What's Your Authority?

[eazyduzit]

And as stated in previous posts… There is more ways than one to be baptized. There is baptism by blood, baptism of the heart, and of course the traditional baptism.

Salvation is not by faith alone.

We are saved by grace.

How do you reconcile verses that call us to work out our salvation?

Eazy- you say there’s no clear scripture verse but the verses we’ve given you are very clear. I mean, so clear and yet you don’t see how contradictory you are with the few verses we’ve given. It’s like you disregard the verses … You haven’t responded to one major scripture verse …

Peter says, “your baptism now saves you” what more do you need!?

What I need is to examine the whole verse and the whole context, not just isolate a part as you do. Look at every part of the verse.
First. “the baptism that now saves us” is what?- It is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”. What is it that cleans the body? The answer is water. So Peter is saying we’re not talking about water anymore. Then comes the word "but’. We cannot choose to ignore this word. In the Greek it is “alla”.
From Thayer, here are the possible meanings:

a. nevertheless, notwithstanding
b. an objection
c. an exception
d. a restriction
e. nay, rather, yea, moreover
f. forms a transition to the cardinal matter

choose what you want.

So what follows the “but” is modifying or replacing what came before.

Meaning that the baptism that “now” saves us is “the answer of a good conscience toward God”, or repentance, which is the acceptable response to the Gospel.

All I need is a logical hermeneutic.

 

[eazyduzit]

And as stated in previous posts… There is more ways than one to be baptized. There is baptism by blood, baptism of the heart, and of course the traditional baptism.

Salvation is not by faith alone.

We are saved by grace.

How do you reconcile verses that call us to work out our salvation?

Eazy- you say there’s no clear scripture verse but the verses we’ve given you are very clear. I mean, so clear and yet you don’t see how contradictory you are with the few verses we’ve given. It’s like you disregard the verses … You haven’t responded to one major scripture verse …

Peter says, “your baptism now saves you” what more do you need!?

What I need is to examine the whole verse and the whole context, not just isolate a part as you do. Look at every part of the verse.
First. “the baptism that now saves us” is what?- It is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”. What is it that cleans the body? The answer is water. So Peter is saying we’re not talking about water anymore. Then comes the word "but’. We cannot choose to ignore this word. In the Greek it is “alla”.
From Thayer, here are the possible meanings:

a. nevertheless, notwithstanding
b. an objection
c. an exception
d. a restriction
e. nay, rather, yea, moreover
f. forms a transition to the cardinal matter

choose what you want.

So what follows the “but” is modifying or replacing what came before.

Meaning that the baptism that “now” saves us is “the answer of a good conscience toward God”, or repentance, which is the acceptable response to the Gospel.

All I need is a logical hermeneutic.

 

[eazyduzit]

Eazy - how to you reconcile the following:

James 2:24, " you are not justified by faith alone but by works,"

You know, the only time you see the words “faith alone” is in this verse. So how can you say that all you need to do is believe or have faith? It sounds like you are saying that it doesn’t matter what you do or how you live your life… "It’s OK to sin all you need is to have faith.

How do you reconcile the follow verses in the Lords Prayer
“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”

This prayer Jesus taught his disciples. We’re told pretty clearly that a prerequisite to being forgiven is to forgive others.

So you say you just need to believe?

So it doesn’t matter what I do? I can live a willfully sinful life and not forgive people and expect that my sins will be forgiven?

You clearly contradict not only James 2:24 but basically a good portion of the Lords Prayer.

How do you reconcile your contradictions?

Excuse me, but I have never said you could sin wilfully and get away with it. I have said that salvation is a gift of God Rm.6:23, and not of works Eph.2:9, but the result of belief in in Christ Jn.5:24.
Are you contradicting Paul and John with your interpretation?

James is not in disagreement. He has said in ch.1:21 “receive with meekness the engrafted WORD,which is able to save your souls”. He also understands that salvation comes by receiving (believing) the Word(gospel).

In ch.2 he speaks of “justification”, not salvation. A kind of justification that must continue after salvation.

