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

[joe370]

I appreciate your response. I cant force myself to believe what you guys believe. I try and try and I cannot get around the history of it all. Thanks for your response though. I am…and appear to be destined to remain a hopeless liberal.

Brian, I am confused. I didn’t ask you to believe what we believe. What do you mean when you say: “I try and try and I cannot get around the history of it all.”

I merely said: forget about the CC for the moment (which means forget about what we believe) - and help me find the Protestant church (interpreter) - in the world today, that is guided into truth, by the holy spirit???

John 16:13 I think that is an excellent starting point, from a protestant perspective, for a liberal like yourself. I too am a liberal…

 

[Dokimas]

Still not addressing the problems of multiple interpretations and how one is to discern correct from incorrect.

I provided the scriptures to show that Christ taught us how to have confidence in His Church to know all truths. Christ’s promise is ‘infallible’ is it not? Christ’s promises are Biblical and His believers do not doubt His truth.

You continue a cat and mouse game, without scriptures, because there are no scriptures to support multiple interpretations.

Would you care to give an example of an ‘incorrect’ interpretation from the Church? Of course to say the Church is wrong, because you have the correct interpretation is assuming an ‘infalliblity’, and again the problem comes up. Show us the scriptures that grant you the authority to determine correct and incorrect.

All the other ‘blah, blah. blah’ is no more than a smoke screen for not having scriptures to endorse the man made tradtion of it’s acceptable for every individual to interpret scriptures for themselves, even if there are thousands of interpretations.

It’s really that simple, show us that anyone can depend on their own interpretation of scriptures, from the scriptures.

Why don’t you start a thread about all the personal interpretations you keep saying exists? Or at least innumerate some when you speak of them. Sure would be helpful when discussing your point about all those personal interpretations.

 

[larkin31]

I’d say the shoe fits all of us.

Indeed. I know it fits me.

 

[Dokimas]

Indeed. I know it fits me.

me too

 

[BrianH]

Brian, I am confused. I didn’t ask you to believe what we believe. What do you mean when you say: “I try and try and I cannot get around the history of it all.”

I merely said: forget about the CC for the moment (which means forget about what we believe) - and help me find the Protestant church (interpreter) - in the world today, that is guided into truth, by the holy spirit???

John 16:13 I think that is an excellent starting point, from a protestant perspective, for a liberal like yourself. I too am a liberal…

Its a long story. I appreciate your response but I am leaving religion forums to see what part of my faith I can still manage to believe. Thats all. Best to just interact with someone else.

 

[schaick]

In looking at the different churches that claim to be the original church, I got depressed when I figured out that even the different Orthodox and Apostolic churches disagree about everything as well.
So years later, a claim on infallibility is just that. Its nice. But if you are not convinced, you can’t just lie to yourself and say you accept something.

I agree that would make you a hypocrite.

You sound very discouraged please know that to be a member of the “Church”, to be in the Body of Christ, to be a part of the people called out:

**Galatians 3 **
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise

1 Corinthians 1
2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours

1 Corinthians 12
12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus gave ‘communion’ to His disciples. Where did He tell them to open up communion to all?

Read 1 Corinthian chapter 11 for starters. If you want more references, I’ll be glad to provide them.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

**Just the apostolic church, which adopted the name catholic by the end of the 1st century for good reason. The church of Matthew 16 is the CC. That is why I am no longer a Lutheran. **

Good for you joe:thumbsup: I’am glad the holy spirit opened your heart to find the truth.

Matthew

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why don’t you start a thread about all the personal interpretations you keep saying exists? Or at least innumerate some when you speak of them. Sure would be helpful when discussing your point about all those personal interpretations.

Do all Protestants agree on the number of sacraments of the Church?
Baptism?
Infant baptism?
Real presence?
Tongues?
Once saved always saved?
Predestination?
Divorce?
Abortion?
Bible only authority?
Faith alone vs. faith plus works?
Church music?
Singing in the Church?
Women pastors?
Required attendance at Church?
Apostolic succession?

