B
BrianH
Guest
.
Don’t twist the verse to prove a point.
No we certainly do not all say we are infallible. Do not make things up to prove a point.
- Status
Don’t twist the verse to prove a point.
No we certainly do not all say we are infallible. Do not make things up to prove a point.
G
grampben
Guest
Exactly. I know not one protestant who has declared themselves infallible.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
each denomination think what they are preaching is the infallible preaching of the bible ss bible alone and that is not the truth,the holy spirit was telling them what to preach and this maked a big lie for the HS, do you think the HS has 32,000 thing he is teaching no its private interpretation which the bible said is wrong 2peter1;20… Peace
S
SteveGC
Guest
That’s because the acorn doesn’t resemble the oak tree, SIA. But the oak tree contains nothing that did not first originate in some less visible way from the acorn.
That’s why The Church calls Rome its geographical home although it wasn’t yet explicitly in Rome at the time Scripture was written.
That’s why The Bible makes no reference to the word “Trinity”, yet you fully accept that word as describing a biblical truth which is a critical belief you must maintain for your Christianity
That’s why you have a Bible in your home, when hardly anyone in the first 1000 years of Christianity did.
Christianity evolves and adapts as necessary to the changes and needs of an evolving society and world, but never loses it’s foundational composition.
Furthermore, there is NO difference between Catholic and catholic. None. This is such a frustrating argument, to say "Hey, I’m little “c” not big “C”. Rubbish. You’re **not either **if you’re not united to the Church. Catholic and catholic mean exactly the same thing. The only thing that confuses you to think they’re different is the fact that Christ’s True (catholic) Church adopted the adjective catholic, to pronounce Her title to the world, Catholic. They mean the same thing. Part of the reason was to distinguish Herself from obvious heresy.
And I apologize to tell you, but you are not catholic. The Anglican church is not “on the whole”. They do not believe what every pre-reformation Christian has always believed at all times in every place.
You want to be catholic? Unite yourself with the C(c)atholic Church.
God Bless
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the “Roman Catholic Church,” it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those “other” Catholics and create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
G
grampben
Guest
Well this is your opinion.
If catholic means universal, and protestants believe the universal church to be the spiritual community of believers (ie the invisible church), therefore by those standards he is catholic. As a non-Catholic he is not subject to what the Catholic church believes is catholic.
F
Frontline
Guest
My point is this:
Every time a Catholic asserts that Protestants cannot know for sure that the Scriptures are inspired - they cut their own throat - for it is equally true that Catholics cannot know for sure that the Catholic Church is infallible. Only they are in a deeper pit; because Protestants do not rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church for our belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures - rather we rely on the infallibility of God as He works in His providence to provide, protect, and preserve His word. But Catholics rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church - and since they cannot prove the infalliblity of the Catholic Church - they have no basis left for knowing (or even believing) that the Scriptures are inspired of God.
B
BrianH
Guest
Prove that first statement. Each Protestant denomination thinks they are infallible? Prove it. Start listing just the major ones and then a link or a quote indicating they say they are infallible.
Either prove it or retract it. When a Protestant spreads misinformation, we deserve to be called on it. If a Catholic is spreading misinformation about Protestants, the same standard applies.
You are spreading misinformation or you are not informed. One or the other.
S
SteveGC
Guest
In all charity, I disagree. The term catholic isn’t some generalized version of the idea of universality, able to be used in any context in which you have a mass of people believing in Christ.
catholic, in the ecclesial context in which it was always intended to be used, refers specifically to the original, precise, unwavering, fully consistent teachings of Christ, and the universal proclamation and promulagation of those teachings to the world. The only body of believers who can lay claim to the term are those united to the original Church.
You can not describe yourself as catholic if you are part of the post-Reformation body of believers, who by definition, do not hold to these consistent proclaimed teachings. Call yourself what you will…I don’t know what word you want to use…but ‘catholic’ is not it.
God Bless.
S
SemperReformada
Guest
First off, as far as I know it’s only the RCC that has an infallibility fetish. I know of not one single sola scriptura church that claims it’s infallible…maybe you do?
Also, the 32,000 number is ridiculous. I don’t suppose you have spent any time reading how the number was established have you?
S
SteveGC
Guest
Perhaps not my place to interject, but I couldn’t help noticing this issue spiralling out of control, unnecessarily.
Let me see if I can help Bill clarify his comment. First of all, let’s get off this “infallible” term. It only fuels the fire. Non-catholics, and unfortunately even some Catholics, don’t understand the term. In The Catholic Church, infallibility is reserved for a rare, specific occasion of teaching/clarifying concepts of Christian faith and morals. It infers protection from the Holy Spirit from teaching salvific error. The Church only recently officially declared it in writing, but it has been an unwritten understanding from the very beginning. Unfortunately, using the word infallibility sparks emotional controversy, because people think it also mean impeccability, or free from sin, or free from error in ALL things. It does not.
