To live by faith

[rinnie]

RINNIE: I’ve been told the reason Christ asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” was to give Peter a chance to repent for the 3 times he denied Jesus.

Actually Peter did repent. Remember when he heard the crow he ran and cried. Jesus knew Peter was sorry and actually the reason Jesus asked him 3 times is because indeed he denied Jesus 3 times. But it was also Jesus’s way of saying Peter I know you betrayed me. And Peter also knew Jesus knew, because remember how he said Lord you know everything. But it is also how Jesus said ( in my words now,) Peter I know you screwed up but you are still the leader. I didn’t take that away from you. I actually learned that in a Catholic Bible study so I know that’s the way the Church teaches it,

 

[rinnie]

Thanks Rinnie,

You write:

“That is why it is a special calling from God to become a Priest. Not all are called. But we can be priests in the sense that we can be Christ Like. But I Craig do not have the power like I said to define scripture, Marry People, Baptise People, Forgive sins of others. Only God can do that, and it is through a Priest that he works”.

I can respect your opinion. I also have a genuine love for true Catholics.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

AND I HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR YOU ALSO CRAIG. HAPPY STUDYING. HOPE YOU FIND THE ANSWERS YOU ARE LOOKING FOR,. IF NOT KEEP TRYING. THEY ARE HERE.

 

[benedictus2]

I had asked for reasonable theological proof.

(I found many of the other things you said helpful, thanks for taking the time to explain them.)

Hi Snowy,

I’d like to answer this and maybe give you some links.

But before I do that, I just want to know where you’re at with this doctrine?

Have you read the doctrine on the Assumption and the reasons given because if not then I would start from there.

 

[benedictus2]

That is a total misunderstanding of the importance and the whole point of what we’re talking about. The central question of this thread has become, “how do we know what is true?” Authority and knowing the source of doctrine, trusting in what we know to be fallible (our private interpretations of the Bible) vs. what we believe to be infallible (the Magesterium’s interpretation of the Bible), is critically important to all our knowledge of doctrine! We are discussing that which is fundamental to our knowledge of truth and to the perfection of our relationships with Jesus.

Pride has absolutely nothing to do with it. The point (and I know Craig understands this) of all the “chicken or the egg” and “who’s boss” is this: “How do we know what is true?” A crucial question for anyone serious about his or her Christian life, for Christian life is relationship with one who once called Himself “the truth.”

EXCELLENT CLARIFICATION!

 

[benedictus2]

Actually Peter did repent. Remember when he heard the crow he ran and cried. Jesus knew Peter was sorry and actually the reason Jesus asked him 3 times is because indeed he denied Jesus 3 times. But it was also Jesus’s way of saying Peter I know you betrayed me. And Peter also knew Jesus knew, because remember how he said Lord you know everything. But it is also how Jesus said ( in my words now,) Peter I know you screwed up but you are still the leader. I didn’t take that away from you. I actually learned that in a Catholic Bible study so I know that’s the way the Church teaches it,

Yeah! A few years ago, I was meditating on Peter’s denial particularly that moment his eyes met Jesus’s after the cock crowed. I just saw this great love and compassion in Jesus’s eyes for him. There was no “I told you so”, no “how could you?”. Just this compassion for Peter, feeling his pain and guilt at denying Him, knowing that he would be berating himself and the great regret that followed.

And this compassion was given expression when He gave Peter a chance to take back what he thought he had lost, when he drew from him the 3 affirmations. Christ didn’t need to ask him, He knew Peter was sorry. But he wanted to give Peter the peace that comes from letting him hear himself say it.

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette,

In your post you write:

“For Craig, who is the OP, it must be particularly difficult to take in and absorb so much information in such a short period. Quite a balancing act between CA and his personal life and work! It amounts to a huge “information overload.”

I am just curious what you mean by the term OP you use in your post here?

Also what do you mean by the term CA as you use it here?

