The Protestant Perspective.

[Chosen777]

Ephesians 2:19-22. Made it clear what was said in Matthew 16. Revelation 1 talked about 7 churches and this is a proof that no one church is solely esterblished by Christ himself. From the bible perspective which is the infallible word of God, shows that the church is the body of Christ and for one to become a part of the church, all it takes is for one to become one with Christ. I believe that the second coming of Christ is to take the elects from every organizations or or churches. What we call church today isn’t on accord with what bible described church to be. “Where two or three are gathered together, there I am” that’s the word of God. The apostles went to different places converting people into one belief “christ as our lord and saviour”, this defines the church. Just so it won’t confuse anyone, when rapture will take place, the saints will be removed, even in organizations known as churches today, some will be raptures, some won’t. Not everyone who comes to the physical church is saved or is a saint, people go to church just to fulfil tradition but the message which is Christ is ignored. Non of the apostle went our preaching the belief in anyothet thing other than Christ. They went to different countries and cities converting people to christ not to a certain organization. The Ephesians didn’t say, because we are the church of the Ephesians esterblished by Paul, then we are the right and chosen people. If your way is not in accordance with the word of God, u are not a part of the church. If u have not receieves christ as your personal lord and saviour, then it’s of no use cos that’s what the churche’s message is centred upon.

If I remember clearly, people were accepted as part of the early church bcos they believed and confessed christ as their personal lord and saviour. Saying that Jesus esterblished a physical church that suddenly had its head quarter in Rome is dilussional cos if that is to be the case, it should have been in Jerusalem. I can’t say due to the fact that frank from “the family of Christ” church preached to me about Christ, that any other person who got preached to about the same Christ and received him, isn’t going to be accepted cos frank didn’t deliver the message. Common, this is Christ we are talking about Here not human, are we going to be saved by our affiliation to an organization or to Christ? Is he going to ask us where we be belong? We will be judged according to our individual deeds. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, no one commeth unto his father but through him, there’s no other way to God but through his son. I want to also state here that I don’t believe in trinity or the trium god, I believe in God who’s son is Christ, he came and died that I may live. He paid the price for my sins, now I am free because he set me free.

 

[Chosen777]

John 14:6…this passage sums up what I was trying to say. The reason why I don’t believe in any religious affiliation is because Christ didn’t come to save a particular people but the whole mankind, all he needed was for us to believe that he’s the messiah. If u look at tge difficulties he had with the scribes, you’ll understand what his teachings are centred on. He was the one spoken of by the prophets but they didn’t believe so he went on showing th signs to prove to them that he’s the messiah. Wether you are from Hindu background, Islam, pagan, atheist, all ge want is for u to accept him as your personal lord and saviour, the messiah who died and ressurrected in the third day. He came to save everyone. The holy spirit is not human, when u believe and confess Christ, the holy spirit is in you and he’ll guide you to his truth. Romans 8:14-16… Look it up and read. Shalom

 

[joe370]

Chosen777;7181416]Ephesians 2:19-22. Made it clear what was said in Matthew 16Revelation 1 talked about 7 churches and this is a proof that no one church is solely esterblished by Christ himself.

Jesus said:** I **will build my church. He did not say, for example, that joe370 or Chosen777 or Carl, or Martin Luther or John Calvin will build my church. None of us have the right to start another church and claim that that church is the church about which Jesus said: I will build my church yes, no, maybe???

*19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
*

If I started a church tomorrow would you consider my new church to be the church founded by Jesus circa AD 33, built on the foundation of the apostles???

From the bible perspective which is the infallible word of God,

Prove to me that the bible is infallible? After all it was written by the fallible apostles and Luke and Mark who were also fallible?

…shows that the church is the body of Christ and for one to become a part of the church, all it takes is for one to become one with Christ. I

No baptism? I too believe that all churches regardless of denomination, comprise the mystical body of Jesus of which Jesus is the savior, but if I want the fullness of truth, I must find the church founded by Jesus for the simple fact that he is the architect, as opposed to mere humans. If it’s not the CC I would leave the CC in a second.

…believe that the second coming of Christ is to take the elects from every organizations or or churches.

