Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[Lovesa]

The difference makes it deficient.

You cannot support the idea that Jesus abandoned His One Body from any scripture, or any historical document. Such a perspective represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

1 Tim 3:15
15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

How can the Church possibly be the pillar and bulwark of the Truth without divine intervention?

If this intervention stopped when the NT was written, how is anyone to know which writings belonged in the Scripture?

If God stopped intervening when the Scriptures were written, then you cannot trust the canon itself, which was established through Sacred Tradition (the Word of God alive and well in the Church).

:doh2: OK. This is important to note: Jesus. did not. abandon the church. He is still watching over it, etc. He just does not prevent errors from arising, and he does not keep church officials from making mistakes. If I made it sound like I think Christ abandoned the church, I’ve phrased something poorly along the line, because that is not in my belief system. Sometimes it feels like that, yes, but it is not the Lutheran belief on the subject.

After all, Luther could have gotten killed. He didn’t. Most Lutherans (if not all) that I know attribute this to divine protection. Most Lutherans I know think God protects Scripture, and does this even through sinful hands. This is the same argument made by some about the sinful people throughout the Bible, such as Judas. He had to do what he did, but that does not make what he did right. Betraying Jesus is a good thing–it led to the crucifixion. However, Judas was not therefore sinless in his betrayal; God simply made the best of it.
It is with the same attitude, then, that many Lutherans look at the Catholic compilation of the Bible. (No disrespect meant in that analogy; it’s just the basic idea.)

I do agree that the way Jesus keeps the Church pure is indeed a mystery. But to think that every Christian from the time the Bible was written to the present was corrupt is sheer nonsense.

But all those Churches mentioned in Revelation are Catholic - they are part of the One Church founded by Christ, which was the same all over the world.

Are they all Catholic? That’s a difference of interpretation, I suppose.

As for the notion that “every Christian from the time the Bible was written to the present was corrupt”, I’m not sure any Lutheran believes that. They may have been a little misguided, but for a long time the Catholic Church was the only church, and people didn’t have any options. They were no more corrupt than somebody visiting the only gas station in town is corrupt if that company is a little disreputable in practice. Unless they don’t drive their car (in this analogy, atheism or other religions), they have no choice.

Also, apostolic succession is frequently seen as nullified by various “non-biblical” teachings it is believed the Catholic Church teaches, or taught.

If “we can’t know” then Jesus really has left us orphaned. And the Scriptures are lies. This passage:

1 Cor 11:19-20
for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Does not speak Truth, ifw the genuine cannot be recognized.

Here it is taken as meaning “recognized” by God, not by man. Even if they were recognized by man, it would be through the study of scripture. One may take as evidence that the people compared whatever Jesus said to scripture, to see if he was right. It is also the guidance given when looking out for false prophets.

Where in the Bible does it say this?

What was genuine was so before the NT was ever written. What makes you think the Church must depend upon it? When Jesus builds something, it is not a deficient building.

The Bible frequently promotes itself as useful for determining the truth; if a teaching does not mesh with the Bible, surely it is incorrect, even if someone in authority says so. It seems to me, also, that a good number of Catholic arguments for the papacy rely on the idea that the papacy has never “infallably” contradicted scripture, only complemented it.

Also, considering that the Bible is where the Catholic Church seems to claim to get its power, I would hope that said church would rely on the scripture for the truth. While I can accept tradition coming into play, it does not come into play to the abandonment of scripture.

And I must agree that nothing Christ builds is deficient. The disagreement comes when Catholics make the claim that Christ “built” the Catholic Church, papacy, etc. If it was not built by God, it may very well be deficient.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

From my experience, many people would find it very difficult to continue to ignore the obvious and then attempt to make a virtue out of it.

I asked you to name the ‘Early Church’ and you play word games. You refused to respond to honest questions so I am just wondering what it is you are hiding or hiding from.

