Stumbling Block for Protestants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
The same way you do: you defer to her authority. At least, you do when it comes to the canon of the NT.
Click to expand...
Before you can defer to her authority, you have to determine that she is the authority that you must defer to. Why do you defer to her authority and not the authority of Orthodox bishops?
How do you know that the Church got this right, Per Crucem?
Click to expand...
What right, the NT?
 
PRmerger said:
Ummmm, I am asking her to stand by her own standard, Per Crucem.

She holds to the belief that everything we profess about God must be found in the Bible (something, paradoxically, not ever found** in the Bible**), but can’t show, in the Bible, where it says that we can’t confess our sins to a priest.
Click to expand...
Was she saying can’t confess them to a priest, or that we must confess them to a priest?
 
SteveVH said:
Since there was only one Church which Christ founded, and the Catholic Church was the only Church in existence for the first 1500 years (I include the EO)
Click to expand...
So the Church interpreted Matt 16:18 to say that it had this authority, and you agreed with that interpretation. Why? Did you agree with that interpretation because the Church interprets it that way, or because you interpret it that way?

You may include the EO, but you clearly don’t defer to them.
Do you believe that you have the power to bind and loose?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Per_Crucem said:
So anything the Church says or does is by the command of God? How do you know?
Click to expand...
Did I say anything?

Answer my question first.

Do you have any other way to demonstrate God’s command for the New Testament?
 
Per_Crucem said:
So the Church interpreted Matt 16:18 to say that it had this authority, and you agreed with that interpretation. Why? Did you agree with that interpretation because the Church interprets it that way, or because you interpret it that way?
Click to expand...
I believe it because that is what my Church teaches, as verified in the Scriptures which my Church gave to the world, and as further verified by the writings of the early Church.

Just curious, to whom do you believe Jesus was speaking? You have already acknowledged that it wasn’t you personally.
Per_Crucem said:
You may include the EO, but you clearly don’t defer to them.
Click to expand...
:confused: There was no EO when Christ said these words. There was one Church and the words were spoken directly to Peter, the first Pope of the Catholic Church. I include the EO because they have valid Apostolic succession.
 
SteveVH said:
I believe it because that is what my Church teaches, as verified in the Scriptures which my Church gave to the world, and as further verified by the writings of the early Church.
Click to expand...
So you presuppose that the Catholic Church under the Pope has this authority, and then agree that it has this authority because the Church interpreted it to say that it has this authority? How is this not hopelessly circular?
Just curious, to whom do you believe Jesus was speaking? You have already acknowledged that it wasn’t you personally.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree that it was to the Church.
:confused: There was no EO when Christ said these words. There was one Church and the words were spoken directly to Peter, the first Pope of the Catholic Church. I include the EO because they have valid Apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
So if the EO was part of it, then how did it ever lose it? And why should I trust your judgment that Rome is the continuation of the true Church and not the East?
 
Per_Crucem said:
Yes. You said the Church.
Click to expand...
And somehow you think that means anything? That is your personal interpretation and not what I said.
Per_Crucem said:
Yep. Christ commanded the apostles to baptize, teach, etc.
Click to expand...
Nice try but no cigar.

When, where and to whom did God command the New Testament?

Also, how do you know what Christ commanded without the New Testament?
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
And somehow you think that means anything? That is your personal interpretation and not what I said.
Click to expand...
What is your criterion for determining whether what the Church says is or is not from God?
Nice try but no cigar.
Click to expand...
When, where and to whom did God command the New Testament?
Click to expand...
Also, how do you know what Christ commanded without the New Testament?
Click to expand...
We have the New Testament, so it is a factual truth that the New Testament was written. Are you asking me to prove the historical reliability of the New Testament? If the New Testament is historically reliable (which even atheist scholars admit to), and Jesus is who He claimed to be (which can be demonstrated on more than just the NT), then why wouldn’t I believe what the NT says Jesus commanded?
 
Per_Crucem said:
And she would be wrong. All I was saying is that it’s incumbent on you to prove her wrong, not ask her to prove a negative 😛
Click to expand...
Except if her paradigm is, “Everything I profess has to be found in the Bible” (which it is), then when she says, “It is not necessary to have your sins be forgiven by a priest” she needs to have this profession supported by a verse in the Bible.

I don’t think I am asking anything unreasonable.

If she is professing something, then she needs to back it up with the Bible, because that is what her standard is.

Right?
 
PRmerger said:
Except if her paradigm is, “Everything I profess has to be found in the Bible” (which it is), then when she says, “It is not necessary to have your sins be forgiven by a priest” she needs to have this profession supported by a verse in the Bible.

I don’t think I am asking anything unreasonable.

If she is professing something, then she needs to back it up with the Bible, because that is what her standard is.

Right?
Click to expand...
Except that you were asking her to prove where it says you do not need to confess your sins to a priest. It would be much more effective for you to show her where she has to.
 
PRmerger said:
Excellent.

So you believe that Hebrews is inspired because…why?
Click to expand...
According to the same criterion that was used for the rest of the NT, of which there were several factors at play in which books were received by the church.
 
Per_Crucem said:
No, I wouldn’t. If one says that you can command or forbid things that God does not command or forbid, you begin playing a very dangerous game with people’s souls.
Click to expand...
Per_Crucem said:
We have the New Testament, so it is a factual truth that the New Testament was written. Are you asking me to prove the historical reliability of the New Testament? If the New Testament is historically reliable (which even atheist scholars admit to), and Jesus is who He claimed to be (which can be demonstrated on more than just the NT), then why wouldn’t I believe what the NT says Jesus commanded?
Click to expand...
You are missing the original question.

Read your first quote above.

We have no record of God commanding the New Testament to be written and yet you accept the authority of the Church as She received these writings from our Lord.

You cannot criticize things that you don’t interpret as commanded by God by using the very same instrument that this same authority is giving you the correct interpretation of Scriptures. Because if you take the Church away, your New Testament comes crumbling to the ground.

They are mutually existent and mutually servants to Christ.

You are indeed making yourself an authority above the very same Church that we have the Scriptures from. The Church is comprised of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium. They are all in harmony. When there is no harmony between them, I trust Christ to carry His Church through it. Like he has done since Pentecost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top