Side stepping questions?

[ErricFiggy]

Hi everyone

Just an update: we kept talking, I noticed he kept asking me questions to trap me into answering in a way that would let him to say “see! Catholic theology is wrong!”

He accused me of misunderstanding what Jesus did for us on the cross, and then went on to tell me about Jesus paid for all of our sins and freely offers us salvation, and that we don’t have to “work” to earn God’s favor. At that point i was getting really frustrated, because judging by his comments, it was clear that everything i said went in one ear and out the other. So i told him that I’m willing to talk about anything, but only when he’s willing to listen and not just talk. I sent him a link to an article for him to read, and that’s where we’re at now. Did i take the right approach?

One thing that was sort of a red flag for me was that he said he was talking to one of his friends, and that they’d be willing to drive down to where i live to sit down and talk that says to me that he’s not interested in understanding Catholic beliefs, just in converting me…

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi James,

No problem. Thanks for the references to the Westminster confessions.

Very welcome, its good to use confessions!

But in truth ALL councils draw their authority from Sacred Scripture.

Indeed, and as I’ve said; thats why I accept what a lot of them have said Again SS doesn’t mean I repel all forms of church authrotiy, the church authrotiy in these cases was there, but supports its proclamations with the perspicuous scriptures.

I see that, by referring to the Westminster confessions, you are showing that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura holds that Scripture is the only infallible guide…But - does Scripture itself say that it is the only infallible guide? I have never seen such a verse. - and by Scripture I mean the collected books of the biblical canon.

Sola Scriptura isn’t really a doctrine, it’s a hermeneutical principle.

I don’t claim there is such a verse. What I do claim of course, is that the scriptures are God Breathed. The words of God. “the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authrotiy which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them.” (1). As such they are to be regarded as possessing of Christ’s authority, and that to which doctrine and tradition is tested to.

Of course, one could list numerous verses that imply this position for scripture; (Psalm 119:105, 2 Tim 3:16, Matt 22:29, Mark 12:10, Luke 1:3-4, John 20:31, 1 Cor 4:6) to name some… But as I’ve said, that’s not the sole basis for applying the principle of Sola Scriptura.

What I find in Scripture is that we refer things (as needed) to “The Church” and that we “Listen to the Church”.
I mean we have the instruction in Mt 18:15-18
Likewise we have Jesus, in the same passage, giving authority to the Church to “Bind and Loose” - Whatever".
We have a demonstration of that instruction and that binding and loosing in Acts 15.
We have Paul telling Timothy that The Church is the “pillar and foundation” in 1 Tim.Paul tells the Ephesians that it is through The Church that “the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places”. (Eph 3:10)
We have multiple exhortations in the NT for the faithful to be one to avoid dissensions, to be at peace, etc.

Indeed, we do. The verses in Matthew; quite so. On binding and loosing, my elders do indeed practice this.
I’ve already happily agreed that the church is said pillar and foundation of the truth, see my Calvin link earlier on. And indeed; the Ephesians verse is quite so.
On dissensions; yes it happens. It’s something no Christian is ever that happy about. But that’s why as a Protestant I hold to the old “in essentials; unity. In non essentials; liberty. In all things; charity.” motto.

One thing I note however, your post appeals to the scriptures to demonstrate the authrotiy of the church, then appeals to the church to prove the authrotiy of scripture and your interpretation, which I can’t quite see the logic, with respect James

P.S. Please don’t take my bolding etc as yelling…just some emphasis…

No worries, it’s often difficult to convey tone and mood etc on here!

Kind regards

Lincs.

(1) - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge, Hendrickson publishers, Massachusetts, 2011, pg 30-31.

 

[Randal796]

Hi everyone

Just an update: we kept talking, I noticed he kept asking me questions to trap me into answering in a way that would let him to say “see! Catholic theology is wrong!”

One thing that was sort of a red flag for me was that he said he was talking to one of his friends, and that they’d be willing to drive down to where i live to sit down and talk that says to me that he’s not interested in understanding Catholic beliefs, just in converting me…

It has been my experience that unless they start the conversation with something like “could you explain X to me, I just don’t get it.”, they are just trying to convert you. I had one person ask me a question about Mary, so I handed them my printed notes on Mary and they said thanks. It also included stuff on communion of saints.
Scary thing I’m on my way to Rome, not there yet. We’ll see if I hear anything more. If someone side steps a question twice, I’m outa there

 

[JRKH]

Hi everyone

Just an update: we kept talking, I noticed he kept asking me questions to trap me into answering in a way that would let him to say “see! Catholic theology is wrong!”

