Where to begin?

[Tomster]

You deny the perspicuity of Scripture? You believe that God condescended to man to give man His Word, but only in a manner that the greatest of men (bishops and popes) could understand it?

A preacher can read and discuss Scripture without injecting his own spin. It’s called exegesis. It is similar to when you read an owner’s manual. You do not require an infallible interpretation of the manual. You just read it and do what it says.

Are you aware that an individual’s understanding of Scripture, even if he has an accurate translation of the complete Bible in his hands, depends on a number of things: his age, intelligence, education, religious background, spiritual maturity, and his spiritual guides?

“Thinkest thou that thou understandeth what thou readest? . . . And how can I, unless some man show me?” (Acts 8:30-31)

 

[Tomster]

Not true. The Christian Bible began with Moses. And the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible was completed and widely recognized long before 200 A.D. (even if it wasn’t formally ratified until 393 A.D.). In fact, Peter was already acknowledging Paul’s letters as Scripture in his second epistle (2 Peter 3:16).

FYI- There were other “books” circulating before and even after the canon was established by the Catholic Church. Formal ratification by the Catholic Church ruled those “other” books out once and for all.

Something for you to think about. If the formal ratification of the New Testament occurred in 393 A.D., as you say, how do you think the Church managed to not only exist but to flourish before this formal ratification. (Hint: Tradition)

 

[thirddec]

STOP STOP STOP

lets unwind this tape right back to the start.

When did we let God into this process, when did the apostles start preaching after Christ had left them to return bodily to heaven? Yep after they got inspired by the Holy Spirit.
So before you even start you should pray on the matter that the Holy Spirit inspire you and help the other person to be open to your message. The Rosary is great. Offer it up for help in trying to help your friend find the Catholic Church if it be Gods will and that the Holy Spirit guide you in your conversation in timing and topics to facilitate this. Pray that you are granted wisdom in when to speak and when to be patient and let the Spirit do its work.

After that groundwork it may be more reasonable to discuss the others faith ; why is it important to them; what aspects of faith do they gain strength from; do they found their faith on scripture ( as if not they wont be interested in scriptural arguements to start ) do they found it on seing the work of their church and individuals, or is it just something they dropped into as a baby.

Find out more about the teachings and belief of the Denomination they hail from; and the differences they have from Catholiscism ( this part you can do with research as you dont want to discuss differences too soon ). In time focus on the similarities and later start to flesh out the differences . In time all the wonderfull scriptural knowledge and ideas above may be needed

Above all else keep praying for guidance and help because if you are honoured to be Christs instrument of Conversion be thankfull and be humble and realise it is not you but the Spirit of God that was working.

By the way I do think you are WONDERFULL to be interested in active evangelism as I think we Catholics tend to be a bit backward in this.

Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.”

 

[hazcompat]

The word “infallible” does not appear in this passage. You are using a logical argument to infer it. The question, then, is why the inconsistent application of this logic? If your argument “proves” infallibility of the Church, then the argument also “proves” infallibility of all Christians in their prayers. Neither one of us, however, is willing to accept the latter proposition. Therefore, the argument is faulty.

Is the Holy Spirit infallible???

peace

 

[Solus_Christus]

Thanks for the admission. You do, then, admit that you adhere to the oral tradition given to you from the pulpit.

Another question though.

How do you know that the exegesis you are given is correct?

Sorry, but where is tradition in that? People the world over learn to communicate in writing and no tradition is required, plain and simple.

If the Bible says not to covet I do not spend a lot of time worrying that my exegesis is correct, I just assume it means that we should not covet. It’s not complicated really.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Are you aware that an individual’s understanding of Scripture, even if he has an accurate translation of the complete Bible in his hands, depends on a number of things: his age, intelligence, education, religious background, spiritual maturity, and his spiritual guides?

So a five year old buddhist male thinks *thou shalt not covet *means one thing and a 50 year old Muslim woman believes it means something else? What’s the point of even trying to communicate then? If God knew our communication were that screwed up He would have just transmitted His Word to us through osmosis.

“Thinkest thou that thou understandeth what thou readest? . . . And how can I, unless some man show me?” (Acts 8:30-31)

Since the Ethiopian was reading some prophetic Old Testament text he was unaware that they were referring to Jesus who had recently ascended back into Heaven. In this case, Philip was just catching his new friend up on current events. Neither you nor I are infallible, but we certainly could have answered the eunuch’s question in verse 34.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Is the Holy Spirit infallible???

