Questions Protestants Can't Answer

[rogue13]

Jerry Kelso:

Let me know if you understand that.

I understand that you answered my question in an indirect way, but basically your answer was, “No,” you do not perfectly understand context when reading Scripture and you do not get every single one of your interpretations of Scripture correct. Given that fact, how is it you have the audacity to pretend to tell anyone, Catholic or not, that they are wrong in what they believe, when your basis for saying so is your own fallible OPINION?
Jerry Kelso:

In my opinion, I don’t believe necessarily that anyone may have every jot and tittle right whether the catholic church or me or someone else.

Let’s recap:

1. You admit that your belief regarding infallibility is based on your opinion.
2. You believe that no one, including yourself, is infallible.
3. Conclusion: You have no way of knowing with any certaintly whether your belief on infallibility is true or not, because it is based on your private, subjective, fallible, non-authoritative OPINION.

Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion?
Jerry Kelso:

At the time I can’t say a thus saith the lord on it according to every single person because I don’t know every single person in the world. I believe I know what the catholic church believes that may not be right.

You basically talk in circles here. You can’t say with certainty that no one is infallible - since you “don’t know every single person in the world” - yet you “believe” you know what the Catholic Church teaches that “may” not be right.

Question: Could you be wrong in what you “believe” about the Catholic Church? Yes or no?

Another question for you: Were any of the Apostles infallible in what they taught?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Copland 3: I have nothing against infallible teachings of real truth from real Apostles. The question is does the Catholic church have the truth? If they do they woud be real apostles with apostolic authority.
Being like the early church fathers more than than the protestants is not necessariliy any big thing for some of the early church fathers were thwarted in their thinkiing and were a little off track. Trust me there are protestant that follow certain doctrines of the early church fathers and are a detriment to the doctrine of Christ and live even defeated and yet are proud at the same time to their own detriment and sometimes others.
Do you know what Paul meant when he said “I DIE DAILY” and why! If you have the truth let me know. You may have infallible truth or not. God bless! Jerry Kelso

The office of the Apostle ended when those who could no longer have been an eye witness to the resurrected Christ. The Apostles began appointing bishops to carry on their ministry in order to preserve apostolic doctrine. Our 4th Pope St. Clement of Rome talks about this in his letter to the Corinthians. That is why it is so important to consult the Fathers of the Church because they are witnesses to these things. When people go with the idea that it is Bible alone then they find themselves trying to reinvent the wheel every generation and that takes them that much further away from how the Early Church carried on the traditions from the Apostles.

I am not sure why you are asking about what Paul said about dieing daily, I don’t see the connection between that passage and this conversation. But I will quote Cornelius A. Lapide, " Ver. 31.—I die daily. I.e., I expose myself every day to danger of death, on behalf of the Gospel and the conversion of the Gentiles."

 

[Wildkit]

You basically talk in circles here. You can’t say with certainty that no one is infallible - since you “don’t know every single person in the world” - yet you “believe” you know what the Catholic Church teaches that “may” not be right.

Question: Could you be wrong in what you “believe” about the Catholic Church? Yes or no?

Another question for you: Were any of the Apostles infallible in what they taught?

Where is the logic here?

 

[jerry_kelso]

I understand that you answered my question in an indirect way, but basically your answer was, “No,” you do not perfectly understand context when reading Scripture and you do not get every single one of your interpretations of Scripture correct. Given that fact, how is it you have the audacity to pretend to tell anyone, Catholic or not, that they are wrong in what they believe, when your basis for saying so is your own fallible OPINION?

Let’s recap:

1. You admit that your belief regarding infallibility is based on your opinion.
2. You believe that no one, including yourself, is infallible.
3. Conclusion: You have no way of knowing with any certaintly whether your belief on infallibility is true or not, because it is based on your private, subjective, fallible, non-authoritative OPINION.

Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion?
You basically talk in circles here. You can’t say with certainty that no one is infallible - since you “don’t know every single person in the world” - yet you “believe” you know what the Catholic Church teaches that “may” not be right.

Question: Could you be wrong in what you “believe” about the Catholic Church? Yes or no?

Another question for you: Were any of the Apostles infallible in what they taught?

