. The Scriptures are true because they are true whether anyone believes them to be true or not. But, Scripture does not authenticate Itself. It has no authority nor ability to do so.

Scripture is not believed by persons to be true simply because there is a verse in the Bible which states that its Scriptures are true. (There are lots of exceptions, however, since most people these days do not think carefully before they jump on a bandwagon.)

For discerning persons, Scriptures are believed to be truth only because these persons have faith/believe that the Church who authored this book is telling them the truth when she declares that her book is the Word of God.

No words in a “book” can prove the “book” to be true. One must trust the author or editor of the book as to the truthfulness of the words within.

Any person or group can write a book and claim that their particular book is the Word of God.

And, even if they get persons to believe that their book is the Word of God, it will not make any difference as to whether it is truly the Word of God or not. Either it is the Word of God or it is not. Persons believing either one way or the other will not change truth because truth is always truth and cannot change.

So, if persons trust the authors of the book, then they will believe that the book is truly the Word of God. Believing the book to be true, however, will not make the book true if it is actually fiction.

I cannot know from simply reading their book whether it is true or not. So, I have to put my trust in the authors. Are they trustworthy? I better find out for sure before I put my trust in their book. In this case, my salvation depends on the accuracy of my judgment.

I better know for sure if my trust is well-placed in these persons/authors who make claims for their book before I put my trust in the words in their book and believe that these words are truly the Word of God.

Personally, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because I believe that the Catholic Church is telling me the truth when she says that her Book is the Word of God. Therefore, since I trust the Catholic Church to tell me the truth, I will now trust the words in her Book. And, now that I do believe that her Bible is the Word of God, I also need to obey her interpretation of the Words in her Book because she is the author.

If anyone can explain this better, please do! Thanks.

 

[SHW]

Indeed Galileo was “wrong” in his theory … but the CC was far more wrong (and to my knowledge Galileo didn’t claim to be infallible)

Heliocentrism isn’t right either … since the sun isn’t the center of the universe (only our solar system). There’s a galaxy then an entire universe … of which we’re the center of nothing (well except for the moons orbit).

The Church is not infallible when it comes to science. It is only infallible in teaching faith and morals. The Church can state her opinion about science, but she is not infallible in things pertaining to science unless it is to declare that life begins at conception which is actually a moral issue in regards to the morality of abortion.

She may be correct about certain scientific theories such as belief in the string theory, etc., but then again she may not. She cannot claim infallibility for anything other than matters pertaining to faith and morals.

 

[SHW]

I would have fought for the Holy Roman Church too, if they would have allowed girls to fight!

I’m with you. Just call me Joan!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The Church is not infallible when it comes to science. It is only infallible in teaching faith and morals. The Church can state her opinion about science, but she is not infallible in things pertaining to science unless it is to declare that life begins at conception which is actually a moral issue in regards to the morality of abortion.

it wasn’t just science though … the church taught that scripture revealed a geocentric universe (obviously a huge difference)

She may be correct about certain scientific theories such as belief in the string theory, etc., but then again she may not. She cannot claim infallibility for anything other than matters pertaining to faith and morals.

but she claims infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation does she not?

 

[PRmerger]

but she claims infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation does she not?

I don’t think so, humble…but I could be wrong. Do you have a source for what you claim?

The CCC says that “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.” 85.

It says “authentic interpretation”, which does not mean “infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation”; but I’d like to read it for myself if you can find the citation.

Also, back to your claim that atheistic nations are the happiest. How did they quantify this “happiness”? What is your source for this claim as well?

 

[1beleevr]

Peterj: Interesting read, the C.S. Lewis story. Not sure how it applies to meI know that prmerger brought up the subject, rather unprovoked, I might add I think it would be safe to say, that except for “cradle catholics”,(I still think that is s-o-o-o-o cute), and others born into a religion, everybody at one time or another could be “guilty” of church shopping, or church hopping or whatever label you want to put on it. That would explain the word “convert” next to catholic on their profile. While I attend the same church, all the time, I have been invited by other churches to cime to their service, as either a guest singer, or speaker.Never been invited to a catholic mass; well actually I was, but when my friend and co-worker, George, told me some of the rules(I couldn’t partake of communion, wear a suit, etc) I decided against it; to save him the embarrassment! Blessed is the man who puts his trust in Him:thumbsup:

 

[SteveGC]

it wasn’t just science though … the church taught that scripture revealed a geocentric universe (obviously a huge difference)

Still science. Still not the primary role of The Church. And certainly not part of faith and morals, with any bearing on our salvation. Hence, subject to be modified over time as wisdom in these areas expands.

but she claims infallibility with regard to scriptural interpretation does she not?

No, this would not be a precise characterization, although it approximates the idea. Infallibility resides in the formal declaration (teaching) of faith and morals from the papal office (the pope in concert with the college of bishops[magisterium]). Infallibility is scriptural…

“He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). 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 . . . ").

…and implicit in the early Church. Here’s a link to a useful article.

Now, interpretation of scripture is indeed the role of the Holy Spirit, as He is unified to The Church. So in one sense, we are all free to prayerfully read and, with the guidance of the Spirit, interpret scripture…but we must do so in light of the living Tradition. In other words, by “interpret”, Catholics understand that we are free to seek guidance, meaning and explanations within the sacred text - to deepen our faith and provide ourselves with a body of everyday guidance in our daily Christian walk. We remain, however, faithfully within the framework and protection of the sacred deposit of faith, given to The Church…and therefore we do not seek within Scripture to define doctrine regarding faith and morals…because this has already been done…accomplished during the apostolic age, passed down through the Tradition of the Church which Christ instituted. Within that doctrinal context, The Church retains the authority to authentically interpret the Word of God, whether written or otherwise handed down.

Here’s a link to the Church’s explanation of it.

 

[Memaw]

When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible in his teachings on faith and morals. He can not err in his teachings about faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra.

Impeccability means that a person cannot sin. Popes and all church members can and do sin so they are not impeccable.
**
Scripture is inerrant.** It is without error in its teachings about faith and morals.

When the pope and magisterium speak as one (as Jesus’ Catholic Church) on subjects regarding faith and morals, then they are infallible in these teachings about faith and morals. The Church is therefore infallible in its teachings on faith and morals.

Isn’t that what I just said!!! NO one is impeccable except Jesus Christ!. And the Pope is infallible in his teachings in more ways than “ex cathedra”. Ex Cathedra is when the Pope is defining Dogma. but the Church is infallible in other was too. Such as the Teaching Magisterium, the Councils, Canonizations, and when the Pope is speaking on Faith and Morals. God Bless, Memaw