Every church; not just the CC or the EOC - agreed…

What we call church today isn’t on accord with what bible described church to be. “Where two or three are gathered together, there I am” that’s the word of God.

I pray that they may be one as we are one…He wanted unity for his church. Today we see hundreds of isolated, autonomous churches; that’s not unity. I am including the CC if the CC is not the church founded by Jesus.

The apostles went to different places converting people into one belief "christ…

Did the apostles and their successors all belong to the same church??? Does that one church still exist today? If so then is it the Lutheran church or the EOC or the Pentecostal church or the Baptist church…I could do this all night, sadly?

The Ephesians didn’t say, because we are the church of the Ephesians esterblished by Paul, then we are the right and chosen people.

Agreed…

If your way is not in accordance with the word of God, u are not a part of the church.

I believe in the true presence in the Eucharist and my sister does not. Which one of us is not in accordance with the word of God, and therefore not a part of the church.

If u have not receieves christ as your personal lord and saviour, then it’s of no use cos that’s what the churche’s message is centred upon.

If I remember clearly, people were accepted as part of the early church bcos they believed and confessed christ as their personal lord and saviour.

Agreed.

Saying that Jesus esterblished a physical church that suddenly had its head quarter in Rome is dilussional cos if that is to be the case, it should have been in Jerusalem.

So where is said head quarters? Jesus predicted that Jerusalem would be sacked. Jesus said that his church would start in Jerusalem and spread to the ends of the earth. He never mentioned where said head quarters would be located.

I can’t say due to the fact that frank from “the family of Christ” church preached to me about Christ, that any other person who got preached to about the same Christ and received him, isn’t going to be accepted cos frank didn’t deliver the message. Common, this is Christ we are talking about Here not human, are we going to be saved by our affiliation to an organization or to Christ?

Is Jesus the savior of those Christians that belong to the CC as well?

Is he going to ask us where we be belong? We will be judged according to our individual deeds.

Totally agree. Faith without works is dead…

Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, no one commeth unto his father but through him, there’s no other way to God but through his son. I want to also state here that I don’t believe in trinity or the trium god, I believe in God who’s son is Christ, he came and died that I may live. He paid the price for my sins, now I am free because he set me free./

]Acts 5 - 3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

Here we see that the holy spirit and God are one.

]John 17 - “I and the Father are one.”

Here we see that the son and the Father are one. You don’t see the trinity there???

 

[joe370]

Chosen, so I don’t even need to belong to a church, any church???

John 14:6…this passage sums up what I was trying to say. The reason why I don’t believe in any religious affiliation is because Christ didn’t come to save a particular people but the whole mankind, all he needed was for us to believe that he’s the messiah. If u look at tge difficulties he had with the scribes, you’ll understand what his teachings are centred on. He was the one spoken of by the prophets but they didn’t believe so he went on showing th signs to prove to them that he’s the messiah. Wether you are from Hindu background, Islam, pagan, atheist, all ge want is for u to accept him as your personal lord and saviour, the messiah who died and ressurrected in the third day. He came to save everyone. The holy spirit is not human, when u believe and confess Christ, the holy spirit is in you and he’ll guide you to his truth. Romans 8:14-16… Look it up and read. Shalom

 

[joe370]

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 .

They called themselves presbyters and eventually adopted the name priest early on. There is only one priest and that is Jesus. They simply participate in Jesus’ one “perpetual” priesthood by doing as the apostles did , regarding the offering . You are, as I was, wrong about the confessional. Back in the day a person openly confessed their sins at church. I am glad that changed, LOL…The word pope is merely an affectionate title given to the Bishop. Who cares about a name. You are so wrong about baptism and the Eucharist, but you feel free to believe what you want to believe. You are right about the Rosary.

