R
rainman10
Guest
So, it is everyone for him/herself? Believe what you “think” you are being led to believe? God is guiding us all into confusion?
- Status
R
rainman10
Guest
So you still don’t know the whole truth, because everyone is guided to their own truth? I would like to know where I can find “not by their authority” in the Bible.
K
Kliska
Guest
You believe that a believer is ever alone when they have faith on the Son? The Spirit dwells within us, we are in the Son, and we have right relationship with the Father. A believer is never alone. We are expected to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, as well as to study to show ourselves approved.
I should hope not. The Lord is indeed my Shepherd, He’s used hook and crook to correct me before, He can definitely do so again. I don’t trust me, I trust Him.
Never has anyone said, that, in fact we are all in agreement; God is not the author of confusion.
Rainman, nothing I nor any other protestant would say would ever be satisfactory in your eyes to answer your questions, and that is ok. You may think what you wish about us; that we are willful, or ignorant, or illogical, or delusional, or are to be pitied, that’s ok too.
Grace and peace to you,
K
R
rainman10
Guest
Kliska, regarding the underlined above, I don’t think any of that at all. I apologize if I led you to think that. I am just trying to understand, if you disagree with someone on any interpretation of scripture or any doctrine, how do you know you are right and the other person is wrong, if it is claimed that both are being led by God?
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Jesus Christ, the Lord himself, the head of the Church, who appointed Simon (Peter) to be the Rock on which his church was to be built.
K
Kliska
Guest
Thank you for clarifying, I don’t want to come across as harsh either.
I try to explain it like this; many Catholics on the boards have a desire that protestants would convert and “come home.” What would the process* look and feel like* to the protestants IF God where calling them to the church? You would have to have some idea or thought as to how that would be. We agree that the Spirit can lead and guide.
IF you can imagine that for a protestant, then it’s a similar process when you are delving into doctrine or teachings. You pray, you study, and you truly attempt to humble yourself so that you will yield to God instead of just backing up yourself. It’s not up to someone else to convince me of something, nor I them. Have you ever realized that you believed something or did something that you later recognize as not being right? I know I have. It is an internal process, that can have external (name removed by moderator)ut sure (as all of us do acknowledge and believe in the gift of teaching, preaching, evangelizing…), but ultimately it’s illumination or insight on the inside.
The magisterium prays, studies, confers and debates, etc… to figure things out. I believe the individual process is very much similar, though obviously the process is different as well as the implication for others.
S
SteveVH
Guest
But, Kliska, you have to admit that while everyone can claim spiritual guidance, the fact that there are 30,000 plus faith communities that disagree with each other as to the truth is prima facie evidence that this is just not the case.Thank you for clarifying, I don’t want to come across as harsh either.
I try to explain it like this; many Catholics on the boards have a desire that protestants would convert and “come home.” What would the process* look and feel like* to the protestants IF God where calling them to the church? You would have to have some idea or thought as to how that would be. We agree that the Spirit can lead and guide.
IF you can imagine that for a protestant, then it’s a similar process when you are delving into doctrine or teachings. You pray, you study, and you truly attempt to humble yourself so that you will yield to God instead of just backing up yourself. It’s not up to someone else to convince me of something, nor I them. Have you ever realized that you believed something or did something that you later recognize as not being right? I know I have. It is an internal process, that can have external (name removed by moderator)ut sure (as all of us do acknowledge and believe in the gift of teaching, preaching, evangelizing…), but ultimately it’s illumination or insight on the inside.
The magisterium prays, studies, confers and debates, etc… to figure things out. I believe the individual process is very much similar, though obviously the process is different as well as the implication for others.
I have never understood why it is so difficult to believe that Christ left us with an authority so that we were not dependent upon our individual levels of literacy, catechesis, intellectual ability and understanding, but rather upon the Church which Christ himself promised to build and to which he promised the Holy Spirit to guide. Christ desires unity; one faith, one Baptism, one Lord. Why is this so hard to buy? It makes perfect sense and is backed up by Scripture and Tradition.
I would liken this to one who desires to pursue a college degree and is handed four years worth of text books without anyone to teach them and told “good luck”. Even in our education system we have some that have authority. They are called professors and there are requirements to them being called “professors”.