Yes, of course He is! But that is not the question. The question is whether we, or in this case the leaders of the RCC, always follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, or whether they at times follow their own fancy taking others with them.

 

[Solus_Christus]

FYI- There were other “books” circulating before and even after the canon was established by the Catholic Church. Formal ratification by the Catholic Church ruled those “other” books out once and for all.

Challenge for you Tomster (or any other partakers): Name just one book that was a serious contender for the canon, but was rejected.

Something for you to think about. If the formal ratification of the New Testament occurred in 393 A.D., as you say, how do you think the Church managed to not only exist but to flourish before this formal ratification. (Hint: Tradition)

Or…the letters of the apostles and copies of those letters, which were recognized as Scripture, were circulated among the churches. Not only that, but they also had the Old Testament. Talk to a messianic Jew, and they will show you how the Gospel is proclaimed even in the Old Testament.

 

[pablope]

Not true. The Christian Bible began with Moses. And the New Testament portion of the Christian Bible was completed and widely recognized long before 200 A.D. (even if it wasn’t formally ratified until 393 A.D.). In fact, Peter was already acknowledging Paul’s letters as Scripture in his second epistle (2 Peter 3:16).

What? You mean christianity predates even King David?

You should do some more research. Even the Jews disagreed on their books.

No, there was also in circulation the gospels of thomas, of peter, and other writings that did not make it into the final canon. So by your statement, this would be scripture too? Keep in mind, for the first 300 years, christianity was under persecution and underground, so not all would have the gospels, epistles together at a time.

As for 2 peter…you should study that more in detail.

Here is the verse:

speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

He is referring and comparing what is being done to the “other scriptures”…Peter is saying that some of Paul’s letters are hard to understand, and could be twisted as some had done with “other scriptures”…meaning other writings.

 

[pablope]

Sorry, but where is tradition in that? People the world over learn to communicate in writing and no tradition is required, plain and simple.

If the Bible says not to covet I do not spend a lot of time worrying that my exegesis is correct, I just assume it means that we should not covet. It’s not complicated really.

2 thes 2: 15:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 tim 3: 15:

if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

It says go to the church for the truth, not the Bible.

 

[Solus_Christus]

What? You mean christianity predates even King David?

The promise of a Messiah first appears in Genesis 3:15. This is called the protoevangelium. What we call christianity was God’s plan all along. It wasn’t plan B. Therefore, the Old Testament is also part of the Christian Bible.

You should do some more research. Even the Jews disagreed on their books.

The Old Testament canon was ratified among the Jews in their council in Jamnia in 95 A.D. Remarkably, they neither added nor subtracted from what had been accepted by the Jews over the previous five centuries.

By the way, does this make the Jamnia Council or the Levitical priesthood infallible?

No, there was also in circulation the gospels of thomas, of peter, and other writings that did not make it into the final canon. So by your statement, this would be scripture too? Keep in mind, for the first 300 years, christianity was under persecution and underground, so not all would have the gospels, epistles together at a time.

The so-called Gospel of Thomas was NOT widely accepted. It was clearly a gnostic text and was widely rejected.

He is referring and comparing what is being done to the “other scriptures”…Peter is saying that some of Paul’s letters are hard to understand, and could be twisted as some had done with “other scriptures”…meaning other writings.

So your argument is that Peter did not really think Paul’s letters were Scripture??? I thought Peter was infallible. Anyway, what’s the point of comparing Paul’s letters to Scripture if they weren’t considered to be Scripture? This does not make any sense at all.

 

[Solus_Christus]

2 thes 2: 15:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

1 tim 3: 15:

if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

It says go to the church for the truth, not the Bible.

Dr. Erwin Lutzer in his book Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust The Bible says it more eloquently than I can:

"[C]onsider the context of Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 2:25…Paul had taught the believers in Thessalonica many things by word of mouth, and these doctrines were to be followed. But the essential content of these teachings is what is recorded in the Scripture. And if there were other matters Paul taught them which are not in the sacred Scriptures, we can only assume that he did not think that they were necessary to be preserved for the whole church. Paul would never have entrusted the truth he wanted the whole church to know to oral tradition. Whatever was of basic importance was written down.