Rogue 13: If you really understood what I said you wouldn’t keep trying to put words in my mouth or keep drawing wrong conclusions.
If you read some of my other posts I mention about believing and recieving the Apostle’s messag e who was not an apostle from the catholic church. So I am very confident that I have the truth and the spirit helps me understand and determine was is a riigjt message and what’s not. I also have had a very open mind to exegesis and have been fortunate to have a great ability of reasoning and big understanding of reconciling all the scriptures together on a given subject.
Catholics have understanding of apostolic teaching and authority that many protestants don’t have a clue. Protestants understand to validate a belief you have to know what the belie says and means.
Catholics say we have the truth read it and you’ll see it agree with us telling you we have the truth. Then they say if you come to a different conclusion then they didn’t understand it right. This is a possibility but doesn’t always work out that way
There are some cathollics that believe some protestants are going to heaven and vice versa. This means catholics and protestants both are right about the two most important things and the other things only concern our works.
The oriiginal apostles had first hand knowledge and passed it on to faithful men like Timothy, Aqilla, Priscilla, Epaphroditus and more. The apostles had the truth but one time Peter and James had to be rebuked by Paul and they repented and got their heart right. So it seems they were responsible to each other. Paul said he was judged by no man. Later at the end of John the revelator’s day they had great influx of false apostles and most of the original apostles were dead and they had to start trying the apostles. Polycarp, was John’s contemporary who was the last of the oriiginal apostles. This would be the most logical person to trace back the original apostle’s doctrine .
The problem with the catholic church is not the tracing of doctrinal history but, instead it is the preservation of doctrinal history. All the corruption in the catholic church and because of it’s leader’s is well documented history.
The bottom line is that much of the catholic church which has similarities to the early church doesn’t seem to measure up to substance wise doctrinally of the early church.
The reason I put the I die daily passage for all to explain is to tell me what true interpretaion of the catholic church was and why paul would say that. Then I could see whether or not they could rightly divided thew word. I have opened this up for discussion on a new post. God Bless! Jerry Kelso

 

[Phil12123]

I don’t know if I want to jump into someone else’s dog fight, but some of what you say, Rogue, has me wondering.

Well, anyone can give a consistent Scriptural answer, that ain’t the problem. The problem for you,** if you believe in salvation by faith alone**, is that you cannot give an answer that is consistent with your theology and with Scripture at the same time.

If you don’t believe in salvation by faith alone, you must believe that some of your own works are necessary to get you into heaven, i.e., need to be added to the Work of redemption of Christ at Calvary, right? If so, doesn’t that change the gift of salvation into a reward for whatever those works of yours are? And doesn’t that destroy or frustrate the grace of God that was otherwise the source of that gift (Rom. 11:6; Gal. 2:21)? And, btw, what are those works of yours that you are trusting in to help get you into heaven? Can you name them, specifically?

Sorry, but your premise is flawed. You do indeed have only your fallible interpretation to rely upon when you interpret the Bible because the Bible cannot speak. The Bible cannot say to you, “Excuse me, but that’s not what those words mean.” So, you are stuck listening only to the voice in your head that says, “I can read the Bible, therefore I am Pope, pastor, and theologian of the Church of Cachonga and will decide for myself, by my own authority, what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine.”

Do you give any credit to the Holy Spirit to lead and guide believers into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13) or is that promise not for all believers today, but only for the Apostles to whom Jesus directly spoke those words? If the latter, can we say anything that Jesus said to the Apostles applies equally to us regular, garden-variety believers today? If so, how do we determine that?

And what about the Apostle John’s words to “little children” or “young men” or “fathers” i.e., us ordinary believers, when he said:

1 John 2:20. But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge.
21. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth.
27. As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him.

If the N.T. writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, isn’t the Holy Spirit the only truly infallible interpreter of those writings? And isn’t man totally dependent on Him to correctly “divide” or handle the Word of Truth? Can you or the Pope or any other man truly claim that only HE is totally and infallibly dependent on the Holy Spirit and only HE hears from the Holy Spirit as to what is the correct interpretation of every jot and tittle of those N.T. writings?

(to be continued)

 

[Phil12123]

(continued from previous post)

I, on the other hand, have an infallible authority that can actually talk to me, that can teach me, that can correct me when I err and point me to the truth. I have a teacher that is the pillar and ground of the truth. Do you have such a teacher?