You have raised my curiosity and I look forward to your explanations. I know you will not disappoint me, in this connection, and you will respond to my questions.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

Why Craig I am surprised by your questions. Does OP not mean “original poster” meaning the person who started the thead and CA is Catholic Answers of course.

Please will everyone pray that my computer is not corrupt. I had a big problem with email and for a months technicians looked at the computer - reinstalled Microsoft Office etc etc and then I sent it to my son’s company in Cape Town and everything was OK and last night I was having problems again. I am now communicating thru my husband’s computer.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

FOR LIEF ERIKSON

A reply to Post Number 376.

In Post 376, you posed three significant and important points, in connection with the Apostles’ testimony. You ably write:

"Thanks. I’m glad we can agree on some more things, now! Though I don’t agree with your interpretive shift of the word “apostles” to “apostolic testimony.” I have three points regarding this, for you.

1. What do you do with the lack of scriptural support for this interpretation? Neither of the two passages that refer to the foundation of the apostles refers to “testimony.” The two passages that explicitly talk about it just refer to “the apostles” themselves. Their “names” are written on the foundations that support the wall, not their books of the Bible.
2. Also, we still have Acts 1:20, which shows Matthias receive the place of “apostleship” that Judas left vacant. So we know, scripturally, that the apostles were appointing successors. And we also, of course, have heard about the reality of apostolic succession from the Early Church (the best interpretive source we could hope for), the friends of the apostles who went to martyrdom for the faith, men of great integrity who claimed to be duly appointed successors of the apostles. Whether or not you believe in their infallibility regarding matters of Sacred Tradition, they still are the very best available interpretive and historical witness to the meanings and deeds of the apostles.
3. I have one further point, regarding this. The names of all twelve of the apostles were written on the foundations of the wall, in Revelation. However, only three of the original 12 apostles wrote books of the New Testament (John, Peter and Matthew). Nonetheless, apostles like Simon the Zealot, Matthias and Bartholemew have their names written on foundation stones of the Church, even though they aren’t even quoted in the Scripture. It is very hard for me to see the scriptural testimony of the apostles as the way they serve as eternal foundations of the Church, when only three of them wrote books of the Bible, and some of them aren’t even quoted in Scripture. Doesn’t that make sense to you?"

These three points are substantial and carry with them important implications in our understanding of truth.

I take them most seriously, indeed, and I commend you for raising the three points.

Each point is deserving of a little detail, so I propose to tacke your points in a series of three separate posts. I have relied on God’s leading and the meaning of the scriptures in responding to these excellent points you have raised.

May God bless you richly, In Christ Craig

 

[Cinette]

Beautiful expression of Christian devotion, Cinette. I could feel that in your words. God Bless you

Thank you for your gracious remark Tom. There is no other happiness in this world that compares with the peace of God in our lives. That is why we become on fire and want to share our Faith and knowledge of God with everyone.

The yearning for God in inbuilt - it is part of our make up, part of our configuration. We have just to plug in. Once when I was trying to explain the Holy Spirit to someone I got the idea of comparing the HS with an operating system. Later, as I reflected further I realised that one can compare the Trinity to a computer, the Father (the power), Word (Son) and operating system (Spirit). You cannot have one without the other.

Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

The yearning for God in inbuilt - it is part of our make up, part of our configuration.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

POST ONE (IN A SERIES OF THREE) IN RESPONSE TO POST 376

FOR LIEF ERIKSON,

In your first point, in Post 376 you observe:

""Thanks. I’m glad we can agree on some more things, now! Though I don’t agree with your interpretive shift of the word “apostles” to “apostolic testimony.” I have three points regarding this, for you.

1. What do you do with the lack of scriptural support for this interpretation? Neither of the two passages that refer to the foundation of the apostles refers to “testimony.” The two passages that explicitly talk about it just refer to “the apostles” themselves. Their “names” are written on the foundations that support the wall, not their books of the Bible. "

Lief, there is no lack of scriptural support for the truth that the foundation of the apostles and prophets - alluded to in Ephesians 2:20 - and in Revelation 21, does in fact refer to their “testimony”; and not simply to their human personalities alone.

