Trent Horn - Does it matter which Christian denomination you belong to?

[zz912]

Yes, abortion and contraception both. Just looking at these two examples of behavior that is supported in certain church’s tells me something is not quite right there. Can anyone honestly say that Jesus would tolerate opposite viewpoints on two issues such as these?

Not only that, but even denominations changing their teachings over time such as what happened with contraception. Before 1930, ALL Christian denominations taught that contraception was a sin. But one by one, they all changed after 1930. So did God’s moral law change?

 

[benhur]

You make it sound like these differences are insignificant.

No, just part of the current reality. As you say, some are insignificant/minor and others major.

When the NT speaks of having unity of teachings, being of one mind, and believing in the word of truth that was handed down to us, was that just a suggestion?

Agree, much more than a suggestion. It is a strong admonition. It is what the Holy Spirit is working towards, in each of us as individuals, and corporately as churches, congregations. His promise in that perfect guidance is without repentance. That is, He perfectly holds up His end of the bargain/covenant. Now as to our reception and cooperation, or maturity in that, that is something else. That is a work in progress, and last I heard, we, individually or corporately , will not be perfect on this side of life. Yet somehow, God sees us as perfect in Christ.

Oh yes, and how about that authority thing, you know, the pope and magisterium, was that only for those people who profess to be Catholic, do they need special guidance more than the others?

Well, it is what they have chosen to believe is proper governance. Do you think that all others are without governance, or not also have belief’s as to what is proper ?

Blessings

 

[JMM1957]

No, just part of the current reality. As you say, some are insignificant/minor and others major. Agree, much more than a suggestion. It is a strong admonition. It is what the Holy Spirit is working towards, in each of us as individuals, and corporately as churches, congregations. His promise in that perfect guidance is without repentance. That is, He perfectly holds up His end of the bargain/covenant. Now as to our reception and cooperation, or maturity in that, that is something else. That is a work in progress, and last I heard, we, individually or corporately , will not be perfect on this side of life. Yet somehow, God sees us as perfect in Christ. Well, it is what they have chosen to believe is proper governance. Do you think that all others are without governance, or not also have belief’s as to what is proper ?

Blessings

ben, could you please clarify this further, the repentence part?

 

[benhur]

You do realize that by saying she was not infallible even on the canon of the NT, you are saying that the list of the NT has errors? Under your paradigm, just because the Church was in position to be guided does not entail that she followed.

Hi D,

No, I am saying not only was she positioned to receive the guidance but that she also did follow. (Otherwise she was not positioned correctly). I am saying both are by grace and working of the Spirit. I am also saying not to assume it must always be the case,that is unconditional.

Ben, how do we know when the Church is infallible and when she isn’t?

In the end that is what it comes down to. There are many deciders or those given the free will, dignity and responsibility (individuals,churches, magisteriums, councils). There also many factors to consider (tradition, history , scripture, revelation ). The CC has decided, as has the O’s, and then the P’s. It is however, dynamic for one church to say no decision is necessary, for one church, one decider, her magisterium, is always infallible (on faith /morals)

Can a person still call themselves a Christian if they have sincerely held convictions, disagree with what the Church teaches in a council, and start their own denomination?

yes, and CC says they are brethren still, though seperated from fulness.

If yes, when does Jesus’ words of he who hears you and he who rejects you come into play?

It comes into play for it must be discerned just what has the Lord spoken. It is interesting that division comes into play when discerning the few important issues (Nicea Council) and in many issues (Council of Trent).

One concievably could reject who the Lord has sent, and still believe that they are a Christian right? But would they in fact be one?

Again it is under the assumption that the one who is sent is identical to the Sender in all things. Remember the same thing has happened to most covenants. Somewhere down the line some folks get it right and others with variations, even wrong. Look at the Pharisees and Saduccees and others. Look at the traditions and interpretations that crept in. I think the people under them were still “Jewish”, but the Lord certainly harshly criticized false teachings calling them foxes, wolves, sons of Satan (teachings that supplanted the work of the Spirit /major).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So when the Church received His guidance on the matter, was there a possibility that the Church made an error on the canon of the Bible?

