Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[goout]

Hi G,

Some good points thank you. Of course God is living as is His Word. But “Tradition” is problematic as evidenced by the underlined, that not always have men and tradition been right on what is "inspired’’ and just what the Holy Spirit wants to reveal. For example, Barnabus says, “Who ever is knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts, keep them, as many as are written”…yet you take that to mean that what the church then “writes” is the Lord’s precepts, as illumined by the Holy Spirit, such as IC or the Assumption. You may call that a "living "process’’ , I call it problematic…and that is ok, for there is no silver bullet for determining “what hath God really said (or meant)” …yet Writ is not moot , nor is divine illumination, on just what is writ, and what He sayeth thru it

Blessings.

Living,
Inspired, and
problematic
These three are not mutually exclusive.
Our common human experience is evidence of that for sure!

I would emphasize the point that Inspired scripture is/was simply always Inspired, as it it the HS that makes it so. It was inspired in God’s timeless mind in a timeless way. If we don’t admit that Inspiration is timeless, we don’t really understand God’s nature, right? God is unchanging and timeless.

Scripture did not become inspired at the moment the Church pronounced it so. The Church pronounces what is revealed by God, and as understanding develops.
God’s unchanging nature
Inspiration
Development of understanding
These are not incompatible either.

The process by which that is expressed and canonized is definitely messy as are all human elements. Scripture is a divine/human partnership.

 

[steve_b]

Before the Canon confirmed all True Scripture, first the immediate recipients of the Scriptures received them as such.

You know I am not opposed to necessary Tradition, in order to maintain orthodoxy, but I also don’t try to suggest the Scriptures did not exist until the Church fixed the canon, or imply that it was as though the Scriptures were not read, placed in a box and sealed until the Councils sought to Confirm the Canon.

Before the fixing of the canon, there were 100’s of writings, + letters, + gospels, that people read from. Bottom line without proper authority fixing the NT canon to 27books, and the OT books at 46, a person has / had no assurance one book is scripture and another is not.

 

[cominghome1966]

Secondly and more importantly. This would be one of my major stumbling blocks. Let us say the Scriptures do not contain everything, and more can be said in other ways. Okay. But for something to be on the Level of “Dogma”, why would Paul or Peter or whoever with all their divine revelations not deem it important to state anywhere? It would have been even 1 sentence, somewhere? The level of Dogma is so “needed” to be known by all they wish to bring into Christs Communion? Why would they miss it?

I don’t see it as Peter and Paul “missing it.” So it’s not as if they believed one thing, and Catholics believed/believe something else.

Doctrine has developed, not changed. That is an important difference.

But more directly to your point: maybe the Holy Spirit didn’t have them say anything about, say for example, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, inside the pages of the New Testament, because the Church actually does have authority, from Christ, to develop doctrine and set dogma.

As I consider the question, it occurs to me that it might be a chicken-and-egg question: which came first, the Bible or the Church?

If the Church came first, as Catholics assert, then to us it seems quite natural that the Church can set dogma. The Church set the canon of the Bible, after all. So it can set dogma as well. We see no conflict there. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, but in and of itself, it is not the highest authority.

But I used to be Protestant, so I understand that, if the Bible came first, then it makes sense to restrict dogma to what is plainly evident within its pages. But even that is problematic, since there are differing Biblical interpretations about, say, the divinity of Christ or the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Somebody must have the authority to settle those questions, otherwise, there is chaos.

So what do you think? Are you ultimately asking a chicken-and-egg question?

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

will take a look but quickly if i may. It is not either/ or scripture vs authority/offices/councils. Another words, in OT you had prophets and their message ….the message proved/legitimized the office, but the thrust was the message, what God was actually saying. Whom God said thru was important but I would think secondary. The importance of the messenger is outdone by the importance of the message. Paul was a big deal , but primarily so that his message, the Lord’s message, was caught ! The church is important , but the message that rests and comes out from her is to be proven.