I am not contradicting the Bible, someone else is.

 

[eazyduzit]

Above you claim to be able to “evangelise along side a Reform believer without a problem” because you “believe the same in regard to the basic Gospel.”

Now, the core of the Gospel is that Jesus Christ is the Messiah who became man. Note what the Greek text (of John 1:14) says: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, “And the Word/Logos became flesh.” The core of the Gospel, then, is that Christ is flesh. And that the material is just as real as the spiritual.

He is still flesh. His resurrected body was not a ghost. When St. Paul talks of ‘spiritual bodies,’ he does not distinguish them from ‘fleshy bodies,’ but from ‘soul-bodies.’ (1. Cor. 15:44-46) The translation you have probably says ‘physical’ vs. ‘spiritual.’ But that is wrong, or an older use of the term. The greek word is ψυχικός, ‘of or relating to life or the soul’ (from ψυχή, ‘soul’). That tells us that a ‘spiritual body’ is not a body that is non-physical (which would be a contradiction in terms anyway), but a physical body that is, in lack of a better term, ‘controlled’ by the Holy Spirit. A ‘soul-body’ is a body which is ‘controlled’ by yourself.

When you say that the flesh is “not the real,” that you are “a spirit with a soul that is resting in a body for this present time,” you are denying the basic Gospel. You are denying the Incarnation, the core of Christianity. You are basically going back to the 200s to side with the Gnostics.

But you are inconsistent, so maybe there is a way back: Could you explain to me how you can have emotions and feelings without a body?

No problem. The HS does not have a physical body, yet the bible says He can be “grieved”.
That is an emotion. We are the same. We are made in God’s image.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Excuse me, but I have never said you could sin wilfully and get away with it. I have said that salvation is a gift of God Rm.6:23, and not of works Eph.2:9, but the result of belief in in Christ Jn.5:24.
Are you contradicting Paul and John with your interpretation?

James is not in disagreement. He has said in ch.1:21 “receive with meekness the engrafted WORD,which is able to save your souls”. He also understands that salvation comes by receiving (believing) the Word(gospel).

In ch.2 he speaks of “justification”, not salvation. A kind of justification that must continue after salvation.

I am not contradicting the Bible, someone else is.

So you don’t believe that we’re saved by faith alone?
And you don’t believe once savedvalways saved?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

What I need is to examine the whole verse and the whole context, not just isolate a part as you do. Look at every part of the verse.
First. “the baptism that now saves us” is what?- It is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”. What is it that cleans the body? The answer is water. So Peter is saying we’re not talking about water anymore. Then comes the word "but’. We cannot choose to ignore this word. In the Greek it is “alla”.
From Thayer, here are the possible meanings:

a. nevertheless, notwithstanding
b. an objection
c. an exception
d. a restriction
e. nay, rather, yea, moreover
f. forms a transition to the cardinal matter

choose what you want.

So what follows the “but” is modifying or replacing what came before.

Meaning that the baptism that “now” saves us is “the answer of a good conscience toward God”, or repentance, which is the acceptable response to the Gospel.

All I need is a logical hermeneutic.

Yes Peter, all you need is a logical hermeneutic and a proper exegetical study. It is not I that takes just one verse and that verse taking it out of context but rather bring into context not just one chapter as what is commonly done in Pentecostal circles, I know because I’ve been there. You see I’d look at one chapter and instead of taking the whole of the bible into context I’d see what I thought was the context then take a verse here and there which I thought proved the right context meanwhile over looking quite a few chapters of the bible which proved I didn’t understand the true context and essentially not having the right context.

Today I don’t just take one verse or one chapter to see the whole context but take the whole of scripture into context. Meaning the OT foreshadows the NT. If we want to understand the NT we will only understand the NT to the degree of understanding the OT. Bringing all things into context! It takes the basic hermeneutics to a whole new level allowing for a more accurate exegetical study.

