Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope
The Church has this charism because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He, the Truth, is the Head of the Body. That ontological reality underlies Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church, that His Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth, and that He will be with her to the end of the age, It underlies the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.

Radical:

hmmm….and who does the NT identify as members of the body of Christ? => those who possess the Holy Spirit. And who does the NT identify as those who possess the HS? => those who believe in Christ. As such, the body of Christ, also known as the Church, consists of all believers possessed of the HS (regardless of any hierarchy’s relation to that believer)

Yeah but the problem with your argument in a strict sense it does not include authority. No where does Jesus empower everyone with the same authority as the 12. What gave you the idea the CC does not teach the Body of Christ includes the believers?

Quote:
This understanding of Christ’s promise to the Church provided a basis of assurance for the Fathers that Christ would preserve and guide the Church through apostolic succession.

In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them.

Radical:

“Apostolic successors” is another concept not put forward in the NT of the Apostolic Fathers (again see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops)

Really? So succession was invented? By whom and for what purposes?

Radical:
IMHO the facts speak otherwise

What facts speak otherwise? Christ never said the guidance of the HS would cease with the death of the last apostle.

 

[Safia]

All things necessary for salvation are explained in the bible clearly. The verse is John 3:16.

What a lovely narrow view of Scripture. I’m sure Christ rejoices.

Let me ask: How do you then explain 1 John 3:23 (“And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us”)?

First, let’s define “faith.”

You can start here: John 3:36; Rom. 1:5, 6:17; 15:18; 16:26; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Thess. 1:3; 2 Thess. 1:11; 1 Peter 2:7-8; Heb. 5:9; cf. Rev. 3:10; Ex. 19:5 – Faith must also be an “obedient faith” and a “work of faith.” Obedience means persevering in good works to the end.

Justification is ongoing, not a one-time event. God so loved (past) the world, that He gave (past) His only Son, that whoever believes (ongoing) in Him may have eternal life. The word “believes” is “pisteuo” in Greek which necessarily includes obedience throughout one’s life. This is proved by 1 Peter 2:7-8 which also uses “pisteuo” (to obey) and “apitheo” (to disobey). The same word “pisteuo” is used in many other verses about “believing in Christ” such as John 3:36; 5:24; Rom. 4:24; 10:9-10; cf. Rom. 1:5,16; 6:17; 16:26; 1 John 5:13 (often used by Protestants to support their “faith alone” theology). To “believe” means to “obey” throughout one’s life; it is not a one-time acceptance of Jesus as Savior.

I’d read this whole entire page, and come back to us with questions.

 

[Safia]

Really? Consider this question: “Is the gospel of Mark properly included in the NT canon? …and then this question “Is the perpetual virginity of Mary (PV of M) a legitimate belief? Are those two questions of the same nature? Is the evidence for the inclusion of Mark as scripture from the same time and from the same sources as the evidence for the historicity of the PV of M? It seems that they are very different questions with very different evidence from quite different time periods….and so, given those differences, the rejection of one and the acceptance of the other may or may not be “ad hoc”.

Careful there, Radical.

Why do you believe Scripture (let’s take Mark specifically) = Word of God?

Because it’s God’s word.

How do you know it’s God’s word?

Because the Catholic Church told you so. The only way to know for sure is whether God came down from Heaven to assure us. Let’s not get into the subject of the so-called Apocrypha, because history (historical fact, not interpretation) tells us that these books were always a part of Scripture. Remember how Protestants removed certain books?

Second, remember how certain time periods assume something to be true? Many dogmas have come to be written in response to to heresies. Do you want me to give you Scriptural proof for Mary’s perpetual virginity? Proof that doesn’t require interpretation? Because it’s in the original Greek of the Gospels. The Catholic doctrine is no surprise and is completely rational. Not to mention, from an ad hominem perspective, I can’t imagine God ever choosing a woman whose life didn’t center entirely on God – her only child.

some leadership is contemplated in the NT, but it is hardly the hierarchical thing that is seen in the CC (see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops).

It’s called history and development. Things change. And the reason you assert above is no reason to deny Apostolic Succession.

 

[Safia]

hmmm….and who does the NT identify as members of the body of Christ? => those who possess the Holy Spirit. And who does the NT identify as those who possess the HS? => those who believe in Christ. As such, the body of Christ, also known as the Church, consists of all believers possessed of the HS (regardless of any hierarchy’s relation to that believer)

Assuming this were true, you still don’t give reason as to why the CC can’t be guided on questions of dogma and doctrine.

And I certainly wouldn’t call the ability of an individual to, for example, speak in tongues and turn to the Holy Spirit in prayer the same thing as an institution’s ability to collectively come together and agree on questions of faith.

It sure would be nice if the NT expressly made these claims wrt indefectibility as opposed to us being left with an institution identifying itself as the one true Church and then interpreting passages to validate its claim to inerrancy and authority….I don’t view that as being the better position

You seem to be arguing that the CC’s justification for succession and infallibility is circular. But, ah, there’s the rub: it’s not.

It’s spiral:

1. Scripture is historically accurate (premise).
2. Scripture says that Christ established a divine Church possessing the charism of Infallibility.
3. The Scriptures are inspired because the Church says so.