You are in good company here…How many times in the Gospel do we read things like, “They asked (such and such) to try to trap Him”, referring to Our Lord.

He accused me of misunderstanding what Jesus did for us on the cross, and then went on to tell me about Jesus paid for all of our sins and freely offers us salvation, and that we don’t have to “work” to earn God’s favor.

I don’t see what is being misunderstood here? What he proposes is quite in line with Catholic Church teaching.

At that point i was getting really frustrated, because judging by his comments, it was clear that everything i said went in one ear and out the other. So i told him that I’m willing to talk about anything, but only when he’s willing to listen and not just talk. I sent him a link to an article for him to read, and that’s where we’re at now. Did i take the right approach?

Yes - you are handling it just fine.
Just try to make sure that you have documented Church teaching to support your position. Don’t be trapped by things like “I know this Catholic who says…”. make him back up any accusations with Church documents.
For instance - he obviously believes that the Catholic Church teaches a “Works salvation”, which she clearly does not. If you demand of him that he produce official Church teaching to back up his claim, he will either be unable to produce it, or what he does produce can be shown to not be saying what he thinks it is saying…

One thing that was sort of a red flag for me was that he said he was talking to one of his friends, and that they’d be willing to drive down to where i live to sit down and talk that says to me that he’s not interested in understanding Catholic beliefs, just in converting me…

Well - If he is willing to make the drive…Are you willing to talk with him face to face?
Conversion can work both ways you know…
Of course - myself - I think I do better with a bit of distance - on line and such. Not as immediate, easier to think and less emotional…but that’s just me…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
Very welcome, its good to use confessions!

And Catechisms.

Indeed, and as I’ve said; that’s why I accept what a lot of them have said Again SS doesn’t mean I repel all forms of church authority, the church authority in these cases was there, but supports its proclamations with the perspicuous scriptures.

So who gets to determine if a Scripture is perspicuous for the purpose of a given proclamation the council or the individual?

Sola Scriptura isn’t really a doctrine, it’s a hermeneutical principle.

Fair enough…I’m not trained in these matters and so use the terms I know…

I don’t claim there is such a verse. What I do claim of course, is that the scriptures are God Breathed. The words of God. “the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognized, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them.” (1). As such they are to be regarded as possessing of Christ’s authority, and that to which doctrine and tradition is tested to.

Fair enough - But what then do we do with the fact that the “God Breathed” Scriptures, “possessing of Christ’s authority”, and accepted, “as if God had been heard giving utterance to them”, clearly Commands that:
The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth,
The Church has the authority to “Bind and Loose” - "Whatever’
That we are to Listen to the Church.
And for those who “refuse to listen, even to the Church, treat them as a heathen and a tax collector”
Pretty perspicuous stuff to me.

Of course, one could list numerous verses that imply this position for scripture; (Psalm 119:105, 2 Tim 3:16, Matt 22:29, Mark 12:10, Luke 1:3-4, John 20:31, 1 Cor 4:6) to name some… But as I’ve said, that’s not the sole basis for applying the principle of Sola Scriptura.

So how many “implications” = one perspicuous?

Indeed, we do. The verses in Matthew; quite so. On binding and loosing, my elders do indeed practice this.
I’ve already happily agreed that the church is said pillar and foundation of the truth, see my Calvin link earlier on. And indeed; the Ephesians verse is quite so.

Amen -
The issue that concerned me as I was studying these matters is where the authority to bind and loose ends.
Lets’ step back briefly to Luther’s day. We know that it was not Luther’s intent that there be a whole flock of communities that act more like cats than sheep (ever try “herding cats”?). No - Luther wanted to “reform” the already existing Church, and when that didn’t work, he hoped for a single “reformed” and authoritative church. Unfortunately he, and the other reformers of that and later times, were unable to agree on what the reforms should look like and they all wound up going their separate ways. In other words, they rejected the authoritative councilior model in favor of each one’s own personal view. (over simplifies of course)
These early protestant forms all sought to apply authority within their own communion, but were unable to exercise universal authority because - well frankly - because they rejected Church authority as given and demonstrated in Holy Scripture.