Hi zz,

Again, some say the church got it right because she got it right (proper discernment and study of the tradition of the books etc) and others because she could not get it wrong, that unconditionally she is always right on faith and matters.

So yes, there is always a possibility of stepping out of grace, being in error. Like Peter walked perfectly on water, until he took his eyes off Jesus. Just because the first three steps were successful does not guarantee ad infinitum . What is always flawless is Christ’s gaze and outstretched arms towards us to perfectly guide and draw us to Him.

If “once save always saved” is wrong , so is “once right always right” wrong.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Pardon me, but I’m still trying to come up to speed here on what this statement “to position the Church” actually means? Would this be the same as the Lord putting “you” in a position to receive His guidance and “you” rejecting it?

Hi JMM,

No, our default position, left to ourselves, is to reject His perfect guidance. It is by only His grace that we are "positioned’’ with a fertile ground *to receive/obey,follow thru *etc…So what I wrote is that He positions us to receive(not reject).

It is possible then for anyone to reject the guidance of the Holy Spirit, individuals, church’s, councils, popes, magisteriums, etc.

Is not that what you say happened to O’s and P’s, and what we both say happened to councils supporting Arianism way back when etc. ?

So, using your logic, there is no way to know for sure

No.I think I answered this two posts earlier, about the deciders and the factors involved.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

ben, could you please clarify this further, the repentence part?

From Romans 11:29 “for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable”. Context is God’s faithfulness to the Jewish nation though not always reciprocal. I think it can also be applied to promise to guide the church, as I qualified in post #62 .

 

[zz912]

Hi zz,

Again, some say the church got it right because she got it right (proper discernment and study of the tradition of the books etc) and others because she could not get it wrong, that unconditionally she is always right on faith and matters.

So yes, there is always a possibility of stepping out of grace, being in error. Like Peter walked perfectly on water, until he took his eyes off Jesus. Just because the first three steps were successful does not guarantee ad infinitum . What is always flawless is Christ’s gaze and outstretched arms towards us to perfectly guide and draw us to Him.

If “once save always saved” is wrong , so is “once right always right” wrong.

Blessings

You avoided answering my question. Please answer my question.

Was the Church infallible when it declared the canon of the New Testament? Yes or no.

 

[JMM1957]

If “once save always saved” is wrong , so is “once right always right” wrong.

Blessings

Ok ben, lets look at the second part of your statement first, “once right always right.” Can you show me from Scripture where any of the NT authors were unsure of the correctness of their teachings? Did they tell others who were seeking understanding in the Lord, that their (the authors) authority or accuracy should be questioned because they may have misrepresented what Jesus said? If you could just answer this question directly.

 

[benhur]

You avoided answering my question. Please answer my question.

Was the Church infallible when it declared the canon of the New Testament? Yes or no.

The 27 books are infallibly the correct NT, firstly by tradition then council and overall magisterium of the Church.

 

[benhur]

Ok ben, lets look at the second part of your statement first, “once right always right.” Can you show me from Scripture where any of the NT authors were unsure of the correctness of their teachings? Did they tell others who were seeking understanding in the Lord, that their (the authors) authority or accuracy should be questioned because they may have misrepresented what Jesus said? If you could just answer this question directly.

It can not be shown from scripture of any unsureness of teachings or questioning of God breathedness unless so designated ( I can only think of one occasion where Paul says, " I, not the Lord ,sayeth this", about staying single if I recall. Scripture for sure is a good example of once right. It is really after the apostles and Holy Writ that the saying in question, or the challenge occurs, that is to be apostolic, even scriptural thereafter.

Blessings

 

[Memaw]

No. I am saying the Lord saw fit thru the Holy Spirit to position the Church to receive His guidance on the matter.

