Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yeah it would be nice if there was one source I knew was 100% reliable in its teaching. The downside though would be that I probably would not study the Bible for myself, I would just piggyback from this source.

Anyway, the point being that the issue is never “What do we thing God should do”.or “What does it make sense (by our reasoning) for God to do” The issue is only “What has God actually done and what has He actually spoken.”

The Bible itself tells us where the pillar and ground of truth is. Can’t we take it as 100% reliable?

Christ told the men He appointed over His Church that He would send the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things. Can’t we take that as 100% reliable?

 

[Syele]

Unity is not a weird premise. It is scriptural, as far as I can see. Many letters were written to many Churches, but all with the same teachings. No one can show me that division was taught or accepted in scriptures.

Now, show me where scriptures shows an acceptance of disunity. If it’s not there, it’s not scriptural. If it’s not scriptural, it’s not good…

Unity is not a weird premise, the idea that Protestants embrace and enjoy disunity is. Just because you don’t like something does not make it go away. I don’t LIKE there to be multiple denominations. If you join a Church that loudly denounces Disunity (like the non-denominational church I grew up in or on the other end of the spectrum the Catholic church as two examples) you are not automagically stopping disunity either. No one can tell you that division was taught or accepted in scriptures because its NOT.

The problem with threads like this is that they go about this all wrong IMO. They first assume that Protestants think that division is taught or accepted in scriptures and then inevitably someone quotes alot of claptrap al la Barrett. Instead, if they tried some honesty and starting on common ground, people might get a whole lot farther.

 

[larkin31]

…What it comes down to though is that I don’t know of any protestants that LIKE disunity, or that think that Scripture tells us to go out and do whatever we want. Really think back to when you were protestant, did people really tell you they thought those things? It jsut seems such a weird premise for debate to me, to assume that if you could only convince us that disunity is bad…

good points, Syele

 

[larkin31]

Ok, then this is why I became Catholic. I attended the ‘mall’ of denominations and it was quite evident they did not agree on teachings. I only wanted to serve God as He wanted me to serve. So, I researched, read scriptures, prayed and reflected. The Holy Spirit led me to the Catholic Church. I was not evangelized by any Catholics.

Here I discovered that the Church was always meant to be one and we were to be of the same mind and judgment; of the same accord.

I still worship with my Protestant brothers and sisters (literally and figuratively, I have family that are still Protestants), after fulfilling my weekly obligations with my own Church.

Unity is not a weird premise. It is scriptural, as far as I can see. Many letters were written to many Churches, but all with the same teachings. No one can show me that division was taught or accepted in scriptures.

Now, show me where scriptures shows an acceptance of disunity. If it’s not there, it’s not scriptural. If it’s not scriptural, it’s not good…

No Protestant begrudges you any of this. Glad you are happy with what you have found.

 

[Disciple4Christ]

Who will infalliably interpret the sayings of the Infallible Interpreter?

That is easy the next infalliable interpreter, who has to keep correcting the ideas that people who “protest” against the one true Churchs teaching.

Humble yourself as a child and you may begin to learn the truth!

 

[michaeldaniels]

I would like to say that I apologize if I was uncharitable to anyone…Mea Culpa

 

[CMatt25]

Please use scriptures to show us that we are to read scriptures and interpret them for ourselves, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then provide the scriptures where we can know without a doubt which is correct and which is wrong if there are differing interpretations.

He said He would not leave His Church as orphans. That means we have a way for the Father to give us truth.

Prod, Acts 17:10-11. But if I understand you correctly you reject those verses as meaning we should search all of what eventually became Scripture to see what is true and instead believe those only referred to searching the OT. It’s a liitle confusing to me because Catholics search the NT too to see if they believe what the Church teaches.