Fast forward to today…On one corner is a community that teaches the real presence in the Lord’s supper. On the opposite corner is a community that teaches the symbolic presence in the Lords supper. One community teaches the necessity of water baptism - another denies this necessity and so on.
Now - within their own community each accepts and exercises a “binding an loosing” authority…But between communities no such authority exists. Is this what the bible teaches and demonstrates? Or does the bible teach that communities who disagree on matters of import to the peace of the body of Christ, need to come together and resolve the matter(s)?
Surely looking at today’s “protestant’ model” and applying it to the issue in Antioch would have simply resulted in two, separate Christian communities - one Jewish and one Gentile…each rejecting the teachings of the other.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

On dissensions; yes it happens. It’s something no Christian is ever that happy about. But that’s why as a Protestant I hold to the old “in essentials; unity. In non essentials; liberty. In all things; charity.” motto.

This would be great if there was indeed a clear and comprehensive listing of essentials that was agreed upon by ALL communities. Sadly I’ve never seen one and, when asked, it turns out different communities have different lists…

One thing I note however, your post appeals to the scriptures to demonstrate the authority of the church, then appeals to the church to prove the authority of scripture and your interpretation, which I can’t quite see the logic, with respect James

Understood, and as you said earlier…eventually we have to appeal to faith that what we have is from God and is true. Otherwise we just wind up with “circular logic” (is that the right term?).
That said…There are two reasons I appeal in the way that I do. First is because it is the path of my own journey. The second is that, in talking with protestants, it is the best way I know to bring about productive conversation.
By divorcing myself from a position of simply promoting the RC and instead looking at Scripture as the start and moving out from there, we can see how the Church developed (that was my journey).
The person I am conversing with - such as yourself - may begin to see the truth that Scripture speaks to a single, doctrinally unified and authoritative Church. Indeed, such unity should be a goal of every Christian - for the sake of the Truth of the Gospel.
Now - if, as is often the case, the person I am talking to sees that Scripture speaks to strong universal unity, but still rejects the idea of the RC structure (with the pope and all) my response is, "That’s fine, but in order to be truly biblical, the Protestant Churches need to begin convening councils on the model in Acts and also in the early centuries in order to reconcile their conflicting views so that what is universally taught and believed is only that which, “Seems good to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28)

No worries, it’s often difficult to convey tone and mood etc on here!

Thanks.
I apologize for getting so wordy above…But I love sharing this stuff when the person I am speaking with is so receptive and the conversation so charitable.

Peace
James

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi James,

So who gets to determine if a Scripture is perspicuous for the purpose of a given proclamation the council or the individual?

Take for example the council of Nicea; the great defence of The Lords Divinity against the Arians. John 1 seems pretty clear on this, one of a massive number of verses one could bring to defend the orthodox position. Just as Athanasius said in the quote I keep in my signiature; “But this all inspired Scripture also teaches more plainly and with more authority, so that we in our turn write boldly to you as we do, and you, if you refer to them, will be able to verify what we say” - Against the Heathen, Part 3, 45.

Fair enough - But what then do we do with the fact that the “God Breathed” Scriptures, “possessing of Christ’s authority”, and accepted, “as if God had been heard giving utterance to them”, clearly Commands that:
The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth,
The Church has the authority to “Bind and Loose” - "Whatever’
That we are to Listen to the Church.
And for those who “refuse to listen, even to the Church, treat them as a heathen and a tax collector”
Pretty perspicuous stuff to me.

Then the Protestant happily follows these scriptures. I’m unsure how any of this leads one away from Sola Scriptura to Sola Eclessia? For that is the opposing position here. How also this then leads to the conclusion Rome is this church to give these binding doctrines? For is this not based on the very same private interpretation of scripture and tradition tht one has come to reject?

My elders bind and loose, we bring disputes to them, and they then consult the scriptures, the wisdom of others. That’s how it works; doctrine tested to and drawn from sacred scripture. They confess the scriptures, that does not mean they are over them.

The issue that concerned me as I was studying these matters is where the authority to bind and loose ends.
Lets’ step back briefly to Luther’s day. We know that it was not Luther’s intent that there be a whole flock of communities that act more like cats than sheep (ever try “herding cats”?). No - Luther wanted to “reform” the already existing Church, and when that didn’t work, he hoped for a single “reformed” and authoritative church. Unfortunately he, and the other reformers of that and later times, were unable to agree on what the reforms should look like and they all wound up going their separate ways. In other words, they rejected the authoritative councilior model in favor of each one’s own personal view. (over simplifies of course)These early protestant forms all sought to apply authority within their own communion, but were unable to exercise universal authority because - well frankly - because they rejected Church authority as given and demonstrated in Holy Scripture.

