Suggestions for Catholic Apologists 1.0

[mozart-250]

Hi Janet:

Yes the number 6,743,982 is a little bit of facetiousness on my part. You win the prize of the day for being the first to pick up on it. I figure if the Catholic apologists can exaggerate with their 30,000 or 33,000 or 36,000 Protestant denominations, I can exaggerate just a little bit more.

Your Yankee analogy is a good one. As both a Yankee and a Protestant, I guess I feel the same about both terms.

I don’t really object to the term Yankee that much either.

Oh come to think of it, ‘Yankee’ is a very objectionable term when it refers to the evil empire baseball team that originates from New York City . But that is a digression in itself.

 

[manualman]

Mozart, forgive me, but it sounds like you are saying that Truth is unknowable. We just have to figure out what we can from the Bible together?

If only Scripture is absolutely inerrant, but there is NOBODY or nothing on earth to whom God has given the guaranteed authority to interpret it, then we really can’t be sure of anything, can we?

How do you sleep at night with such uncertainty? No, that’s not fair. Probably the same way I sleep with my pathetically incomplete knowledge of my own catholic faith.

The Evangelicals I have known have been utterly convinced that the Holy Spirit provides them and/or their pastor with the inspiration to understand and interpret Scripture correctly (even though they hold theological positions that conflict amonst themselves). I’ve never encountered the idea of uncertainty you seem to be implying. And I don’t buy it. God loved us enough to die a torturous death for us. I don’t see Him leaving us with a mere book for revelation beyond that. Its not in character. And it is inconsistant with the way the apostles behaved, and their successors after them, and so on…

 

[mozart-250]

Mozart, forgive me, but it sounds like you are saying that Truth is unknowable. We just have to figure out what we can from the Bible together?

Hmm…did I say that there is no such thing as objective truth?

If only Scripture is absolutely inerrant, but there is NOBODY or nothing on earth to whom God has given the guaranteed authority to interpret it, then we really can’t be sure of anything, can we?

How do you sleep at night with such uncertainty? No, that’s not fair. Probably the same way I sleep with my pathetically incomplete knowledge of my own catholic faith.

I dunno about that.

The doctor who performed my prostate cancer surgery was capable of error , yet I trusted my life to him on the surgery table. If I can go to sleep at night trusting my doctor who is capable of error, I guess I can go to sleep at night trusting my pastor, even though he too is capable of error.

I guess I can do that because although both my doctor and pastor are capable of error, I can trust them as authoritative.

The Evangelicals I have known have been utterly convinced that the Holy Spirit provides them and/or their pastor with the inspiration to understand and interpret Scripture correctly (even though they hold theological positions that conflict amonst themselves). I’ve never encountered the idea of uncertainty you seem to be implying. And I don’t buy it. God loved us enough to die a torturous death for us. I don’t see Him leaving us with a mere book for revelation beyond that. Its not in character. And it is inconsistant with the way the apostles behaved, and their successors after them, and so on…

Sure the apostles were authoritative. When I read Scripture…the issues the apostles were authoritative on are those issues there should be absolutely no disagreement with between Christians.

They did seem quite unconcerned with issues such as the competing theories of Calvinism vs. Arminianism or competing theories concerning the second coming of Christ or Marian dogmas 2.0-4.0.

 

[Janet_S]

Hmm…did I say that there is no such thing as objective truth?

I dunno about that.

The doctor who performed my prostate cancer surgery was capable of error , yet I trusted my life to him on the surgery table. If I can go to sleep at night trusting my doctor who is capable of error, I guess I can go to sleep at night trusting my pastor, even though he too is capable of error.

I guess I can do that because although both my doctor and pastor are capable of error, I can trust them as authoritative.
Sure the apostles were authoritative. When I read Scripture…the issues the apostles were authoritative on are those issues there should be absolutely no disagreement with between Christians.

They did seem quite unconcerned with issues such as the competing theories of Calvinism vs. Arminianism or competing theories concerning the second coming of Christ or Marian dogmas 2.0-4.0.

Not all heresies are addressed in the Bible. Actually, most of them are not. I don’t see the Apostles condemning the Arian heresy anywhere in the Bible. And yet this widespread, 4th century heresy denied the core tenet of Christianity–the Holy Trinity. Does the fact that it is not addressed in the Bible mean that we should be unconcerned about it? The 4th century Church didn’t think so.