I’m gonna have to respond via my computer with a little more detail.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Part ONE

Excuse me, but I have never said you could sin wilfully and get away with it. I have said that salvation is a gift of God Rm.6:23, and not of works Eph.2:9, but the result of belief in in Christ Jn.5:24.
Are you contradicting Paul and John with your interpretation?

James is not in disagreement. He has said in ch.1:21 “receive with meekness the engrafted WORD,which is able to save your souls”. He also understands that salvation comes by receiving (believing) the Word(gospel).

In ch.2 he speaks of “justification”, not salvation. A kind of justification that must continue after salvation.

I am not contradicting the Bible, someone else is.

Can we agree that salvation means we die with Christ so that we may have new life?

I’ll continue on the basis that we CAN agree to this.

Eazy - All I’m asking is that you look a little further and deeper into the context of the texts that you have brought up. :hammering:

How do you say we’re saved?

You have said to accept Jesus. Believe in him in your heart and confess with your lips. And that’s basically it? Right? According to you that’s what you are saying. All you have to do is believe in your heart, confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and Saviour. That’s it!! But is that right? Well, lets take another look.

Romans 6:1-4

Dead to Sin, Alive to God
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

What baptism is being talked about in Romans 6?

 

[Magdalena59]

What I need is to examine the whole verse and the whole context, not just isolate a part as you do. Look at every part of the verse.
First. “the baptism that now saves us” is what?- It is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh”. What is it that cleans the body? The answer is water. So Peter is saying we’re not talking about water anymore. Then comes the word "but’. We cannot choose to ignore this word. In the Greek it is “alla”.
From Thayer, here are the possible meanings:

a. nevertheless, notwithstanding
b. an objection
c. an exception
d. a restriction
e. nay, rather, yea, moreover
f. forms a transition to the cardinal matter

choose what you want.

So what follows the “but” is modifying or replacing what came before.

Meaning that the baptism that “now” saves us is “the answer of a good conscience toward God”, or repentance, which is the acceptable response to the Gospel.

All I need is a logical hermeneutic.

Easy, I am still wondering if you could answer, why should we take your interpretation of scripture. Where do you get your authority to tell Christians to change what they have been doing since the Apostolic age. Christians ever since Christ have been baptizing with water. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike have baptized with water. This is something that protestants and Catholics have in common. We may not agree on age of person being baptized and whether immersion or sprinkling but with water. The scriptures regarding baptism have always been interpreted to be with water.

Besides scripture this from the Didache, c 100 - 50

Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.[66][c]

So, why is it we should believe your interpretation of scripture. Where does your authority come from?

God bless.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Part TWO

Excuse me, but I have never said you could sin wilfully and get away with it. I have said that salvation is a gift of God Rm.6:23, and not of works Eph.2:9, but the result of belief in in Christ Jn.5:24.
Are you contradicting Paul and John with your interpretation?

James is not in disagreement. He has said in ch.1:21 “receive with meekness the engrafted WORD,which is able to save your souls”. He also understands that salvation comes by receiving (believing) the Word(gospel).

In ch.2 he speaks of “justification”, not salvation. A kind of justification that must continue after salvation.

I am not contradicting the Bible, someone else is.

The idea of being made one with Christ is reiterated by Paul

Col 2:12 "having been burried with him in baptism"

Gal 3:27 ** “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”**

TO KEEP ON QUOTING FROM CATHOLIC ANSWERS BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU DIDN’T READ THE ARTICLE THE FIRST TIME IT WAS POSTED !!!

Furthermore, the fuller idea of salvation being a union with Christ fits with much more of the New Testament, which speaks time and again of being in a profound union with the living Lord—rather than simply being saved or justified by a personal belief in Christ.

The sacrament of baptism takes the believer from the simple repentance, belief, and profession of faith into a more mysterious identification with Christ, in which he is the vine, and we are the branches, in which we die with him so that we might rise to new life. Baptism is not simply the addition of a meaningful symbol to the act of faith: It is an action which takes the believer’s whole body, soul, and spirit into a new relationship with God.