Correction, you have an authority that claims to be infallible but over the hundreds of years it has exercised that “authority” it has demonstrated an ability to teach error on a quite consistent basis. You also realize, do you not, that its claim to infallibility was not established until 1870, before which time many good Catholic theologians did NOT attribute infallibility to your authority.

Yes, I have such a teacher, the author of the N.T. writings Himself, the Holy Spirit. Tell me, which is the better teacher—the author Himself or some man who is merely claiming to be led by the author? And how is any man able to claim he is more led or better led than any other man indwelt by the same Holy Spirit? For example, how does one man who says indulgences are of God able to claim he is more led by the Holy Spirit than another man who says indulgences were an invention of the devil? Doesn’t it all boil down to whomever you, or I, give allegiance to, i.e., allow to tell us what the truth is? You claim that Protestants should not allow their pastors or teachers to tell them the truth because they are not infallible; we should listen to your infallible authority instead. But what makes your authority intrinsically more infallible than the Holy Spirit teaching me directly?

IMO, God does not want any believer in bondage to any other believer when it comes to knowing the truth of God. That seems very clear from what the Apostle John wrote in his first letter. He didn’t even appeal to himself as authority that the believers he was writing to should honor as some infallible speaker of the truth. His appeal was to the anointing that he recognized his readers all had. How very different is your appeal.

So, no, we are not in the same boat. You are quite right that your “source” cannot develop new doctrines, it cannot do anything except be rightly or wrongly interpreted. However, neither can my “source” develop new doctrines. It can, however, teach the truth entrusted to it by Jesus Christ through His Apostles. It can also correct those who believe and teach error. My source is infallible when teaching on faith and morals.

Your “source” has indeed developed new doctrines, supported by neither Sacred Scripture or “Sacred Tradition,” and which cannot possibly be considered “truth entrusted to it by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.”

Your source is only as infallible as the person reading and interpreting it. It is the inspired Word of God, and it is inerrant, but what guarantee of doctrinal soundness does it offer to the ignorant and the unstable when they interpret it in a fallible way and by their own authority?

There may be no guarantee of doctrinal soundness but neither is there with your source. The believers Paul wrote to were simply told to “Test everything; retain what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). And Paul warned the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29-32) that after his departure

    "savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them. So be vigilant and remember that for three years, night and day, I unceasingly admonished each of you with tears. And now I commend you to God and to that gracious word of his that can build you up and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated."

The bottom line was Paul commended them to God and His Word, not to some infallible teaching authority other than that Word. Paul seemed to say they were guaranteed to have to deal with men perverting the truth, not a guarantee like you mention. And this is coming from Paul himself. We don’t see him appointing bishops to succeed him and to guard the truth he was passing on to them, but rather just warning them of what to expect even within their “own group.”

 

[kepha1]

(continued from previous post)

Correction, you have an authority that claims

to be infallible but over the hundreds of years it has exercised that “authority” it has demonstrated an ability to teach error on a quite consistent basis.

That’s a mouthful. The fact that you say we have an authority that claims to be infallible is proof you have the wrong idea idea where the authority comes from. Jesus did not give us mere human authority, He gave us his very own authority, or Christianity would have died out as a footnote in the putrid backwaters of history.

You also realize, do you not, that its claim to infallibility was not established until 1870,

Sorry, but papal infallibility was taught by Christ. In 1870, it was affirmed and clarified because it was challenged. To say that it was established in 1870 is just another anti-Catholic falsehood. You have been grossly misinformed.

before which time many good Catholic theologians did NOT attribute infallibility to your authority.

That is one reason why Vatican I was held: to settle the matter. Good Catholic theologians also raised questions about the Deuterocanonical books, and the matter was settled at the Council of Trent. Good Catholic theologians have the right to challenge and raise questions, and think for themselves, contrary to the misperceptions of outsiders. They just can’t rebel.

Yes, I have such a teacher, the author of the N.T. writings Himself, the Holy Spirit. Tell me, which is the better teacher—the author Himself or some man who is merely claiming to be led by the author? And how is any man able to claim he is more led or better led than any other man indwelt by the same Holy Spirit?