And regarding Calvinism vs Arminianism, they can’t both be right. Do you think both views (which are at opposite poles) are equally acceptable? Is this the level of uncertainty Christ expects us to endure?

I don’t believe he would expect this since Matthew 9:36 tells us “At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd.” He didn’t leave us abandoned. He left us a Church that speaks with his divine authority in the world today.

 

[MrS]

I don’t believe he would expect this since Matthew 9:36 tells us “At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd.” He didn’t leave us abandoned. He left us a Church that speaks with his divine authority in the world today.

 

[mozart-250]

Not all heresies are addressed in the Bible. Actually, most of them are not. I don’t see the Apostles condemning the Arian heresy anywhere in the Bible. And yet this widespread, 4th century heresy denied the core tenet of Christianity–the Holy Trinity. Does the fact that it is not addressed in the Bible mean that we should be unconcerned about it? The 4th century Church didn’t think so.

And regarding Calvinism vs Arminianism, they can’t both be right. Do you think both views (which are at opposite poles) are equally acceptable? Is this the level of uncertainty Christ expects us to endure?

I don’t believe he would expect this since Matthew 9:36 tells us “At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd.” He didn’t leave us abandoned. He left us a Church that speaks with his divine authority in the world today.

Actually Janet I will not argue against the proposition that Christ designed a centralized, authoritative church (which does not necessarily mean incapable of being incorrect). There does seem to be some Scriptural support for this proposition (how do you explain for example Matthew 18:15-17 otherwise).

The argument against this is that centralized and authoritative can (and historically has) easily become arrogant, abusive, micromanaging, and autocratic. The scribes and pharisees micromanaged the Sabbath laws to every jot and tittle, yet they missed Jesus Christ when He was standing in front of them.

And the reality remains that today the church is fragmented at least in terms of organization. Even if I were to believe that Christ designed the church as a centralized and authoritative institution, that does not eliminate the possibility that perhaps the division in terms of organization we now see is something that God did as a response to past abuses.

And even if I were to believe this fragmentation is not God’s will for today, it would still be an assumption for any single branch to claim that they are in themselves the one centralized, authoritative church of Jesus Christ. Sheesh, even the metric that Catholicism claims points to them (lineage) does not work because the Orthodox have a dual claim upon lineage.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I don’t believe he would expect this since Matthew 9:36 tells us “At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd.” He didn’t leave us abandoned. He left us a Church that speaks with his divine authority in the world today.

Hi,

While I agree with what Mozart said I would like to add that we were not left alone to flounder. I refer you to the following passage:

**John 14: 15—27
Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit **
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[a] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

That promise was made to all who believe in Christ as it says in Ephesians 1:11-1411In him we were also chosen,[a] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

 

[manualman]

Allforhim,

If that passage says what you think it does, then the Holy Spirit doesn’t seem to be very good at his job, does he!? Or maybe you are wrong and it DOESN’T guarantee that every believer will be inspired to understand Scripture correctly.

The catholic church moves glacially slowly when it comes to resolving doctrinal disputes and sticky questions. But she DOES move forward. Since the reformation, all the other variants of christianity have not agreed upon one single matter, put it to bed and moved on. The philosophy prevents it!

The catholic church has never claimed that Jesus gave her leadership impeccability. Indeed Peter himself had to be called out by Paul for SAYING that the gentiles need not be subject to all Mosaic law, but BEHAVING in a manner that implied they were. You could fill up 75 pages on this thread with examples of papal or catholic episcopal misbehavior and it would mean nothing. Infallible teaching merely gives the bishops in union with the pope the final arbiting authority. Thus, arianism is dead. Squashed. Thus, the Trinity is established: one God, three persons. We can move on with those things. How can ya’ll EVER settle Calvinism vs. Armenianism?

We just do what the bible instructed us to: call a council of the bishops (in apostolic succession) and believe Jesus that a consensus of them including the pope is a sure source of truth. Surely the early Christian Jews must have had such a trust to suddenly accept that eating pork was acceptable!!! Where does the bible teach that that authority ended?

As for the orthodox, that isn’t the problem you believe it to be. Catholic teaching on the Eastern Orthodox is that their priests and bishops ARE valid and remain in apostolic succession. Lacking submission to papal primacy, they do not enjoy infallibility in teaching in theory, but in practice there is little Orthdox doctrine that is not acceptable within the realm of catholic theology. (Note that they don’t necessarily feel the same way!) That dispute is largely a disciplinary problem more than a doctrinal one. (it frankly hearkens way back to the apostles jostling for status positions).

