The Protestant Perspective.

[joe370]

Publisher;7178928]For me, to be “deep into history” caused me to reject the Catholic church…and all those bodies which claim “apostolic sucession”…I have found to be myth.

My sister says the same thing. She now puts all of her trust in a church founded in 1983.

IF one only reads “church history” as provided by Catholics…you may have a point…but secular and histories which deal with “early Christianity” enhanced by more recent archeological finds…such as the Nag Hamaddi Library, Dead Sea Scrolls, Gospel of Judas to name a few has led me to come to the understanding that Christianity was not singular in it’s early stages…but the people called “Christians” in those first centuries were as diverse…if not more so than Christianity is today.

True, but doctrinal unity was/is preserved in Jesus’ established church via the guidance of the HS.

Of course…the books, lectures and classes I have attended by Bart Erhman, Joan O’Grady, Eliane Pagels, John Spong, John Domonic Crossan, Marcus Borg are not “faith affirming” toward the Orthodox/Catholic traditions.

I find these histories much more compelling than the 'pious histories" put forth by the CC/EO churches…

And some else might think the exact opposite regarding Bart Erhman, Joan O’Grady, Eliane Pagels, John Spong, John Domonic Crossan, Marcus Borg. I don’t trust the teachings of the CC solely based on the teachings of the Magisterium. I trust that the HS is guiding these fallible teachers into all truth. If Jesus had come to Bart Erhman, Joan O’Grady, Eliane Pagels, John Spong, John Domonic Crossan, Marcus Borg and entrusted them with His infallible truths, I would listen to them.

there are several “ancient churches” that all claim to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH to the exclusion of the others in some cases…so to quote many of the posters here…“To have more than one is one too many”.

But there can only be one and only one church claims to be the church built on Kepha…

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut…

 

[joe370]

Hey Chosen…

[QE=Chosen777;7179143]greetings. This is in response to your question, I hope it helps. “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instructing justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” (The 2nd Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy 3:16,17).has to be revealed. But God revealed the mystery unto Paul. Paul said that we could read and have his understanding, the understanding of an apostle of God.

Sure we can read and understand things on our own but when there is a difference of opinion Paul tells us to defer to the church. People should do this even if it’s not the CC. Paul believed in apostolic succession. Jesus ordained Paul and Paul ordained Titus and told Titus to ordain others, and they belonged to the CC, and Paul tells us:

Obey your leaders and defer to their authority, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you

Did Peter ever give Paul understanding? No, because they had the same God-given power to understand!

Paul went to Jerusalem in Acts and deferred to the Peter and the church in Jerusalem. Why didn’t Paul simply settle the matter on his own?

If we can obtain the understanding of an apostle by reading the words of Paul, then we need no infallible interpreter!

Let’s give it a test drive: I (a very fallible man) - believe in the true presence in the Eucharist; my sister does not. Who can settle this matter for us. Clearly the bible is not working.

We cannot understand what the Spirit said approximately 1900 years ago but we can understand what He says today through the inspired Pope. Do you believe the Spirit of God can speak in a more understandable way today than He did through the writers of the New Testament years ago? Can the perfect Spirit of God improve?

God speaks through His church which is forever guided by the HS.

We agree that the apostles were infallible, don’t we?

Nope. They were fallible but guided by the HS to teach infallibly.

When they wrote they recorded the words of the Spirit which “searcheth… the deep things of God” (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians 2:10). These words received the approval of God’s Spirit and His holy apostles. The question is: Why do we need an infallible interpreter, the Pope, the alleged successor of Peter, to interpret what Peter infallibly wrote for us?

Because I want to know what infallible truth is, which is found in the infallible bible. You and I were not entrusted with the authority to fallibly or infallible interpret the bible. Jesus’ fledgling church was.

Surely, we can see that if we can understand what the present day Pope says, we can understand what Peter, allegedly the first Pope, said. If we can understand what Peter said, then we can understand the Bible. If we can understand the Bible, it really is a safe guide for mankind.

Understanding Peters 2 letters will not enable me to understand the whole bible. Plus, I am told that my understanding is seriously flawed by my protestant friends. Who is right and who is wrong; who knows from the protestant perspective, for no one church can teach infallibly or infallibly interpret the bible according to the protestant perspective.

Your thoughts…

 

[joe370]

=FantomScholar;7180026]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.

A “supposedly” infallible bible does nothing to increase one’s personal certainty either - right? But you still believe it. It’s all faith based.

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.

Seems reasonable. I simply wanted to belong to the church founded by Jesus in the 1st century on Pentecost in Jerusalem, as opposed to the church founded by Luther or someone else, speaking as a former Lutheran.