That’s fine and dandy but there is no biblical basis for this assertion. Nowhere in Scripture does it claim that Scripture is to be used, interpreted, or taught outside of the Church, or that individuals have a direct link to the Holy Spirit or be taught by Him apart from the Church. Now you or me or anyone can read the Bible and be inspired and extract what the sacred authors originally meant to say, but when you step outside the Church’s understanding of Scripture, you risk falling into error. The Holy Spirit does not lead countless individuals into conflicting interpretations, as history has shown.

For example, how does one man who says indulgences are of God able to claim he is more led by the Holy Spirit than another man who says indulgences were an invention of the devil?

Who says it’s one man teaching indulgences, if not Jesus giving Peter the power to bind and loose?

Doesn’t it all boil down to whomever you, or I, give allegiance to, i.e., allow to tell us what the truth is?

No. Relativism has nothing to do with truth.

You claim that Protestants should not allow their pastors or teachers to tell them the truth because they are not infallible; we should listen to your infallible authority instead. But what makes your authority intrinsically more infallible than the Holy Spirit teaching me directly?

Nobody is saying that. I think Protestant pastors and teachers teach the truth most of the time. But the Holy Spirit does not give you the authority to settle disputes, or declare anathemas, or discern complex moral issues that are not even in the Bible, or make rulings affecting the whole Church.

IMO, God does not want any believer in bondage to any other believer when it comes to knowing the truth of God.

No Catholic is in bondage to anyone. You are confusing bondage with Obedience, one of three evangelical councils established before the canon of Scripture.

 

[kepha1]

That seems very clear from what the Apostle John wrote in his first letter. He didn’t even appeal to himself as authority that the believers he was writing to should honor as some infallible speaker of the truth. His appeal was to the anointing that he recognized his readers all had. How very different is your appeal.

*1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us” (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.” But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error. *

Your “source” has indeed developed new doctrines, supported by neither Sacred Scripture or “Sacred Tradition,” and which cannot possibly be considered “truth entrusted to it by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.”

It is impossible for the Church to invent new doctrines.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

*John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance. *

*John 16:12 - Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good. *

John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

"By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church’s previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm."

The History of Eucharistic Adoration
Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Church by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/manual/section1/sec1_12a.pdf

There may be no guarantee of doctrinal soundness but neither is there with your source.

The believers Paul wrote to were simply told to “Test everything; retain what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). And Paul warned the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29-32) that after his departure
Test everything against what? A book that didn’t yet exist, or Apostolic Teaching?

Let’s get back on topic.

 

[kepha1]

From my questions file:

1. If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there thousands of Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
   A) the one historic, consistent, and authoritative interpretation protected by the Holy Spirit is rejected
   B) every doctrine must be “measured against” the individuals interpretation of Scripture, making it a variable, relativistic rule.
   C) the testimony of the Apostolic community which was promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit in coming “to all truth” has been cut off and rejected
   D) all of the above
2. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?
   A) no one, just the bible
   B) There is no authoritive arbritrator in this situation
   C) The Bible Answer Man on the radio
   D) Individual Christians led by the Holy Spirit have the correct interpretation when they agree on the important things, and don’t need anybody else’s’ authority
3. Since each “bible-only” Christian must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can they in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
   A) they can’t
   B) the Holy Spirit tells each individual Protestant what doctrines measure up against the bible
   C) infallible doctrines that measure up to any individual(s)interpretation of scripture that gives you a good feeling.
   D) B and C
4. Some Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?
   A) no one, they have no centralized authority
   B) Pat Robertson
   C) Bible college professors
   D) The Bible Answer Man on the radio
   E) Christians led by the Holy Spirit all agree on the important things, and don’t need anybody else’s’ authority

 

[kepha1]

1. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?
   A) the question is false, the bible fell from the sky in 33 AD in the KJV.
   B) the Catholics collaborated with the Romans to kill the true believers and burn the scriptures
   C) the Catholics wrote false scriptures and forgeries to confuse the true believers
   D) Paul was a tent-maker which proves they had tent revivals
   E) Jesus founded a living, teaching Church, not a book club
   F) B and C
2. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians?
   A) the Holy Spirit who guided the bishops in the early Church councils
   B) each individual believer was literate, and knew which were the right books from the wrong books
3. If 28 is B, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
   A) yes
   B) no
4. How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?
   A) the Whore of Babylon compiled the bible as a means of deception
   B) writings of the Early Church Fathers of the 1st and 2nd and 3rd centuries, many which still exist, confirm these doctrines as originally from the Apostles
   C) an inspired book can come from a false church
   E) B and C
5. Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible “unity” that exists only in the hearts of believers?
6. If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?
7. Hebrews 13:17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

**What is the expiration date of this **verse?

How do Fundamental Christian churches, which have their own distinct theology, and often boast that they are “separated,” obey God’s command that Christians “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10)?

 

[Cachonga]

Sorry for the delay. I was without internet for a while.

rogue13:

Well, anyone can give a consistent Scriptural answer, that ain’t the problem. The problem for you, if you believe in salvation by faith alone, is that you cannot give an answer that is consistent with your theology and with Scripture at the same time.

Do you think John Martignoni is infallble? Also, if I can give a consistent, Scriptural answer, it would agree with my “faith alone” belief (otherwise, it wouldn’t be Scripturally consistent). But what do I win if I can answer his unanswerable question in a consistent, Scriptural manner?

Sorry, but your premise is flawed. You do indeed have only your fallible interpretation to rely upon when you interpret the Bible because the Bible cannot speak. The Bible cannot say to you, “Excuse me, but that’s not what those words mean.” So, you are stuck listening only to the voice in your head that says, “I can read the Bible, therefore I am Pope, pastor, and theologian of the Church of Cachonga and will decide for myself, by my own authority, what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine.”

Your charicature of Protestants is false (at least for some of us). I recognize the authority of the Church, and the importance of having pastors and elders over me, teaching, praying and guiding me in my walk with Jesus Christ. I just don’t believe the Catholic Church has remained true to the original teachings, and is, therefore, not a Church that I should be subject to. I also follow Paul’s advice to Timothy found in 2 Tim 2:15 (“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” RSV).

I, on the other hand, have an infallible authority that can actually talk to me, that can teach me, that can correct me when I err and point me to the truth. I have a teacher that is the pillar and ground of the truth. Do you have such a teacher? I have a teacher who can say, “Whoever listens to us is of God, and whoever does not listen to us is not of God. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Do you have such a teacher?

I find this very interesting, especially when I remember some other threads I’ve seen where someone complains about their priest (for example, teaching that the multiplying of the loaves and fishes was really just getting people to share ,and not a real miracle), and beingf advised to “go to another Church” (seems like a very ‘protestant’ suggestion, but it comes from Catholics to Catholics). How do you know your priest is correct? Is he infallible? Is he always consistent in his teachings? Or is he just consistent with your belief of what the Church actually teaches? Have you ever gotten a phone call from the Pope explaining a particular doctrine or dogma, and taking the time to make sure you understand it “infallibly”?

So, no, we are not in the same boat. You are quite right that your “source” cannot develop new doctrines, it cannot do anything except be rightly or wrongly interpreted. However, neither can my “source” develop new doctrines. It can, however, teach the truth entrusted to it by Jesus Christ through His Apostles. It can also correct those who believe and teach error. My source is infallible when teaching on faith and morals. Your source is only as infallible as the person reading and interpreting it. It is the inspired Word of God, and it is inerrant, but what guarantee of doctrinal soundness does it offer to the ignorant and the unstable when they interpret it in a fallible way and by their own authority?

I find the claim that your source of authority can’t “develop new doctrines” to be very inconsistent with reality. For example, the assumption of Mary was made a De Fide Dogma of the Church somewhere around 1950. Your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ (I think on Page 129) says that the earliest documentation comes from the transistus literature of the 5th and 6th century. These are (by his own admission) apochryphal writings. Where is the “apostolic tradition” in something that first appears in apochryphal writings in the 5th of 6th CENTURY??? If your “infallible” authority can’t “develop new doctrines”, then please explain John Henry Cardinal Newmans (sorry if it’s not spelled right) “Development Theory”?