We need to find in scripture where this principle is explicated for us. Does scripture lay a basis for this claim? Does scripture give us a clue, in this connection? Yes, it does!

Please read and study Matthew 16:15-18. Christ is about to reveal some very important truths concerning the Church. The above passage is the first mention of the Church in the Bible, and Jesus reveals that His Church (the universal, catholic church, not the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH) is going to be founded upon Peter and his confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Christ), the Son of the living God.

In one sense, of course, Jesus Himself is the foundation of the Church - and I have argued for this truth with you previously - for without Him there would be no Church. Please read and mark well here, 1 Corinthians 3:11. But in another, very practical, sense Peter and his confession and preaching were the foundation on which the Church was built on the first day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-42; see also Ephesians 2:19-22.)

Now when these scriptures are read together, in their context, it is apparent that - in the practical sense - Peter’s confession and preaching was the apostolic foundation on which the Church was built. This, my dear friend, is nothing less than apostolic testimony. The conclusion is inescapable.

When, therefore, we read in Revelation 21 of the TWELVE FOUNDATIONS we need not doubt, that this refers to the apostolic testimony. Do you see the logic here? Does this make sense to you?

Christ is the Master-Builder of His Church, not us. It is Christ’s Church, and His alone.

I do not wish to offend you; however, God’s Church is not built on the Person of Christ as confessed by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH but on the PERSON OF CHRIST AS CONFESSED BY PETER. This conclusion accords faithfully with the scriptures I have explained to you.

Even a holy man, like Peter, cannot in his human fallibility provide the foundation for Christ’s universal/catholic (small c catholic) Church. Only Christ Himself, the true ROCK and THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE, together with the NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES AND PROPHETS’ TESTIMONY ABOUT CHRIST, comprise the foundation of the true Church.

Scripture declares this! Scripture points to this conclusion!

It is Christ’s Church, not ours - that’s why true Catholics and true Protestants enter the Church through this true foundation of Christ and the Apostles’ testimony.

May God bless you richly, In Christ Craig

 

[Lief_Erikson]

FOR LIEF ERIKSON

A reply to Post Number 376.

In Post 376, you posed three significant and important points, in connection with the Apostles’ testimony. You ably write:

"Thanks. I’m glad we can agree on some more things, now! Though I don’t agree with your interpretive shift of the word “apostles” to “apostolic testimony.” I have three points regarding this, for you.

1. What do you do with the lack of scriptural support for this interpretation? Neither of the two passages that refer to the foundation of the apostles refers to “testimony.” The two passages that explicitly talk about it just refer to “the apostles” themselves. Their “names” are written on the foundations that support the wall, not their books of the Bible.
2. Also, we still have Acts 1:20, which shows Matthias receive the place of “apostleship” that Judas left vacant. So we know, scripturally, that the apostles were appointing successors. And we also, of course, have heard about the reality of apostolic succession from the Early Church (the best interpretive source we could hope for), the friends of the apostles who went to martyrdom for the faith, men of great integrity who claimed to be duly appointed successors of the apostles. Whether or not you believe in their infallibility regarding matters of Sacred Tradition, they still are the very best available interpretive and historical witness to the meanings and deeds of the apostles.
3. I have one further point, regarding this. The names of all twelve of the apostles were written on the foundations of the wall, in Revelation. However, only three of the original 12 apostles wrote books of the New Testament (John, Peter and Matthew). Nonetheless, apostles like Simon the Zealot, Matthias and Bartholemew have their names written on foundation stones of the Church, even though they aren’t even quoted in the Scripture. It is very hard for me to see the scriptural testimony of the apostles as the way they serve as eternal foundations of the Church, when only three of them wrote books of the Bible, and some of them aren’t even quoted in Scripture. Doesn’t that make sense to you?"

These three points are substantial and carry with them important implications in our understanding of truth.

