The Protestant Perspective.

[FantomScholar]

Wrong. Christ Himself left The Holy Church to us so that’s more than enough to know that The Holy Church’s teachings are infallible. If not, then that would render Christ Himself a liar.

Using that logic, God created the theocracy of Israel, ergo, the religious leaders of Israel were infallible. I don’t think that’s an argument you would make.

What all protestants do not seem to understand is that where the Bible exhorts to “read scripture”, it’s ALWAYS referring to the Old Testament. There was NO New Testament writings that we hold as sacred today during the time of the Apostles; NO written Bible and NO Canon. (The Holy Catholic Church says “you’re welcome!”)
So, by the sola scriptura belief, one could only go to Malachi and no further to determine anything for one’s self.

Actually, there are several places in the New Testament that refers to other places in the New Testament as Scripture. Be that as it may, since the NT is Scripture, any reference to Scripture de facto includes the NT, regardless of the fact that the human author had the Old Testament in mind.

 

[rikkk1958]

See that is the issue:

Cathoilcs are NOT to be the interpreters of previous papal stements!!

from James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

“Private Judgment?

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger “Bible,” but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”

So whether it is Creeds or Councils or Confessions
Or whether it is the first Pope or the current Pope or previous papal statements
Or a past Magisterium or the current Magisteruim,

If Catholics are “not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is”
And “it is the Magisterium, not [Catholics] and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements,…”

When do Catholics know the truth?

The thing is, Catholics knew the truth before you argue. The problem is because you insist that your mind is better than those who were there first. What you wish to argue had been argued before, this is where the Church strength comes from, to defy fallible teachings because they are the first ones to know the truth. They were there when the Lord walked, and there also when the fathers continue to teach and write what they hear and saw.

Protestants insists on their own intellect to interpret but forgetting at the same time that the book they are basing upon had been first of all altered to suit their own founders. They will always claim to have the Holy Spirit guiding them but they should know better what the Holy Spirit means. It is blasphemous to use the Holy Spirit as an alibi to make you a teacher of the truth. Any man who thinks he has the Holy Spirit should be ashamed to claim it if they keep on sinning against IT!

When Christ left the world, we knew who He wanted to lead and continue, and this is why we knew also how the Holy Spirit came upon to those who will be the next leaders of the new generations. Are these leaders or early fathers subject for fallible teachings? I think so, but we knew that the Magisterum will refer to the Scriptures and ask the writers and their associates what was to be declared to be included in the doctrines. Should I believe now any individuals interpret the scriptures for me? I don’t think so. Noting also that there are at least 30,000 protestant denominations that are claiming to be the truth and having the Holy Spirit.

Wake up, and be one who follows what had been founded, so we can continue to obey what had been instructed for us by our Lord.

 

[Portrait]

Sure, JR. I wouldn’t argue with the conclusions that you have reached that a reading of history would make one Catholic (that would be a different thread!).

My only point, and largely in relation to statements made by the OP, is that a supposedly infallible church body does nothing to increase one’s personal certainty. Any way you cut it, you must still use your own fallible judgment to determine that Catholicism is correct, just like I must use my fallible judgment to discern that my confession of faith is correct. In this respect, there is no difference between Catholics and Protestants.

Dear FantomScholar,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to CAF.

Whilst it true that every man must initialy use his judgment (how can it be otherwise?) to ascertain the truth that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ, the line of reasoning that the Catholic uses to arrive at this truth is decidedly far more intellectualy satisfying than any Protestant argument, for example, seeking to prove the inspiration of the bible from the bible itself, thus arguing in a circle. The bible actually requires another authority to validate and confirm its authenticity - an authority that is utterly dependable and trustworthy. In other words an authority that is infallible; only this can give one a sure and certain intellectual basis for one’s faith.

The Catholic case for the inspiration of Sacred Scripture does not resort to unsound circular reasoning, but rather uses a *spiral *argument to prove biblical inspiration. First, we establish the bible’s reliability as history. Second, we then deduce that an infallible Church was founded (see my previous post above). Third, we accept the authority of this infallible Church that Sacred Scripture is inspired. It basicly reduces to the proposition that, apart from the Church, no man would know that God’s holy Word was inspired - “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (St. Augustine).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[tester]

The thing is, Catholics knew the truth before you argue. The problem is because you insist that your mind is better than those who were there first. What you wish to argue had been argued before, this is where the Church strength comes from, to defy fallible teachings because they are the first ones to know the truth. They were there when the Lord walked, and there also when the fathers continue to teach and write what they hear and saw.