The list can go on and on.

 

[Dokimas]

Read 1 Corinthian chapter 11 for starters. If you want more references, I’ll be glad to provide them.

My point was you seem to like to point out the things Jesus says only to His disciples and then say it’s not for anyone but church leaders in the line of the disciples. Paul wrote 1 Cor 11 knowing what Jesus told the disciples was most often to all of us on one level or another.

 

[Dokimas]

Do all Protestants agree on the number of sacraments of the Church?
Baptism?
Infant baptism?
Real presence?
Tongues?
Once saved always saved?
Predestination?
Divorce?
Abortion?
Bible only authority?
Faith alone vs. faith plus works?
Church music?
Singing in the Church?
Women pastors?
Required attendance at Church?
Apostolic succession?

The list can go on and on.

Do all catholics believe as you do on all these issues?​

What do you believe about tongues?​

BTW, the Bible doesn’t teach ‘infant’ baptism not matter what you say about the 5 families that all got baptized.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My point was you seem to like to point out the things Jesus says only to His disciples and then say it’s not for anyone but church leaders in the line of the disciples. Paul wrote 1 Cor 11 knowing what Jesus told the disciples was most often to all of us on one level or another.

I’ve always said, we can learn from everything written in scriptures however, we cannot assume an authority upon ourselves because of those things of authority spoken to the Apostles. You take an example of the breaking of the bread and it’s clear it’s for all as per the teachings of those authorities.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Do all catholics believe as you do on all these issues?​

What do you believe about tongues?​

BTW, the Bible doesn’t teach ‘infant’ baptism not matter what you say about the 5 families that all got baptized.

There goes the ole fall back, ‘do Catholic all agree’? So, if some Catholic disagree, it must be ok for a lot of Protestant Churches to start up and they don’t have to agree. Catholics are not perfect people. We err in different ways, but we remain in the one true Church.

Yes, we read scriptures within the Traditions of the Church. How about archeological evidence of infant baptism, is that acceptable?

Archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

Now, let’s look at what scriptures states about the sign of the Old Covenant.

Gen 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:

Did an eight day old infant understand the sign of the Old Covenant more than an infant has to understand the sign of the new and everlasting covenant according to those who reject the practice?

 

[larkin31]

Do all Protestants agree on the number of sacraments of the Church?
Baptism?
Infant baptism?
Real presence?
Tongues?
Once saved always saved?
Predestination?
Divorce?
Abortion?
Bible only authority?
Faith alone vs. faith plus works?
Church music?
Singing in the Church?
Women pastors?
Required attendance at Church?
Apostolic succession?

The list can go on and on.

And are these ranked in importance? Of course not all Protestant churches agree on all these matters. Why should they? “Singing in church” is quite different from, say, “Apostolic succession”. And I don’t remember that “abortion” is mentioned (ok, I am saying that just to rile you up).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And are these ranked in importance? Of course not all Protestant churches agree on all these matters. Why should they? “Singing in church” is quite different from, say, “Apostolic succession”. And I don’t remember that “abortion” is mentioned (ok, I am saying that just to rile you up).

That is just a sampling off the top of my head. No specific order was used.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Do all catholics believe as you do on all these issues?​

What do you believe about tongues?​

BTW, the Bible doesn’t teach ‘infant’ baptism not matter what you say about the 5 families that all got baptized.

Dokimas… Please show me in the bible where infants or young children were not baptized when entire households were Please show me where christ said not to baptize young children or infants!!! Please show me this so i can understand where your coming from.

