What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Pax]

michaelp:

But the discussion of infallibility is what you require to have absolute certiantly about truth and the Scriptures. This is exactly what I am saying. I don’t have to have this type of certianty and this type of certianty does not exist. I can look at the evidence and decide. If you say that you are only morally certian that the Church is infallible and the the Bible’s cannon is correct, then I could go there . . . maybe. At least with the canon. But the evidence does not point to the infallibility of the Church yet. This is what I have been looking for.Michael

Michael,

The discussion of infallibility does not require absolute certainty about truth and the scriptures. It requires a moral certitude which comes by way of grace and faith. We have a moral certitude only, otherwise the element of faith in God and His promises becomes absolute certitude and therefore knowledge. Faith would no longer exist. Infallibility is a protection necessitated by all elements of the faith otherwise we would be tossed about by every wind of competing doctrine.

michaelp:

…
Now I have to look other places for this certianty. In other words, I have to look for the evidence elsewhere. Where do I go?

1. The consistancy of Church history in its teachings? Not there to the degree that would compel me since there are so many conflicts and who is to say who is right?Michael

You see many conflicts, but I see unity. When there were disagreements they were always solved by Church councils and Papal declarations.

michaelp:

1. The fact that God says he will speak through people but they have to show some type of authenticating sign (Deut 13, 18 and 2 Cor 12:12). I can’t find anyone who is raising the dead to authenticate themselves.Michael

This is a requirement of your own making. The context of these scriptures does not mean that these same signs and wonders must be worked by the leadership that follows them. There are, however, wondrous miracles associated with the Catholic Church and its members throughout the ages.

michaelp:

1. To the statement that the Church is the Bulwark of truth? I believe this statement, but it does not necessitate infallibility any more than the statement that the Church is His body means that the Church will infallibly act like his body.Michael

I cannot help believe that this verse speaks volumes. If the verse is true then the implications are that it will protect and uphold the truth. If this is so, then the Church cannot be the source of doctrinal errors in the area of faith and morals. The latter would negate the formerly quoted biblical statement.

michaelp:

1. Pragmatics which say that it is better for us to be unified, therefore we must have one unifying factor? This is purely pragmatic and such important decisions need more than this.Michael

The 17th Chapter of John is not simply pragmatic. Your contention gives no credit to the prayerful desires of the Lord.Michael

michaelp:

But I am not that uncomfortable with moral certianty about my interpretation of Scripture.

Michael

Neither was Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli. Beyond them, of course, are Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, and many others.
I do not mean to place you in the same sentence as these folks so please don’t take offense. Instead, consider their certainty. Sincerity and my own personal certitude do not guarantee a whole lot of anything. I have grown quite suspicious of my own certainty, and have found much greater reliability in the Church. I would advise great caution in interpreting scripture on my own with any degree of certitude.

 

[michaelp]

Infallibility is a protection necessitated by all elements of the faith otherwise we would be tossed about by every wind of competing doctrine.

This is a purely pragmatic arguement that does does not produce the moral certianty required for something this important. If I based the most important decisions of my life off of purely pragmatic arguements, I would lose alot of sleep.

But I am glad that you can take this big of a faith step, I cannot. I will just stick to the Bible for the moment, it provides much more than pragmatics.

You see many conflicts, but I see unity. When there were disagreements they were always solved by Church councils and Papal declarations.

Hey, you are the one who asked for three.

This is a requirement of your own making. The context of these scriptures does not mean that these same signs and wonders must be worked by the leadership that follows them. There are, however, wondrous miracles associated with the Catholic Church and its members throughout the ages.

But the basic principle has not changed. God does not like His word misrepresented. I don’t think he does now either. That is why He set up this criteria, so that no one could just claim, “I speak on behalf of the Lord without it.” Why would you think that this criteria has changed. Even the Apostle Paul had to appeal to it for verification of his authority to speak on behalf of God (since that is what an Apostle did) 2 Cor 12:12. Why would you think that it would change? Does God want us to be naive now? Does he no longer protect His word?

I cannot help believe that this verse speaks volumes. If the verse is true then the implications are that it will protect and uphold the truth. If this is so, then the Church cannot be the source of doctrinal errors in the area of faith and morals. The latter would negate the formerly quoted biblical statement.