Blessings

benhur,

Re: the highlighted points.

I sense you’re saying “scripture” is obvious based on the message, and one needs no authority to identify it as the inspired word of God, nor does it need someone to explain it

Does the following understanding, reasonably explain and coexists with your understanding based on your response.above?

I took inspired Scripture alone to be “authoritative.” The opinions of Bible scholars and theologians and Christian authors, even the solemn formulations of Church councils, creeds and denominational statements of faith—these functioned for me as guides and counselors. I respected them. But none of them possessed “authority” in the sense that I would accept their rulings as true and bow to them.
No. When it came to what I should believe and hold as* true *with respect to Christian doctrine and moral teaching, as far as I was concerned the quest for truth amounted to the quest to rightly interpret Scripture and organize its teaching into a coherent and consistent biblical worldview.
And with this essential view of things, I wasn’t all that terribly interested in what the Church of the second, third, fourth and fifth centuries believed.
Men like Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus—I was familiar with their names. I knew they were heroes of the Faith, many of them martyrs. But what they *believed? *I didn’t think of it as something that would necessarily cast much light on the issues of New Testament interpretation.
After all, if they agreed with what I took to be the most accurate reading of Scripture, I would say they were wise faithful interpreters of God’s word. If they disagreed, I would say they had drifted from the truth. I knew for sure that by the time of the emperor Constantine in the fourth century Christianity had pretty much twisted itself into the strange shape we call the Catholic religion. So why should I trust *anything *said between the time of the apostles and the time of Constantine?
My working assumption was that the teaching of the apostles had become corrupted almost immediately and therefore that the beliefs and practices of Christians in the early centuries didn’t necessarily tell us what the apostles actually taught, or what their disciples—the first Christians—believed.

That is a quote and snippet from the following link.

Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Historical, Part I

It’s a quick read. If that snippet catches your interest, and you want to continue reading what he had to say, I’ll post all 3 parts on the subject. But only if you tell me you’re interested

There is also 5 parts, describing why sola scriptura isn’t scriptural. But again, I’ll only post them if you’re interested.

 

[MichaelP3]

I don’t see it as Peter and Paul “missing it.” So it’s not as if they believed one thing, and Catholics believed/believe something else.

Doctrine has developed, not changed. That is an important difference.

But more directly to your point: maybe the Holy Spirit didn’t have them say anything about, say for example, Mary’s Immaculate Conception, inside the pages of the New Testament, because the Church actually does have authority, from Christ, to develop doctrine and set dogma.

As I consider the question, it occurs to me that it might be a chicken-and-egg question: which came first, the Bible or the Church?

If the Church came first, as Catholics assert, then to us it seems quite natural that the Church can set dogma. The Church set the canon of the Bible, after all. So it can set dogma as well. We see no conflict there. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, but in and of itself, it is not the highest authority.

But I used to be Protestant, so I understand that, if the Bible came first, then it makes sense to restrict dogma to what is plainly evident within its pages. But even that is problematic, since there are differing Biblical interpretations about, say, the divinity of Christ or the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Somebody must have the authority to settle those questions, otherwise, there is chaos.

So what do you think? Are you ultimately asking a chicken-and-egg question?

Good day there!

This may be a Chicken-and-egg question but I didn’t intend it that way. This is rather one of the numerous questions I ask and to me, doesn’t add up.

This is what I understand about “Dogma”. A Dogma is a pretty big deal, it is the highest “teaching” possible and HAS to be believed by all for salvation. (There are those parts where through no fault of your own and so on to still attain salvation which I know of, but you get my point). The part of development I have never came to terms with but one main thing that is always attached to a dogma or doctrine would be “That it is not something new, it has always been believed”

It is that last part that is the main hindrance to me. So not just Peter or Paul but anyone. Why is something related to a Marian Dogma not even stated in early “non-inspired” writings? Even with development, is there any “less then today” developed Marian doctrines/dogma that can be found in the early times?

