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

[Rightlydivide]

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.

It applies because you used the figure of 1500 like it was an option. It was not.
I will say once again about the views attributed to him that you seem to believe are a fact; they are his views as recounted by the people involved in killing him.
I do not believe that Christ’s admonition to turn the other cheek can be reconciled with killing others that disagree with you.
I also know believe that you will go to any lengths, including defending murder, to justify the actions of those who adhere to your beliefs. It is hard to go from there as I think most people will understand.
I will state it once again. You are not the church Christ built. You believe you are. I do not believe you are. I do not have to validate anything because I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church. I believe that the church Christ built should be evaluated based upon their fruit and doctrine and adherence to His teachings. I am not saying all of that to start an argument but for you to understand that proclaiming your churches authority when I do not accept it is hardly persuasive.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You know, this appears to be, ‘oh look they disagreed, so I must be right and justified in my disagreement’.

I do not need to justify anything to the Catholic Church. Get real. I have read the Bible. I know what Christ and His Apostles taught and believed. I also have read my history and can trace the development of your practices and beliefs. So quit asserting that I am in someway influenced by your claims of authority when I am not.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Do you have any idea how incredibly naive, at its best, it is to claim any superiority or authority when your people killed the people who had some of our beliefs prior to 1500?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It applies because you used the figure of 1500 like it was an option. It was not.
I will say once again about the views attributed to him that you seem to believe are a fact; they are his views as recounted by the people involved in killing him.
I do not believe that Christ’s admonition to turn the other cheek can be reconciled with killing others that disagree with you.
I also know believe that you will go to any lengths, including defending murder, to justify the actions of those who adhere to your beliefs. It is hard to go from there as I think most people will understand.
I will state it once again. You are not the church Christ built. You believe you are. I do not believe you are. I do not have to validate anything because I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church. I believe that the church Christ built should be evaluated based upon their fruit and doctrine and adherence to His teachings. I am not saying all of that to start an argument but for you to understand that proclaiming your churches authority when I do not accept it is hardly persuasive.

You misunderstood me, my question was as much for myself as it was for you. God used wrath to correct people many times in the Old Testament, so how do we know if the ‘mobs’ weren’t His tools.

I do not condone the killings of the past, just as I can’t see the logic of condemning an entire Church of believers over the actions of sinful men.

Your Church is not the Church Christ built. How does that statement validate anything? I believe Christ started one Church and there is documentation to show the Catholic Church was in existence in the writings of St. Ignatius. He wrote about the Catholic Church about the same time John was writing Revelations.

We’ve been in discussions about the authority. But those scriptures are ‘spun’ to mean something other than the clear message given, when you dissect the passage we did for Protestants. As I remember, no one responded to that point by point, word by word, scriptures within scriptures, in the context of the cultural understandings at the time, explanation that was provided. It kind of killed the discussion to make that presentation. That only left Catholics to wonder, why? If others believed it meant something else, surely they could have presented the same type example with a detailed explanation of how it could have possibly meant something else.

There is an authority with the men of the Church, as given in several examples of scriptures. I invited, then and now, for anyone to show us where in scriptures someone ordained/appointed themselves or others, without the appointments/ordinations received from those in authority?

We constantly hear how a Catholic belief is not scriptural, but when we ask for evidence of a Protestant belief, that appears to be not only non-scriptural, but also against scriptures, we’re asking too much, or we’re not showing faith, or we’re changing the topic. Just show us with the scriptures that the majority of Protestants claim is the ONLY authority.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do you have any idea how incredibly naive, at its best, it is to claim any superiority or authority when your people killed the people who had some of our beliefs prior to 1500?

You do realize that some of the Protestant reformers burned others at the stake and committed similar atrocities against people that denied them?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not need to justify anything to the Catholic Church. Get real. I have read the Bible. I know what Christ and His Apostles taught and believed. I also have read my history and can trace the development of your practices and beliefs. So quit asserting that I am in someway influenced by your claims of authority when I am not.

It’s not to the Catholic Church, it’s for the sake of your own Church, which is separated from all other Christians Churchs.

I’ve asked a couple of times and it seems you may have overlooked the questions previously, but what year was your Church founded and can you show the Apostolic succession?