Now, how about you guys simply use the phrase “proclaimng absolute truth” in place of “infallibilty”. This works I think. Catholics certainly believe that The Church proclaims absolute truth, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. And…each individual Protestant believes that they themselves, or atleast their church or body of believers also proclaims absolute truth, guided by the Holy Spirit. Of course, one of these two groups is still wrong, but that’s a different subject.
God Bless
B
BrianH
Guest
But that once again is still not accurate. They do not Steve. SOME PROBABLY DO. Pick any of the major denominations and find me anything resembling what you just wrote
S
SteveGC
Guest
OK…Now I think I follow. The problem is that I got involved in this particular topic without looking at specific comments made prior. My mistake. To clarify, I actually disagree with the comment “protestants cannot know for sure that Scripture is inspired”. First of all, inspired Scripture is inspired Scripture. It’s existence is not reserved for the knowledge of any particular group of people. Whether or not we can all KNOW it is inspired for sure is arguable, since some would say that nothing is absolutely certain. We all believe, and have faith in the fact, that Scripture is inspired.My point is this:
Every time a Catholic asserts that Protestants cannot know for sure that the Scriptures are inspired - they cut their own throat - for it is equally true that Catholics cannot know for sure that the Catholic Church is infallible. Only they are in a deeper pit; because Protestants do not rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church for our belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures - rather we rely on the infallibility of God as He works in His providence to provide, protect, and preserve His word. But Catholics rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Church - and since they cannot prove the infalliblity of the Catholic Church - they have no basis left for knowing (or even believing) that the Scriptures are inspired of God.
As far as the infallibility thing, see my above, unrelated post on that topic. It’s not a word we should use to describe what Catholics have faith in. But no, you’re right, Catholics really only have belief and faith that the Church is the True Church, infallible only inasmuch as She is protected by the Holy Spirit when She teaches and promulgates revealed salvific truth (the deposit of faith). But, like the faith in the truly inspired Scriptures, we have reasonable faith, that is, we can attach to our faith a certain amount of knowledge from our intellect, as we see historical and biblical proof that The Church is whom She claims to be.
Lastly, Catholics don’t have faith in The Church in the way you think we do. We don’t see The Church as you do, separated from Christ. No. The Church to us IS Christ. He is the Head, we are the Body. We are united. To us, the terms are nearly synonymous. We don’t put our faith solely in an institution, in the Vatican. We put our faith in the triune God. But The Church is God’s kingdom on earth, you see. By following The Church, we necessarily follow The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit. I know you don’t see it this way, but realize this is how we see it.
God Bless
F
Frontline
Guest
Actually we teach according to conviction that we are correct - not according to the assumption that we are infallible.
Also - sola Scriptura does not teach that we have no tradition, or that we do not cosult the great theologians of the Church - we certainly do. The doctrine of sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures alone are God-breathed revelation, and therefore they are the highest authority for the Church with respect to faith and practice. All tradition must be compared with Scripture, and any tradition found in conflict with the Scriptures is to be rejected.
Many Catholics suppose that Sola Scriptura teaches that any man can pick up the Bible and start a church - and this is false. However - it is an understandable confusion - because obviously this is what many ignorant professing Protestants have come to actually believe. These who claim that they are Protestant, and yet do not understand what the Historic Protestant Church teaches, can hardly call themselves (in the historic sense of the term) Evangelical - let alone Protestants. The true Protestants are Reformed in their soteriology - and hold to all five solas of the Reformation. These new so called protestants from the American Arminian movement, have no place to protest against Rome, as they are equally protesting against the Historic Protestant and Reformed Faith. These are not true protestants - but rather they are seed-pickers with no coherant theology. They claim sola Scriptura, but do not understand it - they mis-represent sola fide, and they reject the doctrines of grace.
Some good websites to visit to begin to understand with accuracy - the Historic Protestant and Reformed Faith - follow the links:
monergism.com/
reformationtheology.com/
I hope the Catholics and the Protestants on this thread will take the time to do a little first hand research and find out what the doctrine of sola Scriptura actually teaches - before continuing on in such an ignorant debate. May God bless you all !
S
SteveGC
Guest
OK
I’m not saying it’s an official declaration, Brian.
And I’m not saying that absolute truth means inerrant understanding of ALL things.