Indeed he did not. And yes there was disagreements among the reform movement. But to play the same argument: There is also disagreement between churches which claim to be the true church, following the apostolic Traditon and having their authority…Again, it’s private interpretation that one must use to pick which one to follow.
To be noted of course, all of the various reformers were untied that Rome had departed clearly from scripture in many respects.

Fast forward to today…On one corner is a community that teaches the real presence in the Lord’s supper. On the opposite corner is a community that teaches the symbolic presence in the Lords supper. One community teaches the necessity of water baptism - another denies this necessity and so on.
Now - within their own community each accepts and exercises a “binding an loosing” authority…But between communities no such authority exists. Is this what the bible teaches and demonstrates? Or does the bible teach that communities who disagree on matters of import to the peace of the body of Christ, need to come together and resolve the matter(s)?
Surely looking at today’s “protestant’ model” and applying it to the issue in Antioch would have simply resulted in two, separate Christian communities - one Jewish and one Gentile…each rejecting the teachings of the other.

Indeed fast forward to today; One church teaches the Bishop of Rome is the universal head of all churches, possessing a supreme and universal jurisdiction. That souls must be purified in purgatorial fire. One teaches that the Bishop of Rome has no such right, and that there is no such purgatory… Which church authority is one to follow here?

This would be great if there was indeed a clear and comprehensive listing of essentials that was agreed upon by ALL communities. Sadly I’ve never seen one and, when asked, it turns out different communities have different lists…

Is there a list of infallible teachings and of verses infallibly defined? It seems different catholic apologists have different lists: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc

Furthermore, doesn’t the catholic list change? Prior to 1870, did one have to believe in papal infallibility? Prior to 1854, did one have to believe in the immaculate conception? If the answer is no, then doesn’t it follow that something has changed? As I’ve said, this is why I see the position as Sola Eclessia; it is not because of scripture, or Tradition, but solely because of the magisterium, which is the highest authority.

(note: I hope I don’t sound sarcastic or agressive in all of this! Just making the point arguments often go both ways, and as I’ve said; tone travels poorly online!)

Kind regards, James

Lincs.

 

[JRKH]

James Said:
So who gets to determine if a Scripture is perspicuous for the purpose of a given proclamation the council or the individual?

I don’t see how this is a response to my question.
We can assume that when a council reaches some decision and quotes Scripture as part of that decision, that the members of the council are fully satisfied that the Scripture is sufficiently perspicuous and that their decision reflects (as Scripture puts it) what “Seemed Good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
Yet you seem to hold the position that the individual has the right to reject a councillior decision if the individual disagrees with the councils reading and understanding of the given Scripture.
So I ask again - going by Scripture - who gets to determine if a Scripture is perspicuous for the purpose of a given proclamation the council or the individual?

Then the Protestant happily follows these scriptures. I’m unsure how any of this leads one away from Sola Scriptura to Sola Ecclessia? For that is the opposing position here.

If we were arguing the extremes then the above could certainly be seen as true. But I don’t think that either one of us is arguing such extremes. (though I’m sure that we’ve both run into these types )
If I’ve given the impression that this is what I was arguing for…I apologize.

How also this then leads to the conclusion Rome is this church to give these binding doctrines? For is this not based on the very same private interpretation of scripture and tradition that one has come to reject?

I am more than willing to set aside my own conclusions and biases re: Rome for the purpose of this conversation. I hope that you will too. In that way we can have a much more fruitful discussion.

My elders bind and loose, we bring disputes to them, and they then consult the scriptures, the wisdom of others. That’s how it works; doctrine tested to and drawn from sacred scripture. They confess the scriptures, that does not mean they are over them.

Fair enough - and what do you do when you meet someone - a “fellow Christian” who holds to beliefs that are contrary to what you and the your community hold as necessary beliefs? After all - this is what happened in Antioch.

Indeed he did not. And yes there was disagreements among the reform movement. But to play the same argument: There is also disagreement between churches which claim to be the true church, following the apostolic Tradition and having their authority…Again, it’s private interpretation that one must use to pick which one to follow.
Indeed fast forward to today; One church teaches the Bishop of Rome is the universal head of all churches, possessing a supreme and universal jurisdiction. That souls must be purified in purgatorial fire. One teaches that the Bishop of Rome has no such right, and that there is no such purgatory… Which church authority is one to follow here?

