Questions for Protestants

[mgrfin]

No, I certainly didn’t say that.

Whether or not I have infallible knowledge of my salvation has nothing to do with whether I am saved or not.

If you had infallible knowledge that you were saved, then you would have been saved.

If you did not have infallible knowledge that you were saved, then you don’t know whether you were saved or not.

peace

 

[Ziggamafu]

Christ’s answer, of course, when he appointed Peter the head of his church, and on down through to Pope Benedict XVI.

One may torture Scripture until it confesses all sorts of things, but only Peter is singled out for such an honor as being the Rock upon which Christ founded his Church.

Not too surprising given God has frequently chosen to interact with His people through one intermediary at a time.

If your authority doesn’t trace back through Peter, you don’t have any.

:clapping:

 

[Ziggamafu]

According to Rome, we can map out our way to heaven (which, so they claim, is only by way of the RCC) through our own diligence and effort by studying history and using our skill or powers of reason.

Luke 18:16
But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

Eph. 2:8-10 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

---

Contrary to what Rome teaches, we can only obtain salvation by the grace of God and not by our own efforts. The kingdom is not reserved for scholars; it is for all those who, by grace, are made willing to trust in Jesus and come to Him.

Luke 11:46
Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”

Please notice that you did not actually address a single argument in my post. I’m scratching my head as to why you quoted me. Are you able to rebut what I posted?

I’m particularly interested in your ability to produce even one passage of Scripture that tells us that God’s *written *Word is the ***only ***infallible authority for a Christian. I’m also curious as to how you believe you may know what books are divinely inspired from the Bible alone.

Unless I (and many others) missed something, there are no such passages. Sola scriptura is unbiblical and illogical, therefore most Protestants must reassess their views on authority.

As I said before, Protestantism is missing that which gives us (as Christians who believe that all infallible authority stems from Christ as its source) any assurance of the Bible’s infallibility in the first place. If you take a divinely protected Church government out of the picture, you are left with anarchy, much like what would happen if you took the U.S. government away from the Constitution. Subjective individualism simply does not work. As said earlier, we are (of ourselves) fallible and sinful creatures. How could an organized and ordered Church of such creatures even persevere in existence for so long - even through periods of failing or shameful leadership - without protection from on high?

 

[Calvinator]

But, you aren’t claiming certitude of election/salvation, right?

I don’t know if I replied to this already or not, but no, I don’t have an infallible knowledge of my eternal destiny.

 

[mgrfin]

According to Rome, we can map out our way to heaven (which, so they claim, is only by way of the RCC) through our own diligence and effort by studying history and using our skill or powers of reason.

Contrary to what Rome teaches, we can only obtain salvation by the grace of God and not by our own efforts. The kingdom is not reserved for scholars; it is for all those who, by grace, are made willing to trust in Jesus and come to Him.

Yours is a total false understanding of what Rome teaches. We do not teach that we can get to heaven by our own diligence. Where did you hear that? Protestants have been lying about what the Church teaches since the time of Luther.

Canon 1 of the Council of Trent, concerning Justification: "If anyone says that a man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

The Catholic Church has been teaching this truth from the beginning of its existence and the letters of St. Paul.

Studying History has nothing to do with getting to heaven, nor skill or our own reason.

Please stop this nonsensical lying.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Your faith in the CC seems very strong indeed! Couldn’t we (just as fallibly) say that the bible is 100% infallible in matters of faith and morals, when it intends to define something as such?

The bible is infallible about faith and morals, but the bible does not cover the whole of the deposit of faith. And what is to guarantee that your fallible judgment about what the bible has to say is right? Your interpretation of the bible is not 100% infallible.

And what about those things not revealed in the Bible, or, those things revealed in the Bible that you refuse to accept as true.

For example, we say that the Bible reveals that Jesus left his Church in the hands of Peter and his successors. You refuse to accept that.

We say that the Bible reveals that Jesus instituted the Eucharist on Holy Thursday, and you refuse to believe that. That is true of the Real Presence as well.