It’s one thing to ‘disbelieve’ or make comments against a Church with all about it being open for anyone to view, and not reveal specific information about your own Church, as if there is something you’d rather not discuss with others. It has appearances of things not easily explained so it’s avoided?

 

[CMatt25]

You should read Apostolicae Curae.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolicae_Curae

thank u i will

 

[Rightlydivide]

It’s not to the Catholic Church, it’s for the sake of your own Church, which is separated from all other Christians Churchs.

I’ve asked a couple of times and it seems you may have overlooked the questions previously, but what year was your Church founded and can you show the Apostolic succession?

It’s one thing to ‘disbelieve’ or make comments against a Church with all about it being open for anyone to view, and not reveal specific information about your own Church, as if there is something you’d rather not discuss with others. It has appearances of things not easily explained so it’s avoided?

Our church was founded roughly 99/00. I have given some information about that but I absolutely will not include personal information about myself. I speak from experience on this matter. My posting style makes me open to email spamming, phone calls, and so forth. No Catholic has done this yet but atheists, especially those over at CARM, and other boards have taught me to be quite guarded. If I violate that policy on this board, I will be breaking a promise. I do not do that anymore. So tough luck. I can and will answer every doctrinal question you ask however. It is not too vague. I already received one PM last fall asking me if I am “my real name” so its not too hard to find out. Vocal and outspoken atheists get a rep when they convert to Christianity.

Apostolic Succession means nothing to me. Hands laying on from one group over the course of two thousand years does nothing. Perhaps the hands do have an unbroken line; perhaps not. The key to knowing who are the followers of Christ are their beliefs and practices. How they conduct themselves. We are to lay hands and there is a biblical precendent for how it is done. But Apostolic Succession has been carried on or valued from every end of the theological spectrum.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You do realize that some of the Protestant reformers burned others at the stake and committed similar atrocities against people that denied them?

Absolutely. Anglicans, Presbyterians, and some others will have to answer for the actions of those groups.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You misunderstood me, my question was as much for myself as it was for you. God used wrath to correct people many times in the Old Testament, so how do we know if the ‘mobs’ weren’t His tools.

I do not condone the killings of the past, just as I can’t see the logic of condemning an entire Church of believers over the actions of sinful men.

Your Church is not the Church Christ built. How does that statement validate anything? I believe Christ started one Church and there is documentation to show the Catholic Church was in existence in the writings of St. Ignatius. He wrote about the Catholic Church about the same time John was writing Revelations (sic).

We’ve been in discussions about the authority. But those scriptures are ‘spun’ to mean something other than the clear message given, when you dissect the passage we did for Protestants. As I remember, no one responded to that point by point, word by word, scriptures within scriptures, in the context of the cultural understandings at the time, explanation that was provided. It kind of killed the discussion to make that presentation. That only left Catholics to wonder, why? If others believed it meant something else, surely they could have presented the same type example with a detailed explanation of how it could have possibly meant something else.

There is an authority with the men of the Church, as given in several examples of scriptures. I invited, then and now, for anyone to show us where in scriptures someone ordained/appointed themselves or others, without the appointments/ordinations received from those in authority?

We constantly hear how a Catholic belief is not scriptural, but when we ask for evidence of a Protestant belief, that appears to be not only non-scriptural, but also against scriptures, we’re asking too much, or we’re not showing faith, or we’re changing the topic. Just show us with the scriptures that the majority of Protestants claim is the ONLY authority.

People did ordain other people and this spread out. Quit kicking that strawman. If your beliefs and practices and finally actions do not match the teachings of Christ and His apostles, it does not matter. Look at this one issue of an infallible teacher.
If all of the groups of Christians including the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and all of the other groups were in a room and were represented by one person. Only one person, the Roman Catholic, would believe in the infallibility of their church. So you claim the Orthodox have almost the same beliefs; not in this area of you being the infallible teacher. You are a loner.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Our church was founded roughly 99/00. I have given some information about that but I absolutely will not include personal information about myself. I speak from experience on this matter. My posting style makes me open to email spamming, phone calls, and so forth. No Catholic has done this yet but atheists, especially those over at CARM, and other boards have taught me to be quite guarded. If I violate that policy on this board, I will be breaking a promise. I do not do that anymore. So tough luck. I can and will answer every doctrinal question you ask however. It is not too vague. I already received one PM last fall asking me if I am “my real name” so its not too hard to find out. Vocal and outspoken atheists get a rep when they convert to Christianity.