You can continue to read the following verses:

ACTS 2 = Repent and be baptized

1 Peter 3: 18 - 21 = Noah’s Ark is referred to as a baptism
For Christ also suffered** once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which[c] he went and proclaimed[d] to the spirits in prison, 20 because[e] they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

Here the bible verse is saying that the water is not just something that cleanses dirt away but there is much more to it than that! It is not just a symbol of inward belief/faith it’s much more… Baptism … now saves you Basically as I mentioned here we see that the scripture is actually saying that the water of baptism is not merely just water which cleanses dirt away. Do you get it! It’s not just simply the kind of water that cleanses dirt away!! There is much more to it then that…

Now I’m not going to waste my time writing down here what you can easily read in the following article:

Baptism Saves You
catholic.com/magazine/articles/baptism-saves-you

I’m not sure if I can attach a YouTube video on here but I’m going to try.

Fr Barron on YouTube has a very good response to Baptism Which Saves You
youtube.com/watch?v=fV8uu9-sYSk**

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Easy, I am still wondering if you could answer, why should we take your interpretation of scripture. Where do you get your authority to tell Christians to change what they have been doing since the Apostolic age. Christians ever since Christ have been baptizing with water. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike have baptized with water. This is something that protestants and Catholics have in common. We may not agree on age of person being baptized and whether immersion or sprinkling but with water. The scriptures regarding baptism have always been interpreted to be with water.

Besides scripture this from the Didache, c 100 - 50

Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit… If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before the baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.[66][c]

So, why is it we should believe your interpretation of scripture. Where does your authority come from?

God bless.

Eazy, So you see the question of authority is a good question because Catholics don’t just have our interpretation of Sacred Scripture but we also have what the Church has taught from the very beginning. We also have the writings of the Early Church Father’s which back up what we are saying today.

I suppose if you want to follow a theology that began with the Anabaptist movement which began more than a thousands years after the church was first established, I guess that is your choice but Catholics follow the Church has been teaching from the very beginning. And this teaching has remained consistent and constant through the centuries.

You however, follow the Anabaptist theology on Baptism and with the Pentecostal Church following a theology that had its start less than 200 years ago.

Why should we follow your interpretation of Sacred Scripture?
How do you know for certainty that your interpretation of Scripture is right?

You can talk hermeneutics all you want but hermeneutics is the study of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture so who says your hermeneutics is accurate?

Again, we as Catholics have historical teachings to back us up. What do you have? The only thing you have is the bible and your own understanding, your own interpretation of Sacred Scripture backed up with a theology born in the last few centuries and in comparison to the Catholic Church is still a theology in its infancy stage. Why should we follow a new theology when we can follow a theology that is linked closely to the Early Church Fathers who’s theology is linked closely to that of the Apostles?

I encourage you to read up on the Early Church Fathers. Like it or not, but even some of the most educated Protestant Theologians make reference to the Early Church Fathers. Why? For good reason, you want to know what the early Church taught take a closer look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

So before you accuse Catholics for taking Sacred Scripture out of context you should have a better understanding of what the Early Church Fathers have written. Because like it or not, prior to the Reformation of the Church, you were either Catholic or Orthodox. What makes your theology superior? What makes your interpretation of Sacred Scripture superior to Catholic and Orthodox teachings?

As an example lets go back to the theology around baptism…

Did Jesus condemn infant baptism?

Where in the bible does it say we’re saved by faith alone?

What does it mean to be justified? And what would it mean if we were not justified?

Can you please stop going around in circles and answer our questions?

 

[rainman10]

Eazy, please answer my questions below. Seems you might have missed them.

1. you are following the scriptures as given by the Holy Spirit to whom? to you personally?
2. is it not true that the Holy Spirit was left to guide Christ’s Church unto all Truth?
3. also, isn’t it true that the Holy Spirit does not lie or cause confusion? It teaches ALL Truth, 100%?
4. if you are following the scriptures as given to you by the Holy Spirit, then all that you proclaim is the 100% God given truth, correct?
5. therefore, your interpretations of scripture are completely infallible, correct?
6. and as a result, then, every Christian on earth should be following you, because you must be Christ’s Church. You are THE authority we should all follow, correct?