What the Bible teaches is one thing; your fallibility is keeping you from accepting the truth. Protestants have been erroneously interpreting the Bible for the past 500 years.

When Luther came along, he taught that the Church had been wrong for 1500 years about what Jesus taught, but, he had gotten it right. Wrong!

The Church is the Keeper and the Teacher of the Truth, and has been such from the first Pentecost.

peace

 

[Nick_Jones]

Please notice that you did not actually address a single argument in my post. I’m scratching my head as to why you quoted me. Are you able to rebut what I posted?

It wasn’t my intention to attempt to impress you with my ability to use clever arguments and prove that my reasoning is superior to yours.

I was instead pointing out that your whole project is doomed because, like the pharisees, you hinder those who would come to Jesus (Luke 11:52) Do you deny that any one who wants to follow Jesus can do so without the Roman church? Either we need Rome to be united to Christ or we don’t. And if we don’t, then your whole religion has been exposed as utterly useless.

I’m particularly interested in your ability to produce even one passage of Scripture that tells us that God’s *written *Word is the ***only ***infallible authority for a Christian. I’m also curious as to how you believe you may know what books are divinely inspired from the Bible alone.

And I might have been interested in your ability to produce even one passage of Scripture that tells us that the RCC is the one founded by Jesus and the apostles. But I’m not interested in playing that kind of game. What matters isn’t whether or not I can argue skillfully and refute your error; all that matters to God is that you trust in Jesus, and in Him alone. The bible is all about the glory of God, yet many have missed the whole point about God’s glory and instead millions of people have placed all of their faith in certain religions and religious institutions. Jesus said, “I am the way.” But prideful men who claim to be infallible declare that they are the way. Who will you believe? As for me, I will follow Jesus.

 

[Ziggamafu]

I was instead pointing out that your whole project is doomed because, like the pharisees, you hinder those who would come to Jesus (Luke 11:52) Do you deny that any one who wants to follow Jesus can do so without the Roman church?

If sola scriptura is correct, we are arguing about differing interpretations of Scripture. If not, you have no business twisting God’s Word against God’s Body, for you attack a book that was given to the Catholic Church who God used to author, compile, discern, and declare it to be Holy Writ.

As for your questions, Christ, speaking with his living voice through his Body, the Catholic Church, assures us that if we want full communion with him, we must obviously share in full communion with his Body, the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, we may enjoy partial communion with him when, through no fault of our own, we are either ignorant or unable to profess the Catholic faith and receive the sacraments. All properly baptized Christians share in at least some level of communion with the Catholic Church.

And I might have been interested in your ability to produce even one passage of Scripture that tells us that the RCC is the one founded by Jesus and the apostles…As for me, I will follow Jesus.

You follow a mutilated Jesus if you divorce him from his Body. Faithful Catholics trust *more *in the all-sufficiency of Christ alone than their Protestant counter-parts, not less; for we acknowledge and praise Christ for his whole Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The more we are devoted to the Church the more we are devoted to Jesus.

 

[Ziggamafu]

Remember that the kingdom of God is the restored House of David, in which all of God’s promises are delivered, all of his laws are fulfilled, and all of his covenants are understood. A quote from one of Scott Hahn’s online courses of study:
David is generally acknowledged as a defining figure in the Psalms, with more than 70 psalms attributed to him. What is not widely recognized is his prominence throughout the Old Testament.
Indeed, while the name Moses occurs a little over 720 times, David is mentioned almost 1,020 times. David’s career is the subject of 42 chapters, or nearly 30 percent of what scholars call the “Deuteronomistic History” (Joshua-2 Kings).
In the Chronicles, a review of Israel’s history from a “Priestly” perspective, the percentage is the same.
David is mentioned 37 times in the prophets, Moses only seven times. And as we will focus on in our next lesson, the eschatological hopes of the prophets are frequently concerned with the return of a Davidic king and the restoration of his capital, Zion. The prophets say nothing about the return of Moses and a restoration of Sinai.
(salvationhistory.com//online/advanced/course2_lesson1.cfm))*