I fully support the idea that councils are needed to deal with the issues you raise.
In fact I am heartened to see the Catholic Church in talks with the EO and the Anglicans and the Lutherans.

(Cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Is there a list of infallible teachings and of verses infallibly defined? It seems different catholic apologists have different lists: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BibleVersesDefinedByChurch.doc

In such matters I it is preferable to go with official church documents rather than with the lists of apologists.
There is indeed a list of infallible teachings called “Dogmas”
As for “verses infallibly defined” I’m not so sure on this. I understand that there are some that have been but have been unable to confirm this.

Furthermore, doesn’t the catholic list change? Prior to 1870, did one have to believe in papal infallibility? Prior to 1854, did one have to believe in the immaculate conception? If the answer is no, then doesn’t it follow that something has changed? As I’ve said, this is why I see the position as Sola Eclessia; it is not because of scripture, or Tradition, but solely because of the magisterium, which is the highest authority.

Doctrine does develop this is true and perhaps, from your perspective the RC has gotten too far from Scripture…I’ll accept that as a legitimate view.
And yet…
Assuming one takes the positions you alliterated from the confessions, regarding the proper use of Scripture in determining proper doctrine etc. does it not follow that at least in certain instances and certain doctrinal controversies (the need for baptism, the real presence etc) the Scripture itself demands a universal consensus?
Why is it that most Christians have no problem shunning LDS and JW’s because of their views on the Trinity, but most Christians are perfectly willing to accept opposing views on the real presence in the Bread and Wine of the Lords Supper?

Again - this is not about coming into line with the RC. Rather - this is an exploration of what Scripture says about the authority of “Church” and how that authority is applied in Scripture…

(note: I hope I don’t sound sarcastic or aggressive in all of this! Just making the point arguments often go both ways, and as I’ve said; tone travels poorly online!)

Nope - no apology necessary.
I find it a good conversation.

Peace
James

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi James, thanks for some good discussion.

I don’t see how this is a response to my question.
We can assume that when a council reaches some decision and quotes Scripture as part of that decision, that the members of the council are fully satisfied that the Scripture is sufficiently perspicuous and that their decision reflects (as Scripture puts it) what “Seemed Good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”
Yet you seem to hold the position that the individual has the right to reject a councillior decision if the individual disagrees with the councils reading and understanding of the given Scripture.
So I ask again - going by Scripture - who gets to determine if a Scripture is perspicuous for the purpose of a given proclamation the council or the individual?

Forgive me if I “side stepped” your question, to pun our threads title I guess I didn’t quite understand it at first!

I think this is at the heart of our debate, take for example Trent, I do reject much of what it said. Calvin composed his famous “antidote” in response to said Council, detailing his objections to it. The reason I put this at the heart of our discussion is because it does of course pertain directly to the question of the clarity of scripture. Just how clear are they on the topic of Justification by faith? If they are as I claim; clear, and supporting of the Protestant position, then Calvins right to have rejected this council was justified. (no pun intended). Your post implies that scripture can only become perspicuous if the church says it is perspicuous. I hold that it is as much on essential matters, by virtue of it being the written words of God. I hope I’ve sort of answered what you asked this time, if not, I apologise.

If we were arguing the extremes then the above could certainly be seen as true. But I don’t think that either one of us is arguing such extremes. (though I’m sure that we’ve both run into these types )
If I’ve given the impression that this is what I was arguing for…I apologize.

No need to apologise James. I just see the quoted phrase as the way in which the Catholic Church functions in this regard. By claiming to be the only one capable to define the extent of the canon, claiming to be the ony one capable of properly interpreting said canon. Defining the extent of sacred Tradition, and claiming to be the only one capable of interpreting said Tradition, it canot function as equal to or subservient to these, but functions above them. To quote one of Dr White’s statements there from a Sola Scriptura debate he did a while back.

Fair enough - and what do you do when you meet someone - a “fellow Christian” who holds to beliefs that are contrary to what you and the your community hold as necessary beliefs? After all - this is what happened in Antioch.

Well if someone falls outside the essentials, there would be a bit of concern…

I fully support the idea that councils are needed to deal with the issues you raise.
In fact I am heartened to see the Catholic Church in talks with the EO and the Anglicans and the Lutherans.

Oh indeed, but the issue is that the CC has infallibly said these things are true, it can’t go back on them. The Orthodox reject them as foreign to Tradition, which i do as well. My point here was that in the descsion to appeal to an infallible church, one still has to privately discern which one it is. On ecumenism, I am happy to work with other Christians, but again, comes down to essentials, this would decide it for me.