You are correct that Scriptures can be “rightly or wrongly interpreted”, but you automatically assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church (or what you believe the Catholic Church to be) is wrong. The sad thing is, we can’t even really discuss the issues, because your auhtority has already told you what certain Scriptures mean, and you HAVE TO believe it. What would you do if the Pope came out tomorrow and declared, “infallibly” that Mary told him in a dream that Jesus Christ had returned (via reincarnation) and is known as (put in whatever name you like), and then turns over the authority of the Church to him? Perhaps you are right, we are not in the same boat. I am always free to question my pastor and elders on a particular Scripture, and I will never be told “Because the Church has infallibly declared it to be so”.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Sorry for the delay. I was without internet for a while.

Do you think John Martignoni is infallble?

Of course not. His teachings though are consistent with the Catholic Church which is infallible in teaching faith and morals. So we can trust his teachings because we measure it to the Church God gave us.

Also, if I can give a consistent, Scriptural answer, it would agree with my “faith alone” belief (otherwise, it wouldn’t be Scripturally consistent). But what do I win if I can answer his unanswerable question in a consistent, Scriptural manner?

Your assuming you are citing Scripture (which comes from Tradition) in the correct context. However you are fallible and you are not measuring it against a Teaching Church of Apostolic Authority so this is really irrelevant.

Your charicature of Protestants is false (at least for some of us). I recognize the authority of the Church, and the importance of having pastors and elders over me, teaching, praying and guiding me in my walk with Jesus Christ. I just don’t believe the Catholic Church has remained true to the original teachings, and is, therefore, not a Church that I should be subject to.

So where is this main correct Protestant Church to be found and how do you know which one is correct? Since you don’t believe the Catholic Church has remained true to her original teachings, you must find a church that has…otherwise the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church Christ instituted with an Apostolic Authority. I demand you show us this church with evidence that shows this church’s beliefs staying the same throughout the past 2000 years.

I also follow Paul’s advice to Timothy found in 2 Tim 2:15 (“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” RSV).

I find this very interesting, especially when I remember some other threads I’ve seen where someone complains about their priest (for example, teaching that the multiplying of the loaves and fishes was really just getting people to share ,and not a real miracle), and beingf advised to “go to another Church” (seems like a very ‘protestant’ suggestion, but it comes from Catholics to Catholics). How do you know your priest is correct? Is he infallible? Is he always consistent in his teachings? Or is he just consistent with your belief of what the Church actually teaches? Have you ever gotten a phone call from the Pope explaining a particular doctrine or dogma, and taking the time to make sure you understand it “infallibly”?

Your mistakenly thinking this “infallibility” applies to each and every authoritative member of the Church at all times. The following link explains the matter more and should help you understand papal infallibility. So something one priest says may in fact be wrong, however you can test it against the Church’s Teachings.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

I find the claim that your source of authority can’t “develop new doctrines” to be very inconsistent with reality. For example, the assumption of Mary was made a De Fide Dogma of the Church somewhere around 1950. Your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, in his book ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ (I think on Page 129) says that the earliest documentation comes from the transistus literature of the 5th and 6th century. These are (by his own admission) apochryphal writings. Where is the “apostolic tradition” in something that first appears in apochryphal writings in the 5th of 6th CENTURY??? If your “infallible” authority can’t “develop new doctrines”, then please explain John Henry Cardinal Newmans (sorry if it’s not spelled right) “Development Theory”?

This should shed some light on the matter.

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

You are correct that Scriptures can be “rightly or wrongly interpreted”, but you automatically assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church (or what you believe the Catholic Church to be) is wrong.

Which is why I’m Catholic…because I believe the Catholic Church to be right…just as you believe the Protestant faith is right…and not the Catholic faith…which is why you are Protestant. Since you are a Protestant, you ASSUME the Catholic Church is wrong!

The sad thing is, we can’t even really discuss the issues, because your auhtority has already told you what certain Scriptures mean, and you HAVE TO believe it.

Since you are a Protestant, you must believe Catholic interpretation is wrong, and there is really no basis for some/all Catholic beliefs. You are correct…we can’t discuss the issue like this.

What would you do if the Pope came out tomorrow and declared, “infallibly” that Mary told him in a dream that Jesus Christ had returned (via reincarnation) and is known as (put in whatever name you like), and then turns over the authority of the Church to him?