God made a permanent covenant with the kingdom that he gave to the world in David, particularly David’s son, Solomon, who God said would be as his own (see 1 Chronicles 17:7-17). The Lord promised that David’s house – that is, his dynastic rule – would grow and flourish, never to cease its role and function. For this reason David says in 2 Samuel 23:5, “Is not my house firm before God? He has made an eternal covenant with me, set forth in detail and secured.” Clearly, David’s kingdom was not of this world, but existed here to govern the world, with its origins in God (to whom belonged the throne, cf. Psalm 45:5-6). That is why the Jews were in despair when the dynastic line was apparently lost, the kingdom was destroyed, and the people were dispersed. Their entire world view and heritage had seemingly collapsed. Where was the anointed one? Where was the Messiah – the Christ? Here, we see the real meaning of messiah; the people were awaiting a son of David to appear and restore his house, thus canceling the fears that God had broken his promises and abandoned his people. Thus do we hear the prophets cry out:

**6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.
Isaiah 9:6-7 (ASV)

And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
Dan 2:44 (ASV)

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
Dan 7:14 (ASV)

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, even upon a colt the foal of an *.
Zech 9:9 (ASV)

Of course we know that the Son of David would indeed appear. But although he was and is king, and although he did restore the house of David, he had much to accomplish in expanding the kingdom and revealing the true meaning of all God’s covenants by fulfilling them and confirming them with the seal of his own blood. “I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill,” he tells us. Because he had so much to do, and because these tasks would be impossible to accomplish if his kingship were immediately recognized and acted upon, he subjected himself to a life of patient humility and poverty, even running from those who would attempt to crown him by force (John 6:15). When he went about performing the functions of a king and organizing the re-established kingdom, he did so without the pageantry due to him. Nevertheless, he was the true king who would save his people from despair over God’s apparently broken promises; he was the anointed one, and the Gospels were written in part to make this clear.

 

[Ziggamafu]

…One of the instances in which Christ’s role as king and restorer of David’s House is displayed in the Gospel when he conferred onto Peter the keys of the kingdom (an office that demands successors, just as we see in the Old Testament). In the Davidic kingdom, the man who held the keys had authority over all other governing offices beneath the king and he was the one who preserved unity and order with his rule in the king’s absence. There were good and bad key-bearers, but the office (and its authority) remained. The same office remains to this day, serving the same function in the directly physical absence of the king.

Actually, it is helpful here to once again quote from Scott Hahn’s online course (the same one that I quoted from above, which, by the way, I highly encourage you to “take”):

*Twelve Thrones

If the true Davidic kingdom was to be restored, that would have to mean all twelve tribes, the descendants of the sons of Jacob (see Genesis 49), united under the King of Israel.
That was what the prophets had foretold: Judah (the tribe that had been loyal to the sons of David) and Ephraim (the prophets’ name for Israel, the kingdom of the northern tribes) would be united again under the Son of David (see, for example, Ezekiel 37:15-28).
We remember from the previous lesson how Jesus had given His Apostles “thrones” from which they would judge the twelve tribes of Israel (see Luke 22:30), echoing the description of Jerusalem at peace in Psalm 122: the tribes all gathered together to give thanks to the Lord, and above them “the thrones of the house of David” (see Psalm 122:4-5).
The problem was that there were only eleven Apostles now. Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus (see Luke 22:47-48), had killed himself in despair (see Matthew 27:3-5, Acts 1:16-19).
Peter told the rest that it was necessary for them to have another “witness” to carry on in Judas’s place (see Acts 1:21-22), quoting two psalms that curse the enemies of God (see Acts 1:20; the quotations are from Psalm 69:26 and Psalm 109:8).
Matthias was chosen, and from that point on he was numbered among the Twelve (see Acts 1:23-26).
Twelve tribes, twelve thrones: it was necessary to establish the Kingdom properly from the beginning…*