In such matters I it is preferable to go with official church documents rather than with the lists of apologists.
There is indeed a list of infallible teachings called “Dogmas”
As for “verses infallibly defined” I’m not so sure on this. I understand that there are some that have been but have been unable to confirm this.

Indeed it is, I posted it to highlight that interpreting the infallible interpreter also has to be done. The link is an attempt by various apologists to identify infallibly interpreted verses.

Is Ludwig Ott’s famous work infallible though? Im not doubting that what he says is correct when he identifies dogma, but it is the work of one man. Where is a list from the church itself of infallible teachings? An infallible list.

Doctrine does develop this is true and perhaps, from your perspective the RC has gotten too far from Scripture…I’ll accept that as a legitimate view.
And yet…
Assuming one takes the positions you alliterated from the confessions, regarding the proper use of Scripture in determining proper doctrine etc. does it not follow that at least in certain instances and certain doctrinal controversies (the need for baptism, the real presence etc) the Scripture itself demands a universal consensus?
Why is it that most Christians have no problem shunning LDS and JW’s because of their views on the Trinity, but most Christians are perfectly willing to accept opposing views on the real presence in the Bread and Wine of the Lords Supper?

Again - this is not about coming into line with the RC. Rather - this is an exploration of what Scripture says about the authority of “Church” and how that authority is applied in Scripture…

I do indeed think things have developed too far. On scripture demanding a universal consensus on things, I’m aware of many Pauline statements, and indeed others speaking of “one faith”, I would indeed like to see as much. But sadly this is not quite the case today. You are quite right, this is a problem. I wish to see a strive for unity among Christians, but without compromising on essentials. So as a sort of summing up: I dont hold to Catholic doctrine and remain a Protestant. But must work hard, as must all Protestants, to a new love for unity, a confessional one.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[JRKH]

Hi James, thanks for some good discussion.

I do indeed think things have developed too far. On scripture demanding a universal consensus on things, I’m aware of many Pauline statements, and indeed others speaking of “one faith”, I would indeed like to see as much. But sadly this is not quite the case today. You are quite right, this is a problem. I wish to see a strive for unity among Christians, but without compromising on essentials. So as a sort of summing up: I dont hold to Catholic doctrine and remain a Protestant. But must work hard, as must all Protestants, to a new love for unity, a confessional one.

Kind regards

Lincs.

All other discussion aside…your comments here are exactly what I wished to see.
The recognition that Christ founded a single Ekklesia. That unity is something that Christians should be striving for. That things have, as you say, “developed too far”, and that, “this is a problem”. This recognition is what is needed within the protestant community so that it can begin to correct error and come together for the purpose of discerning what “seems good to the Holy Spirit” and truly protect the Truth of the Gospel.

I agree with your comments that things in the “Catholic” camp are rather messy too, but I think one advantage the the Ancient Churches (RC and EO) have going for them is the foundational principles of Ekklesial authority based on the councilor model that is firmly grounded in Scripture. So, while we will argue and debate and fuss back and forth, at least these churches have in place the structures to handle such debate.

An essential - perhaps THE essential - problem in the protestant communion (as I see it) is the very unbiblical rejection of the idea of the visible authoritative ekklesia. The fact that, from the very beginning, the Reformers seem to have rejected the idea of councillior interaction one with the other to explore their various views and resolve matters of conflict between them set the tone for 500 years of very confused development.
So long as the Protestant community rejects the biblical model of a universal authoritative councilior ekklesia - there can be no hope of meaningful unity among the various communions.
And this leads to the inescapable fact that the protestant communions have no hope of protecting the Truth of the Gospel from those who will will claim SS and teach error. If one communion disagrees with a viewpoint go to another. If you can’t find one that suits you…Start a new one…there is no structure in place to prevent it and the principles stemming from the Reformation actually support it…

Sorry if I’m getting “wound up here”…I’m afraid that it happens to me…

Peace
James

 

[ErricFiggy]

You are in good company here…How many times in the Gospel do we read things like, “They asked (such and such) to try to trap Him”, referring to Our Lord.

I don’t see what is being misunderstood here? What he proposes is quite in line with Catholic Church teaching.

Exactly :ehh: we talk for hours and he always comes back with comments like those. I then try to explain to him that i agree with everything he’s saying, and why, and I always end up back at square one, with him telling me the exact same things. That makes me think he either isn’t trying to understand, or simply isn’t listening.