Take it or leave it, but, properly understood, this is not circular logic; the conclusion is in no way stated or assumed by the premise.

To be cont…

 

[Safia]

“Apostolic successors” is another concept not put forward in the NT of the Apostolic Fathers (again see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops)

But questions of papal infallibility and the supremacy of Rome are:

One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century, the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church; the conduct of Pope Victor in the latter half of the second century, in connection with the paschal controversy; the teaching of St. Irenaeus, who lays it down as a practical rule that conformity with Rome is a sufficient proof of Apostolicity of doctrine against the heretics (Adv. Haer., III, iii); the correspondence between Pope Dionysius and his namesake at Alexandria in the second half of the third century; and from many other facts that might be mentioned (see PRIMACY).

Even heretics recognized something special in the doctrinal authority of the pope, and some of them, like Marcion in the second century and Pelagius and Caelestius in the first quarter of the fifth, appealed to Rome in the hope of obtaining a reversal of their condemnation by provincial bishops or synods. And in the age of the councils, from Nicaea onwards, there is a sufficiently explicit and formal acknowledgment of the doctrinal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

St. Augustine, for example, voices the prevailing Catholic sentiment when in reference to the Pelagian affair he declares, in a sermon delivered at Carthage after the receipt of Pope Innocent’s letter, confirming the decrees of the Council of Carthage: “Rome’s reply has come: the case is closed” (Inde etiam rescripta venerunt: causa finita est. Serm. 131, c.x); and again when in reference to the same subject he insists that “all doubt bas been removed by the letter of Pope Innocent of blessed memory” (C. Duas Epp. Pelag., II, iii, 5).

And what is still more important, is the explicit recognition in formal terms, by councils which are admitted to be ecumenical, of the finality, and by implication the infallibility of papal teaching.

Thus the Fathers of Ephesus (431) declare that they “are compelled” to condemn the heresy of Nestorius “by the sacred canons and by the letter of our holy father and co-minister, Celestine the Bishop of Rome.”

Twenty years later (451) the Fathers of Chalcedon, after hearing Leo’s letter read, make themselves responsible for the statement: “so do we all believe . . . Peter has spoken through Leo.”

More than two centuries later, at the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681), the same formula is repeated: “Peter has spoken through Agatho.”

After the lapse of still two other centuries, and shortly before the Photian schism, the profession of faith drawn up by Pope Hormisdas was accepted by the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), and in this profession, it is stated that, by virtue of Christ’s promise: “Thou art Peter, etc.”; “the Catholic religion is preserved inviolable in the Apostolic See.”

Finally the reunion Council of Florence (1438-1445), repeating what had been substantially contained in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus approved by the Second Council of Lyons (1274), defined "that the holy Apostolic see and the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world; and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians, and that to him in blessed Peter the full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and this is also recognized in the acts of the ecumenical council and in the sacred canons (quemadmodum etiam . . . continetur.

Thus it is clear that the Vatican Council introduced no new doctrine when it defined the infallibility of the pope, but merely re-asserted what had been implicitly admitted and acted upon from the beginning and had even been explicitly proclaimed and in equivalent terms by more than one of the early ecumenical councils. Until the Photian Schism in the East and the Gallican movement in the West there was no formal denial of papal supremacy, or of papal infallibility as an adjunct of supreme doctrinal authority, while the instances of their formal acknowledgment that have been referred to in the early centuries are but a few out of the multitude that might be quoted. (source)

IMHO the facts speak otherwise

Give me one fact that speaks otherwise.

but the Church can fall into gross misconduct even though she is the body of Christ and Christ cannot fall into sin….the inconsistency is disingenuous
It is not that the HS is led…the HS leads and the hierarchy may or may not follow.

Why is it, then, that no* ex cathedra* definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous?

 

[CopticChristian]

hmmm….and who does the NT identify as members of the body of Christ? => those who possess the Holy Spirit. And who does the NT identify as those who possess the HS? => those who believe in Christ. As such, the body of Christ, also known as the Church, consists of all believers possessed of the HS (regardless of any hierarchy’s relation to that believer)
It sure would be nice if the NT expressly made these claims wrt indefectibility as opposed to us being left with an institution identifying itself as the one true Church and then interpreting passages to validate its claim to inerrancy and authority….I don’t view that as being the better position
“Apostolic successors” is another concept not put forward in the NT of the Apostolic Fathers (again see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops)

IMHO the facts speak otherwise
why not just call it what it was and is…fallible leadership?
that is an odd objection…I would simply attribute it to free will and an inclination to sin. It isn’t any big mystery, it is how man has acted since the start….where is yhere any indication from Christ that God will prevent the exercise of free will (in the hierarchy) on the matter of determining doctrine, but will continue to allow freedom in all other matters.
Christ is w/o fault or sin and we aren’t.
but the Church can fall into gross misconduct even though she is the body of Christ and Christ cannot fall into sin….the inconsistency is disingenuous
It is not that the HS is led…the HS leads and the hierarchy may or may not follow.