I take them most seriously, indeed, and I commend you for raising the three points.

Each point is deserving of a little detail, so I propose to tacke your points in a series of three separate posts. I have relied on God’s leading and the meaning of the scriptures in responding to these excellent points you have raised.

May God bless you richly, In Christ Craig

I am certainly looking forward to your reply. And thank-you for taking your time and promising detail in your upcoming responses.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

POST TWO (IN A SERIES OF THREE) IN RESPONSE TO POST 376

FOR LIEF ERIKSON,

Hi Lief,

In point two of Post 376, you observe:

“2. Also, we still have Acts 1:20, which shows Matthias receive the place of “apostleship” that Judas left vacant. So we know, scripturally, that the apostles were appointing successors. And we also, of course, have heard about the reality of apostolic succession from the Early Church (the best interpretive source we could hope for), the friends of the apostles who went to martyrdom for the faith, men of great integrity who claimed to be duly appointed successors of the apostles. Whether or not you believe in their infallibility regarding matters of Sacred Tradition, they still are the very best available interpretive and historical witness to the meanings and deeds of the apostles.”

I do not believe “Apostolic Succession” per se is the point of Acts 1:20. In fact, I think, that it supports the position that the Apostles were 12 FOUNDATION WITNESSES TO CHRIST AND THE GOSPEL. Please let me explain why I say this.

Judas had been given the privileged position of being one of THE TWELVE FOUNDATION WITNESSES TO CHRIST AND THE GOSPEL. However, foolishly, he chose to betray his Lord. It was, though, this APOSTASY that created the vacancy, not merely his DEATH.

Please observe that the death of James, see Acts 12:2, in contradistinction, created no vacancy - his “lot” remained secure for him to take up again in the resurrection.

Now Judas had, by God’s gracious call, been one of the TWELVE FOUNDATION WITNESSES TO CHRIST AND THE GOSPEL. There were now only 11.

Psalm 69:25 alludes to the cursed betrayal and tragic loss of Judas. The block of land bought with money tainted by the sin of Judas was to be in a permanently unclean, cursed state.

Psalm 109:8 declares:

“May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.”

You could translate Acts 1:20 to have this meaning:

‘May another take his BISHOPRIC/PLACE OF LEADERSHIP.’

The Greek word here is EPISKOPOS not meaning a Roman Catholic Bishop; but denoting the meaning of OVERSEERSHIP as in 1 Timothy 3:1; the work of an OVERSEER (episkopos), see and read well Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25.

Therefore, with this explanation and groundwork laid, the LXX (Septuagint) of Psalm 109:8 says let another TAKE…

Take what, I ask? The Bishopric in the Roman Catholic Church? No, of course not. The Roman Catholic Church developed later and appeared as an historical phenomena.

Take what, then? Matthias was approved by the Lord to take his place as one of the FOUNDATIONAL APOSTLES THAT GAVE WITNESS TO CHRIST AND HIS GOSPEL.

Matthias was NUMBERED WITH/ADDED TO …or counted in with THE ELEVEN APOSTLES. These facts, point clearly, that the New Testament itself knows nothing of apostolic succession, per se, but rather foundational apostolic witness to Christ and the gospel, see 1 Corinthians 15:5.

Finally, your appeal to the Early Church Fathers, in this connection, carries no infallible weight. The scriptures tell us almost nothing about most of the Apostles. Of the 12, it is obvious that Peter and John seem to have been as important in the Church as Paul and the Lord’s Brother James.

The important thing is that an Apostle was a FOUNDATION WITNESS TO CHRIST AND HIS GOSPEL AND WAS AN EYE-WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTION. An Apostle needed to have been a faithful disciple with the Lord from the first so he could bear full witness to Him. Please compare Acts 10:36-41; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:1-10. He would also have known Jesus so well he could be certain that it was the man CRUCIFIED they met in RESURRECTION.

