Questions for Protestants

[Bishopite]

In the example above, you may place your faith in the manufacturer of the calculator, but you can verify the results can’t you? It may not be convenient but you can square 0.48887626246321266851102909935407 and see if you get 0.239.

If you do, you know the calculator is correct. With faith, it seems to be a little different doesn’t it?

But wouldn’t you agree that it isn’t strictly faith nor reason but both? Christianity itself is based on human reason and faith, neither contradict each other. Truth in Christianity can’t be
explained strictly from an epistomological means nor strictly by faith.

In your previous example you said, in part **"Well, for me, it’s a combination of faith and reason. **

**1. I am a fallible human being. **
2. Scripture tells us Christ founded a church, then promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it as he would be with it always.
3. There is only one church which can claim to be that Church of Christ—the only one around since Pentecost.
**4. The teachings of that Church nowhere contradict Christ. **
5. Therefore, fallible human being that I am, I trust my salvation to Christ through his Church."

In your point 1, you establish you are in fact fallible. In point 4. you say that "The teachings of that Church nowhere contradict Christ."

This is done through reason. God gave us the ability to reason and rationalize from the evidence. In a trial the jury hears the evidence and makes rational and reasonable judgment as to the guilt or inocense.

How have you determined that your church’s doctrines nowhere contradict Christ? Aren’t we back to you being fallible and therefore can’t be 100% certain that you are correct?

Through the evidence given. Historical, scriptural and through reason. NO one has the infallible certitude of God, what we have is a more reasonable conclusion which also includes faith and evidence.

I am assuming that when we are talking about “being 100% certain” we are talking about that there is absolutely positively no way the decision could be in error.

Again, no one has the infallible certitude of God.

Here is how we know that the church is infallible.

1. We can reasonably conclude through faith and reason and that God exists, we disobeyed this God (sin) and need some redemption for our actions. Then through reason and history we can conclude that this God guided the Jews of the Old Testament through history to proclaim and write down His words and that these words of the OT point towards a Messiah who will come and restore mankind to be able to have a real relationship with God and link the bond of man and God back together again.
2. Then we can reasonably conclude through historical sources that Jesus was an historical figure who claimed to be God and proved it by the evidence of history; scripture is also historical evidence, and His miracles and resurection, and thus as fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies and inferences pointing to Him as the Messiah, therefore He is the Messiah. This also takes faith to some degree.
3. Then we can rationally and reasonably conclude through history that the things written about Jesus in the New Testament scripture are inerrant and that this man/God Jesus established a church, one singular church as an authoritative temporary visible hiearchy on Earth to bind and loose what He wants bound and loosened from heaven and the leaders of this church (Apostles) who wrote the NT also made infallible decisions in their time on controversies within Jesus’ church and after Jesus’ resurection and assension into heaven. This also takes some degree of faith.
4. Then we can conclude through reason and historical evidence that this church established by Jesus who is God, is not only authoritative but is protected from error by this Jesus; own words and that this church is the Catholic church which post Apostolic ecclesial history affirms. Then we can reasonably conclude through reason and faith that Jesus who is God protects His established church from error, thus concluding that infallibility is not only reasonable but rational and yes it does take some degree of faith, yet Christianity itself does too!

 

[Stylite]

Ok, just so I don’t lose track here, none of our Protestant borthers are claiming 100% certitude of salvation/election?

This is good to know for the next time it comes up.​

I would go so far as to say I have “practical” certitude about my Catholic faith, based on the evidence as I see it. But, its always open for testing and sharpening. Other posters have explained this better.

Still the original question was directed to Protestants as this thread implies . Any other thoughts?

 

[RobHom]

Phew…these are excellent questions…i just wish i had read them yesterday when i logged on to Protestant leader Ian Paisleys’ website. As most of you are aware he is the foremost anti-catholic leader in Northern Ireland , and his site is so vehemently anti-catholic that i was gasping for fresh air by the end of it !!! It’s full of half-truths ; as well as very barbed and confrontational accusations against catholics. Talking about questions …his site cleverly makes all kinds of wild statements against ‘romanism’ , yet does not afford the general public the democratic opportunity to respond by asking pertinent questions. That’s what i like about this site and most pro-catholic sites on the web. Please keep adding to your list…Blessings and please pray for understanding and better communication between the different denominations…i believe our Lord wills unity for the body of Christ.