I posed the same questions to two Pentecostal pastors, and like you, they could not answer, because they know, like you do, that THEY are not infallible in their interpretations. SO, WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE???

 

[Kliska]

1. you are following the scriptures as given by the Holy Spirit to whom? to you personally?

You follow God. God’s scriptures are His word in written form. The Holy Spirit inspired its writing by inspiring the individual authors. Those authors were authors the early believers knew, and they circulated copies of specific manuscripts to the different churches in the different locales that had been founded. That is the NT documents, the OT documents had already been around, of course.

1. is it not true that the Holy Spirit was left to guide Christ’s Church unto all Truth?

The Holy Spirit is given to each believer, and it is promised that He will lead and guide us, not just collectively but individually.

1. also, isn’t it true that the Holy Spirit does not lie or cause confusion? It teaches ALL Truth, 100%?

He does not lie, nor cause confusion. He does indeed teach truth. However, as any teacher can tell you, not all students learn the same, nor do they retain what they learn, nor are they, the students 100% correct all the time, nor are they 100% honest all the time. The Spirit isn’t the problem, obviously, humans are.

1. if you are following the scriptures as given to you by the Holy Spirit, then all that you proclaim is the 100% God given truth, correct?

No, 100% of what God proclaims is truth. No human besides Jesus is perfect. You have to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

1. therefore, your interpretations of scripture are completely infallible, correct?

No, there is no human that is infallible except Christ.

1. and as a result, then, every Christian on earth should be following you, because you must be Christ’s Church. You are THE authority we should all follow, correct?

I wish every Christian on earth is and should be following God. He is THE authority we should all follow.

I posed the same questions to two Pentecostal pastors, and like you, they could not answer,

That’s either sad, which is possible, or you are misinterpreting their answer or their silence, which is also possible.

 

[Magdalena59]

You follow God. God’s scriptures are His word in written form. The Holy Spirit inspired its writing by inspiring the individual authors. Those authors were authors the early believers knew, and they circulated copies of specific manuscripts to the different churches in the different locales that had been founded. That is the NT documents, the OT documents had already been around, of course

The Holy Spirit is given to each believer, and it is promised that He will lead and guide us, not just collectively but individually…

Yes, God’s Word is inspired and it is his wonderful Word to us but not for individual interpretation.

You’ll have to reconcile that somehow when the issue becomes someone’s salvation. A wrong interpretation could cost one his soul or the soul of another person if your interpretation leads them down the wrong path.

I used to believe that too about the manuscripts being circulated and everyone had copies but that isn’t true. You’ll need to check out history but there were not copies circulated around for everyone and, and there were a lot of things written that were not of God, that were not inspired. It was God’s Church that decided what was truth and what wasn’t and what was His Word and what wasn’t.

He does not lie, nor cause confusion. He does indeed teach truth. However, as any teacher can tell you, not all students learn the same, nor do they retain what they learn, nor are they, the students 100% correct all the time, nor are they 100% honest all the time. The Spirit isn’t the problem, obviously, humans are.

No, 100% of what God proclaims is truth. No human besides Jesus is perfect. You have to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. …

Learning something in different ways in one thing, everybody believing something different about something is whole different reality. Then it no longer is truth but it is some truth, half truth, innuendos and lies. That is what happens when one believes that they have been given authority by God over His Church to interpret scripture.

there is no human that is infallible except Christ.

I wish every Christian on earth is and should be following God. He is THE authority we should all follow…

Agreed. We do all need to follow God but when we take His book and say we know better than He does or better than the Church He instituted then we are not following God but we are following our own line of thinking and feeling.

I know, been there, done that.

God bless.

 

[Kliska]

Yes, God’s Word is inspired and it is his wonderful Word to us but not for individual interpretation.