It is these considerations that cause me to reject the ROMAN CATHOLIC DOGMA OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION and affirm the NEW TESTAMENT DOGMA OF THE APOSTLES AS FOUNDATION WITNESSES TO CHRIST AND HIS GOSPEL.

May god richly bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Lief_Erikson]

POST ONE (IN A SERIES OF THREE) IN RESPONSE TO POST 376

FOR LIEF ERIKSON,

In your first point, in Post 376 you observe:

""Thanks. I’m glad we can agree on some more things, now! Though I don’t agree with your interpretive shift of the word “apostles” to “apostolic testimony.” I have three points regarding this, for you.

1. What do you do with the lack of scriptural support for this interpretation? Neither of the two passages that refer to the foundation of the apostles refers to “testimony.” The two passages that explicitly talk about it just refer to “the apostles” themselves. Their “names” are written on the foundations that support the wall, not their books of the Bible. "

Lief, there is no lack of scriptural support for the truth that the foundation of the apostles and prophets - alluded to in Ephesians 2:20 - and in Revelation 21, does in fact refer to their “testimony”; and not simply to their human personalities alone.

We need to find in scripture where this principle is explicated for us. Does scripture lay a basis for this claim? Does scripture give us a clue, in this connection? Yes, it does!

Please read and study Matthew 16:15-18. Christ is about to reveal some very important truths concerning the Church. The above passage is the first mention of the Church in the Bible, and Jesus reveals that His Church (the universal, catholic church, not the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH) is going to be founded upon Peter and his confession of Jesus as the Messiah (Christ), the Son of the living God.

If the primary meaning of the rock, in this verse, is the confession, how come Peter is constantly referred to as “the rock” in Scripture? He is named Cephas, which means “rock,” by Jesus (John 1:42). We see him continually called by this name in such passages as Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, or I Cor. 15:5. So scripture provides overwhelming evidence that the rock Jesus was speaking about was Peter himself. He named the apostle “rock.” We do not hear the confession explicitly referred to as “rock” in any subsequent passage. So the weight of scripture rests firmly on the person of Peter being the rock.

A secondary meaning is, I believe, that the confession is the rock, for even if this is not clear from the verses that refer to the “rock,” one can see theologically how it might be true. I believe Origen, one of the Early Church Fathers, talked about how in his mind the confession was the rock. He also said Peter, as a person, was the rock. So he saw both meanings as true. The primary meaning has to be Peter, though, because he is the one referred to as Cephas, the rock, from then on, whereas the confession never is.

If a secondary meaning of these verses is that the confession is the rock, then logically, this would also be a secondary meaning of the references to the apostles as foundations of the Church. The primary meaning, if this parallels the case of Peter from Matthew 16, would be that the apostles themselves are the rock. The secondary meaning would be that their testimony is.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

In one sense, of course, Jesus Himself is the foundation of the Church - and I have argued for this truth with you previously - for without Him there would be no Church. Please read and mark well here, 1 Corinthians 3:11.

I believe that Christ and the apostles are the foundation of the Church. Christ Jesus is indeed the chief cornerstone of the Church, the bedrock on which it stands. From Him the apostles receive the capacity to serve God.

But in another, very practical, sense Peter and his confession and preaching were the foundation on which the Church was built on the first day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-42; see also Ephesians 2:19-22.)

The Spirit did indeed come upon many through the testimony, which can be seen as making the testimony a “rock.” He came first upon the apostles, though, empowering them to give the testimony. Thus they were the rock before their testimony served as such. The man who gave the testimony in this scene was actually named “the rock” (Cephas). That has meaning.

Ephesians 2:19-22 says “the apostles” are the foundation, not the apostolic testimony. Conversion of sinners is part of the context though, I agree. I do see this as similar to what we read in Acts 1-2. The Spirit came upon the apostles, enabling them to give the testimony and empowering and fortifying them, empowering them to function as the “rock,” just as Ephesians 2 refers to “the apostles” as the foundation. Then, they could present “the rock” of testimony to many, as we read in Acts.