And the parts on believing a Dogma would also be sketchy. You must have heard this before. Here we are talking about a Dogma. I do feel I understand the importance of that word. It is a big deal. But the last 2 Marian Dogmas are but 200 and 70 years old. These are teachings elevated to a very high level in a matter of days. Yes, one can argue there have been development, but in the matter of days one would go from being a very Faithful Catholic to not so much because of that one Dogma.

Putting everything together. I don’t think the Bible or Church and who was first would be really significant in my question. Scripture alone or not is also not an answer here. Rather just, if something was so important, and can determine ones salvation, I think it should have been at least somewhat important in the first few centuries.

Also, my argument isn’t whether Mary was born without sin, or ascended to heaven or so. Let us say that did happen, then maybe the early writers could have known, they just didn’t deem it important to state while they were preaching salvation. They stated numerous other things that are not Dogma today and deemed that “worth” their time. But not this.

I hope that places my thoughts better in order. And thanks for your response!

Regards

 

[cominghome1966]

Good day there!

This may be a Chicken-and-egg question but I didn’t intend it that way. This is rather one of the numerous questions I ask and to me, doesn’t add up.

This is what I understand about “Dogma”. A Dogma is a pretty big deal, it is the highest “teaching” possible and HAS to be believed by all for salvation. (There are those parts where through no fault of your own and so on to still attain salvation which I know of, but you get my point). The part of development I have never came to terms with but one main thing that is always attached to a dogma or doctrine would be “That it is not something new, it has always been believed”

It is that last part that is the main hindrance to me. So not just Peter or Paul but anyone. Why is something related to a Marian Dogma not even stated in early “non-inspired” writings? Even with development, is there any “less then today” developed Marian doctrines/dogma that can be found in the early times?

And the parts on believing a Dogma would also be sketchy. You must have heard this before. Here we are talking about a Dogma. I do feel I understand the importance of that word. It is a big deal. But the last 2 Marian Dogmas are but 200 and 70 years old. These are teachings elevated to a very high level in a matter of days. Yes, one can argue there have been development, but in the matter of days one would go from being a very Faithful Catholic to not so much because of that one Dogma.

Putting everything together. I don’t think the Bible or Church and who was first would be really significant in my question. Scripture alone or not is also not an answer here. Rather just, if something was so important, and can determine ones salvation, I think it should have been at least somewhat important in the first few centuries.

Are you aware of the argument Catholics make from Acts 15, when the bishops of the Council of Jerusalem set dogma and changed practice regarding circumcision without any direct scriptural support?

It is an argument regarding the primacy and legitimacy of the Church to do those things.

Also, my argument isn’t whether Mary was born without sin, or ascended to heaven or so. Let us say that did happen, then maybe the early writers could have known, they just didn’t deem it important to state while they were preaching salvation. They stated numerous other things that are not Dogma today and deemed that “worth” their time. But not this.

I tried to put myself in your shoes, to really try and “get” what you’re saying here. As I did so, I noticed that I felt afraid. I noticed that if I was saying what you are saying, underneath that, I’d be afraid of believing the wrong thing. I would want reassurance in the form of early writings to help me know that I was not on the wrong path, not wrong to trust the Church. It was sort of like walking on a tightrope without a net. I would really want the “net” there to help me feel OK.

Does this seem to apply? Are you worried about believing the wrong thing? In other words, if the Church set the wrong dogma, what this might do to your salvation, reputation, confidence in Christ?

If not, please forgive me for juxtaposing my own feelings onto you. I’m just really trying to understand where you’re coming from.

 

[Peter_J]

Good day there!

This may be a Chicken-and-egg question but I didn’t intend it that way. This is rather one of the numerous questions I ask and to me, doesn’t add up.