Again, I just don’t see the necessity of infallibility here. The church can represent truth without being infallible, just as we can be the body of Christ without being infallible.

Michael

The 17th Chapter of John is not simply pragmatic. Your contention gives no credit to the prayerful desires of the Lord.

But I believe Christ’s prayer for unity and oneness has been fulfilled by virute of us being one Body. Aren’t we one body, one united body whether we admit to it or not? I agree and long for creedal unity, but this has never been expressed perfectly throughout the history of the Church.

When an unbeliever looks at all those who follow Christ, you are just one of the many. They don’t see this ABSOLUTE unity that you require. But there is an ontological unity that exists between all those who have trused in Christ whether we agree on all the detail, even some essentials, or not.

Neither was Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli. Beyond them, of course, are Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, and many others.
I do not mean to place you in the same sentence as these folks so please don’t take offense. Instead, consider their certainty. Sincerity and my own personal certitude do not guarantee a whole lot of anything. I have grown quite suspicious of my own certainty, and have found much greater reliability in the Church. I would advise great caution in interpreting scripture on my own with any degree of certitude.

I just look at the evidence for what they claim, and make my decisions. I see no reason to believe what they say. There is no justification for their system. Therefore, I don’t believe them. Everyone make truth claims, all you can do is look at the evidence and make a decision. I believe that the evidence that Christ rose from the grave is so compelling and it has a domino effect on many things. One of these is that opposing truth claims cannot be true. Therefore, if Christ rose from the dead, He is who He said he was, Lord. If He is Lord, I believe Him. If I believe Him, I do not believe Mary E. Baker or J. Smith.

Michael

 

[Pax]

Michael,

You require signs and wonders. Please tell me what is a greater sign than the Eucharist. This is the most beautiful and marvelous of miracles.

And while you may not accept this, scripture does provide a prophecy in this regard. Throughout salvation history the greatest and holiest worship that was given to God has been that of “sacrifice.” These holy rights of worship were always offered by priests. This is made clear in the book of Genesis with Melchizedek “offering” bread and wine and shown as fulfillment in the book of Hebrews in reference to Jesus, our high priest, making His once and for all sacrifice “…a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Now consider Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. It is the “eternal” once and for all sacrifice of Jesus “re-presented in time” and offered to the Father in the Holy sacrifice of the mass.
So where is the prophecy in all of this?

Read Malachi 1:11 where it says, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”
Notice that it says from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations. At the time of Malachi the Lord’s name was not great among the nations and would not be until Christianity had taken hold throughout the nations. And then it says that incense is offered to my name[quite Catholic] and a pure offering. There is only one pure offering that has ever been made to the Father and that is the sacrifice of Jesus. But note that this pure offering will be made from the rising of the sun until its setting. That is the holy sacrifice of the mass where the precious body and blood of the Lord are made present in time and offered to the Father. The mass is said everyday from the rising of the sun until its setting.

This quote from Malachi has been used as one of the Eucharistic prayers in the Catholic mass from the earliest centuries.

If you disagree with this understanding and your exegesis is contrary to this interpretation of the prophecy, then it behooves you to find an adequate equivalent fulfillment elsewhere in Christianity. I have never heard any Protestant scholars offer any alternative fulfillment that fits this passage.

I truly hope that this gives you pause. Jesus, in his generosity and lavish love, offers himself to us in the Eucharist. It is a wondrous and joyous miracle witnessed everyday within the Catholic mass. To me all other miracles, including raising someone from the dead, pale in comparison.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

You require signs and wonders. Please tell me what is a greater sign than the Eucharist. This is the most beautiful and marvelous of miracles.

And while you may not accept this, scripture does provide a prophecy in this regard. Throughout salvation history the greatest and holiest worship that was given to God has been that of “sacrifice.” These holy rights of worship were always offered by priests. This is made clear in the book of Genesis with Melchizedek “offering” bread and wine and shown as fulfillment in the book of Hebrews in reference to Jesus, our high priest, making His once and for all sacrifice “…a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

Now consider Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. It is the “eternal” once and for all sacrifice of Jesus “re-presented in time” and offered to the Father in the Holy sacrifice of the mass.
So where is the prophecy in all of this?