Ian Paisley is not a Christian. He is the devils very own helpmate. He is a false teacher and a charlatan. He has openly advocated genocide against Catholics. I wouldn’t waste the energy on the keystrokes to even give his website any credence whatsoever.

Bob Jones of Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC worships Paisely and is his disciple. Such good “christians” are they!!

 

[mgrfin]

But wouldn’t you agree that it isn’t strictly faith nor reason but both? Christianity itself is based on human reason and faith, neither contradict each other. Truth in Christianity can’t be
explained strictly from an epistomological means nor strictly by faith.

This is done through reason. God gave us the ability to reason and rationalize from the evidence. In a trial the jury hears the evidence and makes rational and reasonable judgment as to the guilt or inocense.

Through the evidence given. Historical, scriptural and through reason. NO one has the infallible certitude of God, what we have is a more reasonable conclusion which also includes faith and evidence.

Again, no one has the infallible certitude of God.

Here is how we know that the church is infallible.

1. We can reasonably conclude through faith and reason and that God exists, we disobeyed this God (sin) and need some redemption for our actions. Then through reason and history we can conclude that this God guided the Jews of the Old Testament through history to proclaim and write down His words and that these words of the OT point towards a Messiah who will come and restore mankind to be able to have a real relationship with God and link the bond of man and God back together again.
2. Then we can reasonably conclude through historical sources that Jesus was an historical figure who claimed to be God and proved it by the evidence of history; scripture is also historical evidence, and His miracles and resurection, and thus as fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies and inferences pointing to Him as the Messiah, therefore He is the Messiah. This also takes faith to some degree.
3. Then we can rationally and reasonably conclude through history that the things written about Jesus in the New Testament scripture are inerrant and that this man/God Jesus established a church, one singular church as an authoritative temporary visible hiearchy on Earth to bind and loose what He wants bound and loosened from heaven and the leaders of this church (Apostles) who wrote the NT also made infallible decisions in their time on controversies within Jesus’ church and after Jesus’ resurection and assension into heaven. This also takes some degree of faith.
4. Then we can conclude through reason and historical evidence that this church established by Jesus who is God, is not only authoritative but is protected from error by this Jesus; own words and that this church is the Catholic church which post Apostolic ecclesial history affirms. Then we can reasonably conclude through reason and faith that Jesus who is God protects His established church from error, thus concluding that infallibility is not only reasonable but rational and yes it does take some degree of faith, yet Christianity itself does too!

I know you mean well, but Philosophy is not able to arrive at Theological truths revealed in Catholicism. Reason supports theology, but it is by faith that we know and believe what God has revealed through his Church. Reason is left at the doorstep of our revealed religion. The mind cannot fathom the Trinity, the natures of Jesus Christ, the relationship existing, and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

St. Thomas used reason to show there was no inherent contradiction in these Truths but Philosophy cannot fathom
the infinity of God - we have no experience of these things in human nature, upon which human reason usually relies.

“Then we can rationally and reasonably conclude through history that the things written about Jesus in the New Testament scripture are inerrant…”

Sorry, we can’t conclude that from reason that things written about Jesus are inerrant.

Nothing of what I have said belies anything in our Faith. But greatest of Thomas’ work was contained in the Summa Theologica; it was not called Summa Philosophica.

Credo in unum Deum…

peace

 

[Ziggamafu]

I know you mean well, but Philosophy is not able to arrive at Theological truths revealed in Catholicism. Reason supports theology, but it is by faith that we know and believe what God has revealed through his Church. Reason is left at the doorstep of our revealed religion. The mind cannot fathom the Trinity, the natures of Jesus Christ, the relationship existing, and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

St. Thomas used reason to show there was no inherent contradiction in these Truths but Philosophy cannot fathom
the infinity of God - we have no experience of these things in human nature, upon which human reason usually relies.

“Then we can rationally and reasonably conclude through history that the things written about Jesus in the New Testament scripture are inerrant…”

Sorry, we can’t conclude that from reason that things written about Jesus are inerrant.