Testimony is never referred to explicitly in either of these two passages as a “rock.” That word is never used. The testimony is powerful, though, that much is clear from scripture. My belief that the testimony is also the rock comes primarily from fact that the Early Church interpreted it this way, seeing both the apostles and the apostolic testimony as rocks, and also the view makes theological sense, even if it is not clear from the words of scripture.

Now when these scriptures are read together, in their context, it is apparent that - in the practical sense - Peter’s confession and preaching was the apostolic foundation on which the Church was built. This, my dear friend, is nothing less than apostolic testimony. The conclusion is inescapable.

What is inescapable is that St. Paul calls Peter “Cephas” constantly, and Jesus named Peter “Cephas.” Thus Peter himself was, according to Jesus and Paul, in fully clear and numerous verses of scripture, “the rock.” I believe this applies to the other apostles too, for they were united with Peter in their task, but most of all it must refer to Peter, as he was specifically given that name. Thus the fact that the apostles are the rock is clearly inescapable. Scriptural support for the belief that the confession is the rock is far more elusive. There is nothing explicit that says it. This seems mainly a theologically sound belief, in line with the teaching of the Early Church, though far from clear in scripture, and obviously not the primary meaning of the verses, given Peter’s name, Cephas.

Christ is the Master-Builder of His Church, not us. It is Christ’s Church, and His alone.

With this, I entirely agree. Well, except that I believe He has given authority over it to Mary also, but that’s another matter.

A chief cause of your difficulties with the Catholic Church’s Magesterium is that you still believe it is made up of men coming to human conclusions, rather than men coming to the Holy Spirit’s conclusions (as the authors of Scripture did). We believe Christ rules His Church and is its Chief Cornerstone and Master-Builder. He is the final authority, and He reigns.

He also told Peter through a parable that He would appoint a steward to rule His servants on Earth and give them “their allowance of food at the proper time” (Luke 12:41-48). Later, after His resurrection, He asked Peter to feed His sheep, as their shepherd.

Continuing in the next post . . .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Even a holy man, like Peter, cannot in his human fallibility provide the foundation for Christ’s universal/catholic (small c catholic) Church. Only Christ Himself, the true ROCK and THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE, together with the NEW TESTAMENT APOSTLES AND PROPHETS’ TESTIMONY ABOUT CHRIST, comprise the foundation of the true Church.

Scripture declares this! Scripture points to this conclusion!

For support for this view, you’ve turned to some passages that nowhere explicitly refer to the testimony as the “rock.” In fact, the one in Matthew, as we can see from the numerous references to Peter as “Cephas,” refers to an apostle by name as “the rock.” The verses from Acts show power coming through testimony, but they first show with the empowering of the apostles, which suggests that the Spirit’s movement makes these men the rock before the man named “the rock” can deliver the rock to many. Ephesians refers to “the apostles” as the foundation, and does not say apostolic testimony.

None of the passages you’ve provided say that testimony, or even explicitly the confession of Peter, are the rock. Instead, they damage your position further by showing that an apostle is named “the rock,” and that the apostles are empowered by the Spirit before the Spirit moves through their testimony, which attests to the significance of the message bearers rather than reserving the meaning of “rock” to the testimony. In fact, the word “rock” is nowhere used in this section of the Bible, except in Peter’s name. And the Spirit moves first into the apostles and then through their mouths, which puts their significance as rock first (if rock is even related to these verses, beyond its explicit reference in Peter’s name), and second to the testimony they interpret (2:16, 25) and reveal.

It is Christ’s Church, not ours

It is Christ’s Church. Christ also inherited the Kingdom of David, according to scriptural prophecy. The Kingdom of David was ruled by a king who managed the realm through one steward!

We read about the steward of the house of David in Isaiah 22:20-23:
“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father.

Please consider this verse carefully, and compare this steward of the kingdom who is described as a “peg [in] a firm place,” with the man named the “Cephas,” in Matthew, this man who would have “the key to the house of David,” with the man who would be given “the keys of Kingdom of Heaven,” this man who would be “a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah,” with the one Jesus named the shepherd of His sheep.