 

[Ziggamafu]

*…The Prime Minister

The Twelve thus took their positions as the King’s ministers. Just as David and his successors had had ministers to sit on thrones and judge the people (see, for example, 1 Kings 4:1-19, and compare Psalm 122:4-5), so Jesus, the ideal Davidic King, would have His ministers.
And just as in the original Davidic kingdom, one of those ministers would be the leader of the rest.
David had Joab (see 1 Chronicles 11:6), and every one of his successors had what we today would call a prime minister.
Following that pattern, we see that Jesus, too, had a prime minister.
As soon as He told His disciples that they would sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (see Luke 22:28-30), Jesus turned to Simon Peter and told him that he must strengthen the others (see Luke 22:31-32).
Peter was the “Rock” (which is what the name Peter means) on which Jesus had promised to build His Church (see Matthew 16:18).
All the Apostles were Jesus’ ministers, but Simon Peter was the prime minister.
Now we see Peter exercising that authority. It is Peter who announces to the Twelve and the rest of the church in Jerusalem that Judas must be replaced (see Acts 1:15-22), and his decision is accepted without debate (see Acts 1:23-28).
We see him acting as the unquestioned leader at Pentecost, too, when he speaks for all the Apostles in front of the astonished crowds (see Acts 2:14).
Peter speaks for them again before the leaders of the people and the priests (see Acts 4:8). He exercises a healing power like Christ’s (see Acts 3:1-12), pronounces God’s judgment on Anananias and Sapphira (see Acts 5:1-11), and gains such a reputation that people line up just to be touched by his shadow (see Acts 5:15).
Finally, it is Peter whose word determines the whole future course of the Kingdom on earth. When some converted Pharisees have argued that Christians are bound by the whole law (see Acts 15:5), Peter is the one who interprets the will of God for the rest of the Apostles (see Acts 15:7-11).
James, summarizing the decision of the Apostles, refers to Amos’s prophecy about the fallen hut, in which the restoration of the Davidic kingdom comes about so that the rest of the world may also come to God (see Acts 15:14-18).
A kingdom that includes “the rest of humanity” is what God had promised through the Prophets, and the mission of the Church is to be the fulfillment of that promise.
Luke leaves us in no doubt whatsoever: Peter has taken over as leader of the Twelve, just as Jesus had ordained. He interprets the will of God, and he decides the course of the whole Church.
But Peter is only the first among the ministers of the Kingdom. Jesus, as Peter himself will tell us, is still the King.
(salvationhistory.com/online/advanced/advcourse2_lesson5.cfm))*

In this kingdom of God, the House of David, restored and renewed under a new covenant that fulfills and bonds together all of the preceding covenants, there exists a duality of the visible and the invisible, the physical and the spiritual; this is only proper as we’ve already seen that this new kingdom is nothing less than God, himself, a Body composed of both flesh and soul. Such a duality is expected and accounts for the otherwise apparent contradictions in the New Testament’s descriptions of the kingdom. How fitting it is that God has left us with two real presences of himself; one invisible and intangible in the Holy Spirit, the other visible and tangible in the Holy Eucharist. Likewise, how fitting that the real presence of the Holy Spirit may be discerned and worshiped in the invisible and spiritual aspect of the kingdom but the real presence of the Holy Eucharist may only be observed and worshiped in the visible and physical aspect of the kingdom. The Father, in his grace, allows the Holy Spirit to be received even by the invisible members of the Catholic Church. But the incarnate God in Eucharistic appearance – our Lord come in the flesh – may only be received by the visible members.