What was your answer to the original question???

 

[joe370]

=FantomScholar;7180046]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.

No one is infallible yet all I hear are non-Catholics claiming that the CC claims that they are infallible people. Jesus established a church and he built in on Kepha and said that even the gates of hell would not defeat His church and He sent the HS to His church circa AD 33 to guide His church into all truth as per the book of John. Where in the OT does God make such promises to the nation Israel?

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.

When I see the NT referencing scripture, I go to the reference and if it’s a NT reference I acknowledge that fact and if it’s an OT reference I acknowledge it. Most of the time the NT is referencing the OT. They were using the Old to prove that Jesus fulfilled it.

 

[joe370]

Tester will you please address my original question. So far no protestant has addressed it. Thanks…

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?

 

[joe370]

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.

What is your answer to my original question?

To be deep in history is to necessarily be protestant. How so? Which protestant church? Here are just a few:

2.2 Lutheranism​

Anglican Churches
Reformed Churches
Presbyterianism
Congregationalist Churches
Anabaptists
Brethren
Methodists
Pietists and Holiness Churches
Baptists
Apostolic Churches – Irvingites
Pentecostalism
Charismatics

 

[joe370]

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

I believe, as you know, that the CC is the historical church built on Kepha. I believe that the CC (post schism) - continues to be the church built by Jesus on Kepha. I could be wrong but I feel that the CC is as close as I can get to Jesus’ church established circa AD 33 on Pentecost.

 

[joe370]

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.

As did my journey…Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[joe370]

Thanks for all the feedback, however, non-Catholics here on this thread, still have not addressed the following:

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?**

 

[tester]

Tester will you please address my original question. So far no protestant has addressed it. Thanks…

, how can I know what is infallible truth and what is not infallible truth…regarding the teachings of Jesus?

Protestants would say "if the teaching agrees with Scripture then it is true : if the teaching disagrees with Scripture then it is false. Ex: the sinlessness of Mary…

Catholics would say "if the teaching agrees with the Magisterium then it is true : if the teaching contradicts the Magisterium then it is false. Ex: the sinlessness of Mary

your follow up question is " how do you know?

We use 2000 years of church history, reason and experience,and YOUR answer in post 31

Faith…How does one know that the bible is infallible or that it’s teachings are infallible. Ultimately we live by faith not sight

Now can you answer my questions in post 25 in the context of how would Catholics interpret the Magisterium teachings that I presented?

 

[Chosen777]

Protestants would say "if the teaching agrees with Scripture then it is true : if the teaching disagrees with Scripture then it is false. Ex: the sinlessness of Mary…

Catholics would say "if the teaching agrees with the Magisterium then it is true : if the teaching contradicts the Magisterium then it is false. Ex: the sinlessness of Mary

your follow up question is " how do you know?

We use 2000 years of church history, reason and experience,and YOUR answer in post 31

Now can you answer my questions in post 25 in the context of how would Catholics interpret the Magisterium teachings that I presented?

greetings. This is in response to your question, I hope it helps. “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instructing justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” (The 2nd Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy 3:16,17).has to be revealed. But God revealed the mystery unto Paul. Paul said that we could read and have his understanding, the understanding of an apostle of God.Did Peter ever give Paul understanding? No, because they had the same God-given power to understand! If we can obtain the understanding of an apostle by reading the words of Paul, then we need no infallible interpreter!

We cannot understand what the Spirit said approximately 1900 years ago but we can understand what He says today through the inspired Pope. Do you believe the Spirit of God can speak in a more understandable way today than He did through the writers of the New Testament years ago? Can the perfect Spirit of God improve?

We agree that the apostles were infallible, don’t we? When they wrote they recorded the words of the Spirit which “searcheth… the deep things of God” (The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians 2:10). These words received the approval of God’s Spirit and His holy apostles. The question is: Why do we need an infallible interpreter, the Pope, the alleged successor of Peter, to interpret what Peter infallibly wrote for us? Surely, we can see that if we can understand what the present day Pope says, we can understand what Peter, allegedly the first Pope, said. If we can understand what Peter said, then we can understand the Bible. If we can understand the Bible, it really is a safe guide for mankind.

 

[SyCarl]

Thanks for all the feedback, however, non-Catholics here on this thread, still have not addressed the following:

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?**

To be quite blunt, I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain of what is true. We must examine everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and trust the Holy Spirit to guide us to the required truth. You have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church can be trusted to teach infallibly and I respect that. I have not come to that conclusion.

Our conclusions are the result of our own personnal interpretation of the available evidence. Your interpretation has led you to conclude that an infallible teacher is required and that the Catholic Church is that teacher. That does not change the fact that it is your conclusion or interpretation based on what you find convincing.