Protestantism bases everything on sola scriptura (no church authority) - and sola fida. Faith is NOT dead without work, the exact opposite of what the bible teaches. Show me where this is taught in the early church?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Chosen777]

@ joe370

just want to use scripture to prove who the stone is: “For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?” Psalm 18:31
“… I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock…” Deuteronomy 32:3-4
“Truly my soul waiteth upon God… He only is my rock…” Psalm 62:1-2

“But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.” Psalm 94:22

Peter was never mentioned by these prophets, so what are we missing? Who should we believe, who should we not? Okay, to answer your question about the church:

 

[Chosen777]

When the Bible uses the words “the church,” it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not just to members of the Catholic church:

“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord…” 1 Corinthians 1:2
The Apostle Paul wrote:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;” Ephesians 5:25
Paul was not a Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Catholic.

Would anyone suggest that God only loves Catholics?.. or that He only died for Catholics? Such would be the case if the Catholic church was the only church.

Paul also proclaimed:

“And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us…” Ephesians 5:2

 

[joe370]

Chosen, I agree; what is your answer to my original question?

When the Bible uses the words “the church,” it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not just to members of the Catholic church:

“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord…” 1 Corinthians 1:2
The Apostle Paul wrote:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;” Ephesians 5:25
Paul was not a Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Catholic.

Would anyone suggest that God only loves Catholics?.. or that He only died for Catholics? Such would be the case if the Catholic church was the only church.

Paul also proclaimed:

“And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us…” Ephesians 5:2

 

[Chosen777]

This was the answer I previously gave and to my best knowledge, is enough answer to your question… Re: The Protestant Perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe370
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…
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…

I just want to remind you s place in the scripture.

Act 17:11*Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

The difference btw religion and Christianity: while the former is man trying to reach God, the later is God reaching to man. God loved us first, that’s Christianity. For this reason, u don’t go to a church to find God because he’s always at your door knocking.

 

[tester]

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?

Well I do know what the Catholic response is to that;

Those who receive salvation are invisibly, or unknowingly, or imperfectly connected to the Catholic Church.
That is what this article here is about: from James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

But that is NOT what the context of my post (or this thread) is about:

** How can I (or Joe370 or Catholics in 1441 AD) know what is infallible truth and what is not infallible truth…regarding the teachings of Jesus?**

From post 25:

*1302 AD “we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

1441 AD “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”

1994 AD “'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”*

If Catholics in 1441 AD quoted the procalimations from 1302 and 1441 were they wrong?
If Catholics in 1994 AD quoted the procalimations from 1302 and 1441 were they wrong?

So Joe370: how do Catholics know in 1441 AD or 2010 AD what are the teachings of Jesus?

Remember these points!!

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,…”

 

[JRKH]

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.

You make an interesting point here. In a manner of speaking, the religious leaders of Isreal were “infallible”, where their God given authority was concerned. Just take a look at Mt 23:1-3.
1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
And so, regardless of how Jesus felt about the actions and the hearts of the individual leaders, He did NOT remove from them their authority under the Old Covenant.
He, the Son of God, told the crowds and his disciples to obey them…So to disobey them in their teachings would be to disobey God…
(Think about how Jesus promised Peter and the Apostles the authority to Bind and Loose…)

The Scribes and Pharisees lost their authority only when, even after the resurection, they refused to accept Christ and persecuted those who, acting under the New Covenant, preached the Truth of Christ.
God replaced those Old Covenant leaders with leaders in the New covenant. Not “national leaders”, but spiritual leaders to build the universal Church, and to “bind and Loose…Whatever”. Obedience to these leaders and those who have followed them, regardless of the “sins” of individuals is, in fact, obedience to God who placed them in authority over us.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by joe370
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(t) 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…

My answer to this is simple…Both. John Paul II refered to the East and West as the “right and left lungs” of “The Church”…

As to how this relates to the “protestant perspective” on Scripture etc, I would ask back, which Protestant tenets are seen in either of the “Pre-reformation” Churches…
Sola Scriptura? Nope
Personal interpretation? Nope
66 book canon? Nope
Multiple “doctrinally independant” denominations? Nope
“Symbolic” Eucharist? Nope
Water baptism not required? Nope

I don’t mean to be flippant about this, but when protestants toss up the East West Split, they are tossing up a double edged sword. Neither East OR West denies the Church hierarchy; Neither denies the use of Councils etc.; Neither holds that Scripture can or should be “privately intertreted” outside of the teachings and understandings of the Church universal…AND Neither one denies the “God Breathed” nature of the 73 books contained in the canon of the bible, codifed, approved and reapprove by council and inherited by the Protestants…

Just something to consider.

