Question for Protestants?

[JonNC]

This thread feels like a bait to me.

I’ve never found Joe to be the baiting type of poster.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I find that SS supporters perform a lot of wordplay to erect their points.

But it is logically impossible…the Bible is silent on so many things that we are left to personal interpretation. And, when left to personal interpretation, you end up with 33,000 invisible churches, which is clearly not biblical and Jesus established A church…

One Church to help keep the “personal interpretations” in Truth.

Hey Zachary,
Do you believe the Blessed Virgin was assumed before, or after she died? My understanding is that Catholics are allowed the personal piety to decide which they believe.

That is personal interpretation.

Jon

 

[joe371]

It’s partly a straw man, because when you say “many Protestants,” what you actually mean is a very small percentage of Protestants (mostly in North America) that do not represent in any way the three primary Reformation traditions (Reformed, Lutheran and Anglican). All of three of those believe in authoritative ecclesiastical offices. All three possess confessions of faith/catechisms which are considered binding.

You’re right that sola scriptura, during times of new revelation, would not have been applicable, because the scriptura had not been completed. Sola scriptura only addresses the situation of the church today.

OK…What is your answer to the question?

 

[JonNC]

I’m showing that at one point (granted, a non-normative period) Sola Scriptura was not how God wanted his teachings to be understood. Today, many protestants believe that the bible alone is sufficient and that there is no need for an authoritative teaching Church. T**herefore, something must have changed from then to now. What was the event (or events) that caused the change? **

I agree, but as I mentioned, at one point scripture was not all that is necessary for salvation. Today, many protestants believe that scripture alone is necessary (even if preaching is good and helpful). What changed, and when?

My view? The Great Schism happened, leaving the Church split on the teachings of Sacred Tradition in a host of areas. That fracturing of the Church and Tradition placed the Lutheran reformers in a position of seeing “popes and councils” contradicting each other, particularly on the issue of authority.

I might add that I disagree with the assertion that “at one point scripture was not all that is necessary for salvation.” Even Christ Himself frequently used the phrase, “It is written…”
While scripture itself does not save, the message of the Gospel is critical, even in the OT.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

OK…What is your answer to the question?

I disagree with the premise of the question. There is no time that the church was infallibly guided. Therefore, there was never a time when it stopped being infallibly guided. The church received infallible revelation through the word of Christ and then by the apostles as they received revelation. It is the revelation that is infallible, not the offices/persons/presbyters involved.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I disagree with the premise of the question. There is no time that the church was infallibly guided. Therefore, there was never a time when it stopped being infallibly guided. The church received infallible revelation through the word of Christ and then by the apostles as they received revelation. It is the revelation that is infallible, not the offices/persons/presbyters involved.

I am not a fan of infallibility.

Like you, I disagree with the premise of the question but for a different reason.

If I start a discussion saying that my premise is infallible, I have destroyed my own discussion because there is no discussion to be had because it has no error in it. So any argumentation that is brought to the table that is not in agreement with my premise is wrong.

However, there is no official list from the Church as to what statements are infallible. We have a formula but no official results from that formula. Which I have always found to be really odd…

On the flip side of that coin , even if other denominations don’t say that they are infallible - they all believe they are correct in their interpretation and everyone else is wrong. Which is a subtle claim to being infallible, lol.

I think it is hilarious…

I think the most compelling argument is for the deposit of faith and the promised protection against the gates of hades to include apostolic succession.

But I am not infallible, so somewhere, someone, disagrees with me

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Jesus clearly left us with a teaching church (hence the magisterial office) and it was in existence for over a decade before any books of the New Testament were written, which means that Jesus’ church was being infallibly guided by God. When did God stop infallibly guiding His church, and shift the emphasis to scripture alone? I could not answer this question, as a former SS advocate. Please keep the discussion light and breezy…

The basic premise of your question is theologically inconsistent with the understanding that humans (and, by definition, human teachers) are fallible. God may indeed be infallible and guiding the church, but that doesn’t mean that the church or its teachers were always understanding and/or following God’s guidance. Just because Israel was guided in the desert by God doesn’t mean they were infallible—just the opposite in fact. (An object lesson for the church that Paul makes explicit in 1Corinthians 10.) The very early history of the church is one of struggle, disagreement and parting of the ways (Acts 15:39), not a Nirvana of theological clarity and totalizing unity.