What do you suppose the billions of Christians who lived while 98% of the world was illiterate did? Did they study the Scriptures or did they rely on someone to teach them?
Sorry, but I don’t think your answer was an answer to the question posed. How do you know that you are right and someone else is wrong, and does it matter? And please don’t tell me that I just don’t accept your answer because I am Catholic. I am also a rational human being (most of the time) and, in light of the evidence before us in the Christian world, the claim that every individual who desires it is led to the truth by the Holy Spirit just doesn’t fly.
Thanks.
Steve
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
However, this is exactly the point at which a Protestant understanding of this concept is not borne out in reality, either in doctrine or the unity of the faith (ecclesiology).
The Bible was produced by men who were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the New Covenant, the Spirit indwells in the Christian. The New Testament was therefore produced by men who had been given the gift of the Holy Spirit and were deeply indwelt by Him. The Spirit inspired the words that they wrote. What is important is that this gift of the Holy Spirit did not cease after the Apostolic Era. While the fulness of doctrinal revelation had been bestowed upon the Apostles, Christ promised to ensure that His Church would not be overcome (cf. Matt 16:18). He fulfills this promise by continuing to fill men and women with the Holy Spirit. The person deeply indwelt by the Spirit is a saint. All of the good works that they do are done by the power of the Spirit. Just as the Spirit inspires them to do good, He also inspires them to teach the truth. He reorients a person away from evil and falsehood and towards good and truth. For this reason it is the consensus of the deified saints that functions as a rule of faith. The Church is the authority because the saints are the authority.
The fact of the matter, however, for much of Protestantism, is that this consensus is simply non-existent. Since, as you stated later on in this post, God is not an author of confusion, it becomes self-evident, therefore, that the Spirit is not leading the various Protestant sects toward doctrinal unity. This throws into doubt that such sects are indwelt by the Spirit, though individual Christians may be.
K
Kliska
Guest
From my research into numbers and beliefs, I feel that figure is a ridiculous figure. The same data set says there are over 200 Catholic churches, not 1. Further, though split in name, how many individuals from those different churches would stand by each other and recite the Apostles’ creed? Paul himself gave us a glimpse of some of the differences in the early Church (that even varied by individual), and we see from places like Revelation that even within local churches there were differences as well.
If I saw it taught in scripture, and to be more specific if I didn’t see the opposite taught in scripture, then I’d believe it. I don’t think it takes a genius to grasp and carry out the essentials of the faith, I believe in simplicity in Christ, and even that a child, and/or a babe in Christ can get the milk. There are some that are only ever going to have that simple faith, and that’s great.
Further, there seems to be the idea that protestants just don’t want an infallible human authority, that’s not true. But wanting doesn’t make it so. However I do believe in one faith, one Baptism, one Lord, and one Body. I just don’t believe in infallible humans in whom we should trust without studying ourselves to see if what they are saying is true. You’ve come to your belief in the Pope and Magisterium, I haven’t. If I’m wrong, and it grieves my Lord, I pray He’ll help me change, and I have faith in Him to guide me.
As stated earlier, both of our beliefs allow for those gifted with evangelization, teaching, pastoring, etc… God gifts the church with those individuals that can help aid understanding. However, we are also accountable for what we believe, that’s why it was such a big deal when Bibles began to circulate and people became more and more educated. However, there is nothing wrong with verbal or visual learning, and in fact that points to some of the value of baptism, communion, corporate worship, song, prayer, etc… Each of our faiths value reading the scriptures, prayers, praises, etc… out loud so that everyone can participate and learn.
In the secular world, we do expect those going to college to learn, to some extent, on their own, and as we learn more, we are actually expected to learn even more on our own. There were some classes in Grad. school where I was teaching myself because some of the prof’s couldn’t be bothered. lol
I believe I have answered it quite directly, though I understand why you wouldn’t feel as though I had. I apologize that I can’t find a way to formulate it more clearly, as sometimes (as in a lot of cases in theology) it’s hard to put into words.
- How do you know that you are right and someone else is wrong? Prayer, study, guidance of the Holy Spirit and yielding to that Spirit. Ok; you meet someone who says “there is no God.” How is that person to come to the knowledge of the truth? Holy Spirit, yielding, prayer, study, talking, discussing, humbling oneself, etc… How do you and I know there is a God?