 

[Ziggamafu]

It is far too easy, when ignoring the Roman Catholic Church, to divorce the one side from the other or to be satisfied to exist in the invisible side alone (as is so common in Evangelical Protestantism). But what a gloriously colossal presence to reject or ignore! Such work the Enemy must employ to blind so many…how terrifying it should be to those who knowingly have only one foot, so to speak, in the kingdom; remaining only in the kingdom invisible while disobediently rejecting full communion with the kingdom visible. No wonder Catholics are so zealous to bring their separated brethren into the Bark of Peter, for it is only in full communion with this kingdom that salvation may be assured. To reject the prime minister’s office is to reject the kingdom God gave us and so painstakingly restored; worse still to reject the sacraments, which God has ordered to our salvation, for in rejecting the sacraments we reject Christ himself.

I recommend you read Dear Brother, by Brian Roberts, for a more exhuastively scriptural defense and understanding of Catholicism. Check it out on Amazon: [amazon.com/Dear-Brother-Brian-Roberts/dp/1411698886

](http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Brother-Brian-Roberts/dp/1411698886)

 

[Nick_Jones]

If you had infallible knowledge that you were saved, then you would have been saved.

If you did not have infallible knowledge that you were saved, then you don’t know whether you were saved or not.

peace

If we had infallible knowledge, we’d be gods, and we wouldn’t need salvation. But we are not gods; we are mere mortals with fallible minds that are fallen and very prone to every kind of error.

All of this RC emphasis on trusting in the teachings of (fallen and fallible) men for infallible truth should never be accepted. Paul teaches that anyone who teaches a “gospel” that is different from that of the apostles is eternally condemned.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Yours is a total false understanding of what Rome teaches. We do not teach that we can get to heaven by our own diligence. Where did you hear that? Protestants have been lying about what the Church teaches since the time of Luther.

Canon 1 of the Council of Trent, concerning Justification: "If anyone says that a man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

The Catholic Church has been teaching this truth from the beginning of its existence and the letters of St. Paul.

Studying History has nothing to do with getting to heaven, nor skill or our own reason.

Please stop this nonsensical lying.

peace

Is it lying when I point out that the bible makes no mention of popes or of infallible human leaders, and that consequently, RC apologists generally must appeal to (their own private interpretation of) history–as well as their own great skill in reasoning in order to support the idea of the papacy and infallibility?

The bible tells us that even little children (who generally have no knowledge of history) can come to Jesus if they wish to do so. In fact, the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. We don’t find anything like a RCC in Scripture, and if we need to become scholars in order to discover Rome’s authority, we’ve already gone off the deep end.

 

[Nick_Jones]

This is why, although we see many passages of scripture that let us know that the Bible is infallibly authoritative, we do not find a single passage - not one; none at all - that informs us that the Bible is the only infallible authority. This is quite a dilemma for Protestantism, which justifies its existence by the doctrine of sola scriptura; for if sola scriptura is not biblical then sola scriptura disproves itself.

The alternative to trusting in God’s word alone as our ultimate authority is to trust in something else (such as God’s word AND someone elses word, or just someone else’s word and not God’s word at all).

I don’t know what, exactly, YOUR alternative is to God’s word alone as your ultimate authority, but if you look in Gen. chapter three, you will find that Adam and Eve’s decision to trust the serpent rather than God wouldn’t have been any different if the serpent had said, “The CC is infallible (or the Mormon, or the JW “church”) and it teaches that you will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Isn’t it true that pride came first? Instead of loyalty and submission to God’s word, they showed pride and disloyalty to God’s word by judging it (God’s word) as just another hypothesis with no higher authority than that of the serpent. Adam and Eve made themselves judges over God’s word in order to reject it. Notice that God’s instruction not to eat the fruit was clear without any infallible interpreter. Adam and Eve chose to trust something other than God’s word; they trusted the serpent. So their sin was without excuse. It would be completely out of character (to say the least) for God to suggest that our disobedience to His word is excusable because His word is not sufficiently clear to us! God’s word was, and still remains, sufficient.

The day Adam and Eve decided to trust in something other than God’s word alone as their ultimate authority…was the worst day in human history. We still suffer the effects of our falleness every single day. There is no excusable alternative to trusting in every word spoken by God. We need no other authority.