Prod, you said yourself you do not know everything. So we walk with Christ and as another poster said way back there, we might not know everything 100% until we are with Him in heaven. God bless.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Unity is not a weird premise, the idea that Protestants embrace and enjoy disunity is. Just because you don’t like something does not make it go away. I don’t LIKE there to be multiple denominations. If you join a Church that loudly denounces Disunity (like the non-denominational church I grew up in or on the other end of the spectrum the Catholic church as two examples) you are not automagically stopping disunity either. No one can tell you that division was taught or accepted in scriptures because its NOT.

The problem with threads like this is that they go about this all wrong IMO. They first assume that Protestants think that division is taught or accepted in scriptures and then inevitably someone quotes alot of claptrap al la Barrett. Instead, if they tried some honesty and starting on common ground, people might get a whole lot farther.

You know, I think there is a video named ‘Common Ground’. It’s a priest and I think a ‘Pentecostal’ preacher in a most charitable and Christian discussion, to try and understand one another.

I realize some get carried away on these forums, on both sides, but that leaves the ‘reunification’ up to those of us with hope. Even though I pray for unity, I myself step across the line often. We are all only human and need each other’s help along the way.

Pray for me and I’ll be praying for you. That’s probably a good place to start…

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Unity is not a weird premise, the idea that Protestants embrace and enjoy disunity is.

1. I think the “problem” is with The Catholic Church. There seems to be the view that it is at least flawed for self to designate self as the sole, authoritative, infallible interpreter of Scripture. Friend, there is only ONE (known to me anyway) that does that: The Catholic Church. Read the Catholic Catechism # 85. You will find NOTHING OF THE SORT in ANY Protestant Catechism. The finger of rebuke pointed in the wrong direction, IMHO.
2. The Catholic Church seems to have an odd concept of unity: If self alone agrees with self alone - so that there is no more unity that self with self exclusively, THAT’S unity. I find that very odd indeed. Yes, we all know, The Catholic Church agrees with The Catholic Church (formally, officially and currently at least) and with NO OTHER. It has a unity of one: self with self. Odd thing to call “unity.”

No one can tell you that division was taught or accepted in scriptures because its NOT.

Well, I agree with that. What “unity” is sought in Scripture might be an interesting topic (I don’t agree with it’s self alone with self alone, or that it’s political/institutional unity - but we can’t discuss that here).

Instead, if they tired some honesty and starting on common ground, people might get a whole lot farther.

Good point. Again, we’d need to agree on WHAT “unity” is desired. Of faith? (that already exists among Christians - we all have faith in Christ). Of love? Oh, that needs a lot of work! Of mind/doctrine? Maybe - but impossible when we have one who insists that self alone is unaccountable. Of political institutional denomination? I doubt it. But that’s all another issue for another day and thread…

Again, I disagree that the only useful things are INFALLIBLE things. And I just don’t agree that one IS that unaccountable one if that one alone so insists for self alone. Maybe it goes back to the issue of TO WHOM was Scripture given? To people or to a specific, singular, geopolitical, legal, institutional, denominational entity? If it was written for US - then I suspect the interpreter is US. If it was given exclusively, solely, only to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or to Jim Jones, then maybe they could make a case that interpretation is limited to that one alone? But that would be entirely unrelated to the issue of that one being unaccountable (the question of this thread).

.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prod, Acts 17:10-11. But if I understand you correctly you reject those verses as meaning we should search all of what eventually became Scripture to see what is true and instead believe those only referred to searching the OT. It’s a liitle confusing to me because Catholics search the NT too to see if they believe what the Church teaches.

No, I mean we are to search all scriptures, within the parameters of the Traditions of the Catholic Church, as the Catechism tells us too. The Old foretells the New and the New fulfills the Old. We have to read a verse within a passage, a passage within a chapter, a chapter within a book, a book within the testament it’s in, and a testament within the other testament. It is confusing to do and will last a life time to try and do.

Prod, you said yourself you do not know everything. So we walk with Christ and as another poster said way back there, we might not know everything 100% until we are with Him in heaven. God bless.

We all do not know everything. God is the fullness of truth. He gave us a Church and the Church gave us the scriptures, through His inspiration, in that order. Our faith in Him is to be 100%. 100% of faith in Him, is believing He can protect His truth, even through fallible men.