- Does it matter? Yes, very much.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink, I’ve been there before until the Spirit whacked me upside the head with a metaphorical 2 x 4. lol
You believe, as well as I do, that God desires us all to know the truth and come to it, esp. the truth of Christ. *Yet, not everyone obeys the call. * You and I know abortion is heinous, yet there are people even in our own congregations that sit beside us that disagree, even ones that profess the same faith as we do.Thank you for the discussion,
K
K
Kliska
Guest
I contend there is more unity there than is realized.
However, I don’t think think that passage means what the Catholic church says it means. If that were so self-evidently the point, the Lord would not have to ask if He shall find faith on the earth when He returns. Nor would Paul and others warn, repeatedly, that there are wolves amongst the sheep, amongst the leaders of the sheep, even when he was still living. Paul himself warns that even if he, Paul, came preaching a different gospel not to believe him. If there were infallible people, he simply could have pointed to them, and said that those individuals would never lead the church astray. Instead we see Peter himself needing correction on a theological point about hypocrisy and cleanliness laws.
From the way I read John, he points to the Spirit as being the ultimate teacher and the one that gives guidance to the saints, all believers being saints, because we are indwelt.
A “sect” can’t be indwelt. We never see that claim, nor do we see that whole groups of believers are infallibly perfect in what they teach or do. We see the problems in the churches, for example the multiple letters to the multiple churches in Revelation. Further, we aren’t all hands, we aren’t all feet. We may look different, and function different and yet be a part of the same body. Who is ready to say that even those that are baptized and stand shoulder to shoulder and recite and mean the creed, that those people are not a member of the body? If we are not ready to say that, then the implication is we are a part of the same body with the same head, who is Christ.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
There is unity in certain basic premises that all Christians share. Very little, however, beyond this.
It depends on what you think the Catholic Church means by it. I don’t necessarily, either. That’s irelevant, though. Christ still said it and He still meant it.
Yes, indeed. However, that doesn’t remove the reality of the Holy Spirit ensuring that the sheep are not mislead by the wolves. The picture you paint here is one of the wolves completely devouring the sheep to the point that they can no longer be differentiated. However, the history of the Church shows otherwise. The wolves were found out, eventually, and removed from the flock. That is why ecumenical councils and local synods have existed since the time of the Apostles.
Paul was fond of the use of hyperbole
You’re focusing too much on the infallible people part. The People of God are infallible because the Holy Spirit is infallible. Yes, Peter needed correction. He wasn’t corrected by someone devoid of the Spirit, though.
Yes, indeed. That is my point. However, the problem for Protestants at this juncture is exactly what I stated. There is no unanimous consensus among the Protestant sects as to any point of doctrine beyond very basic premises. This fact disproves any notion that the Spirit is participating in their understanding of Christ’s teachings. This is not how the Holy Spirit guides the People of God.
What they teach and do is infallible because the One teaching and doing through them is infallible.
We look different and function differently, yes. But if we all confess something different, that moves it beyond what can be Godly differentation (different ethnic groups, different vocations of service, etc.) into that group of people whom St. John in his epistles warns to not even greet. The lackadaisical attitude of false teaching among Protestantism is why it is, at its core, such a dangerous notion. It makes one unable to refute or recognize heresy because “we’re just all different people led to different conclusions and we shouldn’t judge.”
We cannot say where the Church is not, as to individual members. We can, however, say where it is. And it is clearly not present where there is doctrinal error and confusion. This is why, for example, St. Vincent of Lerin’s dictum of universality, antiquity and consensus is so important. The saints, wherever and whenever they have existed have been inspired by the same Holy Spirit. If individuals are coming to different conclusions, sometimes radically different, in what sense is the Holy Spirit involved in this?
R
rainman10
Guest
Ok, so you say there is a God and the other person says there is not a God. You both study, pray, talk, discuss, humble yourself, and say you are guided by the Holy Spirit. How do you know you are right and the other person wrong?
- How do you know that you are right and someone else is wrong? Prayer, study, guidance of the Holy Spirit and yielding to that Spirit. Ok; you meet someone who says “there is no God.” How is that person to come to the knowledge of the truth? Holy Spirit, yielding, prayer, study, talking, discussing, humbling oneself, etc… How do you and I know there is a God?