Well it sounds like you are not going to enroll in RCIA…

 

[passer_by]

While I can’t speak for protestants, the Lutheran Confessions do just exactly what you said. We rely on scripture as the final norm, yes, but throughout the confessions, particularly the augsburg confessiona and its Apology, the ECF’s are regularly referenced.

Once again Jon, you are merely giving me a circular defense.

All I am asking is a very simple question. How does one go to believe in the Lutheran Confessions? How does one make the connection between believing in Christ and believing in the Lutheran Confessions? It is this link that you are yet to show.

Then I suggest you read our confessional documents. They start, first and foremost, with the three ecumenical creeds. This is not by random.

If you cannot show a link between the existence of Christ and picking three ecumenical creeds, or a LOGICAL reason to pick the three ecumenical creeds, then the whole Confession is invalid. You only know that Christ existed. Now the burden is on the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox to show how to go from there to their respective beliefs.

Do you understand the logical claim that you cannot defend the Lutheran Confessions by what is already IN THE Lutheran Confessions?

Where does that realization come from? Yes, the Holy Spirit, and scripture itself says through hearing the word. And just as importantly in Baptism, where faith starts.

One has to choose to be baptized, or if baptized, choose to remain in the faith.

I am merely asking REASONS to be baptized or remain in the faith. Under Protestantism, my charge is that there is no such reason.

Where would I continue, after Baptism and the word, and “realizing Christ rose from the dead or that he is your personal savior” to become Catholic, or Orthodox?

To keep this short, you should be Catholic. I don’t want to get in to how you found the Orthodox aren’t the one because it will derail this whole thing. In any case, the fact that you can’t choose between the two IS NOT LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION for you to remain Protestant either. So I feel the matter is irrelevant.

Something to correct is that BEFORE BAPTISM, you need to choose to be Catholic. You don’t become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because what they TEACH make sense. You become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because after you know Christ is real, God is real, that is the LOGICAL thing to do. You believe in the WORD in the Bible because the Catholic Church tells you. You can’t believe the WORD and then pick the church because there is no LOGICAL justification for believing the WORD prior to becoming a Catholic (hence another issue with Protestantism).

As I said before, my charge was that Protestantism has no such REASON behind any of it’s beliefs. After believing in Christ, people seem to arbitrarity pick to believe in the Bible (some give what they think are reasons like ‘I came to Christ by reading the Bible’, but those are not logically sound). Hence Protestantism is an unreasonable position for anyone to hold.

 

[CopticChristian]

Once again Jon, you are merely giving me a circular defense.

All I am asking is a very simple question. How does one go to believe in the Lutheran Confessions? How does one make the connection between believing in Christ and believing in the Lutheran Confessions? It is this link that you are yet to show.

If you cannot show a link between the existence of Christ and picking three ecumenical creeds, or a LOGICAL reason to pick the three ecumenical creeds, then the whole Confession is invalid. You only know that Christ existed. Now the burden is on the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox to show how to go from there to their respective beliefs.

Do you understand the logical claim that you cannot defend the Lutheran Confessions by what is already IN THE Lutheran Confessions?

One has to choose to be baptized, or if baptized, choose to remain in the faith.

I am merely asking REASONS to be baptized or remain in the faith. Under Protestantism, my charge is that there is no such reason.

To keep this short, you should be Catholic.

Something to correct is that BEFORE BAPTISM, you need to choose to be Catholic. You don’t become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because what they TEACH make sense. You become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because after you know Christ is real, God is real, that is the LOGICAL thing to do. You believe in the WORD in the Bible because the Catholic Church tells you. You can’t believe the WORD and then pick the church because there is no LOGICAL justification for believing the WORD prior to becoming a Catholic (hence another issue with Protestantism).

As I said before, my charge was that Protestantism has no such REASON behind any of it’s beliefs. After believing in Christ, people seem to arbitrarity pick to believe in the Bible (some give what they think are reasons like ‘I came to Christ by reading the Bible’, but those are not logically sound). Hence Protestantism is an unreasonable position for anyone to hold.

I am not sure if you have been evangelized by Protestants or not. This paragraph does not reflect what I consider the Protestant evangelical process and it varies…

Kirk Cameron and his group approach people with something like this…someone says “I am a good person”…then starts the dialogue…Have you ever lied? Yes. Then you are a liar. Have you ever stolen? Yes. Then you are a thief. Have you ever committed Adultery? Well no. Jesus says that even if you think about it… Well yes then. Then you are an Adulterer. This is the convict them of their sin ploy. My reformed friends say that they as Kirk does then offer the cure for Cancer…leading someone to the Bible and of course 2Tim3:16 and the usual verses out of context…the Bible becomes the reason for conviction and since the unsuspecting has no clue what is going on they then must read what someone else seems to understand…Note I said…seems to understand.