Apostolic Succession means nothing to me. Hands laying on from one group over the course of two thousand years does nothing. Perhaps the hands do have an unbroken line; perhaps not. The key to knowing who are the followers of Christ are their beliefs and practices. How they conduct themselves. We are to lay hands and there is a biblical precendent for how it is done. But Apostolic Succession has been carried on or valued from every end of the theological spectrum.

But God could protect His written word for 2000 years, but He couldn’t assure us through our faith that He could do the same for His Church and those He appointed/ordained?

Men of the Church wrote the scriptures. More men of the Church defined the canon of the New Testament. Later more men of the Church translated the New Testament into different languages. And even later, chapter and verse numbers were added, by men of the Church, the same as punctuation. Then the men of the Church preserved the scriptures so that we have it today. All that could be accomplished, but God couldn’t control the imposition of hands over the appointed/ordained men of the Church to assure us of a proper Apostolic succession? God accomplished all that for the written word, through many many hands of the men of the Church, but God couldn’t control His truth in a Church He built? I fail to see the logic of that.

Please provide your view of the history of the Bible; how all the letters and epistles came together to be the New Testament as we have it today? What processes did it go through, and who did all of this, men through God’s inspiration?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

People did ordain other people and this spread out. Quit kicking that strawman. If your beliefs and practices and finally actions do not match the teachings of Christ and His apostles, it does not matter. Look at this one issue of an infallible teacher.
If all of the groups of Christians including the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and all of the other groups were in a room and were represented by one person. Only one person, the Roman Catholic, would believe in the infallibility of their church. So you claim the Orthodox have almost the same beliefs; not in this area of you being the infallible teacher. You are a loner.

If they did, then you can simply show us in scriptures. It’s not a strawman. Christ appointed 12 and they appointed others, who appointed others. Show us in scriptures where there is one instance of someone appointing themself, or of someone who was not appointed appointing another.

 

[Rightlydivide]

But God could protect His written word for 2000 years, but He couldn’t assure us through our faith that He could do the same for His Church and those He appointed/ordained?

Men of the Church wrote the scriptures. More men of the Church defined the canon of the New Testament. Later more men of the Church translated the New Testament into different languages. And even later, chapter and verse numbers were added, by men of the Church, the same as punctuation. Then the men of the Church preserved the scriptures so that we have it today. All that could be accomplished, but God couldn’t control the imposition of hands over the appointed/ordained men of the Church to assure us of a proper Apostolic succession? God accomplished all that for the written word, through many many hands of the men of the Church, but God couldn’t control His truth in a Church He built? I fail to see the logic of that.

Please provide your view of the history of the Bible; how all the letters and epistles came together to be the New Testament as we have it today? What processes did it go through, and who did all of this, men through God’s inspiration?

Yes but I have read their letters. Let me ask you a question and it might be hypothetical. Would you agree that in the writings themselves we cannot ascertain that they held the Marian dogmas? We cannot ascertain that they prayed to saints and view the word any differently from its NT usuage. We can go down the same list of the 50 or so things that seperate us.
Listen, this thread is directed at Protestants. It is another attempt to get us to convert to Catholicism. It was started by a Catholic to show how we are wrong. Thats what its intention is. Do not act like we should just sit in a corner while you guys throw your stuff at us.
Men never decided what went in the Bible. They recognized what God had already done. Even the earliest local synods held in the late 300’s do the same. They do not assert something that was not known before hand.
Before 180 AD, all but four books of the NT were referred to as scripture. That does not mean the four were not. We just do not have the documentation. Fundamentalists do not believe that councils determined the OT scriptures but that the early church still recognized them as authoratative. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers and what they say about the OT. They did not need a council to tell them that they held authority. Peter calls Paul’s letters scripture long before any council. The Catholic apologist would have you to believe that the early church was divided about this. There were not. There were some books that people read but they fell out of favor.

