L
larkin31
Guest
Interesting…
Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
The only legitimate Churches I see listed is the Orthodox Churches. Many Protestants love to refer to the great schism as a validation of their own ‘protests’. If any of the Churches you list were correct, why aren’t you affliated with one of them? The Orthodox schismed and still has a majority of the same exact beliefs of Catholics and there is hope for a reunification. They have Apostolic succession, just as the Catholic Church does. Many of the Protestant denominations cannot say this.
To use others you, yourself, would not be willing to affliate your faith with is a dishonest tactic used only to validate your own ‘Church’.
D
Dokimas
Guest
If your interpretation may or may not be correct, how do you arrive at our interpretation is incorrect? You base your interpretation vs my understanding where my understanding is wrong on the teaching of the CC that the teaching of the CC is infallible. And you get that from your (the CC’s) interpretation. Kind of circular reasoning.
Yes, the truth is infallible. The scriptures are inerrant. There are many unlearned, unstable and unwise who interpret scriptures though, even to their own destruction. Now, we need to know, did God leave us without a source to depend on for His truth? He gave us His Spirit. Can we depend on the inerrant word to guide us to that truth? We can depend on the Spirit of the Living Christ.
It’s the pillar and ground of truth, a place where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. It’s called the Church. I don’t deny this. I don’t understand that the CC is THE church spoken of in the Scriptures.
Now, should I trust my salvation to one of the many, many different interpretations of scriptures, or should I trust the scriptures in their guiding me to the truth? You should trust your salvation to the CC either. You should trust your salvation to THE Savior and Him ONLY.
Yes, the truth is infallible. The scriptures are inerrant. There are many unlearned, unstable and unwise who interpret scriptures though, even to their own destruction. Now, we need to know, did God leave us without a source to depend on for His truth? He gave us His Spirit. Can we depend on the inerrant word to guide us to that truth? We can depend on the Spirit of the Living Christ.
It’s the pillar and ground of truth, a place where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. It’s called the Church. I don’t deny this. I don’t understand that the CC is THE church spoken of in the Scriptures.
Now, should I trust my salvation to one of the many, many different interpretations of scriptures, or should I trust the scriptures in their guiding me to the truth? You should trust your salvation to the CC either. You should trust your salvation to THE Savior and Him ONLY.
There is salvation in One and One only, Jesus. Acts 4:12 “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
I must hurry now. We are going to the funeral for my wonderful Mother-in Law. God bless you all.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
You provided that as a justification of Protestantism. I copied and pasted that directly from the link you provided. Do you disqualify all books of the New Testament with the exception of the Gospels? Do you think we should remove the Old Testament?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
No I provided the link to show that people held similiar views in some areas but were killed. If they had not been killed their views would have able to properly develop.
I also said that the source of their beliefs come from Catholic writers only for the most part who were biased. It is the reason that the figure 1500 exists.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Yet the difference is, we provide scriptures for where the Catholic Church gets a teaching from.
He gave us a Church and He said He would be with it until the consummation of the world.
Now, it’s been repeated many many times, but you don’t respond to it. All the differing interpretations come from people claiming guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Living Christ. How do we know which one is correct and which one is incorrect? We have to be careful not to accept the unwise’s interpretation, because they may have wrested scriptures, even to their own destruction.
Yes, you’ve made that abundantly clear with your unsubstantiated assertions. We’ve shown that Christ appointed Peter, and that scriptures teach appointments of others and supports Apostolic succession. The explanations were provided, word by word, verse by verse, scriptures within the context of scritpures, in the context of who was being spoken too, in the context of the cultural understandings of those spoken too, etc. etc.
I trust my salvation to Christ. He gave us a Church, that gave us scriptures in that order. He is the head of the body, which is His Church. He promised the Holy Spirit would come to the men of the Church and teach them all things.
See my explanation above and tell me how I am referring to any other? I am grateful for all He gave us, including His Church, which gave us the Bible.
Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law. Your family is in my prayers.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
A majority but not the exact same beliefs. As such, there exists different forms and groups and the 1500 figure is incorrect. Quit using it. If these groups are different in regards to Papal Infallibility and Purgatory, they are different.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
So, you don’t call the building you worship in a Church?
See, that’s where you and other Protestants refuse to remove the blinders of misconception. We have buildings, as does all faiths, but the building itself is nothing without the authority and promises of Christ, through the men He appointed over the Church and promised to make all things known to them through His Holy Spirit, to the consummation of the world.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Please provide us with the date your Church was founded? Also, provide us with the Apostolic succession of your Church?
The 1500s is when Protestantism was formed. It’s recorded by Church history and secular history. It cannot be denied simply because it conflicts the view you wish to convey to validate your own Church.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
They shouldn’t have been killed by the ‘mobs’, but how does this apply to people of today? We’re not mobbing and running around ridding the world of all opposing views.
Do you wish those views to remove all the books of the New Testament with the exception of the Gospels had evolved properly? Do you wish those views to remove the Old Testament had evolved properly? How are we to know in this life that the stopping of those views was not the will of the Lord and the ‘mobs’ were His tools for protecting His truth?
It’s just easier to condemn an entire Church, even if it’s the Church Christ built, for the actions of sinful men, especially if it can be used to validate a separation from the ONE that scriptures tells us it should be, directly and by implication.
P
PJM
Guest
Prodical 1
Here is thee TRUTH,
Please respond to it
While I might agree that there are not “30,000” interpetiations of the bible, it seems possible that here could be? Given the number of “different non-catholic denominations” is what ever that number actually is? Further it is a reasonable conclusion that each of these denominations has theological and philosohical differences that might well stem from disagreements on what the bible says and or actually means?