Read Malachi 1:11 where it says, “For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.”
Notice that it says from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations. At the time of Malachi the Lord’s name was not great among the nations and would not be until Christianity had taken hold throughout the nations. And then it says that incense is offered to my name[quite Catholic] and a pure offering. There is only one pure offering that has ever been made to the Father and that is the sacrifice of Jesus. But note that this pure offering will be made from the rising of the sun until its setting. That is the holy sacrifice of the mass where the precious body and blood of the Lord are made present in time and offered to the Father. The mass is said everyday from the rising of the sun until its setting.

This quote from Malachi has been used as one of the Eucharistic prayers in the Catholic mass from the earliest centuries.

If you disagree with this understanding and your exegesis is contrary to this interpretation of the prophecy, then it behooves you to find an adequate equivalent fulfillment elsewhere in Christianity. I have never heard any Protestant scholars offer any alternative fulfillment that fits this passage.

I truly hope that this gives you pause. Jesus, in his generosity and lavish love, offers himself to us in the Eucharist. It is a wondrous and joyous miracle witnessed everyday within the Catholic mass. To me all other miracles, including raising someone from the dead, pale in comparison.

The eucharist is very important and special to me. It expresses so much. Thank you for this.

But what I am talking about is an attesting sign, not a sign only for those who already believe. In other words, something that even an unbeliever (which is what I am concerning your system) would look at and say, “this must be from the hand of God.” Like when Moses said to God, “what if they don’t believe me?” God gave him attesting miracles such as turning water into blood, turning his arm leporous, turning the staff into a snake, and all the miracles he did. God says that this will always be the way he works. He demonstrates this in Isa 40-48. And then finally with the Christ and the Apostles as they raised the dead and heald the lame.

Believe me, if the Pope or anyone raised someone from the dead, this would produce in me great certianty that they were speaking for God (so long as they did not contradict previously revealed doctrine since God tested the Israelites this way Deur 13).

I do appreciate other miracles as well, but not all miracles are attesting miracles spoken of in Deut 18 and 2 cor 12:12.

We discussed this at length on another thread though: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890&highlight=michaelp

Have a great night and thanks for the insights.

Michael

 

[PaulDupre]

michaelp:

My friend, I am just here to learn, not necessarily to be convinced of anything. If you don’t want me here unless I will be convinced of something, then I will leave. I understand that this is your forum, and maybe you don’t want anyone asking question and responding with objections.

I am open minded to learning and understanding. If yours is the truth, it will stand and I may be convinced. I may be to ignorant to grasp what you are saying, I understand this. But don’t get so upset just because I have not been convinced of anything.

Thanks for your post,

Michael

Dear Michael,
Don’t be such a drama queen. Nobody wants you to leave - you are too much fun. But I would appreciate a bit more honesty from you. You are unwilling to surrender your *sola scriptura * bias, which will prevent you from ever understanding or appreciating the Catholic view. You keep on reiterating the ridiculous question “which bible verse did the Catholics interpret to create their ‘system’”? I wonder why.

What is it that makes you cling to the sola scriptura lie when I know you know better? Are you just a victim of the conditioning of the world, or is it something far more sinister?
God bless you,
Paul

 

[Pax]

Michael,
When I said, *“Infallibility is a protection necessitated by all elements of the faith otherwise we would be tossed about by every wind of competing doctrine.” * you responded by saying:

*"This is a purely pragmatic arguement that does does not produce the moral certianty required for something this important. If I based the most important decisions of my life off of purely pragmatic arguements, I would lose alot of sleep.

But I am glad that you can take this big of a faith step, I cannot. I will just stick to the Bible for the moment, it provides much more than pragmatics."*

Please keep in mind that my statement should not be removed from the context of this thread and the scriptures which have been used to support the doctrine. This is a matter of authority tied to the promises of Christ. It is not merely a matter of suggesting a necessity and therefore a purely pragmatic argument. The promises of Christ establish the certitude and necessity. Jesus said and did certain things to insure that the good news would be presented in truth.

If you believe the inspired word of God and believe that Peter, James, Paul, and the other sacred authors were sinners but protected from writing errors in their epistles, then why do you find it so difficult to believe that their successors, using these epistles, would not be protected from teaching erroneous doctrines in the area of faith and morals. In order for the promises of Christ to be fullfilled this protection must be extended in the manner that the Church contends. The scriptures quoted to you, although you find them unconvincing, are the only verses in scripture that give an indication as to how the protections, guarantees, and promises of Christ were to be fulfilled. If you interpret them otherwise and deny this protection and charism to the Church then you must provide a scriptural alternative that declares how the protections will be accomplished. You cannot simply deny our contentions which (from our point of view) are biblically supported without an alternative. The promises of scripture and common sense demand it.