Mozart, A quacky doctor can only kill you. A quacky pastor… yikes! And I didn’t accuse you of saying there is no absolute truth. Just of saying that it isn’t possible for humans to KNOW it.

 

[Janet_S]

Allforhim,

John 14 was addressed to Christ’s Apostles (the twelve), not to each individual disciple. The twelve were those men chosen to establish and lead the Church.

The promise of the “Spirit of Truth” was a promise given to the hierarchy of the Church, not to each individual Christian. Once Christ ascended to Heaven, the Apostles understood Christ’s promise that way. As evidence, look at Acts 15 and how the Church hierarchy–the Apostles, particularly Peter and James with the presbyters–settled one of the first Church controversies (whether circumcision should be required). The Holy Spirit guided the Church (through the appointed leaders) to a decision. “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us. . .” (Acts 15:28).

My question to you is, if the Holy Spirit is guiding both the Arminians and the Calvinists, why are they headed in such different directions?

 

[Janet_S]

Actually Janet I will not argue against the proposition that Christ designed a centralized, authoritative church (which does not necessarily mean incapable of being incorrect). There does seem to be some Scriptural support for this proposition (how do you explain for example Matthew 18:15-17 otherwise).

The argument against this is that centralized and authoritative can (and historically has) easily become arrogant, abusive, micromanaging, and autocratic. The scribes and pharisees micromanaged the Sabbath laws to every jot and tittle, yet they missed Jesus Christ when He was standing in front of them.

You are right. Matthew 18:15-17 does support the idea of an authoritative, centralized Church.

And as far as there being corruption within the Church–I agree with you on that too. Having power without the humble, holy disposition it requires often leads to corruption. The Church is always in need of renewal and reform. No question about that. Most of our heroic saints recognized the need for reform of the Church from within. St Francis of Assisi, St Catherine of Siena, St Catherine of Genoa, St Ignatius Loyola, are a few who did much towards Church reform. There are many, many more as well. Luther was certainly not the first reformer on the scene. (BTW, I heard Luther was very much influenced by the reformer St Catherine of Genoa–aka Madame Adorno.)

Also, while Jesus recognized the faults of the scribes and Pharisees, he also recognized their authority and advised the Jews to follow them:

Matthew 23:2-3-- "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

In the end, contrary to what you may expect, the mark of the true Church is neither impeccability nor sinlessness. Unfortunately, there will always be sinners in the Church, even among the leaders. (Remember the wheat and the chaff?) If this bothers you, keep in mind that 1/12 of the original Apostles (selected by Christ) betrayed our Lord.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

The only definition here that applies to all “Protestant” branches is “2” (which is meaningless). 1 and 3 apply to those Protestant branches that label themselves as “Reformed”

Your argument is not with me but with the dictionary. I think these definitions are widely accepted and accurate. I don’t mean this to be argumentative but to point out that your view is in the minority.

I am no more in “protest” against the local Catholic church than I am against the local Presbyterian church. I don’t agree with either totally, but then again neither do they with me.

If Protestantism is defined as adherance to the principles of Luther and Calvin (who are not the same BTW), then us Wesleyan types are not a part of the set “Protestantism”

I think I said they are titles and lack definition. Sheesh…they aren’t even complete sentences. I can’t say whether a title is or is not Biblical. A title is meaningless in of itself. So I am not going to expend energy defending a title.

I’m not sure these titles originated with Luther BTW.

The Reformation and Luther marked the beginning of the “Protest” movement (this is historical fact). I can’t really name a singe protestant denomination (from the 6,743,982 you mentioned) whose roots don’t trace back to this period. Have you ever traced the roots of your denomination back to its roots? I’d be interested in learning what they are.

With respect to the word protest…what’s wrong with it? The name comes out of the Reformation because Luther left the Catholic Church in “protest”. He didn’t found a new religion, he simply changed the Catholic faith to meet his own beliefs. Even most protestants I am acquainted with accept this.

As far as the canon goes, I’d like the historians to get together and agree on what Jesus used, please. Jesus didn’t whine about his canon having added or missing books. At any rate, I doubt whether the 7 disputed books have that much of a bearing other than praying for the dead (which in the scheme of things is relatively minor).