The other school is to try to prove that the Bible is true with 2Tim 3:16 and with Catholics the various other out of context passages in Romans. Unsuspecting, ignorant Catholics who may lack the fervor and zeal of these evangelists and have not studied their faith fall for this ploy and then of course are convinced that the Church does not encourage Bible study as these guys have and the Church lied…For all have sinned…oh my God…I was told Mary did not have sin…welll once you are convinced that you have been lied to and the out of context verses are used…you are convinced you must read this book and attend a Bible study where you are inculcated into twisted Scripture and Protestant Theology. My problem with this notion that they have identified Cancer and have a cure for it is that perhaps the cure they think they have has no basis in truth and may not be the cure they think it is so offering it is not necessarily the cure.

Most Protestants I have met “come to Christ” because of some emotional experience. If you watch TV you will see the Evangelists appealing to people…Are you are a loved one hurting? Do you have a spouse that does not understand you? Are you in an abusive relationship? Do you feel unloved?..

Humanity is plagued by two childhood fears. The first is fear of rejection. The second is fear of abandonment. Protestant evangelicals play to these base fears. All problems in adult life are manifested by these two basic fears that are not coped with or understood. These fears are manifested and heard in many ways.

Im fat, I am not pretty, no one likes me…fear of rejection.

I am unworthy, I am a failure, that is why I am alone fear of abandonment.

The Evangelist fills these wholes and provides a group of people that won’t reject or abandon them as long as they hang around…this is the heart of Protestant Evangelists as I have experienced them and watched their television ploys. Watch some TBN and see how the appeals are made. Pat Robertson 700 Club usually shows someone that had tragedy in their life and how they were changed…then if you have a problem like this then say this prayer with me and call so we get you started…etc.

Listen to the stories of people “that came to Christ”…before I came to Christ my life was…before I came to Christ I had such and such…listen for Rejection & Abandonment language and you can then pinopoint what their fear is and was.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Radical,

Hey, don’t worry about taking a while … everyone has a life that must come before CAF … I think…

Ah, but, it is one thing to find an argument ‘weak’ - and confront it with a weaker argument! Let me explain, by first saying that Christ DID NOT leave a set of blueprints and a Policy & Procedure Manual when He ascended into Heaven. Additionally, the Holy Spirit DID NOT deliver the Bible as we have it today on Pentecost Sunday, the birthday of the Catholic Church.

When we look at the development of the Catholic Church - initially identified in Scripture as “The Way” - but later called the Catholic Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch in 107AD - we find no instruction from Christ to ‘write’ down anything. We do have a command to spread the Word of God and Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Just looking at the history - it would appear from the outside that the Church - sometimes in fits and starts - just developed. From the inside, we have the promise of Christ that His Holy Spirit would guide the Church and keep it from error.

According to Wiki, “The Gospel of Mark has been dated from as early as the 50s, although many scholars date between the range of 65 and 72” So, from 33AD - 50AD gives us 17 years with the first Gospel having been written. My understanding is that the last book - Revelations - was not written until around 100AD. And, then we go until around 400AD before the Catholic Church developed the Canon of Sacred Scripture. Throughout this time - beginning with the Public Ministry of Christ - we have development of Sacred Tradition - the Truths of God revealed to men but not written down. It is Sacred Tradition (not to be confused with the ‘traditions of men’ like SS, SF and ‘altar calls’) that sustained the early Catholic Church and gave strength to the martyrs.

The impressions I have had is that Protestantism has two avenues it travels:
1.) it wants to isolate Christ from roughly the 1,500 that followed His birth. There is the Bible, whose Canon was established by the Catholic Church and then altered by Luther. And, it is from here that everything takes off. Like there was nothing happening for 1,500 years.

2.) it agrees that there was a history after Pentecost, and there really were ECF - but, either they should have been infallible (like St. Jerome) or they were mainly confused when they identified that infallibility of the Pope (like St. Augustine - oh, and an Evangelical pointed out that Augustine also had some errors in his scientific reasoning!)

Neither presents a clear or complete picture. The article you dismissed so easily presented by Pablope contains a lot of solid answers if you were to just look at it objectively, as opposed to from ‘your side of the fence’.

Ironically, from this side of the fence, this is exactly how one could describe the CC’s approach WRT its Sacred Tradition (ST). Does the tradition (Pope’s statement/council’s decision) agree with the current position of the CC? If so, then it is ST and is evidence that the ST has been taught all along. If not, then the Pope wasn’t speaking ex cathedra on that occasion or then the council wasn’t declaring an official binding decision. An additional strategy is to clarify or develop the original statement/decision so as to make it conform to current belief.

If you are wondering if the early Catholic Church teaching squares with the teaching of the Catholic Church today - let’s look at just two examples.

1.) The Real Presence; instituted by Christ, announced by St. Paul when the Corinthians were acting inappropriately and believed by the early Catholics. Today, we still believe that Christ, after the words of consecration, is present - Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity, under the appearance of bread and wine (not grape juice).

2.) Ordained men have the delegated Power of God to forgive or retain another person’s sins. Christ gives this Power to the Apostles (John 20:21) it was believed and affirmed by the early Catholics. Today, we still believe that the priest, acting in the Person of Christ, and in conformity with the directives of the Catholic Church forgives or retains sins.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Passer_by,

I think you will be asking those same questions - and getting either evasion or non-responses for quite some time to come!