I certainly agree that the bible offers more than pragmatics, but so does the Church. Moreover, I could not trust the contents of the bible to be the inspired word of God unless it was vouched for by the Church. The Church guarantees that our Bible is the collection of the inspired works. The bible itself does not declare which books belong within it.

Your faith in your historical acceptance of the bible as true is not enough for me. The historical accuracy of the scriptures are important, but they are not foremost in determining that they are the inspired word of God. If that were true than the gospels of Peter and Paul, the letter of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and other works might very well fit your criteria as scripture. Even though these works could be considered pious and true and do not contain any historical inaccuracies, they were not considered inspired by the Church and were therefore never part of the canon.

The other thing you must consider is that Christianity has always been extremely conservative and fought heresy at every turn. Catholic teaching has remained unchanged since the day of Pentecost. There have been developments in understandings but the teachings have remained. This is crystal clear in the areas of the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, penance, the Eucharist, matrimony, holy orders, and the sacrament of the sick/dying). Most other Christian Churches have jettisoned these after the reformation even though the reformers generally retained them. We have, historically, experienced a Christian “free for all” since the Reformation. I hardly call that unity of any kind let alone the kind described by Jesus in the gospel of John. Jesus desires the same unity among us that He has with the Father. That is a tall order that has never been accomplished anywhere except within the Catholic Church. It is true that we have dissenters, but they are not the Church. We still have the wheat and the tares.

 

[michaelp]

PaulDupre:

Dear Michael,
Don’t be such a drama queen. Nobody wants you to leave - you are too much fun. But I would appreciate a bit more honesty from you. You are unwilling to surrender your *sola scriptura *bias, which will prevent you from ever understanding or appreciating the Catholic view. You keep on reiterating the ridiculous question “which bible verse did the Catholics interpret to create their ‘system’”? I wonder why.

What is it that makes you cling to the sola scriptura lie when I know you know better? Are you just a victim of the conditioning of the world, or is it something far more sinister?
God bless you,
Paul

Thanks Paul. I am willing if someone would provide some justification. I don’t need Scritural justification, just some that would be compelling enough for me to say that I no longer have just one source of absolute authority, but two. This would be a big step for anyone since you are in essense asking me to believe that someone speaks for God. I need some compelling reason to do so.

Believe me, I am not bound by my Protestant bias. But I am bound to believe responsibly.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

The eucharist is very important and special to me. It expresses so much. Thank you for this.

But what I am talking about is an attesting sign, not a sign only for those who already believe. In other words, something that even an unbeliever (which is what I am concerning your system) would look at and say, “this must be from the hand of God.” Like when Moses said to God, “what if they don’t believe me?” God gave him attesting miracles such as turning water into blood, turning his arm leporous, turning the staff into a snake, and all the miracles he did. God says that this will always be the way he works. He demonstrates this in Isa 40-48. And then finally with the Christ and the Apostles as they raised the dead and heald the lame.

Believe me, if the Pope or anyone raised someone from the dead, this would produce in me great certianty that they were speaking for God (so long as they did not contradict previously revealed doctrine since God tested the Israelites this way Deur 13).

I do appreciate other miracles as well, but not all miracles are attesting miracles spoken of in Deut 18 and 2 cor 12:12.

We discussed this at length on another thread though: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=23890&highlight=michaelp

Have a great night and thanks for the insights.

Michael

The attesting sign is not to be of yours or my making or standard. The attesting sign is spoken of in the 17th Chapter of John. I keep referring to this section of John’s gospel because it is truly a powerful set of statements.

Jesus gives us His message on unity. It is the unity that he prays for that is the sign. You are a believer but this sign is even for the unbeliever.

In John 17:20-21 we read the words of Jesus and he says, "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, **so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. **

If this is enough for the unbeliever then it should also be an important and valid sign for those that do believe in the name of Jesus. The true unity of the Christian faith is our spiritual home this side of eternity. For the first 1100 years of Christianity there was complete and total unity and it resided in the one Church, and that was the Catholic Church. Subsequent to that came the East/West schism but 99% of all teaching is still shared to this day between the two. Then came the Reformation and now we see division upon division and belief against belief, and doctrine against doctrine. To me it’s crystal clear. The truth still resides in one place and it is in the unity of the Catholic Church that the world will believe that the Father sent Jesus. It may not be the only sign, but it’s a big one.