My view is that no institution or church is infallible. They have all done or taught things that do not accord with what I see of Jesus in the Bible. I also think that a lot of what we think is required truth is not really necessary. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and others have unduly complicated the simple truth as set out in the Apostles’ Creed. That is my conclusion based on my assessment of all the evidence. To me God has gone to great lengths to provide for our salvation. He truly wants us to be saved. I do not think that He is sitting there just waiting for us to make a mistake so He can say gotcha.

 

[joe370]

Hey tester…

=tester;7181081]Protestants would say "if the teaching agrees with Scripture then it is true : if the teaching disagrees with Scripture then it is false. Ex: the sinlessness of Mary…

My sister and I both think that our teachings on the Eucharist are correct, and yet she completely disagrees with me. She insists that my understanding of this teaching disagrees with Scripture. The bible is not resolving this matter for us. How can we resolve this matter? Which interpretation is infallible truth found in the bible?

This is a symbol of my body

or

This is my body…

If you agree with me she will tell you that you are misguided; if you agree with her then how can you and I resolve this matter?

Now can you answer my questions in post 25 in the context of how would Catholics interpret the Magisterium teachings that I presented?

Sure tester…

 

[joe370]

Thanks for answering my question. Carl no one is infallible, (except me of course…LOL…) - so why do you think that I think that the CC leaders are all infallible? Even the apostles were not infallible and yet they taught infallibly. It seems that there are 2 possibilites:

1. The holy spirit guided the apostles into all truth and upon there demise the holy spirit failed to guide their successors into all truth regarding the truths handed on to them by the apostles, as He did with the apostles.
2. The truths passed on from the apostles to their successors were preserved in the church founded by Jesus, and will continue to be preserved by these very fallible teachers/leaders, until the end of time, only because the HS is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, protecting the church from within and without.

Which one do you think it is?

I use to think that truth, with certainty, was unknowable, but not anymore. The bible tells us that Jesus sent the HS to His established church, to guide His church into all truth, and in John 14 Jesus tells us that the HS will be with His church forever. The fallible apostles were entrusted with truth and they transfered said truth to their successors who in turn did the same, as per the bible. At what point this truth regarding Jesus’ teachings get diluted or lost considering the fact that you said:

I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain of what is true.

To be quite blunt, I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain of what is true. We must examine everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and trust the Holy Spirit to guide us to the required truth. You have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church can be trusted to teach infallibly and I respect that. I have not come to that conclusion.

Our conclusions are the result of our own personnal interpretation of the available evidence. Your interpretation has led you to conclude that an infallible teacher is required and that the Catholic Church is that teacher. That does not change the fact that it is your conclusion or interpretation based on what you find convincing.

My view is that no institution or church is infallible. They have all done or taught things that do not accord with what I see of Jesus in the Bible. I also think that a lot of what we think is required truth is not really necessary. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and others have unduly complicated the simple truth as set out in the Apostles’ Creed. That is my conclusion based on my assessment of all the evidence. To me God has gone to great lengths to provide for our salvation. He truly wants us to be saved. I do not think that He is sitting there just waiting for us to make a mistake so He can say gotcha.

 

[SyCarl]

Thanks for answering my question. Carl no one is infallible, (except me of course…LOL…) - so why do you think that I think that the CC leaders are all infallible? Even the apostles were not infallible and yet they taught infallibly. It seems that there are 2 possibilites:

1. The holy spirit guided the apostles into all truth and upon there demise the holy spirit failed to guide their successors into all truth regarding the truths handed on to them by the apostles, as He did with the apostles.
2. The truths passed on from the apostles to their successors were preserved in the church founded by Jesus, and will continue to be preserved by these very fallible teachers/leaders, until the end of time, only because the HS is still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, protecting the church from within and without.

Which one do you think it is?

1. The Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth and the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church into all truth but that Church is not any particular instituion. Since the apostles, men have added “truths” to what was handed down and have required acceptance of these additions which has resulted in divisions. All institutions have done this even as they have preserved the truiths handed down.

I use to think that truth, with certainty, was unknowable, but not anymore. The bible tells us that Jesus sent the HS to His established church, to guide His church into all truth, and in John 14 Jesus tells us that the HS will be with His church forever. The fallible apostles were entrusted with truth and they transfered said truth to their successors who in turn did the same, as per the bible. At what point this truth regarding Jesus’ teachings get diluted or lost considering the fact that you said:

Your conclusion is based on your interpretaion agreeing with that of the Catholic Church. However it is still your private interpretation that leads you to the Catholic Church. The truth has not been diluted or lost but it has been added to by men who felt they needed and deserved to know more. The desire to know more has been man’s problem since Adam and Eve.