 

[Teflon93]

If we had infallible knowledge, we’d be gods, and we wouldn’t need salvation. But we are not gods; we are mere mortals with fallible minds that are fallen and very prone to every kind of error.

All of this RC emphasis on trusting in the teachings of (fallen and fallible) men for infallible truth should never be accepted. Paul teaches that anyone who teaches a “gospel” that is different from that of the apostles is eternally condemned.

Better come home to Rome, then, because Paul didn’t teach sola fide, sola scriptura, total depravity, nor the rest of the heretical Protestant doctrines.

We’ll leave a light on for you.

 

[Teflon93]

Is it lying when I point out that the bible makes no mention of popes or of infallible human leaders, and that consequently, RC apologists generally must appeal to (their own private interpretation of) history–as well as their own great skill in reasoning in order to support the idea of the papacy and infallibility?

The bible tells us that even little children (who generally have no knowledge of history) can come to Jesus if they wish to do so. In fact, the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. We don’t find anything like a RCC in Scripture, and if we need to become scholars in order to discover Rome’s authority, we’ve already gone off the deep end.

Did Moses teach wrongly? Did Noah? Did the prophets?

God has ever chosen a single man to present His teaching to the rest of men.

Did they utter falsehoods in His name?

Your Scripture is a product of the Catholic Church, my friend, so when you claim that the Catholic Church is unScriptural you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

Moreover, each of your drive-by, paint-by-numbers claims has been extensively refuted elsewhere in this forum. You therefore lack even novelty in your argument. At least Luther and Calvin had the benefit of novelty in dreaming up their heresies, and in the innovative ways they tortured Scripture to do it.

 

[Church_Militant]

If we had infallible knowledge, we’d be gods, and we wouldn’t need salvation. But we are not gods; we are mere mortals with fallible minds that are fallen and very prone to every kind of error.

This is completely erroneous thinking because if one is guided by the Holy Spirit then one can indeed speak infallibly. Case in point. Were not the prophets all speaking infallibly when they gave their word from the Lord?

All of this RC emphasis on trusting in the teachings of (fallen and fallible) men for infallible truth

should never be accepted.In your already flawed and infallible thinking, correct? Yet I suspect that you will now proceed to tell me that we should base all that we believe upon “the Bible alone”, yet that belief is not a scriptural one.

Paul teaches that anyone

who teaches a “gospel” that is different from that of the apostles is eternally condemned.You have no basis to make reference to this passage unless of course you are willing to submit your own theology to that same test. As has been done many time around here and over the last 500 years the modern doctrines of n-C communities have again and again failed their own tests of being based upon the Bible alone as well as the earliest verifiable writings of the Christians who followed the apostles.

In which case, your citation will actually indict modern n-Cs as preaching “another gospel”

Is it lying when I point out that the bible makes no mention of popes or of infallible human leaders, and that consequently, RC apologists generally must appeal to (their own private interpretation of) history–as well as their own great skill in reasoning in order to support the idea of the papacy and infallibility?

I don’t think that anyone has alleged that you are lying, but I have already shown that you are in scriptural error.
“Pope” is merely a term and title, it’s absence from the scriptures is no more relevant than the absence of terms like “incarnation” or “trinity”.

If you can show me where there is some verifiable history that factually contradicts Catholic teaching then you might have a point to begin a discussion (in another new thread perhaps.), as it is this is just an empty assertion.

The bible tells us that even little children (who generally have no knowledge of history) can come to Jesus if they wish to do so. In fact, the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. We don’t find anything like a RCC in Scripture, and if we need to become scholars in order to discover Rome’s authority, we’ve already gone off the deep end.

Actually, you are only partially correct. Little children do not have to “wish to” come to Jesus as parents brought them to him even while He was here on earth, and whole household were baptized in the New Testament which plainly would include not only the entire family (including any infants), but those of the servants as well.