Fallible men wrote the Bible, defined the canon of the Bible, added chapter and verse numbers, translated it to other languages, and preserved it for over 2000 years. Pretty amazing isn’t it. Why can God do the same for a Church He built? We can’t say He could do one, but not the other and it be 100% faith, in my honest opinion.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

The founders of the USA, wrote a constitution. They did not mail it out to every household and say, interpret this for yourself. They established a legislative body to interpret the document for us. Would God have done any less than men?

1. The US Constitution specifically created and authorizes The Supreme Court for and in it’s role. Scripture never so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church. About anything, for anything, concerning anything, in reference to anything. It never created it, it never authorized it, it never promised it. Anything. Not once. Ever.
2. The Supreme Court is to rule ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. I realize, there are now liberal, “activist” judges who think it’s moot that the Constitution says NOTHING about abortion, no, they insist, abortion on demand is right cuz it just says it is. Do you accept that that is infallible? That it doesn’t matter if that ruling is Constitutional?
3. All this is moot to the issue, which is INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE. No one ever said that The Supreme Court is infallible/unaccountable. It itself has often rule that it was wrong - overturning previous decisions, and accepting rebukes and correction.

.

 

[larkin31]

…Fallible men wrote the Bible, defined the canon of the Bible, added chapter and verse numbers, translated it to other languages, and preserved it for over 2000 years. Pretty amazing isn’t it. Why can God do the same for a Church He built? We can’t say He could do one, but not the other and it be 100% faith, in my honest opinion.

Who said He didn’t? Why can’t there be several roads to the same destination? Do you think that God rejects Protestants from his love and salvation and eternal rest in heaven?

 

[Syele]

You know, I think there is a video named ‘Common Ground’. It’s a priest and I think a ‘Pentecostal’ preacher in a most charitable and Christian discussion, to try and understand one another.

I realize some get carried away on these forums, on both sides, but that leaves the ‘reunification’ up to those of us with hope. Even though I pray for unity, I myself step across the line often. We are all only human and need each other’s help along the way.

Pray for me and I’ll be praying for you. That’s probably a good place to start…

I will pray for you and for unity, and I agree that is a great place to begin.

I think the reason the 30,000 denominations figure bothers me so much is that when I really looked at it with an open heart, trying to see it as it really is, I saw about 200 denominations. And most of those 200 were varying combinations of the same few beliefs. Is that still too many? 100% YES. But is it impossible to overcome and eventually unify? no. With God all things are possible. However, if you put it that there are definitely 30,000+ denominations that are not unified based on such minuscule things as Barrett lists (clapping or not, living in a different country, chairs vs wooden pews etc) or as some insist, one denomination for every protestant, then there is little that can be done to try and unify it. It demonstrates to me a lack of hope for unity that is a very frustrating beginning.

 

[larkin31]

1. The US Constitution specifically created and authorizes The Supreme Court for and in it’s role. Scripture never so much as even MENTIONS The Catholic Church. About anything, for anything, concerning anything, in reference to anything. It never created it, it never authorized it, it never promised it. Anything. Not once. Ever.
2. The Supreme Court is to rule ACCORDING TO THE RULE OF LAW. I realize, there are now liberal, “activist” judges who think it’s moot that the Constitution says NOTHING about abortion, no, they insist, abortion on demand is right cuz it just says it is. Do you accept that that is infallible? That it doesn’t matter if that ruling is Constitutional?
3. All this is moot to the issue, which is INFALLIBLE/UNACCOUNTABLE. No one ever said that The Supreme Court is infallible/unaccountable. It itself has often rule that it was wrong - overturning previous decisions, and accepting rebukes and correction.

Yeah, this isn’t a good analogy on several levels.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1. I think the “problem” is with The Catholic Church. There seems to be the view that it is at least flawed for self to designate self as the sole, authoritative, infallible interpreter of Scripture. Friend, there is only ONE (known to me anyway) that does that: The Catholic Church. Read the Catholic Catechism # 85. You will find NOTHING OF THE SORT in ANY Protestant Catechism. The finger of rebuke pointed in the wrong direction, IMHO.