Nothing of what I have said belies anything in our Faith. But greatest of Thomas’ work was contained in the Summa Theologica; it was not called Summa Philosophica.

Credo in unum Deum…

peace

Peter Kreeft: Faith and Reason

I believe reason may lead us to each of our Catholic beliefs even though reason cannot strictly or exhaustively define these beliefs.

Regardless, the point I was making is that reason, in light of historic studies of Christ and the Church, may lead us to believe that Jesus is God and that the Gospels are at least as accurate as other similar records of the time. From there I built my case for the authority of the Church and the absurdity of sola scriptura.

 

[Bishopite]

[mgrfin;2663837]I know you mean well, but Philosophy is not able to arrive at Theological truths revealed in Catholicism. Reason supports theology, but it is by faith that we know and believe what God has revealed through his Church. Reason is left at the doorstep of our revealed religion. The mind cannot fathom the Trinity, the natures of Jesus Christ, the relationship existing, and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.

I never said it did. I persistantly wrote faith and reason. But look to whom I am speaking? He is a Christian, not an atheist.
God, Jesus as God, the Trinity and the Bible as inerrant aren’t issues to him as we are in agreement with those foundational issues. I didn’t try to prove the existence of God to him, just point out the through reason which is relying on the historical evidence of Catholicism and faith, one can see and accept or deny that evidence of the Catholic faith. I also pointed out that through epistomological means alone, one can’t understand all the truths in Christianity and that this “Takes faith to some degree” see #2.

St. Thomas used reason to show there was no inherent contradiction in these Truths but Philosophy cannot fathom
the infinity of God - we have no experience of these things in human nature, upon which human reason usually relies.

True, and I know what you are saying here about St. Thomas and it is a good point but in all honesty, where did I say philosophy alone could explain the truths of Catholicism?

“Then we can rationally and reasonably conclude through history that the things written about Jesus in the New Testament scripture are inerrant…”

Sorry, we can’t conclude that from reason that things written about Jesus are inerrant.

Actually I didn’t say through reason alone we can; perhaps I didn’t write coherantly enough.
What I said was through “history” which is saying that history proves Jesus established a church (Catholic church) and it is this church that tells us that Jesus’ words are inerrant. And of course as I pointed out in #2 “This all takes faith to some degree.”
History isn’t just picking up the Bible but reading it but also through non-Christian sources that also point to an historical and authoritative church.

Nothing of what I have said belies anything in our Faith. But greatest of Thomas’ work was contained in the Summa Theologica; it was not called Summa Philosophica.

Credo in unum Deum…

peace

True. But I would say you’ve read into something I’ve not said. Did I not say in #4 “through reason and faith?”
I never said reason supercedes faith, not at all, I’m simply qualifying that it is both, faith and reason or reason and faith (both given by Gods grace) that allows us to recognize the truths contained in Catholicism.
I see your points and thanks for pointing them out but I will disagree with you that I ever said philosophy overshadows theology. I’ve read the Summa and I agree; as it is said you can’t do theology without philosophy.

 

[Bishopite]

Peter Kreeft: Faith and Reason

I believe reason may lead us to each of our Catholic beliefs even though reason cannot strictly or exhaustively define these beliefs.

Regardless, the point I was making is that reason, in light of historic studies of Christ and the Church, may lead us to believe that Jesus is God and that the Gospels are at least as accurate as other similar records of the time. From there I built my case for the authority of the Church and the absurdity of sola scriptura.

Exactly. This is what I was “trying” to point out; albeit was crude and somewhat incoherant. The truths of Catholicism aren’t known strictly by faith nor by reason but both; and one or the other are applicable to the person to one degree or another. Peter Kreeft is a great writer as I’ve read many of his books. I’m just finishing his book “Back to Virtue”

 

[mgrfin]

Peter Kreeft: Faith and Reason

I believe reason may lead us to each of our Catholic beliefs even though reason cannot strictly or exhaustively define these beliefs.

Regardless, the point I was making is that reason, in light of historic studies of Christ and the Church, may lead us to believe that Jesus is God and that the Gospels are at least as accurate as other similar records of the time. From there I built my case for the authority of the Church and the absurdity of sola scriptura.