That’s nice of ya, but the Lord beat you to it. He saw fit to give us HIS Church and the Holy Spirit to guide it till the end of time and that it would NEVER teach error, (and that’s where the New Testament came from) And I think HE has done a bang up job keeping HIS word and always will !!! NOTHING you or I or anyone else can do to change that!! HE is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. If the unfaithful Catholics within the Church can’t destroy HER, what makes anyone think outsiders can !! God Bless, Memaw.

 

[Memaw]

The 27 books are infallibly the correct NT, firstly by tradition then council and overall magisterium of the Church.

And the guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole process !! God Bless, Memaw

 

[benhur]

That’s nice of ya, but the Lord beat you to it. He saw fit to give us HIS Church and the Holy Spirit to guide it till the end of time and that it would NEVER teach error, (and that’s where the New Testament came from) And I think HE has done a bang up job keeping HIS word and always will !!! NOTHING you or I or anyone else can do to change that!! HE is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. If the unfaithful Catholics within the Church can’t destroy HER, what makes anyone think outsiders can !! God Bless, Memaw.

Hi M,

A bit dramatic, to think if you even teach one error you are destroyed.Certainly then one would need to maintain a very defensive,even reactionary, stance.

God’s one true religion before us certainly taught some error, that is kind of like the wheat was in with the tares .Yet Israel, Judaism was not destroyed. In fact, despite her imperfections, she delivered the Messiah quite perfectly, as planned, and we reap the benefits.

So to Christ the Good Shepherd will have Himself a spotless bride in due time, as planned.

Blessings

PS. I like your militancy, your fervor. Indeed, as you kind of say, His Truth is marching onward ! Allelulia !

 

[JMM1957]

It can not be shown from scripture of any unsureness of teachings or questioning of God breathedness unless so designated ( I can only think of one occasion where Paul says, " I, not the Lord ,sayeth this", about staying single if I recall. Scripture for sure is a good example of once right. It is really after the apostles and Holy Writ that the saying in question, or the challenge occurs, that is to be apostolic, even scriptural thereafter.

Blessings

That’s good, we agree then that the Apostles teachings/writings unquestionably are the correct teaching of our Lord, and they can be trusted. And further, after the Lord’s death, instruction or transmission of teachings by the Apostles themselves came by way of the OT Scriptures, and some of the earliest NT letters that were already in use, even though these were not formally declared as inspired yet. The bottom line is that the Apostles interpretation of Scripture was trustworthy, and any theologically related statements they may have made outside of Scripture itself, were to be considered trustworthy. We know that the Holy Spirit was at work with them as promised, guiding them into understanding of difficult teachings, and enlightening them on how to deal with issues that came up in the Church, in which you couldn’t go to a certain verse in Scripture to get a precise answer.

So, saying all of this, and I assume you would agree with it so far, then how can you deny that it would not be possible for a single Church to be established by Jesus to carry out the mission of teaching trustworthy doctrine, not in just some cases, but in all cases? If the Apostles were completely trustworthy, then how is it that their carefully chosen successors would not be trustworthy in doctrine also? Did the Holy Spirit lose some effectiveness after the Apostolic era was over? Even though Scripture indicates that false teachers would appear and lead people astray, is it not still possible that the fullness of these trustworthy teachings and doctrines could be preserved within that one true Church, and the way to salvation could be found there? Doesn’t seem too difficult a task for God to accomplish.

 

[zz912]

The 27 books are infallibly the correct NT, firstly by tradition then council and overall magisterium of the Church.

You keep avoiding giving simple answers to simple questions.

So for well over 1000 years, the Church has been infallible in its declaration of the NT canon. Yes or No?

 

[JMM1957]

No, I am saying not only was she positioned to receive the guidance but that she also did follow. (Otherwise she was not positioned correctly). I am saying both are by grace and working of the Spirit. I am also saying not to assume it must always be the case, that is unconditional. In the end that is what it comes down to.