.

so… for example
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

From the above statements : do Mulims and Jews receive salvation?
Are sure you are interpreted that correctly?
What did Catholics in 1441 AD think it meant?

Did it actually mean the statement below?

’The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

Will future Catholics in 2194 AD interpreted that correctly?

And my point is direcly related to the OP of how do you know if you have correctly interpreted an infallible source weather it is the Protestants going to Bible or Catholics to the Magisterium?

 

[tester]

The thing is, Catholics knew the truth before you argue. The problem is because you insist that your mind is better than those who were there first. What you wish to argue had been argued before, this is where the Church strength comes from, to defy fallible teachings because they are the first ones to know the truth. They were there when the Lord walked, and there also when the fathers continue to teach and write what they hear and saw.

.

so… for example
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra:
“With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

From the above statements : do Mulims and Jews receive salvation?
Are sure you are interpreted that correctly?
What did Catholics in 1441 think it meant?

Did it actually mean the statement below?

’The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day’ " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, p.223).

Will future Catholics in 2194 AD interpreted that correctly?

At my point is directly related to the OP of how do you know if you have correctly interpreted an infaillble source: wheather it is the Protestants going to the Bible or the Catholic going to the Magisterium?

 

[tester]

sorry for the double post

 

[Lutheranteach]

The best answer here seems to be the statement given by Cardinal Newman when he said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”.

It is that “history” that led me Home to the Catholic Church.

The Bible itself does not support the ideas of “Sola Scriptura”, “individual interpretation”, “invisible church” etc.
The clearest and simplest reading of the Bible shows a visible and authoritative Church.

So, while one can certainly say - “Well that’s your interpretation” - which may well be true, it is based on much more than the fact that someone, somewhere along the line decided that “The Church” was wrong (not spirit guided) and split from her…

Peace
James

I think to be deep in history is to necessarily be protestant. And once again the debate is being started from a point that is unaccepted by the protestant side.

 

[FantomScholar]

Dear FantomScholar,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to CAF.

Thanks for the welcome!

Whilst it true that every man must initialy use his judgment (how can it be otherwise?) to ascertain the truth that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ, the line of reasoning that the Catholic uses to arrive at this truth is decidedly far more intellectualy satisfying than any Protestant argument

It may or may not be. However, the fact that you have stated that you must, as an individual, ascertain the truth of Catholicism, it renders the infallibility-as-certainty argument null and void. If you are in error in that initial judgment, which as a fallible person would be possible, then any certainty Catholicism gives you is false. If the Protestant must contend with the possibility of error, then so does the Catholic. At best, the infallibility argument bolsters the case for believing in Scripture, but all that does is move the case one step back. You must now refer to another infallible authority to verify the truth of the church’s infallibility.

for example, seeking to prove the inspiration of the bible from the bible itself, thus arguing in a circle.

I am sure somewhere, someone has made this argument. It isn’t one that was offered by classical Protestantism.

The bible actually requires another authority to validate and confirm its authenticity - an authority that is utterly dependable and trustworthy. In other words an authority that is infallible; only this can give one a sure and certain intellectual basis for one’s faith.

True. His name is Jesus of Nazareth. The Scripture doesn’t need any verification beyond Him. The church serves as an excellent witness to the truth of Scripture. It doesn’t, however, infallibly confirm it. The church is dependent on the word of God for its very existence.

The Catholic case for the inspiration of Sacred Scripture does not resort to unsound circular reasoning, but rather uses a *spiral *argument to prove biblical inspiration. First, we establish the bible’s reliability as history.

I would agree with pointing to history to confirm the truth of Scripture.

Second, we then deduce that an infallible Church was founded (see my previous post above).

And here is where circularity enters into the picture. It’s actually equivalent to arguing that the Bible is Scripture because the Bible says so.

Major premise - The Roman Catholic Church is infallible.
Minor premise - The Roman Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted Scripture to teach that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible (Matt. 16, for example).
Conclusion - The Roman Catholic Church is infallible.

Circular. Of course, the main problem with the position is that if Rome is wrong about its interpretation of Matt. 16 and other passages, then the Bible doesn’t teach magisterial infallibility at all. What other infallible source confirms that Rome’s interpretation is correct?

Third, we accept the authority of this infallible Church that Sacred Scripture is inspired. It basicly reduces to the proposition that, apart from the Church, no man would know that God’s holy Word was inspired.