Christ rules, but He rules in the way He chooses to rule, which is over the spiritual “Kingdom of David,” the House of Judah that had a steward managing its people for the king, and as Jesus told Peter in the Luke 12:41-48, His new Kingdom too, in a like manner to the House of David, has a steward whose task is to manage the servants well.

I don’t have time tonight to write anything further. This will do, I think, as a response to Part 1 of your response. I’m sorry I repeated myself in several places, in this long-winded 3 part reply. Oh well. Anyway, I await your reply and will prepare my replies to your other two posts.

 

[Snowy]

That is a total misunderstanding of the importance and the whole point of what we’re talking about. The central question of this thread has become, “how do we know what is true?” Authority and knowing the source of doctrine, trusting in what we know to be fallible (our private interpretations of the Bible) vs. what we believe to be infallible (the Magesterium’s interpretation of the Bible), is critically important to all our knowledge of doctrine! We are discussing that which is fundamental to our knowledge of truth and to the perfection of our relationships with Jesus.

Pride has absolutely nothing to do with it. The point (and I know Craig understands this) of all the “chicken or the egg” and “who’s boss” is this: “How do we know what is true?” A crucial question for anyone serious about his or her Christian life, for Christian life is relationship with one who once called Himself “the truth.”

I hope I didn’t sound like I was accusing anyone of being a prideful sinner. What I meant was that you all can exchange arguments till kingdom come and that’s not going to change the fact, as I see it, that the solution to the underlying problem of folks not seeing the one truth the same way won’t get solved through theology. Does anyone here really believe that if they could just illuminate the arguments for papal infallibility with the right light at the right angle and through the right prism, Craig would go “hallelujah” and join our ranks? (I’m not trying to discourage any of you from practicing your theological abilities, God forbid.)

When I read the Catholic arguments expounded here, my fallible interpretation is that the Catholic apologists’ priorities are: (absolutely no offense meant)

1. Get Craig, who is such a nice guy, to Heaven. (That is, convert him.)
2. Understand Craig’s position, but only to better know how to tackle the next round of arguments.
3. Polish one’s apologetic abilities.

I’m afraid I don’t see anyone seriously considering that Craig’s interpretations might be right, or at least as right as anyone else’s. I can also see how impossible that would be for someone who believes that his views are backed by papal infallibility.

When I read Craig’s arguments, I believe that he is:

1. Wanting to learn about Catholics.
2. Putting his beliefs to the test with an open mind.
3. Trying to have Catholics understand why he is not a Catholic and still as much a Christian as anyone else.

Worst of all, I feel that as a Catholic my bishops don’t give me any wiggle room to tell Craig that he could very well be right about things **no one **really knows for sure. Do I really have to choose between Catholicism and reasonable humility? I didn’t become a Catholic because I was afraid of unknowns and needed everything to be spelled out for me.

 

[benedictus2]

I hope I didn’t sound like I was accusing anyone of being a prideful sinner. What I meant was that you all can exchange arguments till kingdom come and that’s not going to change the fact, as I see it, that the solution to the underlying problem of folks not seeing the one truth the same way won’t get solved through theology. Does anyone here really believe that if they could just illuminate the arguments for papal infallibility with the right light at the right angle and through the right prism, Craig would go “hallelujah” and join our ranks? (I’m not trying to discourage any of you from practicing your theological abilities, God forbid.)

When I read the Catholic arguments expounded here, my fallible interpretation is that the Catholic apologists’ priorities are: (absolutely no offense meant)

1. Get Craig, who is such a nice guy, to Heaven. (That is, convert him.)
2. Understand Craig’s position, but only to better know how to tackle the next round of arguments.
3. Polish one’s apologetic abilities.

I’m afraid I don’t see anyone seriously considering that Craig’s interpretations might be right, or at least as right as anyone else’s. I can also see how impossible that would be for someone who believes that his views are backed by papal infallibility.