The point however seems to be mute, in that the authors of the bible had but a single or at least a primary thought in mind as they pened, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirt [God Himself] the lessons to be learned and accepted and put into the practice of our ONE Faith. For certainly it is written for but one single and common faith.
It is inconceivable that the authors intended or even reflected on the possibility of personal interpetiation as they understood correctly that “faith is taught,” NOT self-taught.
The idea that one can simply pick up the bible and understand its proper meaning and intended applicaton is simply foolish. It defies both logic and God’s Will.
The CC translates the bible and its proper meaning guided by the very same Holy Spirit who inspired its authors. This too is biblically proveable.
Because the Bible is a book birthed through the CC and as historically proveable, written specifically for the CC, ONLY the CC can [as in has the God given ability] to properly understand it, and teach it. Therefore any and all [regardless of the number, be it high or low] that reach conclusions NOT in conforminty with the CC must be and factually are wrong.
Here is thee TRUTH,
Please respond to it
While I might agree that there are not “30,000” interpetiations of the bible, it seems possible that here could be? Given the number of “different non-catholic denominations” is what ever that number actually is? Further it is a reasonable conclusion that each of these denominations has theological and philosohical differences that might well stem from disagreements on what the bible says and or actually means?
The point however seems to be mute, in that the authors of the bible had but a single or at least a primary thought in mind as they pened, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirt [God Himself] the lessons to be learned and accepted and put into the practice of our ONE Faith. For certainly it is written for but one single and common faith.
It is inconceivable that the authors intended or even reflected on the possibility of personal interpetiation as they understood correctly that “faith is taught,” NOT self-taught.
The idea that one can simply pick up the bible and understand its proper meaning and intended applicaton is simply foolish. It defies both logic and God’s Will.
The CC translates the bible and its proper meaning guided by the very same Holy Spirit who inspired its authors. This too is biblically proveable.
Because the Bible is a book birthed through the CC and as historically proveable, written specifically for the CC, ONLY the CC can [as in has the God given ability] to properly understand it, and teach it. Therefore any and all [regardless of the number, be it high or low] that reach conclusions NOT in conforminty with the CC must be and factually are wrong.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
You know, this appears to be, ‘oh look they disagreed, so I must be right and justified in my disagreement’.
I
ismeneny
Guest
cMatt25, you are correct. Humans make mistakes. Sometimes someone comes along and notices the lamb straying and stears them back on course. This is what Protestants believe. Which is why all Catholics are welcome to worship and take part in Communion in any Protestant Church. We all believe in Christ. However, the reverse is not true. While Protestants are welcome to attend a Catholic Mass, we are not welcome to join in.I’m thinking a Protestant might say Christ has His hand on His church at all times and from time to time needs to steer it in a direction so as to keep it from straying off course so the gates do not end up prevailing. Or to repair or reform something gone wrong. Like a car. A part goes wrong. So you replace it with a new part. Same car. Same church. Just Christ using Luther, etc to keep it on course. That’s how I sorta look at Protestantism at least. You also must remember they define “church” as the body of believers united in Christ. I presume for many that includes at least some Catholics.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Now that it has been established there were divisions far before 1500, why do Catholics accept Orthodox apostolic succession when there are diffferences between the 2 churches but not accept Anglican apostolic succession for instance?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Prodical 1
Here is thee TRUTH,
Please respond to it
While I might agree that there are not “30,000” interpetiations of the bible, it seems possible that here could be? Given the number of “different non-catholic denominations” is what ever that number actually is? Further it is a reasonable conclusion that each of these denominations has theological and philosohical differences that might well stem from disagreements on what the bible says and or actually means?
The point however seems to be mute, in that the authors of the bible had but a single or at least a primary thought in mind as they pened, inspired and guided by the Holy Spirt [God Himself] the lessons to be learned and accepted and put into the practice of our ONE Faith. For certainly it is written for but one single and common faith.
It is inconceivable that the authors intended or even reflected on the possibility of personal interpetiation as they understood correctly that “faith is taught,” NOT self-taught.
The idea that one can simply pick up the bible and understand its proper meaning and intended applicaton is simply foolish. It defies both logic and God’s Will.
The CC translates the bible and its proper meaning guided by the very same Holy Spirit who inspired its authors. This too is biblically proveable.
Because the Bible is a book birthed through the CC and as historically proveable, written specifically for the CC, ONLY the CC can [as in has the God given ability] to properly understand it, and teach it. Therefore any and all [regardless of the number, be it high or low] that reach conclusions NOT in conforminty with the CC must be and factually are wrong.
I’ve heard the 33,000 number used and always try to meet those who dispute it midway. As you so aptly point out, there was one teaching by the early Church, evident by the scriptures themselves. In my personal opinion, 2 interpretations differing is too many to fit with what the scriptures teach us. With a number of 33,000, it easy for anyone to do the research and find there are ‘thousands’. These denominations are separated by slight to great differences in doctrines, or else there’d be one Protestant Church. Again, we have to ask ourselves, is there an acceptable number of different teachings of truth, God’s truth?
L
larkin31
Guest
It certainly makes one wonder about this human endeavor to articulate the idea of the divine…
T
tweetymom
Guest
Well I am not. I am a Christian and I am united with all believers in His Church. We will not be judged by the name on the door of our Church. But rather what is in our heart.Unless you are Catholic(kidding)
Christianity isn’t a Church
because if it is… I would be atheist by now
Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever. Praise God that He lives in my heart.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Seems you have more to ‘wonder’ about than my attempts to explain my beliefs.
T
tweetymom
Guest
God be with you all.Bless you and your family.
T
TheosisM
Guest
- Status