As I see it: given a rejection of the Church founded by Christ on Peter, a rejection of the Bible with its Canon established in about 400AD by this same Catholic Church (to leave it unchanged would have created a major hole that could not be repaired) and a rejection of both Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church - Luther did not have many options.

If he accepted the entire Canon - then, this would mean that he recognized that the Holy Spirit had worked through the Catholic Church to give us the inerrant Word of God… could not have that!

If he rejected the Catholic Church, he could not go back and ask them what a section of Scripture really meant … so he could not have that!

If he essentially claimed that God had appointed him to create a new religion, then questions like him performing miracles or wondrous signs would have to be side stepped by pointing out all of the human failings of the then current Church leadership… now that he could do!

Ultimately, I think he wanted to be his own pope (he condemned a lot of others for failing to follow his directives) and he thought that all (or at least most) would interpret Scripture the way he saw it. SS was the only real answer available to him after having painted himself into a corner. In Luther’s own life-time he saw how different groups took his interpretation of Scripture and trashed it while enshrining their interpretation. I do not think anyone would imagine that there were 30,000+ groups today doing the same thing.

As I said, this is just my opinion. Given all that we have seen - and the on-going disintegration of Protestantism with practicing homosexual clergy, same sex marriage, abortion considered as ethical behavior, etc. I think we are about to see more deterioration. There are still practicing Catholics and devout Christians to be persecuted.

God bless

Once again Jon, you are merely giving me a circular defense.

All I am asking is a very simple question. How does one go to believe in the Lutheran Confessions? How does one make the connection between believing in Christ and believing in the Lutheran Confessions? It is this link that you are yet to show.

If you cannot show a link between the existence of Christ and picking three ecumenical creeds, or a LOGICAL reason to pick the three ecumenical creeds, then the whole Confession is invalid. You only know that Christ existed. Now the burden is on the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox to show how to go from there to their respective beliefs.

Do you understand the logical claim that you cannot defend the Lutheran Confessions by what is already IN THE Lutheran Confessions?

One has to choose to be baptized, or if baptized, choose to remain in the faith.

I am merely asking REASONS to be baptized or remain in the faith. Under Protestantism, my charge is that there is no such reason.

To keep this short, you should be Catholic. I don’t want to get in to how you found the Orthodox aren’t the one because it will derail this whole thing. In any case, the fact that you can’t choose between the two IS NOT LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION for you to remain Protestant either. So I feel the matter is irrelevant.

Something to correct is that BEFORE BAPTISM, you need to choose to be Catholic. You don’t become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because what they TEACH make sense. You become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because after you know Christ is real, God is real, that is the LOGICAL thing to do. You believe in the WORD in the Bible because the Catholic Church tells you. You can’t believe the WORD and then pick the church because there is no LOGICAL justification for believing the WORD prior to becoming a Catholic (hence another issue with Protestantism).

As I said before, my charge was that Protestantism has no such REASON behind any of it’s beliefs. After believing in Christ, people seem to arbitrarity pick to believe in the Bible (some give what they think are reasons like ‘I came to Christ by reading the Bible’, but those are not logically sound). Hence Protestantism is an unreasonable position for anyone to hold.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Interesting discussion.

After 22years, I will be meeting with a Priest by my work on Tuesday afternoon - not morning since if I am led to confess we will need several hours… I already offered to cover the coffee and donuts .

I have never been convinced of the SS proposal. Probably thanks to my upbringing in the RCC.

Until the Protestant belief system understands that the New Testament was given to us by the Catholic Church, in its entirety, there will be inconsistency to support the SS claim. However, I have no problem with Prima Scriptura.

In Him,

Jose

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jose,

What a wonderful Grace. Yes, indeed, I think talking to the priest would be an excellent idea - so good, in fact … let me see if I can help…

Now, I do not want to be accused of shamelessly supporting a particular brand of donut … but… if you are going to get Duncan Donuts anyway - here is a link to some discount codes! retailmenot.com/view/dunkindonuts.com Hopefully, neither you or the priest is a diabetic!

I am asking all on this thread to pray for God’s Grace at Jose’s meeting with the priest.

God bless

Interesting discussion.

After 22years, I will be meeting with a Priest by my work on Tuesday afternoon - not morning since if I am led to confess we will need several hours… I already offered to cover the coffee and donuts .

I have never been convinced of the SS proposal. Probably thanks to my upbringing in the RCC.

Until the Protestant belief system understands that the New Testament was given to us by the Catholic Church, in its entirety, there will be inconsistency to support the SS claim. However, I have no problem with Prima Scriptura.

In Him,

Jose

 

[Safia]

Interesting discussion.

After 22years, I will be meeting with a Priest by my work on Tuesday afternoon - not morning since if I am led to confess we will need several hours… I already offered to cover the coffee and donuts .

I have never been convinced of the SS proposal. Probably thanks to my upbringing in the RCC.

Until the Protestant belief system understands that the New Testament was given to us by the Catholic Church, in its entirety, there will be inconsistency to support the SS claim. However, I have no problem with Prima Scriptura.

In Him,

Jose

You’ll be in my prayers, good sir. May God pour His blessings upon you!

