Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[Per_Crucem]

It sounds like you are suggesting that all churches, regardless of denomination, teach some truth mixed with untruth i.e. no one church is infallibly guided by God?

Not all churches. Most churches teach some truth along with some error (some more error than truth and vice versa). If I believed my confession taught anything erroneous, I wouldn’t belong to it.

 

[joe371]

The problem I have with your position joe, is not that you’ve examined history, Scripture, etc. to reach the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the true church. The problem I have is that you have done so and not held yourself to the same standards you hold non-Catholics to. If your view is that you could be wrong but you believe you’re right…I’m fine with that. But when it comes to us, it’s …“BLAAARRGGG, UNLESS YOU CAN KNOW SOMETHING INFALLIBLY, YOU CAN’T KNOW IT AT ALL…BLAAARG.”

Keep the same goal posts on both positions

All we mean, when we use the word infallible, is that truth regarding any one doctrine that divides, is in fact knowable, in spite of the fact that people continue to disagree, like me and my sister. She feels that she is right, based on her interpretation of scripture; I feel that I am right based on Jesus, teaching via His church.

Can I know for sure - of course not. I cannot know that Jesus is really God either. I simply have faith that Jesus is God, and that Jesus chose to preserve doctrinal truth within His church, so that all generations could access truth, as opposed to just the first few generations. If God does not preserve doctrinal truth in this manner, then how does He? It’s certainly not God guiding each and every Christian, unless of course you are a catholic,as my sister would suggest. LOL…

 

[Per_Crucem]

All we mean, when we use the word infallible, is that truth regarding any one doctrine that divides, is in fact knowable, in spite of the fact that people continue to disagree, like me and my sister. She feels that she is right, based on her interpretation of scripture; I feel that I am right Based on Jesus, teaching via His church.

That does not fit the standard definition of what it means to be infallible. If you’re not going to work within the parameters of what infallible actually means, then why bother using the term at all? Which, by the way, is what we’ve been saying for 500 years

Can I know for sure - of course not. I cannot know that Jesus is really God either. I simply have faith that Jesus is God, and that Jesus chose to preserve doctrinal truth within His church, so that all generations could access truth, as opposed to just the first few generations. If God does not preserve doctrinal truth in this manner, then how does He? It’s certainly not God guiding each and every Christian, unless of course you are a catholic,as my sister would suggest. LOL…

Ok, if you rightly admit that you cannot know for sure - that is, exhaustively, with 0.00% chance of being wrong - then why are you asking us to do the same, by somehow admitting that we can’t really know “for sure?” (If for sure means we have the same level of knowledge and perfection as God, which is what infallible really means.)

 

[joe371]

Not all churches. Most churches teach some truth along with some error (some more error than truth and vice versa). If I believed my confession taught anything erroneous, I wouldn’t belong to it.

Not all churches…OK, which churches (other than the church to which you belong) teach truth only, as opposed to truth mixed with some errors?

You believe that your confession does not teach anything erroneous aka fallible i.e. words you believe, or have faith, that your confessions teaches infallibly, which is synonymous with inerrant. We believe the same thing about the CC.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Hello

 

[Per_Crucem]

Not all churches…OK, which churches (other than the church to which you belong) teach truth only, as opposed to truth mixed with some errors?

None.

You believe that your confession does not teach anything erroneous aka fallible i.e. words you believe, or have faith, that your confessions teaches infallibly, which is synonymous with inerrant. We believe the same thing about the CC.

Change the first sentence to “does not teach anything erroneous aka errantly” and we’re in agreement. Infallible is not synonymous with inerrant. Infallible is always inerrant, but inerrant is not always infallible

 

[joe371]

That does not fit the standard definition of what it means to be infallible. If you’re not going to work within the parameters of what infallible actually means, then why bother using the term at all? Which, by the way, is what we’ve been saying for 500 years

Ok, if you rightly admit that you cannot know for sure - that is, exhaustively, with 0.00% chance of being wrong - then why are you asking us to do the same, by somehow admitting that we can’t really know “for sure?” (If for sure means we have the same level of knowledge and perfection as God, which is what infallible really means.)

Do you believe that the Holy Bible is infallible? I am not asking you to believe what I believe. :thumbsup:I simply have faith that Jesus preserves doctrinal truth within the church he established.

Definition:

1. absolutely trustworthy or sure: an infallible rule.

unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain: an infallible remedy.
3.
not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle.
4.
Roman Catholic Church . immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.