When I read Craig’s arguments, I believe that he is:

1. Wanting to learn about Catholics.
2. Putting his beliefs to the test with an open mind.
3. Trying to have Catholics understand why he is not a Catholic and still as much a Christian as anyone else.

Worst of all, I feel that as a Catholic my bishops don’t give me any wiggle room to tell Craig that he could very well be right about things **no one **really knows for sure. Do I really have to choose between Catholicism and reasonable humility? I didn’t become a Catholic because I was afraid of unknowns and needed everything to be spelled out for me.

I don’t think anyone here is trying to get Craig to convert to get him to heaven. That to me is a really ridiculous assertion…

The point being discussed here is whether it is possible to arrive at the truth or error of Papal Infallibility. Is this something that we can rationally arrive at based on the Scripture and simple reasoning?

I have read a lot of conversion stories where Papa lInfallibility has been the stumbling block and yet in the end they did see the truth of this.

Now Craig may well not see that for all his and our efforts and that is okay. But do you just bury this issue and everyone lives happily ever after?

As I stated on a previous post, in the end what the main issue between protestants and Catholics is Papal Infallibility. Not Mary, not the Eucharist, not every other doctrine, but Papal Infallibity.

Because if it can be established that Papal Infallibility is true, then it follows that all the other doctrines are true.

If it can be ascertained that the Magisterium has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit not to preach error, then every pronouncement of the magisterium can be accepted as truth.

What you may fail to realize is that the infallibility of the Bible is tied to Papal infallibility.

At the bottom of it all is did Christ do as he promised and preserved His Church from the gates of Hell?

 

[Snowy]

Hi Snowy,

I’d like to answer this and maybe give you some links.

But before I do that, I just want to know where you’re at with this doctrine?

Have you read the doctrine on the Assumption and the reasons given because if not then I would start from there.

My question was just an example of something I believe can only be accepted through faith. I appreciate your offer and your disarming goodness, Benedictus, but I cannot ask you to spend your time using theology to help me believe something that ultimately I’ll either have to accept through faith or take with a grain of salt. I have much reading to do (finishing the NT, for example) before I worry about the doctrine on the Assumption.

I pray to see, and I see better every day, so I’m not worried at this time about things I cannot see yet with my present glasses. My faith in the Virgin is unshakable, even if at the present time I take the minor details about her with a grain of salt.

 

[Snowy]

I don’t think anyone here is trying to get Craig to convert to get him to heaven. That to me is a really ridiculous assertion…

The point being discussed here is whether it is possible to arrive at the truth or error of Papal Infallibility. Is this something that we can rationally arrive at based on the Scripture and simple reasoning?

I have read a lot of conversion stories where Papa lInfallibility has been the stumbling block and yet in the end they did see the truth of this.

Now Craig may well not see that for all his and our efforts and that is okay. But do you just bury this issue and everyone lives happily ever after?

As I stated on a previous post, in the end what the main issue between protestants and Catholics is Papal Infallibility. Not Mary, not the Eucharist, not every other doctrine, but Papal Infallibity.

Because if it can be established that Papal Infallibility is true, then it follows that all the other doctrines are true.

If it can be ascertained that the Magisterium has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit not to preach error, then every pronouncement of the magisterium can be accepted as truth.

What you may fail to realize is that the infallibility of the Bible is tied to Papal infallibility.

At the bottom of it all is did Christ do as he promised and preserved His Church from the gates of Hell?

You can take the “getting Craig to Heaven” part as poetic license, Benedictus. I’m not a mind reader, just a fallible interpreter.

How can you be so sure that Christ didn’t preserve his Church by not allowing the Greeks to be bullied by some peckerhead from Rome, Benedictus? (You don’t need to answer.)

 

[Snowy]

Pride has absolutely nothing to do with it. The point . . .] is this: “How do we know what is true?” A crucial question for anyone serious about his or her Christian life, . . .]

Ahem.