- Does it matter? Yes, very much.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink, I’ve been there before until the Spirit whacked me upside the head with a metaphorical 2 x 4. lol
Yes, people in our own congregations will disagree, but it is not that people agree or not, what is important is what the Church teaches. There will always be those that disagree and refuse to follow the Church’s teachings.
Thank you for the discussion,
K
S
SteveVH
Guest
Okay, lets just say that there are only two that simultaneously claim guidance by the Holy Spirit, yet disagree as to doctrine. Can both positions be held to be led by the Holy Spirit? Can truth conflict with truth?
Would you? Do you believe in the “communion of saints”? Do you believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church?
And Paul admonished them. He didn’t say it was okay to disagree and go their own way.
What are those essentials, Kliska? I started another thread on this very topic and asked the question as to why some believe that the Eucharist is not an essential. Christ tells us that those who eat his body and drink his blood will be raised to eternal life and that those who do not have no life in them. Seems pretty essential to some of us. What are the “essentials” of faith? Can anyone even agree on that?
So then you have become the ultimate authority, the measure by which another human being is judged as to his correctness or error. You can never be certain that what you believe is actually true.
Yet both pray, study, claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and that they yield to the Holy Spirit. And both continue to disagree as to the truth they have received from the Holy Spirit
You make my point. We cannot rely at all on private opinions or interpretation. We were given a Church which Scripture defines as the pillar and bulwark of truth. It is to the Church that we are to bring our disputes. Why to the Church if it has no authority to settle these disputes?You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink, I’ve been there before until the Spirit whacked me upside the head with a metaphorical 2 x 4. lol
And you as well.
Peace.
Steve
K
Kliska
Guest
I don’t think I can agree with you on that, but I understand why you would think so. The reason I cannot is, of all the churches I have attended, the Apostle’s creed was agree to, baptism practiced, communion practiced, marriage upheld, worship and praise given, prayers prayed, fellowship given, etc… Can I find aberrant heretical practices out there? Absolutely, often within the same denomination. But to say that the only thing we hold in common is “basic premises” without acknowledging we worship the same God and proclaim the Son, His life, death, and resurrection, seems an odd turn of phrase.
It’s not irrelevant to the conversation; how will you know what Christ meant by it? We all agree He said it and He meant it.
No, the picture I paint is that individuals, the sheep, can fall prey to the wolves, and if they, the sheep, were assured of not being lead astray by false teaching, then why the warnings? Why not just assure the sheep that no matter who they listen to, they’ll be ok? OR point to the specific living individuals who they could trust no matter what they taught, such as Paul himself.
Let’s assume that is an accurate word to use; hyperbole doesn’t mean falsehood. And, I’d point out that there are plenty of other religions that do indeed claim an angel from Heaven taught them new doctrine, new good news… was Paul using hyperbole there? I would say he stressed that the gospel was the measuring stick, not who was talking.Paul was fond of the use of hyperbole
I believe strongly in believers sharpening and correcting others when it springs from the Spirit. But, again, the Spirit is the infallible one. Have you ever met an infallible human?
So, you’ve found a denomination that never errs? Are you a member of a church?
In the bold bit above; are you saying that they don’t actually believe in the same God you do? Because either the Spirit led them to the Truth of Who Jesus is, or He did not, the natural man can’t quite get there on his own.
I’m a bit lost; who exactly is living today that you think is infallible? I’m not trying to be smart, I’m trying to understand your perspective.
Are you saying Protestants are who John speaks of when he says,
2 John 1:7For many deceivers have gone out into the world,** those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh**. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10If anyone comes to you and does not bring** this teaching**, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
The only Protestants I know that teach that are the Emergents, as they don’t believe in absolute truth (also some liberals in all denominations, including in the Catholic church). You and I must not be around the same Protestants, as they tend to be some of the loudest in denouncing what they feel is false teaching and heresy.
Again, I apologize, I don’t see actual born-again believers as disagreeing on all of these radical notions (and I do indeed include believing Catholics and Orthodox in that). At some point there are those weaker in faith and those stronger, as Paul clearly talks about, but I don’t see a lot of mainstream protestants denying the Trinity.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I am not sure why you would think that it is odd. Of course it is a given that much of the Apostles and Nicene Creed is something that all orthodox Christians share in common. But even in that instance, there are cases of disagreement within Protestantism. How many Baptists/Pentecostals/Non-denominational Christians, for example, agree that baptism is for the remission of sins? Why should you accept what the ancients say about it? I accept it, because I accept that when Christ said His Spirit would be given to insure His Church is led into truth, He meant it and as a result, the Church in Her saints have continually made a witness to the teachings of the Christ from the time of the Apostles until now. And she is still being led by those same saints.