Again, there was only one Church for 1500s years. God didn’t leave any of those generations as orphans. When Protestantism ‘built’ their own Churches, they came from the Catholic Church with parts of what they believed. Since then, Protestants have been interpreting scriptures for themselves and more denominations have been ‘built’ with less parts than those that the original reformers took. Can you not see the dangers of a ‘watering down’? What parts are acceptable to leave behind?

Martin Luther’s objection was the selling of indulgences. Since He reformed, the list of objections has grown immensely. The Catholic Church has not had the gates of hell prevail against it, but it’s not because the gates haven’t tried.

Being on the subject of Martin Luther again, show me where He denied the Catholic Church was the original Church, please. I believe you’ve made that argument, but you haven’t provided any sources as to where that became a point of objection.

 

[larkin31]

Again, there was only one Church for 1500s years. God didn’t leave any of those generations as orphans. When Protestantism ‘built’ their own Churches, they came from the Catholic Church with parts of what they believed. Since then, Protestants have been interpreting scriptures for themselves and more denominations have been ‘built’ with less parts than those that the original reformers took. Can you not see the dangers of a ‘watering down’? What parts are acceptable to leave behind?

Martin Luther’s objection was the selling of indulgences. Since He reformed, the list of objections has grown immensely. The Catholic Church has not had the gates of hell prevail against it, but it’s not because the gates haven’t tried.

Being on the subject of Martin Luther again, show me where He denied the Catholic Church was the original Church, please. I believe you’ve made that argument, but you haven’t provided any sources as to where that became a point of objection.

Who is arguing from a position of Luther? What does this have to do with Luther at all?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who said He didn’t? Why can’t there be several roads to the same destination? Do you think that God rejects Protestants from his love and salvation and eternal rest in heaven?

Show me the scriptures where division was acceptable?

As I’ve explained, Protestants are our separated brothers and sisters. The reformers took parts of the faith with them, from the Catholic Church. We are all called to live our faiths, how much a part we respond is up to each of us. It is the hope and prayer of the Catholic Church, that through God’s great and infinite ecomony, all will be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

The biggest part of ‘rejection’ I see on these forums, is Protestants rejecting Catholics, some in part and some in whole. Now, before it’s brought up, I also realize there are Catholics who ‘reject’ Protestantism, either in part or in whole. Neither side can claim a perfection, as we are all human.

That means there are a few of us that must seek a way for unification through our hope. Otherwise, we work from despair and despair is lacking, as I believe all Christians will agree.

A lot of objections that keep us divided, have no impact on one’s salvation, yet they are argued as if they are. For example, so I believe Mary remained ever virgin, does that impact my salvation? If so, someone needs to explain it to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who is arguing from a position of Luther? What does this have to do with Luther at all?

Some of the posters participating here are Lutherans. It’s ironic to see them argue the Church of the Bible is not the Catholic Church, even though their founder came from the Catholic Church.

 

[CMatt25]

I would like to say that I apologize if I was uncharitable to anyone…Mea Culpa

me too. I just try to remember we are all united in our belief in and love of Christ. But I’m human too. We all mess up from time to time. group hug in His name :grouphug:

 

[Roblox84]

Ok, i’m not an expert on religion and i’m reading these posts to gain more knowledge about my own religion, but I would just like to see other peoples thoughts on something.

Everyone is in agreement that God created only one church, not a bunch of church’s. So when Luther broke away from the one and only church which God created to start his own religion, wouldn’t just that one action be enough to make people think about following Luthers protestant religion?

Most people on here cite a lot of bible verses which is ok, but if you look at it just at face value how can one argue about it, if the protestants seem to be following a religion that was started by Luther and the Catholics are still practicing the faith that was taught to the apostles.

I just want to hear peoples opinions about this because many people don’t seem to be taking a direct approach to this question.