Peace
James

 

[tester]

You make an interesting point here. In a manner of speaking, the religious leaders of Isreal were “infallible”, where their God given authority was concerned. Just take a look at Mt 23:1-3.
1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice…
Peace
James

We are told to submit to authorites: (see Romans 13) but that does bestow infallbility.

 

[FantomScholar]

You make an interesting point here. In a manner of speaking, the religious leaders of Isreal were “infallible”, where their God given authority was concerned. Just take a look at Mt 23:1-3.
1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.
And so, regardless of how Jesus felt about the actions and the hearts of the individual leaders, He did NOT remove from them their authority under the Old Covenant.
He, the Son of God, told the crowds and his disciples to obey them…So to disobey them in their teachings would be to disobey God…
(Think about how Jesus promised Peter and the Apostles the authority to Bind and Loose…)

The Scribes and Pharisees lost their authority only when, even after the resurection, they refused to accept Christ and persecuted those who, acting under the New Covenant, preached the Truth of Christ.
God replaced those Old Covenant leaders with leaders in the New covenant. Not “national leaders”, but spiritual leaders to build the universal Church, and to “bind and Loose…Whatever”. Obedience to these leaders and those who have followed them, regardless of the “sins” of individuals is, in fact, obedience to God who placed them in authority over us.

Peace
James

You are right that Jesus affirmed the authority of the religious leaders in Israel, in as much as that which they taught was faithful to the instructions given under the Mosaic Covenant. However, it is clear that they were not infallible on “faith and morals.” Consider the strong rebukes given by Christ to the religious leaders for teaching the doctrines of men as if they were commandments of God. If they were doing this, it’s clear they were not protected from teaching in opposition to the revelation of God. Of course, if they were infallible on doctrine, then they were right and Christ wrong, because certainly who Christ is was a matter of doctrine!

 

[JRKH]

Ephesians 2:19-22. Made it clear what was said in Matthew 16.

Quite…That we are built into “the household of God” which is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets” and with “Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone”…
So in this simple statment we see that we are to be of “one Household” built, not on “Scripture Alone” but upon that which has been “built on the foundation of the Apostles…” In other words, upon that which is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, (1 Tim 3:15) The one True Church…

Revelation 1 talked about 7 churches and this is a proof that no one church is solely esterblished by Christ himself.

I’ve always been intrigued by this idea…First of all from the perspective that, if this refered to “seven independent churches” why would the “One holy Catholic and Apostolic” Church include it in it’s “errant” canon.
Secondly from the fact that, Even most protestants hold that their is but one “True Church” (the invisible “church” or “body of Christ”) but then trot this out when anyone says that there is but one visible “true church”.
Third, the term used in the Original Greek is “Ekklesia” meaning “group” or “community” called out. Thus the idea that these Seven regional communities" are not a part of definitively NOT part of an overall, universal, community just does not float very well.
Fourth. If you accept the idea of these “Seven” Churches being independent, God protected, Churches, where are they? What do they believe? Which of them these do you belong to? I should hope that you, or ANY protestant would seek to make sure that you belonged to one of the Seven Churches mentioned in Revelation and not to any Church that was NOT mentioned…

From the bible perspective which is the infallible word of God, shows that the church is the body of Christ and for one to become a part of the church, all it takes is for one to become one with Christ.

Quite correct and this simple statement of yours above is also the most difficult to put into practice.
But The Bible which, as you say, is the infallible word of God, also shows that The Church, is not built upon a book, but upon the Apostles, and that it is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth. Further, the Bible shows that “The Church” has authority to “Bind and Loose…Whatever”. Not the individual, but “The Church”.

I believe that the second coming of Christ is to take the elects from every organizations or or churches. What we call church today isn’t on accord with what bible described church to be. “Where two or three are gathered together, there I am” that’s the word of God.

The quote above is not Should read, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” and is preceded by the verse, “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” (Mt 18:19-20)
This speaks to what is asked for in prayer. It does not effect the very real authority Granted to the Church universal to “Bind and Loose”.