 

[dennisknapp]

Hey Paul,

"Dear Michael,
Don’t be such a drama queen. Nobody wants you to leave - you are too much fun. But I would appreciate a bit more honesty from you. You are unwilling to surrender your *sola scriptura *bias, which will prevent you from ever understanding or appreciating the Catholic view. You keep on reiterating the ridiculous question “which bible verse did the Catholics interpret to create their ‘system’”? I wonder why.

What is it that makes you cling to the sola scriptura lie when I know you know better? Are you just a victim of the conditioning of the world, or is it something far more sinister?
God bless you,
Paul"

No ad hominems. Let’s stick to the arguments and not direct our responses to individuals. It only muddies the water and gets us nowhere.

 

[michaelp]

Please keep in mind that my statement should not be removed from the context of this thread and the scriptures which have been used to support the doctrine.

But the scriptures used to support it have to have your doctrines read into it. You have to have the Magisterium tell you that this is how to interpret these Scripture before you would ever come to this conclusion on your own. This would be question begging. Honesty, can you read Matt 16 and John 21 as and get the Petrine succession out of it? Really? Read it as if you are reading it for the first time. Try to do this. If you say yes, I don’t think you are being honest. If you say “no, but the Church tells me that is what it means and I believe it” that is begging the question. (I know you are all getting sick of me using this "begging the question stuff-- but it is true.) What am I missing?

If you believe the inspired word of God and believe that Peter, James, Paul, and the other sacred authors were sinners but protected from writing errors in their epistles, then why do you find it so difficult to believe that their successors, using these epistles, would not be protected from teaching erroneous doctrines in the area of faith and morals.

I don’t have any problem with this in theory, it is just that there is nothing to justify that this is the way that it happened. Gosh, at least something in Act or Peter, either by example or precept, that suggests that he is appointing a successor. It would not have been that hard for God to put it in there. In fact, with something this important, you would think you would find it everywhere, but not a word. (I know, I know . . . John 21 and Matt 16 . . . ).

In order for the promises of Christ to be fullfilled this protection must be extended in the manner that the Church contends.

But this is a pragmatic assumtion. It assums two things: 1) That Christ wanted absolute creedal unity, not just ontological unity (unity in essence), 2) That Christ did it the way you suggest. I just don’t see it.

If you say that Christ did not want absolute creedal unity, just unity in the essentials, then who determines the essential? If you say the Church, again, this would be begging the question and inserting a pragmatic solution that has no other warrent but that “it works.” But I don’t thing the unbeliever looking in from the outside would say that it works since he would just see you as one of the many options.

The Church guarantees that our Bible is the collection of the inspired works. The bible itself does not declare which books belong within it.

I agree that the Church recognized the canon of Scripture, and this carries GREAT weight, but I disagree that this declaration has to be “infallible” before we are morally obligated to believe it. There are many factors that people must consider when asking the canon question. The acceptance of the Church is just one of them that adds weight that creates certianty. I don’t have to have infallible absolute certianty about this. But I do have a large degree of certianty.

 

[michaelp]

Cont. . .

Your faith in your historical acceptance of the bible as true is not enough for me. The historical accuracy of the scriptures are important, but they are not foremost in determining that they are the inspired word of God. If that were true than the gospels of Peter and Paul, the letter of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas and other works might very well fit your criteria as scripture. Even though these works could be considered pious and true and do not contain any historical inaccuracies, they were not considered inspired by the Church and were therefore never part of the canon.

You must have misread me. The historical accuracy alone does not cut it. There are many factors that go into the canon decision, one of which IS the acceptance of the Church and the councils.

The other thing you must consider is that Christianity has always been extremely conservative and fought heresy at every turn. Catholic teaching has remained unchanged since the day of Pentecost.

Wow! I think that this is a big bite. But all that I will say is that I disagree with this statement to some degree. While the Church was unified on many things, and while doctrine is progressively understood, there is also much disunity. One just simply picks the things they agree with most, and leaves the rest behind.