Matthew

 

[Dokimas]

Prodigal Son1 in black; Doki in colored

There goes the ole fall back, ‘do Catholic all agree’? Let me try to translate: ProdicalSon can tell protestants they disagree so they can’t be the true church, but it’s okay that catholics can diagree because they are in the true church. So, if some Catholic disagree, it must be ok for a lot of Protestant Churches to start up and they don’t have to agree. Differences about not essentials are NOT a big deal to me as it must be to you. If you don’t like me putting words in your mouth as I just did, then why do you continue putting words in mine? BTW, I’ve called you on it before and I’ve not seen a response yet. Catholics are not perfect people. We err in different ways, but we remain in the one true Church. There are those who tell Tweetymom she can’t be a catholic. . Is she supposed to start her own church?Yes, we read scriptures within the Traditions of the Church. How about archeological evidence of infant baptism, is that acceptable? From 30-55AD? Then sure.

Now, let’s look at what scriptures states about the sign of the Old Covenant.

Gen 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:​

I don’t accept that circumsion is synonomus to baptism. BTW, it doesn’t hurt an 8 day old as much as any other age.

Did an eight day old infant understand the sign of the Old Covenant more than an infant has to understand the sign of the new and everlasting covenant according to those who reject the practice? Silly guy. Nope.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1 in black; Doki in colored

There goes the ole fall back, ‘do Catholic all agree’? Let me try to translate: ProdicalSon can tell protestants they disagree so they can’t be the true church, but it’s okay that catholics can diagree because they are in the true church. So, if some Catholic disagree, it must be ok for a lot of Protestant Churches to start up and they don’t have to agree. Differences about not essentials are NOT a big deal to me as it must be to you. If you don’t like me putting words in your mouth as I just did, then why do you continue putting words in mine? BTW, I’ve called you on it before and I’ve not seen a response yet. Catholics are not perfect people. We err in different ways, but we remain in the one true Church. There are those who tell Tweetymom she can’t be a catholic. . Is she supposed to start her own church?Yes, we read scriptures within the Traditions of the Church. How about archeological evidence of infant baptism, is that acceptable? From 30-55AD? Then sure.

Now, let’s look at what scriptures states about the sign of the Old Covenant.

Gen 17:11 And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you.
Gen 17:12 An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every manchild in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant, shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:​

I don’t accept that circumsion is synonomus to baptism. BTW, it doesn’t hurt an 8 day old as much as any other age.

Did an eight day old infant understand the sign of the Old Covenant more than an infant has to understand the sign of the new and everlasting covenant according to those who reject the practice? Silly guy. Nope.

Ok. let’s assume it’s ok to disagree on non-essentials. Who gets to decide what is essential and non-essential?

Again, did I say Catholic were perfect people? We are taught that we cannot condemn people by assuming who goes to heaven or hell, I assure you there are Catholics who would say such a thing. As you can clearly see, there are Catholics on these forums that deny Church teachings, some the Church itself. Does two wrongs make a right? That is if there are Catholics in err, is that a jusification for all to start their own Churches and disagree with everyone else? See, this all goes back to interpretation of scriptures. Who has the correct teaching? How do we know who has the correct teaching according to scriptures? Who can start a Church and do a better job than Christ did?

Ahhh, time restrictions on archeological evidence. Then what do we do with the New Testament scriptures, many written after 55AD?

You don’t agree that baptism is synonymous circumcision? Must be one of those non-essential things. Who gets to decide those things?

God required an 8 day old male to be circumcised, but infant baptism it unacceptable? Seems to be a contradiction in my opinion.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Dokimas… Please show me in the bible where infants or young children were not baptized when entire households were Please show me where christ said not to baptize young children or infants!!! Please show me this so i can understand where your coming from.

Matthew

Show me a verse where it was not believe or repent (or teach in the Great Commission) first and then baptize. That is the reason we do not support it. It always has the believe or repent part first. The baptism comes after the believing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Show me a verse where it was not believe or repent (or teach in the Great Commission) first and then baptize. That is the reason we do not support it. It always has the believe or repent part first. The baptism comes after the believing.

Yes, and God let 8 day old males make up their mind to accept the sign of the old covenant.