I beg to differ with you that there is no Catholic Church in scripture.
Notice here the Greek in Acts 9:31 ἡ μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ᾽ ὁλης της ιουδαιας και γαλιλαιας και σαμαρειας ειχεν ειρηνην οικοδομουμενη και πορευομενη τω φοβω του κυριου, και τη παρακλησει του ἁγιου πνευματος επληθυνοντο. That literally translates as “Catholic Church”, “the church throughout all”
Moreover, these 2 articles point up the error of what you have just asserted. “I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said. and The Eucharist IS Scriptural, just as a very basic start.

(More to come)

 

[Church_Militant]

The alternative to trusting in God’s word alone

as our ultimate authority is to trust in something else (such as God’s word AND someone elses word, or just someone else’s word and not God’s word at all).Again…(and as I expected) you seek to make a case for the unscriptural doctrine of “God’s word alone” (AKA: Sola Scriptura). This article (The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.)shows that you hold an untenable and unscriptural position which, because it is the fundamental basis of all your other theology creates a collapsing cascade effect in n-C belief.

It would be completely out of character (to say the least) for God to suggest that our disobedience to His word is excusable because His word is not sufficiently clear to us! God’s word was, and still remains, sufficient

.Sorry…had to edit out most of your sermonizing as it is just rhetoric anyway.

No one has asserted that the Bible is not clear to us, just that your particular fallible interpretation of it is in direct conflict with the Word of God itself as well as the earliest verifiable writings of the church. (Like Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop Polycarp, and the Didache.) as well as being in direct conflict with some 2,000 years of Christian teaching.

The day Adam and Eve decided to trust in something other than God’s word alone as their ultimate authority…was the worst day in human history. We still suffer the effects of our falleness every single day. There is no excusable alternative to trusting in every word spoken by God. We need no other authority.

Really? I’d say that the Word of God disagrees with you.

Matthew 16:18-19
Matthew 18:15-18
Matthew 28:18-20
John 20: 21-23
1st Corinthians 5:1-5

Just to name a very few…

 

[savedsinner]

If we had infallible knowledge, we’d be gods, and we wouldn’t need salvation. But we are not gods; we are mere mortals with fallible minds that are fallen and very prone to every kind of error.

All of this RC emphasis on trusting in the teachings of (fallen and fallible) men for infallible truth should never be accepted. Paul teaches that anyone who teaches a “gospel” that is different from that of the apostles is eternally condemned.

Were the “mere mortals with fallible minds” correct or incorrect at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, when they taught that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be Christians, I don’t recall Jesus teaching of that point.
Was that an infallible decision, or might it be wrong, maybe we do need to be circumcised to become Christians

Look closely to their response to the other churches which were required to follow their teaching.
Acts 15:28
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and** to us** to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:”

They are telling the whole church that the decision made, was not only theirs, but also of the Holy Spirit.
The Apostles and the elders were lead in this truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus had promised them.

Did this this promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit end with the Apostles?
Or did it end once the New Testament was written?

I don’t’ think so, because there would be many more challenges to the teaching of the church through out the ages.

These heretics would claim to be teaching their error straight from the word of God.
How could the church claim their interpretation was the correct one, and the heretics in error?

They could because Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth.
Yes, all the bishops and the Popes have been “mere mortals with fallible minds”, but they have been protected from teaching error, not of their own intellect, but by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It is the Holy Spirit that is to be commended in this effort, not the men.

You write “Paul teaches that anyone who teaches a “gospel” that is different from that of the apostles is eternally condemned.”, and you are correct in that assessment, but it is the Catholic Church that teaches the whole “gospel” which is in line with the apostles, because it has been handed down in the catholic church, but much of it has been rejected by the Protestant churches.

So if one wants to follow the Gospel that the apostles taught, then one had better become Catholic, and submit to the teaching authority of the church, or they will have some errors mixed in with some of the truth that they posses.

I am not saying that Protestants are in full error, they posses many of the truths, but they have added in errors which were not taught by the apostles, and they do this because they rely on their own fallible intellect to interpret scripture outside the authority of the Church.