 

[JonNC]

=passer_by;8813030]Once again Jon, you are merely giving me a circular defense.

All I am asking is a very simple question. How does one go to believe in the Lutheran Confessions? How does one make the connection between believing in Christ and believing in the Lutheran Confessions? It is this link that you are yet to show.

And I asked you the same question, and you did not answer. We are talking about an element of faith, and yes, how we are catechized. Since we believe the confessions rightly reflect the truth of the faith and scripture, it seems logical to accept the documents that properly reflect this truth.

If you cannot show a link between the existence of Christ and picking three ecumenical creeds, or a LOGICAL reason to pick the three ecumenical creeds, then the whole Confession is invalid. You only know that Christ existed. Now the burden is on the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox to show how to go from there to their respective beliefs.

Why is this a burden? Who is making it a burden?

Do you understand the logical claim that you cannot defend the Lutheran Confessions by what is already IN THE Lutheran Confessions?

Why can’t I? The final norm is scripture. The confessions rightly reflect scripture, and we believe, the teachings of the Church, hence our acceptance of the early general councils and creeds.

One has to choose to be baptized, or if baptized, choose to remain in the faith

True, though my parents, through their faith, chose to have me baptized. Our ability to remain in faith is by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Also our free will in receiving the faith given to us by Grace.

I am merely asking REASONS to be baptized or remain in the faith. Under Protestantism, my charge is that there is no such reason.

Your charge is based on your view which, obviously enough, not that of a Lutheran. Curiously, I make no charge against Catholics in this way. I accept that the holy spirit works in the lives of Catholics, by Grace.

To keep this short, you should be Catholic. I don’t want to get in to how you found the Orthodox aren’t the one because it will derail this whole thing. In any case, the fact that you can’t choose between the two IS NOT LOGICAL JUSTIFICATION for you to remain Protestant either. So I feel the matter is irrelevant.

You feel the matter is irrelevent. It isn’t to me. I asked before that you answer the question you put to me. So, here again, what is the link between the receiving of faith through Grace, and your being a Catholic Christian?

Something to correct is that BEFORE BAPTISM, you need to choose to be Catholic.

How could I choose to be Catholic a month and a day after I was born?

You don’t become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because what they TEACH make sense. You become Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant because after you know Christ is real, God is real, that is the LOGICAL thing to do. You believe in the WORD in the Bible because the Catholic Church tells you. You can’t believe the WORD and then pick the church because there is no LOGICAL justification for believing the WORD prior to becoming a Catholic (hence another issue with Protestantism).

YOu believe the word because faith comes to you through the Grace of God. That is why I am a member of the Church, because of Grace.

As I said before, my charge was that Protestantism has no such REASON behind any of it’s beliefs. After believing in Christ, people seem to arbitrarity pick to believe in the Bible (some give what they think are reasons like ‘I came to Christ by reading the Bible’, but those are not logically sound). Hence Protestantism is an unreasonable position for anyone to hold.

Who said? Your charge makes no sense.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I have a problem with the Augsberg confession based on my understanding that it was created under the direction of The Emperor Charles the V, John of Saxony/Elector, Phillip of Hesse, Margrave George of Brandenburg, the Dukes Ernest and Francis of Lüneburg, the representatives of Nuremberg and Reutlingen, and other counselors, besides twelve theologians. I understand that Martin Luther was not in attendance at its formation and it was forumulated not by a Church but by Government overseers. This is my understanding. Am I incorrect?

Here is a historical perspective of the Augsburg Confession. Hope that it helps.

bookofconcord.org/historical-3.php

Jon

 

[passer_by]

And I asked you the same question, and you did not answer. We are talking about an element of faith, and yes, how we are catechized. Since we believe the confessions rightly reflect the truth of the faith and scripture, it seems logical to accept the documents that properly reflect this truth.

Jon, how do you know that what you believe reflects truth? If you already know that what you believe reflects truth then there is no need for faith.

What I am questioning is how you go from Christ is real to then believing in the Bible, Confessions etc. Now the naive answer a 5 year old gives is that its because I was born and raised that way. But after you reach an age of reason, you need to check if your position is REASONABLE.

So coming to believe in Protestantism or Catholicism CANNOT BE AN ELEMENT OF FAITH. That has to be from reason. Otherwise whichever religion you believe in is arbitrary.

Why is this a burden? Who is making it a burden?

It is a burden if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise of course you can abandon reason.

Why can’t I? The final norm is scripture. The confessions rightly reflect scripture, and we believe, the teachings of the Church, hence our acceptance of the early general councils and creeds.

Jon, which part of my question don’t you understand?

After realizing Christ is real (historically or through personal experience), it does not follow automatically that anyone needs to believe in the Bible. I am asking you how you go from there to the Bible.

So far you have been answering in circles. When I ask “How do you know that you have to believe in the Bible?”, you say “Lutheran Confessions tell me”. When I ask “how do you know you have to believe in the Confessions?”, you say “Because it is backed by the Bible”. That is circular reasoning i.e. you have not answered the question.

True, though my parents, through their faith, chose to have me baptized. Our ability to remain in faith is by the influence of the Holy Spirit. Also our free will in receiving the faith given to us by Grace.