The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly by an apostle, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Paul wanted to warn them to accept only letters written in his own handwriting (3:7) and so stand fast in his teaching."

 

[hazcompat]

Yes, of course He is! But that is not the question. The question is whether we, or in this case the leaders of the RCC, always follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, or whether they at times follow their own fancy taking others with them.

John 20:22 After saying this he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit

Acts 1:8 but you will receive the power of the Holy Spirit which will come on you, and then you will be my witnesses not only in Jerusalem but throughout Judaea and Samaria, and indeed to earth’s remotest end.’

Acts2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak different languages as the Spirit gave them power to express themselves.

they do not follow any fancy in matters of faith and morals.

peace

 

[Prieldedi]

The Old Testament canon was ratified among the Jews in their council in Jamnia in 95 A.D. Remarkably, they neither added nor subtracted from what had been accepted by the Jews over the previous five centuries.

Whatever they ratified it was not the Old Testament Cannon.

The Old Testament Cannon was ratified in the year 397 AD including 46 books, along with the New Testament 27 books, at the Council of Carthage.

Whatever the Jews did after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ with their books has no bearing on Christians. None whatsoever.

The Septuagint, also called LXX and put together between the 3rd and 2nd century before the birth of Jesus, included the 46 books of the Old Testament and it is what Jesus and the Apostles refer to as “Scripture”. So, if anyone subtracted books it was not the Catholic Church. Martin Luther used the council at Jamnia as his excuse to reject the 7 books called the Deuterocanonicals from the Word of God, the Bible. There you have another one that subtracted books.

In the year 95 AD a new Authority had been established on Earth for more that 60 years by then by Jesus Himself, that of the Apostles and their successors. What would you do today if the Jews religious authorities reject the books of Obadiah, Haggai, Joel & Jonah… will you run and rip them from your Bible too?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but of course some Protestants do baptize infants. As for my original challenge, your earliest quote is from about 200 years after the time of the apostles, so the challenge still stands.

Solus-

I think your request for what would amount to the Sacramentary of the Early Church is a bit unreasonable. Of course, you get mileage out of demanding it (since you know we have nothing to offer)…I do get that.

However, I ask you to consider that the majority of the NT was written many decades after the events of the gospels took place, and it was written by an for people who LIVED their faith on a daily basis.

There was no need for Paul or Peter or James to write out the specific prayers to be said at a baptism since everyone knew what the prayers were from their own experience of attending and witnessing the baptisms.

The Protoevangelium of James is the earliest work I know of that describes baptism procedures, but there is nothing comparable to this for the sacrament of reconciliation…or marriage, either, for that matter - yet you have no problem with acknowledging marriage as a sacrament.

I do find it quite interesting, however, that 30-40 years after the Last Supper, Paul recorded the words of Jesus in his letter to the Corinthians (which are exactly the words used during the consecration of the bread and wine today), and yet he took no pains to correct what you would consider to be obvious misunderstandings about the literal meaning of John 6.

If the early Church believed that Jesus was present in the Eucharist for a number of decades, and this belief was wrong, then why didn’t the Holy Spirit prompt Paul to correct this idolatrous error when he passed on to the Church at Corinth what the Lord had shown him?

On the other hand, if Paul was upholding the belief in the Real Presence, then who among those who followed in the footsteps of Luther and Calvin has the right to say “this is not” when Jesus (and the Holy Spirit through Paul) had clearly said, “this is (my body)”?

Corinthians provides an example of the early teaching of the Church regarding one of its sacraments…and still you do not accept it.

So, how would having the rite of confession from an Apostolic Father make you any more accepting of something you are clearly pre-disposed to reject?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mr. Bonocore’s explanation sure seems nice and tidy, but is not very believable if the apostles really believed Peter was infallible. First of all, I find it intriguing that James had to show his support for Peter’s stance in order to convince the Judaizers. If Peter were believed to be infallible, it is inconceivable the Judaizers would have been ignorant about this belief. And, if they had opposed Peter’s pronouncement while in possession of this knowledge, then it would have meant the first split in the Church. More likely, however, the Judaizers would not have opposed someone known to be infallible, so there would not have been any need for James to bring his fellow Judaizers on-board with the pronouncement.

Actually, I think the passage suggests that as soon as Peter spoke, the matter WAS settled. There was no further opposition mentioned in the text, was there?