This is what I understand about “Dogma”. A Dogma is a pretty big deal, it is the highest “teaching” possible and HAS to be believed by all for salvation. (There are those parts where through no fault of your own and so on to still attain salvation which I know of, but you get my point). The part of development I have never came to terms with but one main thing that is always attached to a dogma or doctrine would be “That it is not something new, it has always been believed”

It is that last part that is the main hindrance to me. So not just Peter or Paul but anyone. Why is something related to a Marian Dogma not even stated in early “non-inspired” writings? Even with development, is there any “less then today” developed Marian doctrines/dogma that can be found in the early times?

And the parts on believing a Dogma would also be sketchy. You must have heard this before. Here we are talking about a Dogma. I do feel I understand the importance of that word. It is a big deal. But the last 2 Marian Dogmas are but 200 and 70 years old. These are teachings elevated to a very high level in a matter of days. Yes, one can argue there have been development, but in the matter of days one would go from being a very Faithful Catholic to not so much because of that one Dogma.

Putting everything together. I don’t think the Bible or Church and who was first would be really significant in my question. Scripture alone or not is also not an answer here. Rather just, if something was so important, and can determine ones salvation, I think it should have been at least somewhat important in the first few centuries.

Also, my argument isn’t whether Mary was born without sin, or ascended to heaven or so. Let us say that did happen, then maybe the early writers could have known, they just didn’t deem it important to state while they were preaching salvation. They stated numerous other things that are not Dogma today and deemed that “worth” their time. But not this.

I hope that places my thoughts better in order. And thanks for your response!

Regards

Good post. I’ve never been Protestant but I believe you present your view well.

One thing to keep in mind is that the nineteenth century was a different time in the church. (I recall my surprise when I first learned that Cardinal Newman, well-loved by conservative
Catholics now, was not always so well thought of by those in his own time.)

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. to my earlier post,

Well, I don’t think we can say why for certain, but one possibility is that they didn’t think it would be right to dogmatize it.

I should add that saying something shouldn’t be dogmatized (which, of course, they may or may not have thought) does not imply that it cannot be dogmatized.

 

[Wannano]

Good post. I’ve never been Protestant but I believe you present your view well.

One thing to keep in mind is that the nineteenth century was a different time in the church. (I recall my surprise when I first learned that Cardinal Newman, well-loved by conservative
Catholics now, was not always so well thought of by those in his own time.)

I think this is such an important statement (keeping in mind the fact that formulations and developments were all made at different times in the life of the church.)

 

[benhur]

Living,
Inspired, and
problematic
These three are not mutually exclusive.
Our common human experience is evidence of that for sure!

I would emphasize the point that Inspired scripture is/was simply always Inspired, as it it the HS that makes it so. It was inspired in God’s timeless mind in a timeless way. If we don’t admit that Inspiration is timeless, we don’t really understand God’s nature, right? God is unchanging and timeless.

Scripture did not become inspired at the moment the Church pronounced it so. The Church pronounces what is revealed by God, and as understanding develops.
God’s unchanging nature
Inspiration
Development of understanding
These are not incompatible either.

The process by which that is expressed and canonized is definitely messy as are all human elements. Scripture is a divine/human partnership.

Hi g,

Pretty good , and amen to it…divinely written, shared, understood, preserved !

Blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur,

 

[rcwitness]

Good day there!

This may be a Chicken-and-egg question but I didn’t intend it that way. This is rather one of the numerous questions I ask and to me, doesn’t add up.

This is what I understand about “Dogma”. A Dogma is a pretty big deal, it is the highest “teaching” possible and HAS to be believed by all for salvation. (There are those parts where through no fault of your own and so on to still attain salvation which I know of, but you get my point). The part of development I have never came to terms with but one main thing that is always attached to a dogma or doctrine would be “That it is not something new, it has always been believed”

“Always been believed”, does not mean by all, nor is it the reason these (or any) Dogma is Taught. The reason is because it is True and the Church is able to Confirm a Truth which pertains to faith and morals.

It is that last part that is the main hindrance to me. So not just Peter or Paul but anyone. Why is something related to a Marian Dogma not even stated in early “non-inspired” writings? Even with development, is there any “less then today” developed Marian doctrines/dogma that can be found in the early times?