If there were more than the three groups I previously identified (Pagan, Jew and Catholic) at the end of the 1st Century, then name the group(s). Christ founded His Church on Peter in about 32AD and the last Apostle died about the year 100AD. From then until the Council of Nicea there is a steady track record of the Catholic Church. No question is being begged. Either answer it, refuse to answer it but spare me the games. Here are five items I would appreciate you addressing with your background in the ‘Early Chruch’

The Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) - the Catholic Church - can trace its origins directly to the Apostles. Where do you trace yours to?

Christ gave the command that baptism is necessaery and to baptize all nations and preach the Good News. Today, the Catholic Chruch baptizes infants, children and adults as obeying Christ’s command. What does your group do>

From the earliest days, as recorded in Scripture, Christ’s command to consecrate Bread and Wine into His Body and Blood was done. This is done to this day. What does your group believe?

Christ gave the delegated power of God to forgive sin to men. To this day, priests, acting in the Person of Christ can forgive or retain sins following Christ’s command. What does your group believe?

Finally, Christ placed Peter in charge and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom to not only identify his authority over the Eleven - but, to show how Christ has so joined Himself to the Church He had just founded. To this day, the Successor of St. Peter is in charge of the universal church, and has the clear understanding from Christ that, ‘He who hears you hears Me’.

In addition to this, I have yet to see any documentation from Early Church Fathers (and, that would be Early Catholic Church Fathers) both East and West that do not support these simply five items I have presented to you. If you have doubts - then substantiate your case and let’s see what you have.

Please, do not quibble about ‘Orthdox’ as not being part of the name. There is an Orthodox group, and as I recall, you are not a member of them either.

From the 1st to the 15th Century we see the direct evidence of the Catholic Church - from the Apostles first meeting in the Temple and synagogues to meeting in homes to building churches. We see the command to Peter, “WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven” - no fine print. From the 15th Century to today the same doctrines I identified to are are still being taught.

God bless

The Early Church was undivided until the split with the non-Chalcedonians, and then until the schism.

Almost all of the Christian groups we see today are descended from the Early Church. Some have changed quite substantially, some very little.

But that history connects all of them - even the few that deny it are really descended from the Early Church.

If you want to try and say the Catholic Church perfectly, or most perfectly, preserves those teachings, and even comprises “the Church” feel free. But please do not try to beg the question, which seems to be the direction you are going in. If you do I will have to insist that the Catholic Church cannot be “The Church” since they do not have the word “Orthodox” as part of their name. If you accept that argument, then I will accept yours.

As for me: my background is in Classics, from the pagan Greeks through to about the Renaissance. I studied mostly philosophy but also enough history to contextualize it. So lots of the EC’s, Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Thomas, Boethius, as well as pre-Christian thinkers. Most of my studies were of Western writers, so recently I have been looking more at some of the Eastern Fathers.

 

[CMatt25]

We can’t know. We can’t. It’s just what we deal with, searching for the truth, trying to figure out which denomination is right. I don’t know a Lutheran who doesn’t admit he/she might be totally wrong, but that his/her conscience guides him/her to the church they’re in, so they stay.

Since Lutherans are human like the rest of us, this makes some sense.

 

[CMatt25]

For my part, I have to wonder what gave the church the authority to introduce certain new rules, for instance the idea I’ve seen around many Catholics that eating meat on Lenten Fridays is a sin. Christ explicitly told us we could eat anything, and also not to follow the laws of men.

Catholics might invoke the power to bind and loosen. But I see your point too. Also that one is to abstain from meat but dining on lobster and scallops instead is an allowed replacement. Or the Catholic definition of fasting ( 1 full meal/2 small ones equaling a full) isn’t spelled out in Scripture either. One day during Lent I went instead 23 hrs without a morsel of food. Or that it’s a mortal sin if you disobey by missing a weekday Holy Day of Obligation. HDofO though seem to depend on which diocese you are in.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lovesa,

Thank you for your post.

I would like to address just two of your ideas and see if I can help shed some light on what seems to be implied questions.

Also, considering that the Bible is where the Catholic Church seems to claim to get its power, I would hope that said church would rely on the scripture for the truth. While I can accept tradition coming into play, it does not come into play to the abandonment of scripture.

