Truth: is it relative or not?

[philophoser]

Yes, and suppose it was Jesus who said it to Peter.

That would be a great reason to believe it. There is no evidence that this is the case, though, that’s the problem.

Taking into account the author of a view and the reasons given to believe it are important. Views are not better simply by virtue of being old, or because lot’s of people think they’re true. Views are good or bad in their relation to conforming with the Truth.

Didn’t Paul rebuke Peter for certain erroneous teachings in Acts? Or maybe Galatians? All people are fallible.

 

[Poet]

From speaking with my brother on the topic, I believe my disagreement stems from the Catholic belief of “infused righteousness” whereby our righteous works help to perfect Christ’s work on the cross and thus we save ourselves with God’s help.
I think this doctrine grew out of a long tradition of focusing on making outward shows of piety that resulted from a misunderstanding of Jesus’ message of repentance due to Jerome’s translation “do penance.”

Okay, see THIS does not sound angry. This sounds like a discussion. You have sounded angry when you say things like a Catholic will never admit they’re wrong (or whatever it was you said earlier.)

I’m curious what your goal is–to convince your brother to leave the Catholic faith? To understand why he’s chosen to be Catholic?

I’ll admit I’m also curious why Protestants care if the Catholic faith says we should be doing good works or believe that our actions on earth have some impact on our afterlife. To me, the real danger is the other way around: people who think as long as they believe in Jesus, they can do anything because they’re saved, and so happily continue to cause Jesus more pain by continuing to sin…because… they’re saved by faith. Don’t have to DO anything, like even stop sinning. (And my daughter knows people who say exactly that.)

But I don’t think the theological concept sprang from just a bunch of people making shows of piety and I don’t think it sprang solely from Jerome’s translation.

In fact, the verse in question (saved by faith) is followed by: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

 

[Poet]

There is even less evidence to suggest it was just randomly made up by some guy on the street and for 1500 years thereafter, until Martin Luther, millions of fools believed it and never questioned it.

I stand by my belief that it would be utterly senseless for Jesus to establish a church and not give it some divine guidance.

Yes, all people are fallible. But papal infallibility doesn’t claim otherwise. Only certain teachings are proclaimed ‘infallibly’ and it refers to the teachings thus proclaimed, not to the pope himself.

 

[philophoser]

You have sounded angry when you say things like a Catholic will never admit they’re wrong (or whatever it was you said earlier.)

I think you misunderstood. I was simply saying that the belief system a Catholic holds prevents them from being convinced by argument or evidence. I’m not mad about this, just pointing it out.

I’m curious what your goal is

He has fallen into error and I’m trying to return him to the Truth.

I’ll admit I’m also curious why Protestants care if the Catholic faith says we should be doing good works

Because an obsession with works is counterproductive to a relationship with God.

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

Yes, we do the works God has prepared for us to do BECAUSE we love Him, not to increase our standing in His eyes, impress Him, or help Him to save us.

 

[Crocus]

In what verse did he promise Peter “certain spiritual protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from falling into grave error in doctrine”?
Five verses after Jesus gives Peter all of this “infallible” authority, he says “Get behind me, Satan!” A few chapters later, Peter is denying that he knows Jesus or was with him. Man is fallible.

I like this series of questions. I think all of them have been answered one way or another, on several posts already.

What we see here points to the extreme awesomeness of God, that He seems to choose almost the worst guy to lead His Church. Jesus even likens him to, or asserts him to be speaking under the influence of, Satan.

This man incredibly goes on to deny “the Christ, Son of the Living God” not once but 3 times! Talk about fallible! Jesus knows this, about all of us, Popes included.

Yet despite this fallibility, Jesus chose Simon Peter to shepherd His Church, against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, and gave Peter the keys of authority over that Church.

Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Church, and that He would be with us always.

"Because I said so!” is not a reasonable answer

When one assents to the awesome plan of how Jesus established His Church to guide all to salvation, they are able to say instead: “Because Jesus said so!”

 

[philophoser]

Yes, all people are fallible. But papal infallibility doesn’t claim otherwise. Only certain teachings are proclaimed ‘infallibly’ and it refers to the teachings thus proclaimed, not to the pope himself.

Who created this doctrine, and what were the reasons advanced in favor of it? A belief is not true simply because it’s old and lots of people believe it.

Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Church

The church in Rome decided that they were the ones being described in John 16. That doesn’t mean that it is true. Jesus was speaking to 11 individuals at the time, who went on to create (at least) 11 different churches. The Holy Spirit guided those INDIVIDUALS into all truth. Just because the church in Rome decided that in this verse Jesus gave that authority specifically to them is not supported in the text, was not believed in the first 700 years of church history, and is not true now.

 

[Dovekin]

Good teaching points us to truth. False teaching leads us into error. Catholic teachings evolved over 2000 years and have moved steadily away from the Truth of Jesus’ and Paul’s and Peter’s and John’s teachings in the Bible.

We believe the Church has steadily moved toward the truth of the teachings in the Bible. In part, we believe it because the Bible says it: “when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth…” Jn 16:13. Part of our belief in Christ is based on this promise, on the Scripture that records it, and on the Spirit who lives with us. So yes, there is an element of “we say so” in our faith.