Better yet, why would you consider any creed to have any authoritative weight whatsoever?
I know what it means because there is 2,000 years of unbroken witness as to what it means.
There is no doubt that they can be led astray. But the underlying assumption on your part is that the Church will have no means of knowing whether its members are being led astray. We do; Holy Tradition, as exemplified in the lives and witness of the saints.
The hyperbole was that Paul would ever preach a false gospel.
If it springs from the Spirit, it is by definition infallible. Why would it be fallible in a person but infallible in Scripture?
The people can err, as sinful individuals. But the Church? No.
Yes, they do believe in the same God; that doesn’t mean they are believing the fullness of His self-revelation to man.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
There is no one particular individual. We do not follow individuals, we adhere to the consensus of the saints down through the centuries from the time of the apostles until the present. When those within the Church teach what that consensus is, in that respect, they are infallible. If they deviate from it, we know they are in error.
Not that specific false teaching (i.e., gnosticism). What it does, however, is show how serious false teaching was taken by the apostles.
And the problem is that they have no objective basis to call anything heresy, especially when it comes to doctrinal issues that the Scriptures themselves don’t explicitly address.
Really? So, do we baptize infants or not? Does it forgive sins or not? Do we ordain women or not? Do we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ in communion or not? Do we sing psalms only, or use hymns; what about contemporary vs. traditional worship? Do we ordain homosexuals? Is abortion licit? Do we follow an episcopacy or a congregationalist form of government? Do we use the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrinian canon? Do we receive charismatic gifts, like tongues and prophecy today? Is miraculous healing real? Is divorce and remarriage ok? Is Calvinism or Arminianism true? The list could go on; but there are clearly close to 200 different answers on these questions in Protestantism; and you have no objective way to know other than how you feel about it.
K
Kliska
Guest
No, absolutely not. Truth does not contradict, nor does the Spirit contradict Himself. So, for example, if He guides us, it will not contradict scripture.
Absolutely. Obviously when protestants recite the creed we don’t mean “Roman Catholic” when saying catholic, but rather “universal.”
Well, it depends on the issue, for example;
Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. … 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.
That’s a whole 'nother thread, and topic (one which you see that there is some agreement on, though not perfect agreement). I have a feeling, though, that the goalposts changed over time, sometimes our of necessity.
You are certain God exists? (And, again, a human is never ever the “ultimate authority,” God is.)
Mother Angelica once explained the differences (even in the RCC) in terms of dirty windows. We are all windows through which the Holy Spirit shines, some windows are more dirty than others, and we all get cleaned at different rates, and utilizing different means.Yet both pray, study, claim to be led by the Holy Spirit and that they yield to the Holy Spirit. And both continue to disagree as to the truth they have received from the Holy Spirit
The difference in my thinking, is, I have no right to claim authority, but rather point to God. If I’m talking with another believer, I don’t have to be afraid for them, but I do love them and pray for them, and we can talk… why do I not fear when talking to a brother or sister? Because I trust our Father. He loves us all beyond our own understanding, if a viewpoint needs work, He is interested and will work in that persons life in a way to help conform them to the image of the Son.
The disputes were inter-congregational disputes, meaning 2 believers from the same congregation were involved, and the matter must be resolved. For example, one believer is not allowed to sue another, and the church acted as the governing body. Back in the day, say your fellow congregant stole your horse. You would go to the person first, then take 2 witnesses, and then to the church, not the gov’t.
I don’t believe in private opinion or interpretation either.
Grace and peace,
K
K
Kliska
Guest
Per Crucem, do you belong to a church? Which church do you believe fits the bill as being infallible?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
The Orthodox Catholic Church, yes (as a catechumen)
P
pablope
Guest
Sure…but how do your or how would you show your trust in Him?
From what you say…you trust Him through yourself…is what I can glean.
On the CC…this is how we show our trust in Him…through the Church:
calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.
I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29
This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.
But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31
- Status