That’s demonstrably false since the Scriptures were accepted as inspired long before any conciliar pronouncements. The Old Testament was considered inspired by the Israelites for centuries without any infallible authority to tell them it was.

 

[joe370]

Just a thought - do you infallibly know the Catholic Church is what it says it is?

If not, then you still don’t know anything infallibly.

Maybe you are barking up the wrong tree here.

You seem to be attempting to push me away from Christianity. If I did not have faith that the CC was/is the church founded by Jesus, forever guided by the HS into all truth, I would not be a Christian today.

Thanks for the feedback but you still didn’t help me. A little help friend.

 

[joe370]

I have been seeking an answer to the Protestant response of what you said as well. Silence seems to fill the room when a Protestant poses the infallibility question right back to the Catholic.

So…the Protestant may not know whether he/she can trust his interpretation infallibly, but how does one infallibly trust that the Church and its infallible teachings?..

Faith…How does one know that the bible is infallible or that it’s teachings are infallible. Ultimately we live by faith not sight. No one protestant ever questions the veracity of the bible being infallible but when it comes to the church that codified the infallible bible, well, you know the rest…

 

[joe370]

The best answer here seems to be the statement given by Cardinal Newman when he said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”.

It is that “history” that led me Home to the Catholic Church.

The Bible itself does not support the ideas of “Sola Scriptura”, “individual interpretation”, “invisible church” etc.
The clearest and simplest reading of the Bible shows a visible and authoritative Church.

So, while one can certainly say - “Well that’s your interpretation” - which may well be true, it is based on much more than the fact that someone, somewhere along the line decided that “The Church” was wrong (not spirit guided) and split from her…

Peace
James

I agree…

 

[JonNC]

Faith…How does one know that the bible is infallible or that it’s teachings are infallible. Ultimately we live by faith not sight. No one protestant ever questions the veracity of the bible being infallible but when it comes to the church that codified the infallible bible, well, you know the rest…

And which Church is that, Joe? The pre-schism Church that relied on the councils and all the patriarchs in unity, or one of the two that are now in schism from each other?

Jon

 

[simspt]

The protestant perspective:

Infallible truth is found in the infallible bible, so I am told by my protestant friends. Cool! Non-Catholics either start churches and teach, basing their teachings on their fallible interpretation of the bible, or, non-Catholics defer to the fallible teachings of the leaders of each and every non-Catholic church, depending on the church, or, non-Catholics admit that no one church and no one individual can teach infallibly regarding the infallible bible, and therefore, infallible truth, regarding the infallible bible, cannot, with certainty, be known!!! I ask with all humility, how can I know what is infallible truth and what is not infallible truth…regarding the teachings of Jesus? This is my last attempt to try and understand the protestant perspective. A little help my protestant friends…

The infallibility of Catholic Dogma or Doctrine of Infallibility is a matter of faith. Inerrancy (however you define it) of the Bible is another matter of faith. Believing in the trustworthiness of the Catholic Tradition against that of parallel traditions is again a matter of faith based on multiple factors. Depending on your background what is recorded in the NT ranges from probable to doubtful in relation to recording accurately the deeds and sayings of Jesus. In my personal journey I have decided to err on the side of the CC who IMO has theological and historical continuity with the first generations of Christians.

 

[joe370]

QUOTE=Bluegoat;7178678]But of course you have no way of infallibly discerning that is true, do you?

Nope…I have no way of infallibly convincing my atheistic friends that Jesus is God either. We live by faith…

That is a judgement on your part. You could be wrong about the Catholic Church.

History does not lie. The CC is the historical church founded by Jesus - fact. Whether or not Jesus was God, making the CC the church founded by God, is another thing. What can be proven is that none of the PC’s were founded by Jesus for the simple fat that I can give you the name of the man who founded each and every PC, and it’s not Jesus, and in no way am I implying anything negative about these churches. I love all PC’s. .

It could be that Christ does not, and has never intended the Church on Earth to make infallible claims.

The same could be said about the apostles…which would mean that the bible is not infallible. However, the bible seems to suggest otherwise regarding Jesus’ church and the preservation of all truth in His church.

It could be that Christianity is simply untrue. It could be that the Orthodox are correct and the Catholic Church is in the same situation as other Protestants.

Could be…

The thing is, if one wants to understand Protestantism,

Which could not be untrue…

this is the wrong question to ask.