 

[Rightlydivide]

If they did, then you can simply show us in scriptures. It’s not a strawman. Christ appointed 12 and they appointed others, who appointed others. Show us in scriptures where there is one instance of someone appointing themself, or of someone who was not appointed appointing another.

Paul was appointed by God. He had his hands laid on him by a disciple who we have no evidence had hands laid on him. It never once says that this has to be an unbroken line. Who laid hands on Peter? Who laid hands on James; the brother of the Lord? There are a few passages that have people getting hand laid on them and absolutely none of them say that someone previously did or did not have hands laid on them. Peter himself never states that the laying on of hands must occur from someone who had their hands laid on them by an apostle. Its not in the Bible. Seriously. Show me where it says that is the case. Show me one case where that occurs.

 

[mark_a]

Who will infalliably interpret the sayings of the Infallible Interpreter?

Are you kidding me?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Paul was appointed by God. He had his hands laid on him by a disciple who we have no evidence had hands laid on him. It never once says that this has to be an unbroken line. Who laid hands on Peter? Who laid hands on James; the brother of the Lord? There are a few passages that have people getting hand laid on them and absolutely none of them say that someone previously did or did not have hands laid on them. Peter himself never states that the laying on of hands must occur from someone who had their hands laid on them by an apostle. Its not in the Bible. Seriously. Show me where it says that is the case. Show me one case where that occurs.

Christ appointed the 12. He said so.

**Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. **

Paul spoke of one he appointed to an authoritative position through the imposition of hands.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. **

Acts tells us of appointments of positions through imposed hands of the Apostles.

**Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Act 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.
Act 6:5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor, and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
Act 6:6 These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them. **

The Protestant approach to the Bible is confusing to me to say the least. Everything you question must be specifically spelled out, and all inclusive. But, it appears this is only on Catholic beliefs. When we ask for things specifically spelled out, or even implied, we receive no response to our requests.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Prodigal Son1;6286407]Christ appointed the 12. He said so.

**Joh 15:16 You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. **

Right, do not see any laying on of hands here though. Don’t change the topic.

Paul spoke of one he appointed to an authoritative position through the imposition of hands.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. **

Shudder. Sorry hate that translation. Ignore what? The gift which was given by prophecy as they had hands laid on them. By people that hands laid on them by the Apostles? Does not say that.

Acts tells us of appointments of positions through imposed hands of the Apostles.

**Act 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Act 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.
Act 6:5 And the saying was liked by all the multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip and Prochorus and Nicanor, and Timon and Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch.
Act 6:6 These they set before the apostles: and they praying, imposed hands upon them. **

But once again, it never says the apostles had hands laid on them and it never says that only apostles can do this as the other verse you used just showed this as well.

The Protestant approach to the Bible is confusing to me to say the least. Everything you question must be specifically spelled out, and all inclusive. But, it appears this is only on Catholic beliefs. When we ask for things specifically spelled out, or even implied, we receive no response to our requests.

Whatever. I will say it again. There is no verse in the Bible supporting your view. And you know what…you know it. Its not confusing. You just dont like that I am right.

 

[mark_a]

There were some books that people read but they fell out of favor.

If you are refering to some of the non-canonical “scripture”, these books did not merely fall out of favor, but did not meet the criteria of the Holy Spirit-led council(s) of books to be included.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Right, do not see any laying on of hands here though. Don’t change the topic.

Shudder. Sorry hate that translation. Ignore what? The gift which was given by prophecy as they had hands laid on them. By people that hands laid on them by the Apostles? Does not say that.

But once again, it never says the apostles had hands laid on them and it never says that only apostles can do this as the other verse you used just showed this as well.

Whatever. I will say it again. There is no verse in the Bible supporting your view. And you know what…you know it. Its not confusing. You just dont like that I am right.

Oh, since I don’t agree with your ‘spin’ or interpretation, you are right, as in infallible?

 

[larkin31]

…The Protestant approach to the Bible is confusing to me to say the least. Everything you question must be specifically spelled out, and all inclusive. But, it appears this is only on Catholic beliefs. When we ask for things specifically spelled out, or even implied, we receive no response to our requests.

The burden of defending papal succession and infallibility is on Catholics. Especially when the claim is not that Catholics are heretical, but rather that Protestants are.