Jesus didn’t omit the 7 books, Luther did. Scripture cannot be interpreted by the popular vote of historians. We Catholics believe the books were inspired by the Holy Spirit…

These 7 books are extremely important because they conflict with many of Luthers beliefs and biases which is why he downplayed them. Today they conflict with the beliefs of many protestant denominations. This becomes even more obvious when you compare Luther’s teachings on Sola Fide verses the Epistle of St. James [James to you]. It’s no wonder that he called it the “Epistle of straw”.

Chapter 2:11-26

11 For he that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery, said also, Thou shalt not kill. Now if thou do not commit adultery, but shalt kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as being to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. 14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food:

16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.

To be continued:

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

mozart,

CONTINUED:

(mozart) This is an assumption that lacks showing cause and effect. Your logic in this statement is:

• Protestants have 6,743,982 denominations
• Protestants believe in ‘Sola Scriptura’
• Therefore ‘Sola Scriptura’ is the cause of 6,743,982 denominations.

6,743,982 is your playful number. Sola Scriptura means scripture is basically self revealing and can be interpreted accruately by the reader. This is why there are 6,743,982 different denoms as compared to 1 Catholic Church. There is simply no question about this whether you accept it or not.

I’m sorry for the late reply…I am working and the last couple of days have been…wild.

Iowa Mike

 

[Vaclav]

The only definition here that applies to all “Protestant” branches is “2” (which is meaningless). 1 and 3 apply to those Protestant branches that label themselves as “Reformed”

As a former Lutheran I can honestly say that Mozart makes a fair point here. Yes, the dictionary definition is acceptable as a broad term, but when speaking in an academic argument on specific beliefs it is not fair to lump all Protestant faiths together into one group, convenient though it may be.

Protestants range from the High Church Lutherans to the non-Trinitarian Quakers and United Pentacostal Church. Think about that, that is a disagreement over one of the most basic precepts of Christianity - the Holy Trinity. So the disparity of beliefs in between is rather remarkable.

As far as the canon goes, I’d like the historians to get together and agree on what Jesus used, please. Jesus didn’t whine about his canon having added or missing books. At any rate, I doubt whether the 7 disputed books have that much of a bearing other than praying for the dead (which in the scheme of things is relatively minor).

Since when do academics agree? Writing a paper about how your colleague is an idiot is one of the thrills of being an academic!

The acceptance of the Maccabees has quite a bearing on the theology of the Church versus Protestant theology. Also, it is notable that Luther at least kept the books in an appendix, whereas most modern Protestant (I feel safe using the term here) Bibles have completely erased them. In fact, many non-Catholic laymen are surprised when they first hear of them.

It is well known that both canon (Alexandrian and Palestinian) were used during Christ’s time and of course arguments can rain down on allusions and quotes in the 27 NT books from either one (and the fact that not all OT books were quoted anyway). I’m sure such discussions exist a plenty on this board.

 

[mozart-250]

Your argument is not with me but with the dictionary. I think these definitions are widely accepted and accurate. I don’t mean this to be argumentative but to point out that your view is in the minority.

Yeah…well then I have an argument with the dictionary. If the author of this dictionary believes that all branches of Christianity that are not orthodox or Catholic adhere substantially to the beliefs of Luther AND Calvin, then the author of this dictionary needs some education.

The Reformation and Luther marked the beginning of the “Protest” movement (this is historical fact). I can’t really name a singe protestant denomination (from the 6,743,982 you mentioned) whose roots don’t trace back to this period. Have you ever traced the roots of your denomination back to its roots? I’d be interested in learning what they are.

Fair question. I was raised a United Methodist. I attend an Assembly of God church. My basic theological orientation is more traditional Wesleyan although I do consider myself Pentecostal/Charismatic friendly. In an ideal world I might be Free Methodist or a Southern Methodist (I am a little more conservative than most Methodists in New England).

All three of these trace their roots back to Wesley.

Wesley comes from the Anglicans. The Anglicans come from the Catholics.

There are significant differences between the Weleyan branch of Christianity and Calvin (which your dictionary said we had to adhere substantially to in order to be Protestant). I am not sure about Luther.

With respect to the word protest…what’s wrong with it?

Nothing, except that 500 years or so after the fact, many of us aren’t protesting any more. To many of us Catholicism looks just like another denomination we don’t attend that is Christian but that we do not necessarily agree with in everything. From that perspective there is little difference between your church and the Presbyterian church down the street that I also do not attend.