Every time I ask you guys a question you tell me its the wrong question…Wonder why that is…?

Protestants don’t think they come to infallible knowledge on every little thing.

Nor does the CC.

They do not think that the Church Militant has that capacity - that it is only fulfilled as the Church Triumphant.

Then the infallible bible with all its infallible truths cannot be known with certainty yes or no??? If your answer is yes, then the bible is not helpful at all, vis-a-vis truth. If I believe what you are suggesting I would not be a Christian.

 

[joe370]

If Jesus didn’t have the power to make sure his original church survives and doesn’t stray away from his teachings then I’m done. Then the holy spirit doesn’t exist and what I think I feel is just a feeling. there’s no way I’m going to waste my time trying to follow some random Protestant church and leave everything up to chance: I’m not going to follow a church that was founded by people who claimed the original church fell into “apostasy”, nor would I join one with practicing homosexual clergy. Only one that FULLY conforms to everything in the bible. If god is real and founded a “church”, it’s going to be obvious.

Then I am done - is so right…My exact sentiments…Jesus left us with His church and Jesus is with His fallible church leaders guiding them into all truth. If I didn’t believe this I too would be done…

 

[joe370]

E=FantomScholar;7178728]While your reading of church history brought you to Catholicism, your reading of church history is not infallible.

Agreed…I am fallible…

That is why the infallibility argument, no matter how you approach it, is nothing more than red herring

.

Silly proposition…Jesus left His infallible truths with his fallible apostles and they passed on those infallible truths to their fallible successors and they did the same and this has been going on for almost 2000 years and the HS is the reason why we can trust this transmission of truth for the HS is safeguarding those infallible truths until Jesus’ return. Your the one employing the red herring…but that’s cool…

 

[joe370]

=tester;7178762]Joe370;
Eventfully there comes a point where we are each responsible for deciding what is true.
And maybe we will get it wrong. Just because fallible humans do not understand the Truth does not make the Truth untrue.

Couldn’t agree more my friend…

There are some main and plain things in Scripture and there are some difficult things also , but I have faith that one day ”I will know as I am known.”

Okay, but that does not address my question…Little help friend…

Until that time, : I (and Protestants) go to Scripture to test the truth of beliefs.

As we catholics do but it the end, when we are not certain about something, we defer to Jesus’ church. Hebrews 13:17. Protestants defer to their church and if they don’t agree with their church (I think) - they defer to their own authority which is a big no - no according to scripture…

We STUDY , compare scripture with scripture , we use 2000 years of chuch history, reason and experience, and yet as it says in Romans 14 , we may not all agree.

It does not say that tester. That whole chapter is about unclean foods etc…I do agree that we should not pass judgment on disputable matter however:

*Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand…
*

we work on the the assumption that true teaching will never contradict scripture.

Yet it does over and over and over from the perspective of private interpretation… You tell me that my interpretation contradicts scripture; I tell you the same; everyone telling someone else that their interpretation contradicts scripture yet scripture frowns upon private interpretation of scripture, and, to boot, none of us were entrusted with the authority to interpret scripture. That was given to Jesus’ fledgling church.

This means that it is Scripture that determines if a church is true
It is the meaning Scripture that will determine the teachings of a church.

Every church thinks that their church is the true church. The meaning Scripture is not relative, and yet you want me to believe that it is. If you didn’t you would simply answer my original question???

I Tester, “Test all things and hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and I examine the Scriptures every day to see what is true. (Acts 17)

I remember a quote that went something like this: “ if “so and so” knows everything about God, well no offence to “so and so”; but I would think a lot less of God.”

You can insert whoever or whatever you want for “so and so”

You and I do this and we come away from scripture with polar opposite beliefs regarding certain teachings. I want Jesus to infallibly settle this matter once and for all, but He is not here to do that, but He did leave us with His church and He is guiding His church into all truth regarding revealed truth. If I didn’t believe this I would not believe in Jesus, for God would never leave us with an infallible collection of books with no way to discern truth infallibly, regarding revealed truth. .

So Protestants go to the for inerrant scripture for truth : where do Catholics go? The Magisterium?

The first way has lead to hundreds of churches and total division; the second way has not. The first way has everyone being guided by the holy spirit into differing truth; the second way has Jesus’ established church being guided by the HS into all truth. I think I’ll stick with option 2.

There are some main and plain teachings from The Magisterium and there are some difficult teachings also : How do you know you interpreted their teachings correctly?