I also disagree that the Church could not have been VERY wrong about certian things. For example:

1. The majority of the Church pre-Nicea believed that Christ was ontologically subordinate to the Father.
2. The majority of the Church pre-Anselm believed that the atonement was a price paid to Satan not God.
3. (These you won’t agree with but it will show you where I am going) According to Protestants, the majority of the Church pre-1600 believed that the eucharist was salvific in that it imparted Grace.

These are all essential doctrines that were developed over time. This is just a few example to show you how saying the Church has always been unified is a little misleading.

We have, historically, experienced a Christian “free for all” since the Reformation. I hardly call that unity of any kind let alone the kind described by Jesus in the gospel of John. Jesus desires the same unity among us that He has with the Father.

I do agree.

Thanks so much for the great discussion. I continue to lean much. I do pray the best for you and yours.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

The attesting sign is not to be of yours or my making or standard. The attesting sign is spoken of in the 17th Chapter of John. I keep referring to this section of John’s gospel because it is truly a powerful set of statements.

Jesus gives us His message on unity. It is the unity that he prays for that is the sign. You are a believer but this sign is even for the unbeliever.

In John 17:20-21 we read the words of Jesus and he says, "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, **so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. **

If this is enough for the unbeliever then it should also be an important and valid sign for those that do believe in the name of Jesus. The true unity of the Christian faith is our spiritual home this side of eternity. For the first 1100 years of Christianity there was complete and total unity and it resided in the one Church, and that was the Catholic Church. Subsequent to that came the East/West schism but 99% of all teaching is still shared to this day between the two. Then came the Reformation and now we see division upon division and belief against belief, and doctrine against doctrine. To me it’s crystal clear. The truth still resides in one place and it is in the unity of the Catholic Church that the world will believe that the Father sent Jesus. It may not be the only sign, but it’s a big one.

So the attesting sign is the confessional unity and this happens when under the Pope and Bishops?

That is interesting. Thanks, I will have to think about this one.

 

[michaelp]

Hey, I just noticed, I am now a “Senior Member!!!”:dancing:And I don’t even have any gray hairs yet.

I think we need to celebrate. Who is in?

Does this mean that I am offically a part of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[PaulDupre]

dennisknapp:

Hey Paul,

No ad hominems. Let’s stick to the arguments and not direct our responses to individuals. It only muddies the water and gets us nowhere.

My comment did not fit the definition of an ad hominem. Look it up.

Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

michaelp:

Hey, I just noticed, I am now a “Senior Member!!!”:dancing:And I don’t even have any gray hairs yet.

I think we need to celebrate. Who is in?

Does this mean that I am offically a part of the Roman Catholic Church?

No, but it means that drinks are on the house!

Bourbon, neat, if you please.

Paul

 

[michaelp]

PaulDupre:

No, but it means that drinks are on the house!

Bourbon, neat, if you please.

Paul

Sweet!!

 

[PaulDupre]

michaelp:

Thanks Paul. I am willing if someone would provide some justification. I don’t need Scritural justification, just some that would be compelling enough for me to say that I no longer have just one source of absolute authority, but two. This would be a big step for anyone since you are in essense asking me to believe that someone speaks for God. I need some compelling reason to do so.

Believe me, I am not bound by my Protestant bias. But I am bound to believe responsibly.

Michael,
I can’t imagine what else you need.

1. The Catholic Church existed before the bible.
2. The Catholic Church gave the the bible to the world.
3. The books that are in the bible are there because the Catholic Church put them there.
4. The Catholic Church put them there because they are the books that accurately reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church.
5. The Catholic Church is based on the teachings of the apostles, not on interpretations of the bible.
6. The Catholic Church retains the sovereign right to interpret its own book.
7. The Catholic Church uses the bible as the authors intended:

for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness - (2 Tim 3:16)

We do not derive our “system” from our private interpretation of the bible. On the contrary, the bible is derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Until you can grasp this, you will never understand the Catholic faith.
God bless you Michael,
Paul

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Wow, look at what has been going on since I have been away!

Michael,

“Short answer: I can’t.”

Neither could I.

"Long answer:

This is overly simplistic. Doctrines develop over time and are articulated in the midst of controversy."

Yes but not when its a contradiction.