No. I mean that each individual (or each ‘unifed body of believers’) truly believes, and would proclaim, that they have the truth regarding what Catholics call the “deposit of faith”, which in protestant terms might be, ‘those revealed truths which together work toward our salvation’. Each non-Catholic (or non-Catholic community) has different versions of these specific doctrinal truths…and yet…they all believe that those truths are absolute, inerrant. But they can’t all be. Baptism is either necessary, or it isn’t, for example. etc etc.
I do think this is what Bill meant when he made his statements. And I would agree if this is what he meant.
God Bless
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
LETS GET IT RIGHT ITS THE CATHLOIC CHURCH NOT THE RCC AND THAT IS BECAUSE OUR LORD SAID SO AND WHY DO YOU NOT THINK ITS NOT 32,000 DIFF NON-CATHLOIC DENOMINATIONS. DO A SERCH FOR YOUR SELF AND SEE WHO RIGHT
G
grampben
Guest
Your fallacy here is that you assume protestants believe their denomination is the only correct one. Most of these denominations are united by what’s known as the ‘essentials’ or more correctly, what separates them often is what’s known by the term ‘matters of indifference’.
Mind you, you have made this point about 1,000,000 times on this forum, so I doubt any answer will satisfy you.
B
BrianH
Guest
No. They do not. I hope you do not think I am being too pedantic. Some denominations in a sense, if asked, would largely conform or agree to your definition (and I do thank you for the obvious spirit it is intended). However, no. But many denominations would not touch the word absolute or innerrant with a ten foot pole. Whether that is right or wrong, they simply do not.
Blessings to you.
Brian
F
Frontline
Guest
Actually that is exactly how we see it.
Christ is the HEAD - we are his BODY - what is this ‘separation’ that you claim Protestants believe? Regardless - it is a false notion, and I want you to know that. Protestants believe that Christ is the HUSBAND and the Church is his BRIDE - and that therefore we are one with him - Eph. 5:25, 26; 1 Cor. 6:17.
This understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Church has a profound effect on our soteriology, and this is where I find the Catholic Church to fall short of the Gospel. This is why I mainly stick to the doctrines of Grace when conversing with Catholics.
S
SteveGC
Guest
Again, I think we have to get off this word “infallible”, unless everyone understands that it refers to true teachings of soteriological faith and morals. If we all see it means that, then it’s a useful term. Otherwise, no.Actually we teach according to conviction that we are correct - not according to the assumption that we are infallible.
Also - sola Scriptura does not teach that we have no tradition, or that we do not cosult the great theologians of the Church - we certainly do. The doctrine of sola Scriptura teaches that the Scriptures alone are God-breathed revelation, and therefore they are the highest authority for the Church with respect to faith and practice. All tradition must be compared with Scripture, and any tradition found in conflict with the Scriptures is to be rejected.
Many Catholics suppose that Sola Scriptura teaches that any man can pick up the Bible and start a church - and this is false. However - it is an understandable confusion - because obviously this is what many ignorant professing Protestants have come to actually believe. These who claim that they are Protestant, and yet do not understand what the Historic Protestant Church teaches, can hardly call themselves (in the historic sense of the term) Evangelical - let alone Protestants. The true Protestants are Reformed in their soteriology - and hold to all five solas of the Reformation. These new so called protestants from the American Arminian movement, have no place to protest against Rome, as they are equally protesting against the Historic Protestant and Reformed Faith. These are not true protestants - but rather they are seed-pickers with no coherant theology. They claim sola Scriptura, but do not understand it - they mis-represent sola fide, and they reject the doctrines of grace.
Some good websites to visit to begin to understand with accuracy - the Historic Protestant and Reformed Faith - follow the links:
monergism.com/
reformationtheology.com/
I hope the Catholics and the Protestants on this thread will take the time to do a little first hand research and find out what the doctrine of sola Scriptura actually teaches - before continuing on in such an ignorant debate. May God bless you all !
Frontline, I think you do see it this way. But, I must debate your comment that Scripture, being God-breathed, is therefore our highest authority. No. You see, not only does this position completely separate and discredit the Christianity of the first millenium, but it also ignores the fact that God breathed on the apostles first. That is why The Church is the highest authority this side of heaven, not the Bible, as inspired and God-breathed as it certainly is.
You mentioned the Historic Protestant Church. Is this the followers of Luther? of Calvin? of Zwengli? Who founded this church? All of them? And am I a true Christian if I just accept and believe only these 5 solas? Is there anything else? Or is this all that unites Christians in their soteriology? In other words, the church is the body of believers that believe the 5 solas. That good enough? And everybody who believes in the 5 solas, can they disagree on anything amongst themselves? Like, the specifics of the solas? Sorry for the barrage of questions, but I’m leading somewhere…
God Bless.
- Status