Scripture, not ‘sola scriptura’ is one of our great supports. We use Scripture as much as, and as well as, our Protestant brethren. We have no reason to be ashamed that all of our teachings are doctrinally based on Sacred Scripture.

Non-Catholics deny some of our scriptural proofs, which is quite ironic. They believe in private interpretation of Scripture, yet, in the next breath, they deny us the same right and power in defining and interpreting Scripture.

What we must insist on with them is that the full deposit of faith was made to the Apostles, that the full deposit is contained in Scripture and what has been handed down verbally. Can they look at you in the face and say, “That’s all that there is”, cause it wasn’t all written down? St. Paul, John the Evangelist make it clear that there was more to the Faith than was in Scripture.

Jesus did not write down a single word. He handed it on to his Apostles and disciples - the beginning of Tradition.

Jesus came preaching, John the Baptist came preaching, St. Paul came preaching.

It is sad to look at how little Protestants believe that has been revealed. Because they have to oppose us, they have to deny the full deposit of faith.

peace

 

[Teflon93]

But wouldn’t you agree that it isn’t strictly faith nor reason but both? Christianity itself is based on human reason and faith, neither contradict each other. Truth in Christianity can’t be
explained strictly from an epistomological means nor strictly by faith.

This is done through reason. God gave us the ability to reason and rationalize from the evidence. In a trial the jury hears the evidence and makes rational and reasonable judgment as to the guilt or inocense.

Through the evidence given. Historical, scriptural and through reason. NO one has the infallible certitude of God, what we have is a more reasonable conclusion which also includes faith and evidence.

Again, no one has the infallible certitude of God.

Here is how we know that the church is infallible.

1. We can reasonably conclude through faith and reason and that God exists, we disobeyed this God (sin) and need some redemption for our actions. Then through reason and history we can conclude that this God guided the Jews of the Old Testament through history to proclaim and write down His words and that these words of the OT point towards a Messiah who will come and restore mankind to be able to have a real relationship with God and link the bond of man and God back together again.
2. Then we can reasonably conclude through historical sources that Jesus was an historical figure who claimed to be God and proved it by the evidence of history; scripture is also historical evidence, and His miracles and resurection, and thus as fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies and inferences pointing to Him as the Messiah, therefore He is the Messiah. This also takes faith to some degree.
3. Then we can rationally and reasonably conclude through history that the things written about Jesus in the New Testament scripture are inerrant and that this man/God Jesus established a church, one singular church as an authoritative temporary visible hiearchy on Earth to bind and loose what He wants bound and loosened from heaven and the leaders of this church (Apostles) who wrote the NT also made infallible decisions in their time on controversies within Jesus’ church and after Jesus’ resurection and assension into heaven. This also takes some degree of faith.
4. Then we can conclude through reason and historical evidence that this church established by Jesus who is God, is not only authoritative but is protected from error by this Jesus; own words and that this church is the Catholic church which post Apostolic ecclesial history affirms. Then we can reasonably conclude through reason and faith that Jesus who is God protects His established church from error, thus concluding that infallibility is not only reasonable but rational and yes it does take some degree of faith, yet Christianity itself does too!

Bishopite—

I couldn’t say it better, but I might be able to say it shorter:

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is infallible.

 

[Teflon93]

Ok, just so I don’t lose track here, none of our Protestant borthers are claiming 100% certitude of salvation/election?

This is good to know for the next time it comes up.​

I would go so far as to say I have “practical” certitude about my Catholic faith, based on the evidence as I see it. But, its always open for testing and sharpening. Other posters have explained this better.

Still the original question was directed to Protestants as this thread implies . Any other thoughts?

Yeah, bookmark this one!

Once saved, maybe saved.

 

[Calvinator]

Yeah, bookmark this one!

Once saved, maybe saved.

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.

 

[Calvinator]

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is infallible.

We both agree Christ is infallible.

We disagree about whether your church is infallible.

We both agree that you and I are fallible.

2 out of 3 isn’t to bad.

 

[Bishopite]

Bishopite—

I couldn’t say it better, but I might be able to say it shorter:

The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is infallible.

Yes because you are better with words than I.

Haven’t we Catholics been asked so many times how we can know for sure that the Catholic Magisterium is infallible when we are fallible?