Not sure why you would want non-inspired writings, but I think the Protoevangelium of James touches on her Perpetual Virginity.

And the parts on believing a Dogma would also be sketchy. You must have heard this before. Here we are talking about a Dogma. I do feel I understand the importance of that word. It is a big deal. But the last 2 Marian Dogmas are but 200 and 70 years old. These are teachings elevated to a very high level in a matter of days. Yes, one can argue there have been development, but in the matter of days one would go from being a very Faithful Catholic to not so much because of that one Dogma.

A very faithful Catholic would assent to a Dogma of the Church. You are basing your assumption on something which cannot be seen, or measured by men.

Putting everything together. I don’t think the Bible or Church and who was first would be really significant in my question. Scripture alone or not is also not an answer here. Rather just, if something was so important, and can determine ones salvation, I think it should have been at least somewhat important in the first few centuries.

I think the matter of Salvation is not whether Mary was Immaculately Conceived, or was Perpetually a Virgin, or was Assumed to Heaven in themselves, but that the Church, in Her highest Teaching authority, Confirmed for the faithful, that these Traditions were Sacred. This means they are True and existed from at least St John the Apostle’s days. St John, coincidentally, was the one to offer the heavenly vision of Mary.

Also, my argument isn’t whether Mary was born without sin, or ascended to heaven or so. Let us say that did happen, then maybe the early writers could have known, they just didn’t deem it important to state while they were preaching salvation. They stated numerous other things that are not Dogma today and deemed that “worth” their time. But not this.

Right, these beliefs may not have been disputed in the first couple centuries. And neither were they, in themselves, necessary to be Baptized and given the Spirit and Eucharist of eternal life.

I hope that places my thoughts better in order. And thanks for your response!

Regards

I hope I addressed these properly, at least from my simple perspective.

 

[benhur]

That is a quote and snippet from the following link.

Why I’m Catholic: Sola Scriptura Isn’t Historical, Part I

It’s a quick read. If that snippet catches your interest, and you want to continue reading what he had to say, I’ll post all 3 parts on the subject. But only if you tell me you’re interested

There is also 5 parts, describing why sola scriptura isn’t scriptural. But again, I’ll only post them if you’re interested.

Hi steve,

Well don’t post yet but thanks.Took quick look at Part #1. read only a bit. Disagree of course with Newmans reaction to history. Why is it that two similar folks, Newman and C.S. Lewis, look at same history and come to different conclusions ? Both advocated a deeper look into HIStory. Even here on CAF, we have rightly delved into history and early fathers on many threads. Again, what hardens clay melts wax (fire/light/heat). So two folks look at same thing and come away with different reaction/understanding.

As to Newman, not sure why he changed churches because I think the church he was in was very Catholic like (historical), except for papacy. I mean it is not like he was a baptist.
He addresses P’s but not sure the O’s.

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

I think this is such an important statement (keeping in mind the fact that formulations and developments were all made at different times in the life of the church.)

Why thank you.

Incidentally, I’ve been trying to cut down on participation in internet-forums during Advent (Fridays especially) but I forgot myself this morning. But I’ll be back on Christmas … well, maybe Christmas Eve.

 

[benhur]

Merry Christmas everybody !!!Blessings.

 

[goout]

Merry Christmas everybody !!!Blessings.

Merry Christmas to you as well.
Christ, be born in our hearts!

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Well both the highlighted and non highlighted do not suggest what you sense. The “office is legitimized”, and “the importance of the messenger”, and "
“not either/or, scripture vs authority/offices/councils.”

So teachers, officers, bishops are important and valid biblical giftings

benhur,

could you explain what you mean by
"teachers, officers, bishops are important and valid biblical giftings"?
bh:

Both are broad sweeps and can’t endorse entirely but some for sure. What is missing is that all authorities (beyond the apostles) have scripture, including the individual , as normative.