Division is not new to the Church. In Jesus’ time there were various Jewish factions, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees, each with varying beliefs. Yet there is no indication that Jesus did not treat them all as Jews. I believe the same applies to the divisions in Christianity.

 

[joe370]

Hey tester, I’ve got double vision. LOL…I’ve done that before tester regarding the 2 posts.

In response to post 25, I don’t know. I will look into it though, that’s for sure. The current pope says just the opposite and people like my sister call him the anti-Christ for believing that non-Christians can be saved. Why don’t you start a thread and ask that question. It’s a good question?

 

[joe370]

Carl, so you believe that the holy spirit, in His perpetual guidance, failed to prevent the successors of the apostles from adding untruths to the truth, which has led to division? Well, if I believed that I probably wouldn’t be a Christian. I give the HS (GOD) - a little more credit than that, butt that’s just me.

 

[SyCarl]

Carl, so you believe that the holy spirit, in His perpetual guidance, failed to prevent the successors of the apostles from adding untruths to the truth, which has led to division? Well, if I believed that I probably wouldn’t be a Christian. I give the HS (GOD) - a little more credit than that, butt that’s just me.

Unfortunately men have always done what God did not want. Did God fail because Adam fell? Did God fail because Israel fell away? Neither did the Holy Spirit fail because man has acted contrary to God’s wishes. In some cases what has been added may be true but because it is true does that make it necessary? What colour was Jesus’ hair? There is a true answer to that question but so far no one has made it a required truth. I am not singling out the Catholic Church. All churches have added things.

 

[david_ruiz]

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”.

So true .To go back to the beginning ,there was no Roman Catholic ,hence no Protestant ,only catholic ,small “c”, meaning universal , including all believers in Christ .There were no priests ,popes,confessional .rosary,different robes or dead liturgical language,baptism was different,communion was the love feast and eucharist was giving thanks (not denoting “real presence”)etc.etc.etc. To be ignorant of history is to be a slave to the recent past-c.s.lewis
A Catholic today is a far cry from the first catholic.

 

[joe370]

OTE]SyCarl;7181326]Unfortunately men have always done what God did not want.

Agreed…

Did God fail because Adam fell?

Nope…

Did God fail because Israel fell away?

Nope…God did not promisethat the holy spirit would guide Adam and Eve or Israel into all truth -agreed? However, Jesus did make that promise to his fledgling church.

Neither did the Holy Spirit fail because man has acted contrary to God’s wishes.

I never denied that men have acted contrary to God’s wishes.

In some cases what has been added may be true but because it is true does that make it necessary?

Seems reasonable, however, if the holy spirit is guiding Jesus’ church then in some ineffable way He will steer His church away from untruthful additions - agreed? Nothing is impossible for God - right?

What colour was Jesus’ hair? There is a true answer to that question but so far no one has made it a required truth. I am not singling out the Catholic Church. All churches have added things.

Revealed truth…I get it…As a former protestant (great friends there) - I thought it was necessary to belong to the church founded by Jesus as opposed to Martin Luther. If the HS is still guiding the church established by Jesus then I thought it best that I find it. One thing the holy spirit is not doing, logically speaking, is guiding every Protestant church into all truth for the simple fact that all truth is not the same at these churches founded by men as opposed to Jesus. The same goes for the CC if the church is not the church founded by Jesus.

Logically there is one truth vis-a-vis any one teaching found in the bible - agreed?

Jesus founded only one church and sent the HS to just that one church to guide His one church into all truth - agreed? He didn’t say: I will build my churches… and in no way am I impugning the wonderful protestant churches out there.

Said truth regarding any one teaching found in the bible, must be found at said church founded by Jesus forever guided by the HS - agreed? Even if you do not believe said church is the CC the reasoning is sound don’t you think, maybe?

Carl, Jesus said that the HS would guide His church into all truth. John 16:13 He said that He would be with His church forever:

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever–

We both agree that it is God’s will to preserve truth in the church He founded, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat. If God wills it then God could make it happen in spite of the will of sinfully flawed fallible people? So, it seems to me that either Jesus told the truth and the HS is forever guiding His church into all truth or Jesus lied and the will of man superseded the will of God? Or am I missing something here? I just don’t think the will of man, (regarding untruthful additions not taught by Jesus) - could vanquish the will of God. Unlike Israel and Adam and Eve God promised to guide His church into all truth and God cannot fail - right? Let’s not assume for the time being that it is the CC because that seems to get in the way. Your thoughts my friend?