If I remember clearly, people were accepted as part of the early church bcos they believed and confessed christ as their personal lord and saviour.

And then were Baptized and accepted instruction from the Apostles, Bishops and Presbyters (Priests). They were also corrected in any error by either word or Letter as teested to by the letters we have from the Apostles to the various chuch communities. Contained in those letters were admonishions as well as blessings. Admonisions not to assume that “belief” alone is sufficient (James 2:19, or that faith alone (without works) is sufficient (James 2:14-18) etc.
So - As you said earlier, we are called not simply to prefess belief, but to become One with Christ. For this purpose, Jesus left us, not a book only, but a Church to guide us.

Saying that Jesus esterblished a physical church that suddenly had its head quarter in Rome is dilussional cos if that is to be the case, it should have been in Jerusalem.

You show some poor historical understanding. Things like this don’t happen “suddenly”, but rather evolve and Grow, just as Chris described how teh mustard seed, the smallest of the seeds, grows into the largest of shrubs.
Jerusalem WAS the home base for The Church in the early days. Until the Jews Kicked the Christians out of the Synagogues and the Romans destroyed the temple once and for all…Then, by virtue of the fact that the first leader of the Apostles, St Peter, had been Bishop of Rome at the time of His martyrdom, Rome became the “See of Peter”…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

We are told to submit to authorites: (see Romans 13) but that does bestow infallbility.

You are right that Jesus affirmed the authority of the religious leaders in Israel, in as much as that which they taught was faithful to the instructions given under the Mosaic Covenant. However, it is clear that they were not infallible on “faith and morals.” Consider the strong rebukes given by Christ to the religious leaders for teaching the doctrines of men as if they were commandments of God. If they were doing this, it’s clear they were not protected from teaching in opposition to the revelation of God. Of course, if they were infallible on doctrine, then they were right and Christ wrong, because certainly who Christ is was a matter of doctrine!

Yes…Much of this debate centers aound something that is virtually “undefinable” or definable in different ways depending on ones position.

The Scribes and Pharisees were called to task by christ for how poorly they handled their jobs. They, who were charged with properly leading the nation of Isreal, The Jews, were doing a poor job of it. That is how Jesus addressed the Scribes and Pharisees to their face.
But what did he say to those who God had entrusted to the Scribes and Pharisees…
To them He said, OBEY and do all they tell you (even those things Christ told the leaders were wrong).
He did not say to the crowds, “go look up scripture and second guess the leaders”…He did not say…“obey only in so far as they agree with Scripture”…He said - Obey what they teach and require, for they sit on the seat of Moses.
So here is The Son of God telling the masses of Jews to obey fallible teachers just as if they were infallible for from the perspective of the masses, their leaders, with God granted authority, were to be considered as “infallible” from the standpoint of their teaching but not of their actions.

As an analogy:
A king goes away on an extended journey and leaves a stewad in Charge of the Kingdom. The King remains in contact with the Steward but dispite this the Steward abuses his authority and causes the Kings subjects to do things contrary to the Kings wishes.
When the King returns, who shall bear the brunt of the King’s wrath" Shall the King punish those who were obedient to the rightfully appointed Steward? Shall the King punish those who were obedient to the man whom the King placed in Charge? Or rather would the King punish the corrupt Steward and have mercy on those who, obedient to the King, obeyed the corrupt Steward.

Peace
James

 

[Portrait]

Thanks for the welcome!

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

By way of reply, let me say first that what is pivotol is not so much having to ascertain the truth, but rather the strength of the evidence on which that truth is based; is it rational and does it stand up to critical scrutiny when examined closely? are the questions that need to be asked. It is my contention that the Catholic position is unanswerable simply because it is logically sound and the chief reason for this is that it is not guilty of the logical fallacy of* petitio *principii, or begging the question by taking for granted the fact that it proposes to prove, namely, the inspiration of the bible. Protestants have always rested the inspiration of the bible upon the testimony of the bible itself and that is circular reasoning.

The Catholic does indeed look “to another infallible authority to verify the truth of the Church’s infallibility”, she looks to Christ Himself who established the Church and gave it that authority.