The entire notion of teaching infallibly requires perfect communication by the teacher and perfect understanding by the hearer—neither of which are in the realm of human ability. We can get a rough idea of things in this life (1Cor 13:12), but that’s about it.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I am not a fan of infallibility.

Like you, I disagree with the premise of the question but for a different reason.

If I start a discussion saying that my premise is infallible, I have destroyed my own discussion because there is no discussion to be had because it has no error in it. So any argumentation that is brought to the table that is not in agreement with my premise is wrong.

However, there is no official list from the Church as to what statements are infallible. We have a formula but no official results from that formula. Which I have always found to be really odd…

On the flip side of that coin , even if other denominations don’t say that they are infallible - they all believe they are correct in their interpretation and everyone else is wrong. Which is a subtle claim to being infallible, lol.

I think it is hilarious…

I think the most compelling argument is for the deposit of faith and the promised protection against the gates of hades to include apostolic succession.

But I am not infallible, so somewhere, someone, disagrees with me

I agree with you completely. When I was discussing it with Joe on the other thread, I mentioned why I don’t think infallibility has any real, long term meaning.

Ultimately, I would hope that Catholics believe what the Catholic Church teaches because they actually believe the doctrine in question to be true based on Scriptural, historical/traditional grounds and not simply because the Church waved a wand and said “infallible!”

 

[joe371]

Kliska;11840029]This is the conclusion many non-Catholics consider to be begging the question. That the Apostles spoke truth is not up for debate, but early on (even after Pentecost) we see that they can err (Peter was withstood by Paul in public for his actions which Paul obviously thought were extremely damaging to the gospel message), and Paul said that even if he or an angel from heaven teach a different gospel to let them be accursed, showing he certainly considered himself capable of making a mistake. Jesus asked if He would find faith on the earth when He returns. We are warned constantly of false teachers, and see that large segments and leaders within the early church were already lead astray.

That is a tough sale. After telling His fledgling church leaders, that the Holy Spirit would be with them forever, guiding them into all truth, Jesus failed to keep His promise, as early as Pentecost period?

 

[joe371]

My post already covers this. Sola scriptura is not solo scriptura, as far as I know, no non-Catholic Christian denies that the gospel itself, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, was first transmitted orally. The Bereans then were praised because they searched scripture to see if what the Apostle’s taught lined up with the prophecies and the teachings of God in the OT. When the writings of the NT were available, even in individual letter or book form, it became possible to compare and contrast what a local church leader was teaching with what was contained in the writings, and Paul makes it clear that scripture is key to being fully equipped for every good work, and that definitely includes the OT.

Jesus clearly left us with a teaching church (hence the magisterial office) and it was in existence for over a decade before any books of the New Testament were written, which means that Jesus’ church was being infallibly guided by God. When did God stop infallibly guiding His church, and shift the emphasis to scripture alone? I could not answer this question, as a former SS advocate.

 

[joe371]

This thread feels like a bait to me.

At least one person always says that…

 

[joe371]

When I was a Protestant I never really gave it much thought and never really worried much about the Reformation either. It wasn’t until I started my RCIA class that my interest was piqued and I actually wanted to understand why sola scriptura was the right theology. It just made sense to me that if I wanted to learn about Catholicism I needed to understand why I was a Protestant. To be honest- I wasn’t really affiliated with any particular denomination. I just knew I believed in Jesus and the Bible was the sacred text and if I tried to not hurt anyone and lived a good life that my salvation was guaranteed. I didn’t feel that “organized” religion was a necessary component to our salvation; in fact the more “organized” a religion was, usually the more corrupt, judgmental, etc. I looked upon the religion, traditions, and rituals, as man-made and even compared it to the wicked Pharisees of the Bible. The only Sacrament necessary was baptism, as far as I was concerned. When I talked with other Protestants, usually of the Methodist or Lutheran variety, we discussed the Catholic church at times and were in agreement that it was the true church until the people within caused corruption. They actually strayed from what God had originally attended for the church and Martin Luther tried to restore it. Sounds almost laughable now when you think of the thousands of denominations we have now. I remember asking someone in sunday school as a child what church was God referring to when he told Peter he would use him as the “Rock.” I was told it was an “invisible” church and that the “church” wasn’t actually a building or temple but a body of believers. That made sense to me at the time. I don’t know what non-denominational preachers teach. I can say for myself though, as a Protestant I wasn’t well versed in scripture or the history of the church. My sons both were confirmed in the Lutheran church and they seemed to be more knowledgeable and even open to Catholicism.