Your insistence that you remain Protestant is no different than a Muslim who claims that he will stay Muslim because Allah is guiding him.

How do you know the Holy Spirit is guiding you? I know for a fact that any inclination you have to be Protestant can’t be from the Holy Spirit because it is unreasonable. It’s a good sign that this is some other spirit keeping you there.

Your charge is based on your view which, obviously enough, not that of a Lutheran.

My view is from a perspective of a rational person. If Lutheran’s don’t share my perspective that is a good indication that they might be abandoning reason.

Curiously, I make no charge against Catholics in this way. I accept that the holy spirit works in the lives of Catholics, by Grace.

You can’t make this same charge against Catholics because one arrives at Catholicism through reasonable means i.e. he believes in the Apostles after finding out that Christ is real. That is the most intuitive and logical thing for anyone to do.

Lutheran’s on the other hand run directly to a book called the Bible. My question is what sort of logical inference did you do to go from Christ is real to the Bible?

How does an early pagan, right after Christ rose from the dead, go from seeing the risen Christ to a book called the Bible? I would think the most logical thing to do is go and listen to the Apostles.

You feel the matter is irrelevent. It isn’t to me. I asked before that you answer the question you put to me. So, here again, what is the link between the receiving of faith through Grace, and your being a Catholic Christian?

If you do not understand the matter is irrelevant, that is a big issue because that is not even a Theological statement.

My point is merely that even if position X and Y which are alternatives to your position Z are hard to choose from or even invalid, it still does not mean you can hold on to position Z without answering my question. If you can’t answer my question, you have to abandon it.

My question is similar to asking an Atheist what is his proof that God does not exist. If he can’t answer that question, he has to abandon Atheism and go to Agnosticism. If he remains an Atheist, he is being UNREASONABLE.

How could I choose to be Catholic a month and a day after I was born?

You can’t. So you get baptized. But after you reach the age of reason, you can find out why be Catholic. In your case, after all this time, it has come the time to answer the question you have ignored all this time … “Why am I Protestant?”.

YOu believe the word because faith comes to you through the Grace of God. That is why I am a member of the Church, because of Grace.

No way. How on earth do you even know that you believe in the Word because it comes from the Grace of God BEFORE READING THE WORD?

My question is not Theological Jon. Hence why if you don’t answer it, the implications are that Protestantism is false and no amount of Theological argumentation is going to save you.

Who said? Your charge makes no sense.

But you are proving my charge valid every post you make without giving me an actual answer. All you have done, just like I accused Protestantism of, is to defend it using Theology, Confessions etc. Needless to say, you cannot defend the system by what is IN THE SYSTEM. If you cannot do so, it just shows that Protestantism is

1. Arbitrary and random collection of rules
2. Not a reasonable position to hold

 

[Radical]

Why do you believe Scripture (let’s take Mark specifically) = Word of God?

Because it’s God’s word.

it is indeed a matter of faith…but it seems a little nonsensical to say that I believe that Mark is (part of) the Word of God b/c it is (part of ) God’s word.

How do you know it’s God’s word?

Because the Catholic Church told you so.

nope, it ain’t that simple. Members of the universal Church had recognized it as an authoratative work w/i a century of its production. Its message and details ring true and are confirmed (for the most part) by Matthew and Luke. To equate the universal Church of 150AD with the CC of 2000AD begs the question and assumes that the CC’s sacred tradition is valid and is not a man-made thing…a thing that would legitimately distinguish the current CC from the original Church.

The only way to know for sure is whether God came down from Heaven to assure us.

sounds right

Let’s not get into the subject of the so-called Apocrypha, because history (historical fact, not interpretation) tells us that these books were always a part of Scripture.

always part of scripture? Perhaps a citation of a qualified authority would be appropriate for such a bold assertion.

Second, remember how certain time periods assume something to be true?

you mean like how you (in this period of time) assume that the Catholic Marian doctrines are true and not the product of pious imagination,

Do you want me to give you Scriptural proof for Mary’s perpetual virginity? Proof that doesn’t require interpretation?

yes, that would be nice. I would be looking for words such as “everlasting” or “perpetual” being used to describe her virginity and not a phrase or some such thing upon which you have built and edifice of inference.

Not to mention, from an ad hominem perspective, I can’t imagine God ever choosing a woman whose life didn’t center entirely on God – her only child.

your imagination is not something upon which doctrines should be founded

It’s called history and development. Things change.

indeed they do…but were those changes guided by God?

Assuming this were true, you still don’t give reason as to why the CC can’t be guided on questions of dogma and doctrine.

assuming guidance, even in the face of such gross unrighteousness (that was in existence during long periods) seems implausible. Assuming that the fathers were silent on a matter (ie the PV of M …even when mentioning it would have been very useful in arguing with the Gnostics) and that it was taught from the outset is not IMHO the best explanation (by far) of the historical evidence. Calling something a “development” doesn’t mean that it really wasn’t an innovation. In other words, the CC could have been guided by the HS (so as to ensure inerrancy), but that doesn’t seem to be the best fit for the evidence.