Jesus didn’t omit the 7 books, Luther did. Scripture cannot be interpreted by the popular vote of historians. We Catholics believe the books were inspired by the Holy Spirit…

See your “Luther omitted 7 books of the Bible…No the RC denomination added them” thread du jour.

The issue in my mind is what books did Jesus use (since Jesus did not whine about his canon being either long or short). If Jesus used the 66- number version, then someone somewhere between Jesus and Luther added books. If Jesus used the 73- (or 81-) number then someone subtracted books.

Fair minded historians without an agenda should be able to tell me what the facts of the case are.

6,743,982 is your playful number. Sola Scriptura means scripture is basically self revealing and can be interpreted accruately by the reader. This is why there are 6,743,982 different denoms as compared to 1 Catholic Church. There is simply no question about this whether you accept it or not.

If your definition of Sola Scriptura is that a totally green and new believer with no knowledge of Christianity can lock himself up in a camp in Grand Lake Stream Maine for a couple of years…with just his King James Bible 'n Jesus (and Big Lake)…and come away with a totally correct understanding of Scripture, I will tell you that I don’t know anyone that believes that.

As far as 6,743,982 denominations (hey if the Catholic apologists can exaggerate, I can exaggerate more) being caused by Sola Scripture…this is a cause and effect issue.

Just your saying this is cause and effect doesn’t make it so. Since you are the one making this assertion, the burden of proof is on you to show:

• There is no other possible, credible explanation for the cause of denominations in ProtestantLand.
• It would be impossible for Protestants not to be divided under Sola Scriptura.

It would be much safer for you to say that Sola Scriptura is a factor in denominations in ProtestantLand. Then all you need to show is correlation (and the correlation factor can be anywhere greater than 0.0 to 1.0).

Oh concerning the Holy Spirit guiding believers into all truth, it is important to note what the passage does not say.

• It does not say this happens immediately
• It does not say this will ever happen completely.
• It does not say the believer will not make mistakes during this process
• It does not say this process is unconditional
  .

 

[MrS]

See your “Luther omitted 7 books of the Bible…No the RC denomination added them” thread du jour.

.

I hold in my formerly pagan-out-of-the-Catholic-Church-for-25-years hands
a copy of the newly released

"Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger - The Untold Story Of The Lost Books Of The Protestant Bible"

Arguements about 73 or 66 usually are either ended in confusion in trying to present all the evidence, because no one (until now) has really accumulated all that evidence.

Certainly a work like this would not come from a protestant camp, lest they find themselves in error.

Gary Michuta, the author, presents over 300 pages which any serious student can check and double check. There are many footnotes, many references, many proofs that once again the Catholic position is the correct one… and it is a fairly easy read.

handsonapologetics.com/ is the website of the author, and you can link on to Grotto Press to order… a $20 reference book every “66” proponent should now consider.

Thanks Gary… but where were you 500 years ago when Luther was playing his game?

.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

As a former Lutheran I can honestly say that Mozart makes a fair point here. Yes, the dictionary definition is acceptable as a broad term, but when speaking in an academic argument on specific beliefs it is not fair to lump all Protestant faiths together into one group, convenient though it may be.

Protestants range from the High Church Lutherans to the non-Trinitarian Quakers and United Pentacostal Church. Think about that, that is a disagreement over one of the most basic precepts of Christianity - the Holy Trinity. So the disparity of beliefs in between is rather remarkable.

Since when do academics agree? Writing a paper about how your colleague is an idiot is one of the thrills of being an academic!

The acceptance of the Maccabees has quite a bearing on the theology of the Church versus Protestant theology. Also, it is notable that Luther at least kept the books in an appendix, whereas most modern Protestant (I feel safe using the term here) Bibles have completely erased them. In fact, many non-Catholic laymen are surprised when they first hear of them.

It is well known that both canon (Alexandrian and Palestinian) were used during Christ’s time and of course arguments can rain down on allusions and quotes in the 27 NT books from either one (and the fact that not all OT books were quoted anyway). I’m sure such discussions exist a plenty on this board.

I believe the discussion was over the use of the broad term “protestantism” or “protestant” not a particular denomination.