I have faith that Jesus, regarding His teachings, fulfils all of this in His church. We should never confuse the charism of infallibility with impeccability - agreed?

Infallibility is not the absence of sin; it’s a charism that does not belong only to the Bishop of Rome. Infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the bishop of Rome, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the teaching office of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Accept my friend request on here

 

[joe371]

Per Crucem;11945480]None.

Oh, OK…

Change the first sentence to “does not teach anything erroneous aka errantly” and we’re in agreement. Infallible is not synonymous with inerrant. Infallible is always inerrant, but inerrant is not always infallible

We believe…have faith that Jesus is always infallible when it comes to His teachings, preserved in His church. We do not believe that Jesus is sometimes fallible, in terms of guiding His church into all truth, so I suppose I cannot agree to your terms…LOL…

 

[joe371]

Accept my friend request on here

Oops, I did not see that…Just did brother…

 

[Per_Crucem]

Oh, OK…

We believe…have faith that Jesus is always infallible when it comes to His teachings, preserved in His church. We do not believe that Jesus is sometimes fallible, in terms of guiding His church into all truth, so I suppose I cannot agree to your terms…LOL…

Yep, and the problem is that it then turns the question back to which church is infallibly guided into all truth…and always speaks infallibly. Jesus is, of course, always infallible. He does not say the same about the church, however.

 

[joe371]

Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God?

These words do not apply to Jesus’ church leadership, beginning with the apostles?

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever…

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father–the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father–he will testify about me.

But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Yep, and the problem is that it then turns the question back to which church is infallibly guided into all truth…and always speaks infallibly. Jesus is, of course, always infallible. He does not say the same about the church, however.

 

[marywarfield]

We do not ignore this.Actually Jews time began with this exodus, “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months ,the first month of the year. Yet what better way to remember than to “go back in time”. Totally agree. However, the lamb and bread and wine Jews take today during Passover are not transubstantiated to be the same as the original elements of Passover. It is strictly a memorial, for s sign, for a token (Ex. 12:4,13:9,16) That is not say it is not a spiritual experience/remembrance. Actually was there any consecration prayer at first passover, like Lord I hope you find the blood on the door post acceptable, please pass me by?” I don’t think so for to ask is not taking the Lord’s command as a done deal in faith. It is (was) time to obey, not pray/consecrate. The Passover is not a sin offering, at least not directly. It was primarily to show obedience and faith in God’s deliverance. That is it was not for justification, for they were already a covenant people by circumcision and with and thru Abraham.

The Jews might have ended the immediacy of it. But we did not.
We hold that same transunstantiation now as they did
then. that is why we have both the old and new testaments
in every part of the Mass. It is also incidentally just
another reason we hold Mary in such high esteem- she
has been called our “bridge” between the old and
the new.
The answer to your original question though still
lies with the Mystical Body of Christ. The mystical,
that becomes for those moments of timelessness
immediate reality. We ARE at the Last Supper, we ARE
at the foot of the cross next to John while Mary receives the
dead body of her Son and we are there with Mary
of Clophas and the soldiers. We DO receive the
resurrected glorified Body of the Risen Christ.
That is the mystical “time warp” of transubstantiation,
the same time warp the Jews experienced then but
with a different Victim and a bridge to new life.

 

[joe371]

The Jews might have ended the immediacy of it. But we did not.
We hold that same transunstantiation now as they did
then. that is why we have both the old and new testaments
in every part of the Mass. It is also incidentally just
another reason we hold Mary in such high esteem- she
has been called our “bridge” between the old and
the new.
The answer to your original question though still
lies with the Mystical Body of Christ. The mystical,
that becomes for those moments of timelessness
immediate reality. We ARE at the Last Supper, we ARE
at the foot of the cross next to John while Mary receives the
dead body of her Son and we are there with Mary
of Clophas and the soldiers. We DO receive the
resurrected glorified Body of the Risen Christ.
That is the mystical “time warp” of transubstantiation,
the same time warp the Jews experienced then but
with a different Victim and a bridge to new life.

 

[benhur]

No one is blaming God and God my friend is not responsible for the founding of hundreds of churches. Men are responsible because all have a human founder tied to their church. God’s part was set in stone nearly 2,000 years ago. Yes…those communities preach the Gospel,but to claim God had a “part” in their founding is a bit off.