Personally, I don’t always know and that is why I defer to the magisters of Jesus’ church for that is where doctrinal truth is preserved via the guidance of the HS…

From James Akins below:
Catholics are not to privately interpret Scripture;
Catholics are not to privately interpret previous papal statements;
Catholics are not to privately interpret previous Magisterial statements;

Sure they can as long as those interpretations jive with the teachings of the CC.

The protestant perspective is we go to the inerrant Bible as the source of infallible truth and you ask how are we sure it is being interpreted correctly?

Which has led to division over the last 500 years. That does not work…

The Catholic perspective is **You go to the infallible Church has the source of infallible truth ; so I ask how you sure you are interpreting their teachings correctly? **

Firstly, I ask you the same question. Secondly, to answer your question: I defer to the church founded by Jesus just as Paul commanded us to do in Hebrews 13:17. Give it read. Paul would have been crushed to see just the opposite happening.

What’s your answer to my original question???

 

[joe370]

]Now that makes perfect sense to me. Simple and logical. Thanks Portrait.

Dear Bluegoat,

Cordial greetings.

The Catholic does know for a certainty that the Church is infallible and that it was established by our Lord upon St. Peter.

The Catholic Church bases its authority on the remarkable words “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church…” (St. Matt. 16: 18). However, unlike Protestantism we do not simply make our appeal to the bible as if the mere citation of a text settles the matter conclusively without need for futher discussion. Rather, the line of argument which the Church adopts in validating her Divine origin and mission is as follows:

1/ The Church appeals, in the first instance, to the documents of the N.T., regarding them, not as as inspired books, but rather as genuine works of contemporary writers, in the same manner as she would appeal to Tacitus, Seneca, Josephus, or any other trustworthy historical authorities. In this way it is established, on the basis of purely historical evidence, that there was such a person as Jesus Christ; that He founded a Society, which received the names of Christian and the Catholic Church; that that Society has continued to exist down through the successive generations to the present time, and that the Catholic Church is that Society.

2/ Still regarding the N.T. writings only as regular historical records, the Church establishes the fact of the miracles of Christ and especially the miracle par exellence, His reported Resurrection. From thence the Church draws the inference that Christ must be God; either Christ was insane or was who He claimed to be, God. We can easily eliminate the possibility that He was mad, for no madman ever spoke the way that He did, neither did any sane man for that matter. In confirmation of His Divinity, and the truth of His mission, the Church appeals to the manner in which His prophecies concerning the Church and the Jewish nation have been fulfilled; to the global dissemination of the Gospel; to the constancy of the holy marytyrs; to the great change for the better that the proclamation of the Gospel has effected among mankind; and to the witness which the Church itself has borne, through so many generations, to the belief which has been held in the truth of His wondrous miracles.

3/ Having satisfactorily demonstrated that Christ is indeed God, His words must necessarily be Divine and thus infallibly true. However, it is on record that He uttered the words, “You are Peter…” (St. Matt. 16: 18); “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (St. John 20: 21); “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (St. Matt. 28: 19,20). Now these being God’s words, the Church, to which they have reference, is indeed a Divine institution, and has authority from God Himself.

4/ This Church, founded by God, with a mission from God to teach the nations of the world, and equipped with a Divine promise that God will be with it to the final consumation of all things, cannot possibly err in its teaching on faith and morals; for it is, by God’s own appointment, infallible.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[joe370]

Hey PLeed…

Since the protestant perspective has been made fairly clear by now, what is it you hope to learn? There isn’t much more to be said. Is a better understanding really your objective here?

Yes, it is really becoming crystal clear as to how untenable the protestant perspective is, and I mean no disrespect; l am just being honest. This will be my last thread.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I am gonna assume that your answer to the original question is:

We can’t know…

 

[joe370]

=Todd520;7178922]Joe, why can’t you learn from your own experience?

Trust me, I am…

As a Catholic, didn’t you apply faith and put ‘your trust’ in the Catholic Church to provide infallible teaching from the bible? You honestly have no justification for this decision except for faith!

Good point, but I still would like to understand things from the protestant perspective. Your answer to the original question is what?

Why can’t Protestants apply this same level of faith to the book instead of to a man led organization?/]

When did I say that they couldn’t???

Of course the CC is man led…Prove that the CC was a man-made like every PC, and I will be forced to leave the CC in search of Jesus’ church built on Kepha. Thinks for the participation.