I think the point of the discussion is that the “Protestant Reformation” marks the division between Catholicism and Protestantism. There is no doubt that there is wide variance in beliefs between Lutheran’s, Pentacostals, Quakers etc., I think this is the whole point. These belief differences were the result of the Reformation. The date usually quoted for the start of the Reformation is October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther published his 95 Theses. During the Reformation Luther sifted through the Catholic Bible and de-emphasized the 7 books because they conflicted with his new doctrines and beliefts. Following the Reformation the Protestant movement splintered into the thousands of sects we have now including those you mention as well as Wesleyan Methodists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc. etc. etc. Between these groups there is no ecclesiastical, authoritative or doctrinal agreement.

Iowa Mike

 

[colliric]

???

Maybe I am dense, but I don’t see what you disagree with. Probably I’m just very tired.

I understand the pope is only infallible under prescribed circumstances. I understand there is a difference between infallibility and impeccability and there is no link between the two (why there shouldn’t be a link doesn’t make sense to me but that is another thread).

As far as the last paragraph goes, you are making the assumptions that:

• the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is the correct one
• the Catholic canon is the correct one
• the pope is God’s interpretor of Scripture
• apostolic succession is the difference

To Protestants, these four assumptions are debatable.

But I don’t know the point of the final paragraph except that maybe Protestants are their own popes when the pope is not teaching with infallibility. But when the pope is not speaking with infallibility there is no logical difference between the pope teaching and Billy Graham teaching.

I must be very tired. Going to bed.

You contended that “protestants are not their own popes” and I refuted your claim, rather sucessfully it seems because you seem to have changed your mind.

And to myself there is a lot of logical difference between the teaching of the pope and billy graham, firstly because Billy is a protestant, a “catholics are part of Christianity too” preacher, but still a protestant and therefore doesn’t teach the specifically catholic POV although like CS Lewis some catholics will probably like him, because of that “Catholic as part of Christianity” stance, just like how protestants seem to like Mother Teresa and a few of the saints. Billy, unlike the pope, doesn’t speak for a complete denomination of people, he is seen as a role model leadership amongst a whole group of possible leaders including Joyce Meyer and other such people, rather than a solitary head(which is how catholics see the pope). So unlike the pope, when billy teachers it is not uniformly applied to his denomination, which is the whole point, the pope infallibly speaks on occasion and that is what is the difference here… occasionally the pope does that, he has the power to do that, he doesn’t seem to do it often, but he does it.

Secondly is that the pope has a strong claim to apostolic succession, the first pope being St Peter(which is rather provable at least “beyond reasonable doubt”, hence why protestants focus their attack on the Scriptural evidence of Mat 16:18 rather than argue over if Peter was the bishop of Rome or not.)

Billy doesn’t get the opportunity to speak infallibly to his denomination at all during his teachings, so logically they are different teachers and teach logically very differently.

P.s Sorry for the very late response.

 

[RNRobert]

Mike:
I really am not offended by the term “Protestant”. I understand the need for some bucket type of term term to cover all of branches of Christianity that are not Catholic or Orthodox and somehow evolved from the reformation. I wish the term of choice didn’t have the word “protest” imbedded in it…but whatever…I can live with that.

In many ways the term Protestant is accurate because that is what these various sects are mostly about: protest. Mainly they “protest” against the Catholic Church. About the one thing that they all agree on is that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon (or at least egregiously wrong in its teachings). Come on, how many of these sects look at the Catholic Church as “just another denomination,” say the way the Baptists might look at the Methodists, or the Lutherans look at the Prebyterians?
To a lesser extent, they also protest against each other. The founding fathers of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) disagreed with each other from the start. Even today, when there is disagreement in a Protestant church, it will often end in a split. I’ve experienced this firsthand. At the Baptist church I once attended, it was proposed that a group of elders be in charge of making church decisions, instead of having the congregation vote on it, as had been the practice. The congregation was split down the middle on the issue, each side quoting Scripture to back up its claims (we even had some guest preachers weighing in on the subject). Well, matters came to a head, and the minister left to start his own church, taking half the congregation with him. “Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” (Psalm 133.1)

Regarding the 30,000+ denomination number, some claim it s ‘a Catholic lie’. I would wager to say the number is entirely too low, if you were to take into account all the little storefront and independent ‘non-denoms’ that aren’t affiliated with anybody. Even if the number is significantly less than 30,000, I think any sane Christian would agree:

1. There are still too many.
2. The number is only going to increase, not decrease.
   This is the very nature of Protestantism.
   I leave you with these words:
   “That they all may be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” John 17:21, RSV.