And I certainly wouldn’t call the ability of an individual to, for example, speak in tongues and turn to the Holy Spirit in prayer the same thing as an institution’s ability to collectively come together and agree on questions of faith.

well, if the institution isn’t following the HS, then maybe you should go with the individual

You seem to be arguing that the CC’s justification for succession and infallibility is circular. But, ah, there’s the rub: it’s not. It’s spiral:

1. Scripture is historically accurate (premise).

1. Scripture says that Christ established a divine Church possessing the charism of Infallibility.

1. The Scriptures are inspired because the Church says so.

Take it or leave it, but, properly understood, this is not circular logic; the conclusion is in no way stated or assumed by the premise.

that is b/c you are sloppy with the description. It should be:

1. The CC assumes that the scriptures are historically accurate (you would get a lot of argument from non- Christians and liberal Christians as to the level of accuracy)
2. The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded) possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility
3. The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded
4. Therefore, the CC is infallible; and
5. b/c the CC is infallible, its interpretations at #2 and #3 are absolutely correct

take it or leave it, but that’s a circle

 

[Radical]

But questions of papal infallibility and the supremacy of Rome are:

One need not expect to find in the early centuries a formal and explicit recognition throughout the Church either of the primacy or of the infallibility of the pope in the terms in which these doctrines are defined by the Vatican Council. But the fact cannot be denied that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff in regard not only to disciplinary but also to doctrinal affairs. This is clear for example, from:

Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians at the end of the first century, the way in which, shortly afterwards, Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church; …

Clement and Ignatius hardly demonstrate “that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff”. The scholarly consensus is that Rome did not have a pontiff at that time. It was led by a group of presbyters….and the use of “extreme” is entirely overreaching (see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops).

Give me one fact that speaks otherwise.

How about the about face that has the CC first holding that “killing non-Catholic Christians is the will of God” and then holding that “Protestants are our separated brethren”. Seems a little contradictory

Why is it, then, that no* ex cathedra* definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous?

b/c the definition of how that worked wasn’t supplied/developed until the 19th century. As such, for quite a few centuries, when Popes made declarations, they did not know to clarify the declaration with “this is ex cathedra” or “this is not ex cathedra.” That leaves you free to categorize any erroneous declaration as “not ex cathedra” to preserve “freedom from error” (even if the Pope in question was convinced that he was making an eternally true declaration)

 

[passer_by]

Clement and Ignatius hardly demonstrate “that from the beginning there was a widespread acknowledgment by other churches of some kind of supreme authority in the Roman pontiff”. The scholarly consensus is that Rome did not have a pontiff at that time. It was led by a group of presbyters….and the use of “extreme” is entirely overreaching (see Sullivan: From Apostles to Bishops).
How about the about face that has the CC first holding that “killing non-Catholic Christians is the will of God” and then holding that “Protestants are our separated brethren”. Seems a little contradictory
b/c the definition of how that worked wasn’t supplied/developed until the 19th century. As such, for quite a few centuries, when Popes made declarations, they did not know to clarify the declaration with “this is ex cathedra” or “this is not ex cathedra.” That leaves you free to categorize any erroneous declaration as “not ex cathedra” to preserve “freedom from error” (even if the Pope in question was convinced that he was making an eternally true declaration)

Hey,

Perhaps you would like to take a jab at helping your friend Jon answer my question. The charge against him applies to your position just as much. If you can’t answer it, I am afraid the rest of your arguments are also simply arbitrary.

 

[passer_by]

that is b/c you are sloppy with the description. It should be:

1. The CC assumes that the scriptures are historically accurate (you would get a lot of argument from non- Christians and liberal Christians as to the level of accuracy)
2. The CC interprets certain biblical passages to say that the Church (that Christ founded) possessed a never-ending gift of infallibility
3. The CC interprets scripture, traditions and history to say that the CC is the Church that Christ founded
4. Therefore, the CC is infallible; and
5. b/c the CC is infallible, its interpretations at #2 and #3 are absolutely correct

take it or leave it, but that’s a circle

This really caught my eye.

I think you are terribly wrong with the argument. The argument to being Catholic is of the following form

1. After knowing that Christ rose from the dead (through reason, historicity or personal experience), the most logical thing to do is to listen to the Apostles
2. We know Apostles had the Authority on deciding on matters of Faith and Morals from Scripture (as a mere historical collection of books) and other writings by Church fathers in Tradition (also read as historical books)
3. We also know that Apostles instituted successors with the same authority through Scripture (as a mere historical collection of books), other writings by Church fathers in Tradition (also read as historical books)
4. Therefore we believe in the Church that has Apostolic Succession i.e. the Catholic Church (we believe this is true because the Apostles taught it and they are the ones we listen to)

So there is nothing circular in this argument.

Now a word about saying "Scripture as a historical collection of books). Here it is not assumed that Scripture is historically accurate. BUT, it is first analyzed for historicity the same way other books from history are analyzed and facts are extracted out. So if you are charging that such a method is invalid, then according to your logic, reading historical books and coming up with the idea that Caesar is a historical figure is also circular