Interesting scenario. Hopefully someone else can jump in and help me with this one, however that would contradict Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture and many teachings the Church has already taught so I think it would be meaningless.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

Perhaps you are right, we are not in the same boat. I am always free to question my pastor and elders on a particular Scripture, and I will never be told “Because the Church has infallibly declared it to be so”.

You will always be lost, and never sure you are right. You can go pastor-doctrine shopping and test their knowledge against something you blindly accept with no ultimate authority as evident by the many Protestant denomination with no clear ultimate authority.

I can question my Church…however when I do, I question Christ. When you question your pastor (basically your 2nd highest authority with you being the first), you question an interpretation, and never Christ…which makes Christ to be a fluid-whatever-you-want-Him-to be…which makes Christ ultimately pointless.

 

[Cachonga]

eagle_eye222001:

Your assuming you are citing Scripture (which comes from Tradition) in the correct context. However you are fallible and you are not measuring it against a Teaching Church of Apostolic Authority so this is really irrelevant.

I see there is no point in continuing to try and dialogue with you, since you seem to feel that my reasoning and argumentation is “irrelevant”. Very well, I will no longer respond to anything you have to say. Hopefully, rogue13 (to whom my comments were directed) will respond without writing me off completely.

 

[kepha1]

I see there is no point in continuing to try and dialogue with you, since you seem to feel that my reasoning and argumentation is “irrelevant”. Very well, I will no longer respond to anything you have to say. Hopefully, rogue13 (to whom my comments were directed) will respond without writing me off completely.

You accept a Bible that came from the Teaching Authority of the Church which you reject. Your “reasoning and argumentation” is based on this false, illogical premise. Eagle_eye caught you in a common error, one you have no answer for.

 

[Cachonga]

kepha1:

You accept a Bible that came from the Teaching Authority of the Church which you reject. Your “reasoning and argumentation” is based on this false, illogical premise. Eagle_eye caught you in a common error, one you have no answer for.

I accept the God-breathed Scriptures that God GAVE to His people (which make up the Church). The Scriptures came from God, not the Church. The early Church RECOGNIZED the Scriptures God inspired, but that recognition does NOT give the Church (any Church) authority OVER the Scriptures! You make it sound as if the Scriptures became God-breathed Scriptures because the teaching authority of the early Church MADE them Scripture, which (hopefully) we both know is untrue (or do you have some documentation that proves otherwise?). It seems your vision is just as clouded as Eagle-eye’s.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

Your charicature of Protestants is false (at least for some of us). I recognize the authority of the Church, and the importance of having pastors and elders over me, teaching, praying and guiding me in my walk with Jesus Christ. I just don’t believe the Catholic Church has remained true to the original teachings, and is, therefore, not a Church that I should be subject to. I also follow Paul’s advice to Timothy found in 2 Tim 2:15 (“Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” RSV).

snip

Either the Church that Jesus founded has remained true to its original teachings, or, as you believe, it has not. If the Church has not remained true to its original teachings, then it has fallen into error and falsehood. If the Church has fallen into error and falsehood, then the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it. If the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church that Jesus founded, then He was a liar when He said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

You don’t believe that the Catholic Church (the Church that Jesus founded) has remained true to its original teachings. That is your privilege; you may believe whatever you choose to believe, even if you choose to believe a deception. However, your choice means that the Jesus that you worship is a liar.

Fortunately for the rest of us, the Jesus that you worship is neither the Jesus of the Scriptures, nor the Jesus of history.

DaveBj

 

[kepha1]

I accept the God-breathed Scriptures that God GAVE to His people (which make up the Church). The Scriptures came from God, not the Church.

Agreed, but somebody had to prove which “scriptures” were from God and which ones were not. That “somebody” was the teaching authority of the Church. The bible didn’t fall from the sky. God gave inspired scriptures to His people but you don’t give names or councils who proved which books were inspired and which ones were not. There is a difference between inspiration, which, at the time, was any body’s guess, and canonization, where inspiration was proven. There were some 12 “gospels” and at least 15 “book of acts” floating around. It was human authority under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit that made the discernment of which books were from God. This is the reality and historical fact you cannot admit, because if you did, you would have to acknowledge the teaching authority of the Church.