Additionally, I have not claimed that the understanding of Papal infallibility was full-blown within Peter’s lifetime, have I? He was infallible, but what of that was understood in the first century is unclear. Moreover, the pope is not infallible in EVERYTHING he says, so there is plenty of room to disagree.

In addition, I strongly suspect that verse 6 would read: “The apostles and elders approached Peter to learn the truth of the matter” rather than the way it actually reads: “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.” Finally, it seems odd that Peter did not correct the Judaizers while in Antioch, rather than joining them in their folly. This whole ordeal could have been nipped in the bud from the get-go if Peter had been prevented from teaching error. By refusing to eat with the Gentiles, Peter was reinforcing the error of the Judaizers. How exactly was Peter NOT teaching error while in Antioch?

Is there a passage which quotes Peter as teaching this error? No. Peter’s mistake was in behaving improperly, but that’s not the same thing as teaching formally. You may feel this is splitting hairs, but that’s the fact of the matter.

Convenient how you refuse to answer my question (stated here for a third time): If it is by way of these figurative keys that binding and loosing occurs (according to your own words), and Christ gave this power to all of his disciples (Matthew 18:18), then does it not stand to reason that the other disciples also have these keys?

Gee, how have I failed to respond? The answer is “no”, and several ECF’s as well as Martin Luther himself distinguish between Peter and the other Apostles. I know I’ve posted this…was it in other threads besides this one???

As I pointed out above, there are many situations where behavior IS teaching. By Peter refusing to eat with the Gentiles, he was reinforcing the error of the Judaizers. The questions you pose to “prove” infallibility are all about keeping the Church from falling into error. So what good is infallibility if, by his words or by his actions, he led the Church into error? It is a flimsy but convenient defense that Peter’s refusing to eat with the Gentiles was not “formal teaching.” Either way the effect was the same: the Church was led into error.

This is a stretch. You cannot possibly believe that word went out to Corinth and Ephesus and Phillip, etc,:

FLASH: Gentiles unclean. Pope Peter refuses to eat with uncircumcised.
Get serious…“the Church” throughout the entire known world was NOT led into error by Peter’s personal decision to avoid conflict with the group that came from Jerusalem.

Yes, the whole thing was straightened out in Jerusalem. But the fact remains that, far from being turned from their error, the Judaizers were reinforced in their error by the holder of the keys. So I might answer your litany of questions (post #106) with another question: Was Christ on hiatus while Peter was in Antioch that He did not keep the Church from error? Would you suggest that Christ was okay with the Judaizers being reinforced in their error because of a technicality (i.e. Peter’s action was not a formal teaching)?

This is just wishful thinking on your part. I understand why you want…no, NEED to cling desperately to this perspective to justify your separation from the Catholic Church, but it’s weak.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Only because it is the most important role of all. You consistently stress how Peter alone received the keys, but now you are asking why the role of pope should be any different from other bishops. Why the inconsistency? Either the position is unique and imbued with special abilities/protections or it is not. You cannot exalt the position in one breathe and then deny its uniqueness in the next.

I’m not saying that the position is not unique.

I’m saying that the qualifications to be the Bishop of Rome are no different than the qualifications to be the Bishop of Cleveland.

And you already cited those from scripture, didn’t you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If Christ promises to do whatever we ask, then why wouldn’t He prevent us from praying in error?

Because we are not individually infallible, and He never promised otherwise. Duh.

The lynchpin of the RCC argument is that God would not bind/loose in error. The same would certainly be true about the deeds of God done in response to our prayers.

And yet we know from personal experience that God does not actually grant everything that two or three ask in His name, does He?

I can’t explain why Jesus said He would and then not follow through, but I consider the matter to be irrelevant to our discussion. The establishment of an authoritative Church that the faithful can rely upon to shepherd them properly is a bit more significant than whether you and your wife get a new car this year, eh? Pray all you want, though…who knows?

I can alternatively state the whole matter in positive terms: We understand the reason Christ does not answer all our prayers is because sometimes we do not pray according to the Father’s will (1 John 5:14). So when we read John 14:14, we temper our understanding of Christ’s words with this knowledge. Along similar lines, why would we not be consistent in our applying this same reasoning and conclude that God binds and looses in Heaven provided the binding and loosing done on earth was accomplished in accordance with His will? In this way we are not forced to infer infallibility and our application of logic is consistent.