And I must agree that nothing Christ builds is deficient. The disagreement comes when Catholics make the claim that Christ “built” the Catholic Church, papacy, etc. If it was not built by God, it may very well be deficient.

Prior to the 400AD, there was no Bible in the way we tend to think of it (OT and NT estabished in a set order of books - all inspired with God as the Principal Author). This means that as you back in time there is less certainty as to which books were inspired until you get to about 50AD where all there was were the books of the OT. So, while the bible has a very definite history - it is younger than the Catholic Church that established the Canon of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church does not and could not get its power from something it developed. Rather, it is the Bible that gets its power from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit directed through the Catholic Church. It is really a matter of just matching up the historical dates and see where they lead.

In Matthew 16:18 we have God the Father select Peter from out of the Eleven to give him the answer to the question that God the Son had asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter responds with the correct answer - and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity acknowledges it and the role that the First Person of the Blessed Trinity had in this. Jesus Christ then declares to all that He will build His Church on Peter (yeah, cowardly, bragging, impetitous and good-hearted, Peter). “Papacy” is a word our Protestant friends like to say is not in the Bible - as if that is supposed to be a limitation - but, whatever word you want to use - Peter was placed in charge and Christ had given him the Keys of the Kingdom to prove it (there were not 11 other sets! ).

Ultimately, we believe that Christ did not abandon us or leave us orphans. He left us His Chruch where we go and recieve special graces from the Sacraments, become physically united to Christ in the Eucharist, read his Holy Word and as part of His Mystical Body - are joined with other Christians here on earth, suffering in Purgatory or glorifying God in Heaven.

God bless

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I call it “Triple H”

seamusmohr;7847901:

The points about the various Popes are not germane, true or not.

No, but one should not neglect H

orny Hank’s Hormones. History is complex; made of parts.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Hi, Bluegoat,

From my experience, many people would find it very difficult to continue to ignore the obvious and then attempt to make a virtue out of it.

I asked you to name the ‘Early Church’ and you play word games. You refused to respond to honest questions so I am just wondering what it is you are hiding or hiding from.

If there were more than the three groups I previously identified (Pagan, Jew and Catholic) at the end of the 1st Century, then name the group(s). Christ founded His Church on Peter in about 32AD and the last Apostle died about the year 100AD. From then until the Council of Nicea there is a steady track record of the Catholic Church. No question is being begged. Either answer it, refuse to answer it but spare me the games. Here are five items I would appreciate you addressing with your background in the ‘Early Chruch’

The Church founded by Christ on Peter (Matt 16:18) - the Catholic Church - can trace its origins directly to the Apostles. Where do you trace yours to?

Christ gave the command that baptism is necessaery and to baptize all nations and preach the Good News. Today, the Catholic Chruch baptizes infants, children and adults as obeying Christ’s command. What does your group do>

From the earliest days, as recorded in Scripture, Christ’s command to consecrate Bread and Wine into His Body and Blood was done. This is done to this day. What does your group believe?

Christ gave the delegated power of God to forgive sin to men. To this day, priests, acting in the Person of Christ can forgive or retain sins following Christ’s command. What does your group believe?

Finally, Christ placed Peter in charge and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom to not only identify his authority over the Eleven - but, to show how Christ has so joined Himself to the Church He had just founded. To this day, the Successor of St. Peter is in charge of the universal church, and has the clear understanding from Christ that, ‘He who hears you hears Me’.

In addition to this, I have yet to see any documentation from Early Church Fathers (and, that would be Early Catholic Church Fathers) both East and West that do not support these simply five items I have presented to you. If you have doubts - then substantiate your case and let’s see what you have.

Please, do not quibble about ‘Orthdox’ as not being part of the name. There is an Orthodox group, and as I recall, you are not a member of them either.

From the 1st to the 15th Century we see the direct evidence of the Catholic Church - from the Apostles first meeting in the Temple and synagogues to meeting in homes to building churches. We see the command to Peter, “WHATEVER you bind on earth is bound in heaven” - no fine print. From the 15th Century to today the same doctrines I identified to are are still being taught.

God bless

Oh good grief.

You *are *making that argument.