So by grace and the workings of the Spirit, the Church got the final canon of Scripture correctly established and closed at a council. And you seem to be saying that even though the Catholic Church was guided to get the canon correct, she could err in other doctrine that came from her. I’m just wondering, do you also think that any church that calls itself Christian could at some point be led by grace and the Spirit to get a another piece of the pie in place correctly, so that all in all, we have a complete pie made up of doctrinal truth’s, but they all come from different sources, because this seems to be what you are implying. If that is correct, then I ask, how is a believer or would be believer to find that one set of Truth’s in one place, which common sense and logic tells me should be the way the Spirit would work. Your reasoning seems to eventually lose steam when you follow the process through the rest of the way to its end, at least I think so. However, you being a Protestant, I can certainly understand why you “must” think this way, that is, rejecting a single Church where all Truth can be found.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi Ben,

My paradigm is that she was** never infallible,** and that her guidance was always conditional. It does not presume God’s graces no matter what.

The 27 books are** infallibly **the correct NT, firstly by tradition then council and overall magisterium of the Church.

Wait a minute, that same Church that you said was NEVER infallible is the same Church that constructed the canon of the NT. You cannot say she was NEVER infallible and at the same time say she got it right on the NT. That would at least entail that when constructing the NT, she was infallible.

I asked;

Can a person still call themselves a Christian if they have sincerely held convictions, disagree with what the Church teaches in a council, and start their own denomination?

Your reply:

yes

So, based on what you have said, if I was a first century Christian, at the time of the Council of Jerusalem, and sincerely believed that the gentiles should be circumcised, it would:

A.) Be okay to say the council got it wrong on circumcision.
B.) Start my own denomination, insisting that the gentiles be circumcised.
C.) The Apostles should have no problem with my followers and I calling ourselves Christian, after all, as you have stated, the Church was NEVER infallible.

If “once save always saved” is wrong , so is “once right always right” wrong.

Is this your infallible statement? Because I do not see how the one necessarily entails the other. Can you show me in the Bible that ORAR is wrong?

There are many deciders or those given the free will, dignity and responsibility (individuals,churches, magisteriums, councils). There also many factors to consider (**tradition, history **, scripture, revelation ).

So why do you not accept the deuterocanonicals as scripture? Because for 2000 years the Church HAS accepted them as scriptural. Seems to fit the tradition, history, magisterium, councils paradigm. It may not fit your individual paradigm, but if it is truly up to the individual, we could have a million different bibles.

 

[Memaw]

Hi M,

A bit dramatic, to think if you even teach one error you are destroyed.Certainly then one would need to maintain a very defensive,even reactionary, stance.

God’s one true religion before us certainly taught some error, that is kind of like the wheat was in with the tares .Yet Israel, Judaism was not destroyed. In fact, despite her imperfections, she delivered the Messiah quite perfectly, as planned, and we reap the benefits.

So to Christ the Good Shepherd will have Himself a spotless bride in due time, as planned.

Blessings

PS. I like your militancy, your fervor. Indeed, as you kind of say, His Truth is marching onward ! Allelulia !

Jesus didn’t say that some people wouldn’t teach error, ( we see that all around us.) Jesus said HIS Church would NOT teach error. Show me one authentic teaching of the Catholic Church that is in error to what Jesus taught. Christs Catholic Church has been here for over 2,000 years and will be here till the “End of Time”, as Jesus promised. If one truly learns what the Church actually does teach and why, then I think that road will lead them to “Rome” so to speak. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JMM1957]

Jesus didn’t say that some people wouldn’t teach error, ( we see that all around us.) Jesus said HIS Church would NOT teach error. Show me one authentic teaching of the Catholic Church that is in error to what Jesus taught. Christs Catholic Church has been here for over 2,000 years and will be here till the “End of Time”, as Jesus promised. If one truly learns what the Church actually does teach and why, then I think that road will lead them to “Rome” so to speak. God Bless, Memaw

Just “one” is all that I need to see also, and that will be sufficient.