Yes - you are handling it just fine.
Just try to make sure that you have documented Church teaching to support your position. Don’t be trapped by things like “I know this Catholic who says…”. make him back up any accusations with Church documents.
For instance - he obviously believes that the Catholic Church teaches a “Works salvation”, which she clearly does not. If you demand of him that he produce official Church teaching to back up his claim, he will either be unable to produce it, or what he does produce can be shown to not be saying what he thinks it is saying…

Okay thanks James! he used to be Catholic and converted to Protestantism about a year ago. He’s about 19 right now, I’m only a year younger then him. I get the feeling that since he used to be Catholic, he thinks he already knows everything there is to know about Catholicism…even though judging by his comments it’s fairly obvious that he doesn’t. I think that’s one of the reasons he’s so closed off to me, he might think he’s already heard it all

Well - If he is willing to make the drive…Are you willing to talk with him face to face?
Conversion can work both ways you know…
Of course - myself - I think I do better with a bit of distance - on line and such. Not as immediate, easier to think and less emotional…but that’s just me…

I’m not sure if I am…I’m like you, I’m better talking about these things in writing because I can take time to gather my thoughts and control my emotions better. But it makes me wonder: why is he so willing to drive down here? Just to make it clear, it would him AND an older friend of his coming to talk.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Exactly we talk for hours and he always comes back with comments like those. I then try to explain to him that i agree with everything he’s saying, and why, and I always end up back at square one, with him telling me the exact same things. That makes me think he either isn’t trying to understand, or simply isn’t listening.

Yes this can happen…Sometimes you just have to keep being the “Broken record”…

Okay thanks James! he used to be Catholic and converted to Protestantism about a year ago. He’s about 19 right now, I’m only a year younger then him. I get the feeling that since he used to be Catholic, he thinks he already knows everything there is to know about Catholicism…even though judging by his comments it’s fairly obvious that he doesn’t. I think that’s one of the reasons he’s so closed off to me, he might think he’s already heard it all

Amen - He sounds like he is into the “Gotta convert everyone” phase…Not necessarily a bad thing…He’s excited about his new found relationship with Christ. He just needs you to be a stabilizing influence on him. Here is what I mean…
The fact that he “use to be Catholic” gives you a great opportunity to ask him to back up his accusations with church documents. Likewise you can supply him with official church documents…Eventually he’ll begin to see things he hadn’t known before.

I’m not sure if I am…I’m like you, I’m better talking about these things in writing because I can take time to gather my thoughts and control my emotions better. But it makes me wonder: why is he so willing to drive down here? Just to make it clear, it would him AND an older friend of his coming to talk.

Understood…probably best to decline the offer then.
Since your friend is a “new convert” my guess is his friend is most likely where he is getting most of his info from hence the "cut and paste’ feeling that you are getting from his responses.
Just keep patiently responding…And good luck.

Peace
James

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi James,

All other discussion aside…your comments here are exactly what I wished to see.
The recognition that Christ founded a single Ekklesia. That unity is something that Christians should be striving for. That things have, as you say, “developed too far”, and that, “this is a problem”. This recognition is what is needed within the protestant community so that it can begin to correct error and come together for the purpose of discerning what “seems good to the Holy Spirit” and truly protect the Truth of the Gospel.

Indeed, we all wish to see unity, but as I’ve said, this unity can’t be at the expense of what I see as essential doctrines. I’ve always held that Jesus established a single church, but I have the concepts of church visible and invisible in mind here too.

My development comments were referring to ‘developments’ in the Catholic communion. The papacy, marian doctrines, purgatory… All things which I see as irreconcilable with the early church and the scriptures. Not too mention justification by faith alone. But as the CC has made proclamations on these that it cannot change, dialouge is difficult. But amongst Protestants, there can be work towards unity.

I agree with your comments that things in the “Catholic” camp are rather messy too, but I think one advantage the the Ancient Churches (RC and EO) have going for them is the foundational principles of Ekklesial authority based on the councilor model that is firmly grounded in Scripture. So, while we will argue and debate and fuss back and forth, at least these churches have in place the structures to handle such debate.