And what possible difference does it make to the validity of your argument what my religious affiliation is? Ad hominem is not valid any more than begging the question is? If I should accept that the modern Catholic Church is the Church based on it’s name, why not argue the same for the Orthodox Catholic Church? I’ll tell you why - because it is a stupid argument.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Easy girl, easy!

Oh good grief.

You *are *making that argument.

And what possible difference does it make to the validity of your argument what my religious affiliation is? Ad hominem is not valid any more than begging the question is? If I should accept that the modern Catholic Church is the Church based on it’s name, why not argue the same for the Orthodox Catholic Church? I’ll tell you why - because it is a stupid argument.

 

[PRmerger]

Go to the top of the thread and use the “view last read?” button. that will take you to the next post. If you use that, you will miss less of them.

Hey! I’ve been on the CAFs a looongg time and didn’t know about this function! I checked at the top and couldn’t find that icon. Is it under “thread tools” or “search thread”?

 

[GKC]

I call it “Triple H”
GKC;7848262:
I’m thinking of copyrighting it.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why don’t you just put “history is complicated” as your signature!

gurneyhalleck1;7849019:

I call it “Triple H”

I’m thinking of copyrighting it.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Trust me there; I know how the Bible got to its current state. The fact that the Catholic Church compiled it is usually seen as a happy coincidence, or just an inevitable product of the church being the only real body capable of compiling scripture at the time it was compiled into the one book known as the Bible.

I think this attitude stems from a deficient understanding of the Church founded by Christ, the assumption that the Catholic Church went off the rails at some time after the Scriptures were written, and a lack of confidence in God.

Really, God could have used any person, or any “real body” to form the Bible He wanted us to have. Why do you think He chose the Catholic Church, instead of one of the “unreal” bodies?

I posit that no “real body” of people is capable of such a feat without divine intervention.

We trust the Bible because God would protect that; it's too horrible to think he wouldn't.

YOu believe the Bible is correct because your feelings would be hurt if you didn’t?

Scripture also calls itself incorrupt–which is taken to mean the compiled version, not individual books. I’m not very clear on how we know it’s all true or right or supposed to be there.

Now might be a good time to find out.

 I'm afraid I don't off-hand. I got a few of them in confirmation class, but none of them are popping up with a flip through the Bible.

This from 1 Corinthians is popular quoting among Lutheran pastors:
" Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

It’s a tenuous argument, I must say, but I’m only saying what’s believed, not claiming it’s logical.

Yes it is illogical, tenuous, and commonly believed. However, the Apostles taught that Jesus is the perfect, and would come again, and until then the Church will be in the world, with all the gifts He gave her.

 I'm not so sure he "abandoned his promise" that he didn't mean he'd protect the physical church, doctrine, etc., while in Heaven, unless divine intervention became absolutely necessary (some would argue, in the Reformation).

What do you think He meant by:

John 14:18-19

18 "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, **and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. **19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:13-15
3 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

However, it does not seem to me that God would leave His Church in the arms of corrupt men (meaning any men), even if it were “divinely protected”. After all,

Mark 7
"And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

This is a good example of the exact reason the Church needs divine intervention. Just after Jesus promised Peter the Keys, He called him “adversary” and said

Mark 8:33
33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

So clearly, He did leave HIs church in the hands of fallible men. If they were not fallible, they would not need divine intervention.

For what purpose would Christ divinely protect the church if traditions are not to be put ahead of scripture? (I don’t mean to nullify tradition entirely–that smacks of extremism to me.) Why would Christ allow new traditions to be introduced in his church and presented as if they were law, when the law does not make man clean?

I think you misunderstand the nature of Sacred Tradition. It is the TEaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church.

I don’t mean to refer to perfectly biblical tradition, or even traditions that do not contradict scripture, but the abuses of the church do not seem to most Protestants to point to a divinely protected church in the least, especially the abuses of the reformation.

Yes, this is understandible. But the reason the Church needs divine protection is BECAUSE of the abuse of the fallible men who are part of her.

 

[guanophore]

Hey! I’ve been on the CAFs a looongg time and didn’t know about this function! I checked at the top and couldn’t find that icon. Is it under “thread tools” or “search thread”?