What about before scripture is specifically identified and the canon closed from all debate?
bh:

The same Holy Spirit that tells a bishop or a prophet or teacher the truth on a matter is the same Holy Spirit who illumines the individual. The gates of hell do not prevail because one has the best presbyter or teacher, but because what illumines them also illumines their hearer.

All kinds of people can claim they are being lead by the HS.

Re:The gates of hell won’t prevail

that’s against the Church Jesus established. That can’t be said nor does it apply to organizations NOT in Our Lord’s Church, but built by humans building their organizations, AFTER Jesus established His Church.
bh:

hearer intuitively(poor word,but spiritually, the "inner man, as graced by God) recognizes the authority of the message and the gifting/authority of the message giver.

Protestantism regardless of stripe is division on steroids. Each one of those 10’s of thousands of divisions thinking they heard the HS. The HS isn’t the author of division nor of confusion.
bh:

St Augustine testifies to this when testifying of his love and wonderment not only of the church and their preachers/teachers , but in Christ/Holy Spirit who teaches all . So while St. Ambrose “spoke”, Jesus taught Augustine. Augustine did not just receive truth because of an office, or who Ambrose was, but because "Truth (God)…would say to me, “He (Ambrose) speaks the truth”. (Confessions ch 3 language of truth)

benhur, Re: Augustine, Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church, allow me to make a very salient point here

Augustine will always subject himself to the authority of the Catholic Church… never against it

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?” Augustine ch 4 para 5, & ch 5 para 6 (A.D. 397).

And another cogent point he makes

"No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures no peaceable person against the Church. "
“On the Trinity” , Book 4 ch 6 para 10

BTW, the canon of the OT and NT scriptures was defined conclusively by Pope Damasus I, in 382 at the council of Rome. This was during the time of Augustine. Also The councils if Hippo and Carthage validated that same canon, as did the ecumenical councils of Florence and Trent 1000+ years later.

I Hope you and your family had a blessed and merry Christmas

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Well don’t post yet but thanks.

Just say when
bh:

Took quick look at Part #1. read only a bit. Disagree of course with Newmans reaction to history. Why is it that two similar folks, Newman and C.S. Lewis, look at same history and come to different conclusions ? Both advocated a deeper look into HIStory.

Newman proved his case historically. Lewis didn’t… with all due respect to Lewis
bh:

Even here on CAF, we have rightly delved into history and early fathers on many threads. Again, what hardens clay melts wax (fire/light/heat). So two folks look at same thing and come away with different reaction/understanding.

in this example, Jesus was surrounded by His disciples AND His 12 apostles.He gives them the bread of life discourse. His disciples said that was too hard to listen to and they left Jesus. So what did Jesus do?

• did Jesus go after them to see if He could change their minds? Nope He let them go

What did Jesus do then? He turned to His apostles and asked them, are you going to leave me too?

Jesus knew in advance all the answers. Who had faith who didn’t. Those who don’t have the faith, can’t be convinced. Not even God in the flesh, talking to them face to face will convince them. Nor will He override their free will forcing them to believe. Free will is what makes us culpable for the choices we make.
bh:

As to Newman, not sure why he changed churches because I think the church he was in was very Catholic like (historical), except for papacy. I mean it is not like he was a baptist.
He addresses P’s but not sure the O’s.

Blessings

Newman was very clear about Anglicanism which he was, as not being Catholic nor the Catholic Church.

You and I didn’t converse with each other on this following thread about Newman, but I notice you participated a few times.

If interested I grabbed a few posts. The highlighted links in red get to some of the points of history you bring up. I also quote Newman’s works, and how he referred to Anglicanism as a particular form of Protestantism…

#[199 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14165185&postcount=199) , #[212 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14171094&postcount=212) (bread of life and disciples leave), #[218 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14173589&postcount=218)
#[224 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14178384&postcount=224) , #[245 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14182294&postcount=245), #[264 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14186531&postcount=264) , #[283 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14190877&postcount=283) (this is making Newman’s point about being deep in history) ,
#[316 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14198884&postcount=316) (Newman wrote massively. I don’t think C.S. Lewis came even close to that )
#[320 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14200438&postcount=320) Newman writes, Anglicans are a particular form of Protestant , #[337 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14227166&postcount=337)

 

[benhur]

Newman proved his case historically. Lewis didn’t… with all due respect to Lewis

Hi Steve,

Ok I will take your word for it, that Newman gave rational, historical evidence for CC and that Lewis did not or did not as much.