If you and your wife pray for a new car, it may not be God’s will for you to have one. However, if the Catholic Church teaches a doctrine about some aspect of faith or morals, billions of souls are depending about accurate information. In the former case, two sheep are exercising their own wills about how they will be tended and fed; in the latter case, the shepherd of the sheep is carrying out God’s will about how His sheep will be tended and fed. It’s God’s Church and He leads His people by means of that Church.

If Scripture were explicit about this infallibility there would be no need to conjure arguments to infer it. Since this is not the case, I would humbly suggest that we consider carefully the validity of the argument as a great deal rides upon it.

I think scripture is very clear about infallibility.

Finally, I am not saying “infallibility does not exist” since obviously I believe God infallibly conveyed his Word through the Scripture writers. My argument is that infallibility is not necessitated as the RCC insists.

If Jesus left Peter in charge of the sheep and then allowed Peter to lead them astray, then Jesus would bear responsibility for some of them being lost because He did not prevent Peter’s mistake. In other words, the “buck” ultimately stops with the Good Shepherd. Consequently, He must make sure that His “stand-in” here on earth is doing his job flawlessly.

The RCC insists that the Church is a visible one, namely itself. If this were true, however, then you either have to argue that 1) The Church was suddenly reduced roughly in-half during the East-West Schism (i.e. Christ suffered amputation) or 2) The entire eastern church was a wolf in sheep’s clothing filled with apostates that had infiltrated the one true Church until their removal. In this case, I would say the RCC preaches predestination since apparently God favored the east over the west and did not extend his salvation to the eastern church in the first place.

I’m puzzled. The Orthodox are considered to be a “true church”; however, their communion with Peter is clearly imperfect.

The third option is, I know, repulsive to the RCC. The third option is that the Church Christ founded was an invisible one, and therefore people in the east were a part of the Church both before and after the schism. The one, invisible, small “c” catholic Church remained intact (the gates of Hell did not prevail), though now people were affiliated with different institutions arising from man-made distinctions.

It’s not repulsive - it’s simply unbiblical. The scriptures clearly indicate that the Church IS a visible one. There are lots of verses that demonstrate this fact.

Also, when you say it is not God’s “will for things to be as they currently are,” are you suggesting God has lost control over His creation? You think Satan has the upper hand maybe or pulled a fast one on God? That, my friend, is truly rubbish.

God wills some things to happen. God allows other things to happen.

It was not God’s will for His body to be divided by Church schism and the Protestant Revolt. However, He allowed it to happen.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Question for you, Randy: Are all Catholics perfectly united in mind and thought? What about those Catholics that disagree about issues like abortion? Is murder something about which Christians can/should have differences of opinion? Or is it only important that they all believe in transubstantiation? Let me take this one step farther: are any Catholics perfectly united in mind and thought? I bet you a buffalo nickle that if you get any two Catholics together and they talk long enough they will eventually find something upon which they disagree.

Sure. But that is not the point. The Catholic Church teaches a single set of beliefs. Individual Catholics may or may not go along with all of them.

However, what is happening within Protestantism is that whole denominations formally espouse conflicting and contradictory doctrines. Of course, within each of these denominations you will find the same disunity you are quick to point out about Catholicism. But I’m not speaking of individuals; I’m speaking about what the formal teachings of these Protestant groups.

I do not believe that Jesus intended for one group of His sheep to believe one thing about infant baptism while another group of His sheep believe the opposite.

Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely agree, Randy, that unity is good and it is important. Paul is setting the goal in this verse. I would argue, however, that while we ought to strive toward that goal here on earth it will only be fully realized in Heaven. Also, please note that unity does not mean the same thing as uniformity.

Noted. However, I think that Jesus and Paul were envisioning uniformity in matters of doctrine. The Church in Corinth would not have been pleased to learn that the Church in Ephesus had ordained women.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you’re saying that sometimes Catholics still have to go to their bishops from time to time to make sure the Pope is still infallible??? I’m not buying it.

You seem to believe that we believe EVERYTHING the Pope says is infallible. Please tell me I’m wrong…

When Jesus said the quote you provided, he was speaking about the Pharisees, so it is not at all applicable.

Jesus was speaking about the religious leaders of the day, and He acknowledges that those leaders had legitimate authority. This is completely applicable to the rightful religious leaders of the Church today.