We all agree on that; as none of us (meaning right here in this conversation) are subjectivists, we know there is truth and that 2 mutually exclusive interpretations can’t be correct. It isn’t the human interpretation that is correct by default, it is God’s meaning that is correct.

You’ll have to reconcile that somehow when the issue becomes someone’s salvation. A wrong interpretation could cost one his soul or the soul of another person if your interpretation leads them down the wrong path.

It’s not really something to reconcile because we face that all the time. If someone claims Jesus did not exist, our Apologetic is to point to the fact that He did indeed exist. Now, when talking about meaning, the teaching is that the Holy Spirit won’t lead them down the wrong path, not that they should listen to me. We should be wary of people that make those types of claims, as that is one of the hallmarks of a cult.

I used to believe that too about the manuscripts being circulated and everyone had copies but that isn’t true. You’ll need to check out history but there were not copies circulated around for everyone and, and there were a lot of things written that were not of God, that were not inspired. It was God’s Church that decided what was truth and what wasn’t and what was His Word and what wasn’t.

I have studied the process, even (or especially from Catholic sources), there were actually only a few books, letters, etc… that were heavily contended. The bulk were “organically” identified. Also, don’t forget protestants believe in the Church as well, we just don’t believe in it in the precise way that Catholics do.

Learning something in different ways in one thing, everybody believing something different about something is whole different reality. Then it no longer is truth but it is some truth, half truth, innuendos and lies. That is what happens when one believes that they have been given authority by God over His Church to interpret scripture.

In essence what you present is a circular basis for an argument, and that’s ok, it’s just not something that can “prove” itself in a logical way.

Agreed. We do all need to follow God but when we take His book and say we know better than He does or better than the Church He instituted then we are not following God but we are following our own line of thinking and feeling.

I know, been there, done that.

And that’s a big difference; the Catholic way of looking at interpretation is one step removed from a general protestant way of looking at it. You also believe the Holy Spirit leads and guides, just not the individual believer in the way He guides a select group of men. You have faith that God guides them, and hence you listen to them. I have faith God can and does guide individual believers in the same manner you believe God guides those men.

I don’t see it promised in scripture that there will be an infallible group of men that are never wrong… I wish that I did. What I see are the Apostles repeatedly telling people that there are wolves even amongst those that were directly taught by the Apostles themselves and that heresy had already reared its head amongst the churches and leaders the Apostles appointed. If there was a group to listen to, why did not Paul, Peter, John, etc… explicitly tell people to always listen to this group and they’d never go wrong. I don’t see that in scripture, I see the opposite, I even read Paul warning that if he should preach a different gospel not to listen to him. It’s not a comforting view, I admit.

God bless.

Grace and Peace,
K

 

[rainman10]

We all agree on that; as none of us (meaning right here in this conversation) are subjectivists, we know there is truth and that 2 mutually exclusive interpretations can’t be correct. It isn’t the human interpretation that is correct by default, it is God’s meaning that is correct.

It’s not really something to reconcile because we face that all the time. If someone claims Jesus did not exist, our Apologetic is to point to the fact that He did indeed exist. Now, when talking about meaning, the teaching is that the Holy Spirit won’t lead them down the wrong path, not that they should listen to me. We should be wary of people that make those types of claims, as that is one of the hallmarks of a cult.

I have studied the process, even (or especially from Catholic sources), there were actually only a few books, letters, etc… that were heavily contended. The bulk were “organically” identified. Also, don’t forget protestants believe in the Church as well, we just don’t believe in it in the precise way that Catholics do.

In essence what you present is a circular basis for an argument, and that’s ok, it’s just not something that can “prove” itself in a logical way.

And that’s a big difference; the Catholic way of looking at interpretation is one step removed from a general protestant way of looking at it. You also believe the Holy Spirit leads and guides, just not the individual believer in the way He guides a select group of men. You have faith that God guides them, and hence you listen to them. I have faith God can and does guide individual believers in the same manner you believe God guides those men.