Sorry I mispoke. On mine it is on the left hand side at the top of the thread just below the “post reply” button but it says “view first unread”.

 

[Lovesa]

Hi, Lovesa,

Thank you for your post.

I would like to address just two of your ideas and see if I can help shed some light on what seems to be implied questions.

Prior to the 400AD, there was no Bible in the way we tend to think of it (OT and NT estabished in a set order of books - all inspired with God as the Principal Author). This means that as you back in time there is less certainty as to which books were inspired until you get to about 50AD where all there was were the books of the OT. So, while the bible has a very definite history - it is younger than the Catholic Church that established the Canon of Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church does not and could not get its power from something it developed. Rather, it is the Bible that gets its power from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit directed through the Catholic Church. It is really a matter of just matching up the historical dates and see where they lead.

In Matthew 16:18 we have God the Father select Peter from out of the Eleven to give him the answer to the question that God the Son had asked, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter responds with the correct answer - and the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity acknowledges it and the role that the First Person of the Blessed Trinity had in this. Jesus Christ then declares to all that He will build His Church on Peter (yeah, cowardly, bragging, impetitous and good-hearted, Peter). “Papacy” is a word our Protestant friends like to say is not in the Bible - as if that is supposed to be a limitation - but, whatever word you want to use - Peter was placed in charge and Christ had given him the Keys of the Kingdom to prove it (there were not 11 other sets! ).

Ultimately, we believe that Christ did not abandon us or leave us orphans. He left us His Chruch where we go and recieve special graces from the Sacraments, become physically united to Christ in the Eucharist, read his Holy Word and as part of His Mystical Body - are joined with other Christians here on earth, suffering in Purgatory or glorifying God in Heaven.

God bless

OK. Let me just make sure I understand here. Is the position of Catholicism, then, that the church is what gives the Bible its validity, and not the other way around? However, if the events described in the Bible are what gave Peter and gives the papacy (& no, I don’t need the word in the Bible. I can’t find the word trinity in it either, but that doesn’t stop my believing in it. ) his/its power, respectively, it would seem that the church could very well just pick whatever scripture for canon that seems to support its own power. I don’t mean to imply that this is what happened, but how can we be sure, if scripture is chosen by the church, which has its own power because of events which only the scripture it has approved of testify?

This seems to get into strange territory, but this is the question that comes to mind from that notion.

And how could the church, if it does not get its power from the Bible it supposedly wrote and developed (Surely God was in there somewhere too, right? As big a role as the church played, is it fair to say the Catholic Church wrote the Bible when the apostles only kindof wrote it themselves?*), where does it get its power? Straight from Christ himself seems to be the go-to answer. However, is not the evidence that the Church, before the Bible was canonized, had that power, in the Bible?

*I don’t say this to raise the question of whether the apostles were Catholic. That’s a lengthy dispute for a different conversation than the question interrupted. However, divine inspiration surely takes some of the credit away from the apostles and gives it to the Holy Spirit, yes? After all, without the HS they couldn’t have written anything spiritually worth canonization.

Perhaps this power to compile scripture could also be verified w/the history of the church, i.e. claimes of error-free status? However, what could be done about claims of errors from dissident groups, if the power of the church comes from an event described in a book compiled by the church, which the church also has power over?

I’m just trying to rationalize this in my mind in a way that doesn’t seem like circular reasoning. Any kind of explanation of where this circle starts would be helpful.

 

[guanophore]

For my part, I have to wonder what gave the church the authority to introduce certain new rules, for instance the idea I’ve seen around many Catholics that eating meat on Lenten Fridays is a sin. Christ explicitly told us we could eat anything, and also not to follow the laws of men.

You are referring to a discipline, not a doctrines.

Besides, Jesus never said we are not to follow the laws of men. He said to render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. Obedience to citizenship is one of those obligations. There are Traditions with a capital T, which are the Word of God, and there are customs of man, which are traditions with a small t. Jesus does not care about cultural customs, so long as they don;t interfere with the commandments of God. He does not mind if we all fast from meat on Fridays, so long as it promotes our spiritual growth.