I was gonna ask, “not even a smidgen ?”, but settled to just say, OK, I understand your view. It’s like they can be right on all other stuff via the HS but if they are off in their non-allegiance to Rome then it can’t be of God, their non-alegiance/formation of another church. Ok. All I can think of at the moment is how it is somewhat unbiblical or unprecedented in God’s dispensations. While I understand the Korah argument with Moses, it doesn’t jive with the varying sects that were allowed in Judaism yet they were all Jews. It doesn’t allow for the twelve tribes splitting up into two nations yet they were all Jews. But I could be wrong. Maybe they thew anathemas to each other and perhaps one thought better of themselves than the others, or felt more inspired etc etc . So I guess it is the same old same old . We are in good company and God is certainly not surprised by our behavior.

 

[joe371]

benhur;11945755]I was gonna ask, “not even a smidgen ?”, but settled to just say, OK, I understand your view. It’s like they can be right on all other stuff via the HS but if they are off in their non-allegiance to Rome then it can’t be of God, their non-alegiance/formation of another church. Ok.

The CC does not teach or believe that… "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[benhur]

T
]We hold that same transunstantiation now as they did
then

Never heard that there is a transubstantiation of sorts at a Passover.

The answer to your original question though still
lies with the Mystical Body of Christ. The mystical,
that becomes for those moments of timelessness
immediate reality. We ARE at the Last Supper, we ARE
at the foot of the cross next to John while Mary receives the
dead body of her Son and we are there with Mary
of Clophas and the soldiers. We DO receive the
resurrected glorified Body of the Risen Christ.
That is the mystical “time warp” of transubstantiation,

That may be a time warp, as I stated good remembrance up to the eating of the same Flesh that ascended to heaven. Augustine said similar things that indeed we are there, one with Christ and each other in His sufferings, up on the Altar as the Body of Christ. However he said we do not eat that ascended body of Christ though He is present thru us.

 

[benhur]

The CC does not teach or believe that… "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Does the CC contradict itself ? I thought she teaches of the teaching ministry of the HS, and that it is also for lay people as well as leaders. Your statement says all power derives from CC but does it say anywhere where all inspiration, divine revelation, Holy Spirit leading is thru CC ? Not even a smidgen outside her ? It does say Christ uses these communities for salvation so how can the HS or even power be counted out ? Or how can it then be thru the CC ? Is that like a spiritual succession ?.. But I understand . The apostles were Catholic. The bible is Catholic and the church from day one was Catholic. Any other resemblance of a church comes out of Catholicism-the Orthodox and the Protestants .They all have Catholic roots. …Yet she teaches that if one knowingly refuses Rome and all her precepts they are in eternal danger so not much salvation there (at least not for most non-C’s here,who are not ignorant of our distinctions).

 

[benhur]

Does the Lutheran Church have a Sacramental Priesthood like the Catholic Church conferred in three decrees in the Sacrament:

1. Bishop
2. Presbyter
3. Deacon

And as was in the new testament and early Church Fathers with none writing against this???

Things (dogma ,practices) evolve or develop ever so slowly. Throw a frog in boiling water and he immediately jumps out. Throw him into lukewarm water and he stays in as you even turn up the heat slowly, till he boils to death. So writings against developments may not be there, or as much as could be, due to the gradualness of the acceptance of " the way things are". And the way things are now must be how they were then and who wants to go against tradition, the status quo ?.. As the frog said at 200 degrees F., “Things are fine. Just as they always have been”. The rupturing is soon to begin, like a greats chism or a reformation.

 

[joe371]

Does the CC contradict itself ? I thought she teaches of the teaching ministry of the HS, and that it is also for lay people as well as leaders. Your statement says all power derives from CC but does it say anywhere where all inspiration, divine revelation, Holy Spirit leading is thru CC ? Not even a smidgen outside her ? It does say Christ uses these communities for salvation so how can the HS or even power be counted out ? Or how can it then be thru the CC ? Is that like a spiritual succession ?.. But I understand . The apostles were Catholic. The bible is Catholic and the church from day one was Catholic. Any other resemblance of a church comes out of Catholicism-the Orthodox and the Protestants .They all have Catholic roots. …Yet she teaches that if one knowingly refuses Rome and all her precepts they are in eternal danger so not much salvation there (at least not for most non-C’s here,who are not ignorant of our distinctions).

Well, I liked the quote from the Catechism…:thumbsup:I certainly believe that there are "many elements of sanctification and of truth found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.”

I also believe that “Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

And I believe that “all these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to Catholic unity.”

After all, as per the CCC: “One cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”