Well, again knowing doesn’t always mean knowing with infallible certitude, in fact no one but God can know with that certitude. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean we humans can’t know anything for God made us with a mind that reasons. And of course He gives us grace to have faith which we live by on those things with which we just can’t understand (e.g., Trinity).
St. Paul reasoned with the Jews and philosophers in Acts 17:17-18
"17So he debated in the synagogue with the Jews and with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with whoever happened to be there. 18 Even some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers engaged him in discussion. Some asked, “What is this scavenger trying to say?” Others said, “He sounds like a promoter of foreign deities,” because he was preaching about ‘Jesus’ and ‘Resurrection.’ "

And some after Paul reasoned with them, some it says at the end of Acts 17:34 did become believers. Sure it was God’s grace giving these new believers faith, but reason isn’t contrary to theology; it has been said that with theology comes philosophy and believe me I do NOT claim to be more than a novice on either!

 

[Bishopite]

We both agree Christ is infallible.

We disagree about whether your church is infallible.

We both agree that you and I are fallible.

2 out of 3 isn’t to bad.

Sure we agree on most of them, which is a good thing. But again we aren’t saying one has to be infallible in order to recognize God as being infallible, nor as being able to work infallibly through men.
You recognize fallibily that the scriptures are infallible and yet recognize through the gift of faith AND reason which is the evidence you’ve seen, that God can also work infallibily through men as the scriptures are infallible yet written by men.
Through our reason we can know with a fair amount of certitude that God can work infallibly through men so it isn’t outside of reason that God can also work infallibly through the church He established; to find truth is isn’t difficult, to follow it is.

 

[Stylite]

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.

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

 

[Nick_Jones]

We look at the logical arguments surrounding Christ’s divinity as a study of history and come to the conclusion that it is reasonable to say he was / is God and that the Gospel’s are reliable as historically accurate.

We see in the Gospels that the God-Man, the Son of David and legal king, bestows on a man the keys to the kingdom. We understand that this is the restoration of the office of prime minister from an examination of the Davidic kingdom in the Old Testament.

We further see that the prime minister, along with the other appointed governors united under his leadership, are given divine protection in certain decisions (as well as the power to forgive sins). The same authority with which the king was sent is conferred upon these men.

Christ leaves behind no text, nor a canon of chosen texts, nor a command to write such texts. A few of the Apostles eventually write a few things, which, precisely because of the authority of their office, is immediately regarded as authoritative - though not immediately as inspired scripture - and circulated. Many other texts regarding the faith also begin to be written, not at the hands of Apostles, but by other Christians. Some of these, along with some of the apostolic writings, are used as scriptural readings during the mass.

In time, evidence of a general agreement on what texts are inspired, though not officially clarified, begins to surface.

Centuries pass. As some contentions begin to pop up, a couple local (not infallible but still authoritative) councils make decisions as to which of the texts were truly inspired by God and thus appropriate for reading in the mass. Virtually nobody questions the decisions, which quickly become universal.

More centuries pass (a great many, actually), with the vast and overwhelming majority of great Christian leaders and thinkers agreeing with the decision made and then reaffirmed at the two minor councils so long ago…(snipped)

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.”

 

[Teflon93]

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.

Bingo!

That’s what we’re trying to say—we’re 100% certain that our salvation is through the Church, the Body of Christ, The Way.

Precisely right!

 

[Teflon93]

We both agree Christ is infallible.

We disagree about whether your church is infallible.

We both agree that you and I are fallible.

2 out of 3 isn’t to bad.

Not at all—and we’ll eventually show you that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ and get rid of that pesky disagreement.

Back on topic, though, the reason we ask the question is that Catholics have the authority question answered (though clearly non-Catholics do not agree) through apostolic succession and the Magisterium and Tradition. Protestants struggle with the question of authority, and strive to resolve it in many different ways (seeking to show alignment to the “primitive” church, arguing from a given interpretation of Scripture, building up alternative theology to the Catholic, etc).

Yet I know when I was a Protestant I always struggled with the question of authority. It’s one that begs for an answer.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Yet I know when I was a Protestant I always struggled with the question of authority. It’s one that begs for an answer.

What answer did you find?

 

[Teflon93]

What answer did you find?

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.