I don’t mean to suggest that Jesus did not keep his promise. He is with us, and he protects all believers. However, he protects the faith as an abstract, not as an earthly institution. Again, this is the belief. I’m not keen on endorsing it, but that’s what it is.

It represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

:doh2: OK. This is important to note: Jesus. did not. abandon the church. He is still watching over it, etc. He just does not prevent errors from arising, and he does not keep church officials from making mistakes.

So, what does it mean? What kind of protection is it?

After all, Luther could have gotten killed. He didn’t. Most Lutherans (if not all) that I know attribute this to divine protection.

Judas could have gotten killed too. Was that also divine protection?

 Most Lutherans I know think God protects Scripture, and does this even through sinful hands. This is the same argument made by some about the sinful people throughout the Bible, such as Judas. He had to do what he did, but that does not make what he did right. **Betraying Jesus is a good thing**--it led to the crucifixion.

Something is wrong with the logic here. Just because God makes good come out of evil, that does not make evil deeds “good”.

However, Judas was not therefore sinless in his betrayal; God simply made the best of it. It is with the same attitude, then, that many Lutherans look at the Catholic compilation of the Bible. (No disrespect meant in that analogy; it’s just the basic idea.)

Yes. This is how we view the Reformation.

However, when using this analogy for the Scripture, it assumes that there existed not even one pious Christian that God could use for his purpose. For 1500 years, there was no individual or group that really desired to listen to God, to know and follow His will. We are not talking about a few corrupt individuals, but the whole of Christendom being corrupt.

Also, apostolic succession is frequently seen as nullified by various “non-biblical” teachings it is believed the Catholic Church teaches, or taught.

Yes, I believe this is true, even though no such things exist. The Reformers had to invent a way to ignore and get out from under the authority presented by Christ, which they believed had become corrupt.

QUOTE=Lovesa;7848592] Here it is taken as meaning “recognized” by God, not by man. Even if they were recognized by man, it would be through the study of scripture. One may take as evidence that the people compared whatever Jesus said to scripture, to see if he was right. It is also the guidance given when looking out for false prophets.

Yes, but the persons who wrote those same scriptures are the ones who delivered the sacred traditions, and commanded that they be kept. There is nothing in Scripture that says everything is supposed to be contained in it. On the contrary, Jesus founded a Church, which exists outside of scripture.

QUOTE=Lovesa;7848592]
The Bible frequently promotes itself as useful for determining the truth; if a teaching does not mesh with the Bible, surely it is incorrect, even if someone in authority says so. It seems to me, also, that a good number of Catholic arguments for the papacy rely on the idea that the papacy has never “infallably” contradicted scripture, only complemented it.

Yes, scripture is certainly useful in determining the truth. However, when one reads the scripture, one reaches their own conclusions based upon their own education and perception. This is why there are so many fragments in the Body of Christ.

QUOTE=Lovesa;7848592] Also, considering that the Bible is where the Catholic Church seems to claim to get its power,

This is a false statement. The Church preceeded the Bible, and the Church produced the Bible. Catholicism is not “bible based” like the Reformed Churches. Catholicism is based on the foundation of Apostles and prophets trained by Christ, built by Him. It was whole and entire before a word of the New Testament was ever written. The power in the Church comes from the Holy Spirit, who is the Soul of the Church.

QUOTE=Lovesa;7848592] I would hope that said church would rely on the scripture for the truth. While I can accept tradition coming into play, it does not come into play to the abandonment of scripture.

But this statement accurately reflects Catholic faith.

QUOTE=Lovesa;7848592] And I must agree that nothing Christ builds is deficient. The disagreement comes when Catholics make the claim that Christ “built” the Catholic Church, papacy, etc. If it was not built by God, it may very well be deficient.

Yes. The task would be, I think to determine what God had in mind for Peter, and those who followed him.

 

[Lovesa]

I think this attitude stems from a deficient understanding of the Church founded by Christ, the assumption that the Catholic Church went off the rails at some time after the Scriptures were written, and a lack of confidence in God.