You assume every individual scripture reader knew automatically which books were inspired and which ones were not. This fantasy was dreamed up for the sole purpose of undermining Church authority.
Does the Catholic Church Think it is Superior to the Bible, and its Creator?

The early Church RECOGNIZED the Scriptures God inspired, but that recognition does NOT give the Church (any Church) authority OVER the Scriptures!

Wrong again. The early Church hotly debated some of the Holy Books for over 300 years. A loose collection of believers with no central authority could never accomplish canonization. And the Church does not claim to have authority OVER the Scriptures, that is just a misunderstanding. The Church is a SERVANT of the scriptures, preserving and proclaiming them, without which, you would not have them.

You make it sound as if the Scriptures became God-breathed Scriptures because the teaching authority of the early Church MADE them Scripture, which (hopefully) we both know is untrue (or do you have some documentation that proves otherwise?).

We both know this is untrue. And the Scripures are not the only thing that is “God breathed.” See John 20:22 where the Lord “breathes” on the apostles.

It seems your vision is just as clouded as Eagle-eye’s.

My vision is partially based on the historical record. I have no need to re-write history to force fit Luther-Calvin breathed opinions on the relationship between Scriptures and the Church.

 

[kepha1]

1.) True or false: The Bible has a verse(s) that lists what books belong in the Bible.

If true, quote the chapter and verse______________________________

1. If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong in it, then is the Bible’s “table of contents” merely a human tradition?
   A) yes
   B) no, its not by “merely human tradition” that compiled the Holy Books
   C) all traditions are to be condemned
2. If the list of Biblical books is not revealed in the Bible itself, what men drew up the list?
   A) Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli
   B) The Twelve Apostles
   C) The Jewish Council of Jamnia in the 1st century
   D) Several Bishops in 4 councils from the 2nd to the 4th century
3. Why do you trust these men?
   A) they were guided by the Holy Spirit
   B) their offices were of direct descent from the Apostles
   C) they were unanimous in faith and practice
   D) all of the above
4. Is their list infallible? (without error)
   A) yes
   B) no, Luther removed the added books 1100 years later and made it infallible
   C) no, the Jewish council of Jamnia (95 AD) had more authority about the canon of scripture than Christians, even though they rejected Christ and the message of the New Testament.
   D) No, the bible came from God, it didn’t come from man, that’s why its infallible.
5. If the list of books in YOUR Bible is infallible, on what authority is it so?
   A) by virtue of the office of the bishops who proved which ones of the many books were inspired
   B) the power to bind and loose which was given to the Church
   C) by the authority of Christ which lives in the Church
   D) King James, who gathered the books from the Apostles, and lived to be 1600 years old.
   E) I trust the publisher
   F) A, B, C
6. True or False: Even though the list of books in the bible is not in the bible, it is an infallible list.?
7. If their list is not infallible, and is merely a human tradition, why do you trust it? On what authority?
   A) God decided the list, not men. That is why I trust it, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, Who had no need of men to make the list.
   B) the list IS infallible, on the authority that Jesus gave to sinful Church leaders.
   C) the list IS infallible on the authority that the Holy Spirit gives me a good feeling about it.

1. Some claim the Bible says that unless doctrines are explicitly found in scripture, they cannot be trusted. State any explicit biblical basis for this doctrine, Old or New Testament.
2. If (9) has no verses to support the claim, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway, isn’t that an extra-biblical “rule of faith and practice”, or an extra-biblical doctrine?
   A) yes
   B) no

 

[Cachonga]

DaveBj:

Either the Church that Jesus founded has remained true to its original teachings, or, as you believe, it has not. If the Church has not remained true to its original teachings, then it has fallen into error and falsehood. If the Church has fallen into error and falsehood, then the Gates of Hell have prevailed against it. If the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church that Jesus founded, then He was a liar when He said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Since the Church that Jesus founded was made of people, and since God has always had people in every age that worshipped Him, then the gates of hell have not (and never will) prevail against His Church. Your mistake is in thinking that Jesus founded an insitution. Jesus did not establish an institution, but a “body” of believers. I will not go further into this, since it is off topic, but I can assure you, Satan has not, and will never, prevail against the Church (the true body of Christ).