It may appeal to be following Acts 15 in this regard yes, I see sense in it, not debating this. But again, infallible? Trent for example has utterly rejected justification by faith alone, which I see as so very clear to Paul…

An essential - perhaps THE essential - problem in the protestant communion (as I see it) is the very unbiblical rejection of the idea of the visible authoritative ekklesia. The fact that, from the very beginning, the Reformers seem to have rejected the idea of councillior interaction one with the other to explore their various views and resolve matters of conflict between them set the tone for 500 years of very confused development.
So long as the Protestant community rejects the biblical model of a universal authoritative councilior ekklesia - there can be no hope of meaningful unity among the various communions.
And this leads to the inescapable fact that the protestant communions have no hope of protecting the Truth of the Gospel from those who will will claim SS and teach error. If one communion disagrees with a viewpoint go to another. If you can’t find one that suits you…Start a new one…there is no structure in place to prevent it and the principles stemming from the Reformation actually support it…

I don’t reject an authoritative church… What I do reject is the way in which the catholic church takes this authrotiy to new levels… Setting itself above scripture. It’s all well and good calling a council, but if said council departs from clear scripture… ? As you have said; authority. I’m all for an authoritative church, but it must recognise the place of the word of God.

Sorry if I’m getting “wound up here”…I’m afraid that it happens to me…

Not at all I would of course say the same thing about myself.

So as a sort of summing up of this post; Dialouge between bodies, but the essential truths of the gospel can’t be ignored.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[ErricFiggy]

Yes this can happen…Sometimes you just have to keep being the “Broken record”…

Amen - He sounds like he is into the “Gotta convert everyone” phase…Not necessarily a bad thing…He’s excited about his new found relationship with Christ. He just needs you to be a stabilizing influence on him. Here is what I mean…
The fact that he “use to be Catholic” gives you a great opportunity to ask him to back up his accusations with church documents. Likewise you can supply him with official church documents…Eventually he’ll begin to see things he hadn’t known before.

Understood…probably best to decline the offer then.
Since your friend is a “new convert” my guess is his friend is most likely where he is getting most of his info from hence the "cut and paste’ feeling that you are getting from his responses.
Just keep patiently responding…And good luck.

Peace
James

Thanks for your words james i would really appreciate your prayers

 

[JRKH]

Thanks for your words james i would really appreciate your prayers

You are welcome.
You will be in my prayers.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

Indeed, we all wish to see unity, but as I’ve said, this unity can’t be at the expense of what I see as essential doctrines. I’ve always held that Jesus established a single church, but I have the concepts of church visible and invisible in mind here too.

My development comments were referring to ‘developments’ in the Catholic communion. The papacy, marian doctrines, purgatory… All things which I see as irreconcilable with the early church and the scriptures. Not too mention justification by faith alone. But as the CC has made proclamations on these that it cannot change, dialouge is difficult. But amongst Protestants, there can be work towards unity.

It may appeal to be following Acts 15 in this regard yes, I see sense in it, not debating this. But again, infallible? Trent for example has utterly rejected justification by faith alone, which I see as so very clear to Paul…

I don’t reject an authoritative church… What I do reject is the way in which the catholic church takes this authrotiy to new levels… Setting itself above scripture. It’s all well and good calling a council, but if said council departs from clear scripture… ? As you have said; authority. I’m all for an authoritative church, but it must recognise the place of the word of God.

Not at all I would of course say the same thing about myself.

So as a sort of summing up of this post; Dialogue between bodies, but the essential truths of the gospel can’t be ignored.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Nice post Lincs.
In these things I always feel it best not to get into an “us vs them” type discussion.
I would be tickled to death if the “protestant” communities could mount a concerted effort among themselves to grow more doctrinally united through the use of authoritative councils. To evolve fewer “churches” instead of splitting into more…
Alas - I don’t see how it can happen unless folks like yourself raise the cry that the current system is not biblical and actually harms the Gospel instead of helping.

As for issues between the RC and other communions…Well once the protestant communions begin coming together…maybe there will be a better chance for the RC and the “United reformed Church” to have meaningful dialogue.

Let us pray…

Peace
James

 

[benjohnson]

What bugs me about modern Evangelical pestering Catholics with Sola Scrptura, is that the need has passed. In my opinion, the Catholic church during Luther’s time needed correction and Sola Scriptura applied to the self-authenticating written word of God was part of that.

But, those days are over, and the present-day Catholic church is a joy to be around.

Sola Scriptura is a profound guide - if an oral tradition runs counter to and it then it should be examined very carefully. But without an oral tradition, none of us would even know what a church service should look like.

Sola Scriptura, in my opinion, provides all an individual needs for salvation. But it doesn’t provide all you need for a church.