Really, God could have used any person, or any “real body” to form the Bible He wanted us to have. Why do you think He chose the Catholic Church, instead of one of the “unreal” bodies?

I posit that no “real body” of people is capable of such a feat without divine intervention.

Again with the word deficient. OK. Maybe so. However, I hardly think the average protestant lacks confidence in God. One could even argue that it takes a great deal of confidence in God to believe that he’d leave his church, not only without an single earthly leader, but without absolute guidance, and still believe that the scriptures and such are correct.

YOu believe the Bible is correct because your feelings would be hurt if you didn’t?

:bible1: Yes? :bighanky:
Actually, that’s only partly it. The idea that God would allow His Word to be corrupted just seems bogus on the face of it to most Christians. After all, Christ said he’d be “with [us] always, to the very end of the age”. Most Lutherans I know take His presence with us to be, for the most part, His presence in scripture, as well as His spiritual presence. The idea that part of God (in this case, His Word) could be corrupted is seen as unbiblical and horrifying. It’s circular reasoning, yes (the Bible is right because it says it’s right and it says it’s right because it’s the Bible which is right) but that’s the logic.

Now might be a good time to find out.

I’m hoping to.

Yes it is illogical, tenuous, and commonly believed. However, the Apostles taught that Jesus is the perfect, and would come again, and until then the Church will be in the world, with all the gifts He gave her.

What do you think He meant by:

John 14:18-19

18 "I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.

Matt 16:18-19
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, **and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. **19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

John 16:13-15
3 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Spirit of truth=the Bible, or perhaps somebody who hasn’t come along yet. Honestly, this is the only Bible passage I’ve seen so far that seems to validate the papacy. So yay?

I’m not sure why “the powers of death will not prevail against it” is so important, but yes, it is good to know God will not allow His church to be corrupted irreparably. However, the church is still going. I’m pretty sure this is one of those instances where the church is interpreted (by Lutherans) as not being a literal, physical organization. It’s the invisible church again, which is impossible to corrupt. It seems like that’s the way the church is virtually always read.

This is a good example of the exact reason the Church needs divine intervention. Just after Jesus promised Peter the Keys, He called him “adversary” and said

Mark 8:33
33 But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men.”

So clearly, He did leave HIs church in the hands of fallible men. If they were not fallible, they would not need divine intervention.

Yup; agreed.

I think you misunderstand the nature of Sacred Tradition. It is the TEaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church.

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly again. I don’t mean to imply that the teachings of the apostles could not possibly introduce new material, or that Sacred Tradition need confine itself to the Bible. It would not be tradition, then. Granted, my understanding of Sacred Tradition is in its early stages, but I’m hoping to get the hang of it.

My issue with Sacred Tradition, as with most Lutherans, is where it seems to directly contradict scripture. Laws that Christ said were rendered unnecessary by the New Covenant, for example.

 

[Bluegoat]

Easy girl, easy!

Yeah yeah, you’re right.

But how does one respond to that argument? I find it very frustrating.

 

[Lovesa]

There are Traditions with a capital T, which are the Word of God, and there are customs of man, which are traditions with a small t. Jesus does not care about cultural customs, so long as they don;t interfere with the commandments of God. He does not mind if we all fast from meat on Fridays, so long as it promotes our spiritual growth.

I have no problem with traditions, capital t, as long as they are seen as tools for promoting spiritual growth. This past Lent, as some Lutherans do, I decided not to eat meat on Fridays myself. This, however, was not because I saw it as a law to be followed. It seems to me there’s a difference between traditions as such and things turned into mandatory commands that are qualified as sin if not followed.

It represents a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Difference of opinion again. A Lutheran would argue that that is precisely what the Apostles believed and taught. Their authority was real, yes, but did they have successors? This seems to be a key argument.

So, what does it mean? What kind of protection is it?

Purely spiritual. The word will remain incorrupt, for the Word has alway been ("& the Word was with God"), and the church invisible will not be completely wiped from the earth. No more or less.

Judas could have gotten killed too. Was that also divine protection?