Yet can one prove ones view on history ? Can you prove a faith, a bias, an interpretation ? Is making a case,even testifying, proving ?

I have been saying that knowing, studying history is one thing. Conclusions and proofs are something else. For sure both Lewis and Newman were knowledgeable of history and admonished its study (not sure who "studied’’ more though).

I am not sure Lewis 's faith was not without rationale, historical rationale. Perhaps he was secure enough, or understood the nature of faith, to not have to prove it (which is different than" give an answer for").

I think the very definition of faith is that we have “evidences” not “proof”, which may be more subjective.

in this example, Jesus was surrounded by His disciples AND His 12 apostles.He gives them the bread of life discourse. His disciples said that was too hard to listen to and they left Jesus. So what did Jesus do?

• did Jesus go after them to see if He could change their minds? Nope He let them go

What did Jesus do then? He turned to His apostles and asked them, are you going to leave me too?

Jesus knew in advance all the answers. Who had faith who didn’t. Those who don’t have the faith, can’t be convinced. Not even God in the flesh, talking to them face to face will convince them. Nor will He override their free will forcing them to believe. Free will is what makes us culpable for the choices we make.

Agree and helps make my original point, that all see same evidence but come away differently, based upon their “makeup”. Clay will always be clay , and harden with light/heat/fire, as wax will be wax and respond accordingly. And as you say, the Lord knows what we are, and each point of faith is revealing.

Newman was very clear about Anglicanism which he was, as not being Catholic nor the Catholic Church.

Absolutely. Did not mean to minimize parting from papacy. It is huge, even if all other things/doctrines remain the same. Huge. Anglicanism is quite Protestant, but just as Baptists are even more so (on more points).

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve,

Ok I will take your word for it, that Newman gave rational, historical evidence for CC and that Lewis did not or did not as much.

Yet can one prove ones view on history ? Can you prove a faith, a bias, an interpretation ? Is making a case,even testifying, proving ?

benhur,

When we are talking about these topics, I don’t want you to take my word for anything. That’s why I’m always using the phrase “don’t take my word for it”. I’m no expert. That’s why I quote so much from qualified sources, providing evidence on the topic, not opinion, that has been properly referenced. If I don’t give a reference don’t hesitate to ask me for it.
bh:

I have been saying that knowing, studying history is one thing. Conclusions and proofs are something else. For sure both Lewis and Newman were knowledgeable of history and admonished its study (not sure who “studied’’ more though). I am not sure Lewis 's faith was not without rationale, historical rationale. Perhaps he was secure enough, or understood the nature of faith, to not have to prove it (which is different than” give an answer for").

As bright as Lewis was, he couldn’t pull the trigger. I say it that way because unless he had a death bed conversion that no one knows about, as far as I know, he remained Protestant. He knew the following, and who the founders of all the divisions were.

PDF chart

I will just add this. All that division is condemned in Scripture and Tradition. Just thinking out loud, did Lewis not know these passages are there in scripture?

#197
bh:

I think the very definition of faith is that we have “evidences” not “proof”, which may be more subjective.

You’re no doubt referring to

Heb 11:1
faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
bh:

Agree and helps make my original point*, that all see same evidence but come away differently, based upon their “makeup*”. Clay will always be clay , and harden with light/heat/fire, as wax will be wax and respond accordingly. And as you say, the Lord knows what we are, and each point of faith is revealing.

yet there can’t be such disagreements and oppositions on evidence that there is division.