I don’t understand. It the example are just misunderstanding of what the true doctrine was. All “contradictions” can be beutified with historical additions and further interpretations. What counts what what the people who held them actually believed. And most people had a misunderstanding of all of these doctrines until God sought to clarify them through controversy and discussion.

This is not quite true. The dogma was in a state of development and the subordination view was held by some. It took the Council at Niceae to finally correct those that held this view.

And all the people who are supposed to be united actually heritics according to modern standards put forth by both RCs and Evangelicals.

Again, not quite true. There was dialog between the Schools of Antioch and Alexandria and this debate got really heated, but Church of Rome settled the issue–please refer to the Tome of Leo.

But again, most of them were heritics by our standard. This does not look like the unity that you require.

“3. Atonement was made to God (1100): Before this time, the majority of the Church believed that the atonement was a price paid to Satan (or some form of this). Neither you or I could find our Soteriology before this time except in seed form (although there was alot of seed).”

I would have to do more research on this one.

Same thing . . . doctrines develop.

"4. Scripture alone (1600): Before this time people often elevated tradition to the same level as Scripture. I could find our Soteriology (This should have been bibliology, my bad)

before this time except in seed form (although there was alot of seed)."

Doesn’t seem like a contradiction to assert, “Before this time people often elevated tradition to the same level as Scripture” and the development of sola scriptura?

It was a misunderstanding that was not detremental to the faith, but, like the others, very important. I cannot tell you why God does things on the timetable He does them, but it seems to me like He has always worked this way.

'You see, neither of us could find our current articulation of theological beliefs before today. Doctrine is developed and articulated in time."

Yes, doctrines do develope over time, but what I believe does not contradict 1600 years of church history. Sola fide, sola scriptura and Evangelical views on the Eucharist and baptism do.

Again, I think the example stand. There are many more as well, but these are the major ones.

If we were to come to someone and ask them to choose between the two of us as to who belong to the historical Church, who would they choose? Who is on a historical island?

Well, I don’t think either of us represents the history of the Church perfectly, but neither of us has to.

Again, this statement resonates with me every time that I study the history of the Church.

“Each of us walk through the garden of Chruch history and pick the flowers that we like the best.”–John Hannah

I know you don’t like or agree with this statement, but there are ALOT of church historians who do not share your perspective. You cannot say that they are all just bias, can you?

Sorry it took so long to resond. Thanks for your interest and your email.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

PaulDupre:

Michael,
I can’t imagine what else you need.

1. The Catholic Church existed before the bible.

Lets just say the “Body of Christ” existed . . . there is too many assumption with saying the “Catholic” Church existed.

So, if you can accept that, I agree. This finds much support in Scripture and history.

1. The Catholic Church gave the the bible to the world.

I don’t get this. God gave the Bible through the Apostles and the Body of Christ, led by the Holy Spirit recognized it since we “hear his voice.” This is evidence by the majority of the Church adhering to most of the books and then finally as the body of Christ came together and made pronouncements upon this recognition.

1. The books that are in the bible are there because the Catholic Church put them there.

I believe God inspired them, the Church recognized them. I don’t know why this is so objectionable to you. I have no reason to believe that the Church is an institutional authority that has the right to make infallible judgements at this time.

1. The Catholic Church put them there because they are the books that accurately reflect the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Again, I would just change this to "the Body of Christ recognized them . . .

1. The Catholic Church is based on the teachings of the apostles, not on interpretations of the bible.

I am starting to get this, but I fail to see any justification for this statement.

1. The Catholic Church retains the sovereign right to interpret its own book.

Yes, the Body of Christ does, but must do so within community (surprised!!). In other words, I do not believe in any “Lone ranger” interpretation. This leads to heresy and disregards the contribution of the Holy Spirit through the saints that have gone before us. That I why I study Church History the way that I do. Other than Scripture, there is nothing I love to study more.

1. The Catholic Church uses the bible as the authors intended:

If you are talking about the RC Church, this is where I would really depart–expecially after see what is done exegetically to Matt 16 and Jn 21.

Until you can grasp this, you will never understand the Catholic faith.

I think that I grasp it well enough. I just don’t see any compelling reason to believe it.

God bless you too Paul, have a great night. I am going to bed.

Michael

 

[redeemed1]

Answers two and three are correct since the Holy Spirit of God is the Author of the Scriptures and inspired men to write down what is to be known and believed.