Second, traditional Protestantism has always fallen back upon, following John Calvin, the ‘interior witness of the Holy Spirit’ to prove the inspiration and authority of the bible. Unfortunately this is a highly subjective argument that only really carries weight to those who have an antecedent conviction respecting biblical inspiration. This is tantamount to saying that Sacred Scripture is self-authenticating and would hardly impact the hardened sceptic who would be looking for a more objective and logically reasoned argument. No matter what angle a Protestant approaches the issue of biblical inspiration, their position is not one that is rigorously reasoned, nor is it intellectually satisfying, but more than this it is just plain wrong.

Third, the bible emerged from the Church and not vice-versa; it was the product of the Christian Community and it is the task of the official expounders of the Church to interpret Sacred Scripture for the faithful. Private interpretation only leads to a multiplicity of conflicting and contradictory opinions and their natural corollary, a multiplicity of rival denominations who not only disagree on so-called ‘second order’ issues, but also on central doctrines. After all, if they were all agreed there would be no reason for them to divide.

Fourth, the merit of the Catholic argument is that it is not contingent on any faulty circular reasoning. We are not basing the inspiration of the bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the mere say so of an inspired bible. You are quite correct, that would be a circular and hence unsound argument. The Catholic spiral argument is logically reasoned because the final conclusion (biblical inspiration) is not simply a restatement of its its initial finding (the historical reliability of the bible),and its initial finding (the historical reliability of the bible) is in no way based on the final conclusion (biblical inspiration); the ends do not meet. We begin with a regular historical book, we finish with an inspired historical book; the key point is that we do not use inspiration as the basis of our first premise.

The Catholic argument fully evinces that without the existence of the Church, we could never have known whether the bible was in fact inspired. The Protestant quite rightly believes the bible to be inspired, it is just that his reasons for so believing are wholly inadequate. In reality this conviction can only be based on an authority established by God to inform us that the bible is inspired, and that authority is invested in the Catholic Church. Thus, the same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[beehumble]

But of course you have no way of infallibly discerning that is true, do you? That is a judgement on your part. You could be wrong about the Catholic Church. It could be that Christ does not, and has never intended the Church on Earth to make infallible claims. 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.

The thing is, if one wants to understand Protestantism, this is the wrong question to ask. **Protestants don’t think they come to infallible knowledge on every little thing. ** They do not think that the Church Militant has that capacity - that it is only fulfilled as the Church Triumphant.

Regarding the bolded which is the point of your post:

If you don’t have infallible knowledge, then how can God judge you? If God doesn’t reveal His Truth (capital T here meaning infallible knowledge) to the people of the world, then how can He judge any of us for failing to act on that Truth?

Isn’t it unfair to judge us as having failed to act on Truth when that Truth was not revealed to us?

So this means that Truth has been revealed to us. And then one needs to ask by whom, and to who?

And your Bible and mine tells us - **the pillar and foundation of ALL Truth is the Church. **(1 Tim. 3:15) And of course this is talking about the Catholic Church (it cannot be protestant churches because they do not claim to have all truth but see themselves as not infallible).

see for more, better explanation on this:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

The pillar and foundation

 

[joe370]

Tester, and that authority is the bible to which Romans 13 is referring???

We are told to submit to authorites: (see Romans 13) but that does bestow infallbility.

 

[joe370]

Sola scriptura advocates who reject the notion that the bible can be infallibly interpreted, please answer this question asked by beehumble???

Regarding the bolded which is the point of your post:

If you don’t have infallible knowledge, then how can God judge you? If God doesn’t reveal His Truth (capital T here meaning infallible knowledge) to the people of the world, then how can He judge any of us for failing to act on that Truth?

Isn’t it unfair to judge us as having failed to act on Truth when that Truth was not revealed to us?

So this means that Truth has been revealed to us. And then one needs to ask by whom, and to who?

And your Bible and mine tells us - **the pillar and foundation of ALL Truth is the Church. **(1 Tim. 3:15) And of course this is talking about the Catholic Church (it cannot be protestant churches because they do not claim to have all truth but see themselves as not infallible).

see for more, better explanation on this:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

The pillar and foundation