I don’t see it promised in scripture that there will be an infallible group of men that are never wrong… I wish that I did. What I see are the Apostles repeatedly telling people that there are wolves even amongst those that were directly taught by the Apostles themselves and that heresy had already reared its head amongst the churches and leaders the Apostles appointed. If there was a group to listen to, why did not Paul, Peter, John, etc… explicitly tell people to always listen to this group and they’d never go wrong. I don’t see that in scripture, I see the opposite, I even read Paul warning that if he should preach a different gospel not to listen to him. It’s not a comforting view, I admit.

Grace and Peace,
K

That still leaves the OP’s question unanswered. From where does Protestantism get its authority? There can only be one source, one individual or one entity that can guide into all Truth. There cannot be many truths, that is why there is so much division within Protestantism, everyone has their own truth, there is NO ONE AUTHORITY.

 

[Kliska]

That still leaves the OP’s question unanswered. From where does Protestantism get its authority? There can only be one source, one individual or one entity that can guide into all Truth. There cannot be many truths, that is why there is so much division within Protestantism, everyone has their own truth, there is NO ONE AUTHORITY.

No, the answer has been given, but it won’t be accepted, and I don’t mean that negatively, it’s just the truth; why would a practicing Catholic accept the answer as given from a protestant?

“Protestantism” is a moot point to most protestants. The only entity that can guide into all truth is God; which we all actually agree on. The question is how that works. There cannot be many truths, as we all actually agree on as well. The one authority is God; God is the one that has the authority to inspire the scripture as He wills and He is the one that leads and guides.

 

[SteveVH]

The one authority is God; God is the one that has the authority to inspire the scripture as He wills and He is the one that leads and guides.

He is also the one that gives authority; His own authority (Matthew 16). That is what seems to be rejected by the sons and daughters of the Reformation; that this authority was given to some and not all.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Kliska]

He is also the one that gives authority; His own authority (Matthew 16). That is what seems to be rejected by the sons and daughters of the Reformation; that this authority was given to some and not all.

Peace.

Steve

We don’t reject the idea of authority nor actual authority. So, for example, I’m under my husband’s God-given authority, and I’m also instructed to obey the civil authorities over me, all understanding that if I’m ordered to do something against God then their authority does not apply. I think we would all agree that the authority that we claim to be under is indeed God-given authority. What that encompasses is indeed what we debate over.

 

[SteveVH]

We don’t reject the idea of authority nor actual authority. So, for example, I’m under my husband’s God-given authority, and I’m also instructed to obey the civil authorities over me, all understanding that if I’m ordered to do something against God then their authority does not apply. I think we would all agree that the authority that we claim to be under is indeed God-given authority. What that encompasses is indeed what we debate over.

But it isn’t just a matter of “what”. It is a matter of who, what, when and where.

When we read Matthew 16 we find that unprecedented authority was given to Peter and the Apostles. Can any one of us claim that we have authority to bind in heaven what is bound on earth or to loose in heaven what is loosed on earth? Can any one of us claim that we have the authority, individually, to forgive sins? Yet is evident that this authority was truly given by Christ and he names those who were given this authority.

It seems to me that these question must be asked and answered by all Christians, and I have not seen that answer from a non-Catholic.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Kliska]

But it isn’t just a matter of “what”. It is a matter of who, what, when and where.

Of course, as I’ve said.

When we read Matthew 16 we find that unprecedented authority was given to Peter and the Apostles. Can any one of us claim that we have authority to bind in heaven what is bound on earth or to loose in heaven what is loosed on earth? Can any one of us claim that we have the authority, individually, to forgive sins? Yet is evident that this authority was truly given by Christ and he names those who were given this authority.

It seems to me that these question must be asked and answered by all Christians, and I have not seen that answer from a non-Catholic.

Peace.

Steve

I would gently say that it has been answered from many non-Catholics (as I and others have done on this very board), but of course the answer isn’t accepted. Just as the answers that Catholics give are not accepted by Protestants on many issues… if they were we wouldn’t be talking about them now.

Grace and peace,
K