 

[joe371]

I’ve never found Joe to be the baiting type of poster.

Jon

Thanks Jon. :thumbsup:This thread was prompted by a friendly chat I was having with Per Crucem…

 

[joe371]

Dave Noonan;11841667]The basic premise of your question is theologically inconsistent with the understanding that humans (and, by definition, human teachers) are fallible.

People are fallible…Not me…LOL…The apostles were all fallible men who taught infallibly via the infallible guidance of God. How do you know that what you just said about Jesus’ church, did not apply to the apostles? Maybe they did not fully cooperate with God infallible guidance?

What is your answer to the OP?

 

[joe371]

I disagree with the premise of the question. There is no time that the church was infallibly guided. Therefore, there was never a time when it stopped being infallibly guided. The church received infallible revelation through the word of Christ and then by the apostles as they received revelation. It is the revelation that is infallible, not the offices/persons/presbyters involved.

First you said - There is no time that the church was infallibly guided.

You ten say - Therefore, there was never a time when it stopped being infallibly guided.

Maybe I am just tired…

Based on what you have said the following is true to you, I think:

Jesus and the apostles never embraced or taught sola scriptura.

I think what you are saying is: The Church, even when the apostles were teaching, was never infallibly guided by God into all truth.

Finally, all we have in terms of infallible truth, is the Bible, and no one can infallibly interpret it?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Hey Zachary,
Do you believe the Blessed Virgin was assumed before, or after she died? My understanding is that Catholics are allowed the personal piety to decide which they believe.

That is personal interpretation.

Jon

Catholics are not “allowed the personal piety” to choose any option, only the greater, older, more venerable Tradition that the BVM did die and was assumed after; or given the freedom of holding the theological opinion of Franciscan pietistism that the BVM was assumed prior to death. No other 3rd or made up personal interpretation.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Thanks Jon. :thumbsup:This thread was prompted by a friendly chat I was having with Per Crucem…

I would second Jon’s point. I wouldn’t see it as baiting at all.

 

[joe371]

This is the conclusion many non-Catholics consider to be begging the question. That the Apostles spoke truth is not up for debate, but early on (even after Pentecost) we see that they can err (Peter was withstood by Paul in public for his actions which Paul obviously thought were extremely damaging to the gospel message), .

Peter did not use his authority to declare an official doctrine, (as the church did in Acts 15) binding on the whole church, in this passage. He had a moment of weakness. Now, if he would have officially defined it and promulgated it, like the Pope/Ecumenical Council did with the IC, then you would have a great point.

But when I saw that they were not really obeying the truth that is in the good news, I corrected Peter in front of everyone and said:

Peter, you are a Jew, but you live like a Gentile. So how can you force Gentiles to live like Jews?

 

[JonNC]

Catholics are not “allowed the personal piety” to choose any option, only the greater, older, more venerable Tradition that the BVM did die and was assumed after; or given the freedom of holding the theological opinion of Franciscan pietistism that the BVM was assumed prior to death. No other 3rd or made up personal interpretation.

Agree. I dont think the post of mine that you responded to allowed for a third choice. But two choices remains a choice.

Jon

 

[jesskopecky]

This is the conclusion many non-Catholics consider to be begging the question. That the Apostles spoke truth is not up for debate, but early on (even after Pentecost) we see that they can err (Peter was withstood by Paul in public for his actions which Paul obviously thought were extremely damaging to the gospel message), and Paul said that even if he or an angel from heaven teach a different gospel to let them be accursed, showing he certainly considered himself capable of making a mistake. Jesus asked if He would find faith on the earth when He returns. We are warned constantly of false teachers, and see that large segments and leaders within the early church were already lead astray.