But we do not rely exclusively on that. That would be a heresy called fideism, where we accept something as true just because an auhority says so. Our relationship with truth is more complex than that and rests on our relationship with Christ who is Truth. We place our faith in him, and in his Spirit, to guide us. If something is not true, it will be corrected.

The example of “do penance” is excellent. Even though the Vulgate made a mistake, doing penance has usually been practiced so as to encourage repentance. The Benedictine emphasis on conversatio morum, conversion of life, helped keep repentance an important part of “doing penance.” There is more involved than just doing, there are also people who encourage contrition and conversion as essential to the doing.

Hopefully we do not remain in the mistakes we have made. We have made some pretty awful ones over the years, JP2 apologized for some of them in 2000. Humility is a Catholic virtue, at least it has been taught that way for 2000 years even if we have not lived up to it.

 

[Crocus]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Crocus:

Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect His Church

What seems more likely?
That Jesus through His promise to send the Holy Spirit, kept His Church faithful to His truth to the present day, or
Jesus kept His promise for 700 years then withdrew it, somehow.

 

[philophoser]

This is very well said. I don’t want to fire off a response until I’ve thought and prayed through the things that you’re saying here, because there is a lot of wisdom here and a small amount that I disagree with.

 

[philophoser]

What seems more likely?
That Jesus through His promise to send the Holy Spirit, kept His Church faithful to His truth to the present day, or
Jesus kept His promise for 700 years then withdrew it, somehow.

What seems most likely to me is that God’s truth is found in the Bible by the people who lived and walked with Jesus. And that it was always available in all ages for anybody to read and understand.
And that people who love God should search the scriptures daily to test what you’re being taught (John 5:39; Acts 17:11)
And that anybody who teaches a different doctrine should be accursed (Galatians 1)
And that doctrines should be judged by how far they stray from the clear teachings of the Bible.

 

[Crocus]

What seems most likely to me is that God’s truth is found in the Bible by the people who lived and walked with Jesus.

Guess what? There was no bible for those people they only had the Church founded by Jesus, recognized by the shepherding of Peter.

 

[philophoser]

I understand there was no Bible as we have today. There was a reason those books were chosen, though. And what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Didn’t Thomas found a church in India? How in the world was he “under the shepherding of Peter?” The Holy Spirit guided the 11 INDIVIDUALS into all truth as they dispersed the gospel message throughout the world.

 

[TK421]

What seems most likely to me is that God’s truth is found in the Bible by the people who lived and walked with Jesus. And that it was always available in all ages for anybody to read and understand.
And that people who love God should search the scriptures daily to test what you’re being taught (John 5:39; Acts 17:11)
And that anybody who teaches a different doctrine should be accursed (Galatians 1)
And that doctrines should be judged by how far they stray from the clear teachings of the Bible.

You are quoting a canon of scripture that came from a Catholic Council.

What you are saying isn’t even the slightest bit most likely. Why do you even believe what is written down in what we modern people call the Bible?

 

[philophoser]

Is it more likely that the church in India operated under the “shepherding of Peter” or that the 11 individuals who were promised to be “guided into all truth” were guided into all truth in separate ways as the Spirit led? And built various churches through this guidance (that had nothing to do with Peter)?

 

[Crocus]

Didn’t Thomas found a church in India? How in the world was he “under the shepherding of Peter?” The Holy Spirit guided the 11 INDIVIDUALS into all truth as they dispersed the gospel message throughout the world.

Is not that church in India in union with the Church of Rome, as are all churches that received the message through the apostles and who remained in unity?

But this has already been much better expressed by another on this thread.

were guided into all truth in separate ways as the Spirit led?

This is problematic to the one faith.

 

[philophoser]

Is not that church in India in union with the Church of Rome, as are all churches that received the message through the apostles and who remained in unity?

Was it subject to the church of Rome prior to 700 AD?

 

[TK421]

Is it more likely that the church in India operated under the “shepherding of Peter” or that the 11 individuals who were promised to be “guided into all truth” were guided into all truth in separate ways as the Spirit led? And built various churches through this guidance (that had nothing to do with Peter)?

No, that’s not remotely likely. I think that’s chaos and it disproves any credibly a person might find in Christianity. I wouldn’t be able to be a follower of this version of Christianity because I would have to turn my brain off.

Presbyterians “guided into truth”

Methodists “guided into truth”

Pentecostals “guided into truth”

Jehovah’s Witnesses “guided into truth”

Mormons “guided into truth”

Non-denominational “guided into truth”

Lutherans “guided into truth”

Christian Scientologists “guided into truth”

Anglicans “guided into truth”

St Thomas was an apostle of Christ.

 

[philophoser]

Why would anybody think that all those denominations are guided into truth by the Holy Spirit? And are you saying “that’s not remotely likely” that the apostles built various churches through the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Because that’s exactly what they did…

 

[philophoser]

This is problematic to the one faith.

Yes, this is problematic to Catholicism, but it is what happened. So much the worse for Catholicism.

 

[TK421]

And they all acknowledged the primacy of Peter, and of his successor Linus.