Hm…
From my point of view: Yes. Yes, yes, and yes. Judas played his role in man’s salvation, and he was perhaps protected from harm. Also, in the confusion of the night, who would have found time to kill him? Also, he managed to do away with himself. Who’s to say that, had he not, he would not have been killed?
On a similar note: Cain. His role was awful, but, perhaps, necessary, and he was protected. It seems to me that God does take care of those who commit harm. Pontius Pilate, also, was unharmed.
Granted, this argument does not help the idea that Luther was right because he wasn’t killed, but I’m less trying to ascertain that than point out that divine intervention happens in a lot of ways and for a lot of people, and does not necessarily point out anyone as totally right. It would be as silly to point out the murder of John Smith as proof against Mormonism.

Something is wrong with the logic here. Just because God makes good come out of evil, that does not make evil deeds “good”.

I stated that badly. Yeah, evil deeds are not good. However, they can be incredibly useful to God. After all, Jesus had to be crucified some way or another. Is it fair to claim the people responsible are more to blame than any given human being?

Yes. This is how we view the Reformation.

Sorry; that just strikes me as funny. The paralleled viewpoint of disparate belief systems leading to shared use of a metaphorical rationalization of undesired events. Yes, my sense of humor stinks.

However, in all seriousness, most Lutherans I know also hate that the Reformation opened the door to so many sects. That was, at least in the beginning, in no way the intention, [my opinion]and it’s a shame it got that far. [/my opinion]

However, when using this analogy for the Scripture, it assumes that there existed not even one pious Christian that God could use for his purpose. For 1500 years, there was no individual or group that really desired to listen to God, to know and follow His will. We are not talking about a few corrupt individuals, but the whole of Christendom being corrupt.

One person could compile a book as long as the Bible, having access to all necessary documents? The idea that all individuals had to be corrupt for the Catholic Church to be turned to also seems odd. God could also very well have chosen a faithful disciple to hand over Jesus to the courts, but did he? Also, the church was not terribly corrupt at the time, to my estimation. For what cause would one call all the individuals in it corrupt? The leadership may have been arguably baseless, but it hadn’t declared anything heretical.

Yes, I believe this is true, even though no such things exist. The Reformers had to invent a way to ignore and get out from under the authority presented by Christ, which they believed had become corrupt.

Indeed. That was the whole point, after all.

Yes, but the persons who wrote those same scriptures are the ones who delivered the sacred traditions, and commanded that they be kept. There is nothing in Scripture that says everything is supposed to be contained in it. On the contrary, Jesus founded a Church, which exists outside of scripture.

Concurred. You won’t get anything against Sacred Tradition from me. Not a typical Lutheran position, but I’ve never claimed to be a perfect Lutheran.

The thing wondered about is whether the church Christ founded is, in fact, the Catholic Church. History doesn’t seem enough of a basis for this, in many humble opinions.

Yes, scripture is certainly useful in determining the truth. However, when one reads the scripture, one reaches their own conclusions based upon their own education and perception. This is why there are so many fragments in the Body of Christ.

Agreed. It’s an awful shame, too, but if one doesn’t accept the idea of one sole authority on scriptural interpretation (which, without divine protection of truth, would invariably lead to hideous corruption) it would seem that it’s unavoidable.

But this statement accurately reflects Catholic faith.

Evidently I agree here more than I think I do. What’s up with that?

 

[Protestant101]

Go to the top of the thread and use the “view last read?” button. that will take you to the next post. If you use that, you will miss less of them.

Hey; that’s a good tip. Thanks.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

So, you do not want to say it was the Catholic Church that was the ‘Early Church’ you were studying? And, if it wasn’t, then what happened to this group?

This is the same straight forward question - you still have not answered.

I am just wondering why you have produced all of this smoke - and still have not gotten to the heart of the matter. Strange.

God bless

Oh good grief.

You *are *making that argument.

And what possible difference does it make to the validity of your argument what my religious affiliation is? Ad hominem is not valid any more than begging the question is? If I should accept that the modern Catholic Church is the Church based on it’s name, why not argue the same for the Orthodox Catholic Church? I’ll tell you why - because it is a stupid argument.