Where to begin?

[pablope]

pablope;7832608:

pablope,

Protestants are indoctrinated to trust in themselves. It’s one of their core dogmas - “Private Judgment.” It is the fatal flaw of Protestantism. And it is this precise fatal flaw that Solus will not address. If Solus were ever to admit it he knows full well his house of cards would collapse.

Yep… JMcrae basically said the same in his reply to Solus. But he recognized one factor that will bring about this…“humility of self” and the realization to admit this. He seems to realize the faults, but has not gotten around to admitting and accepting them, he keeps trying to rationalize them.

Godspeed and Godbless…

 

[Solus_Christus]

Solus,

I am sure that that is the very best you can do considering that you are bound by the erroneous, man-made, fallible Protestant dogma called private judgment.

No one will deny that in our day there exists a vast multitude of sects, which are multiplying daily. No one will deny that this multiplying of creeds is a scandal. No one can deny that these divisions in the Christian family are traceable to the assumption of the right of private judgment…Please, Solus, explain all of this to us.

“Right of private judgement”… I think you meant “right of private interpretation.” Whatever the case, it seems you are insinuating that the divisions in the Christian family are tracable to Protestantism itself. Is this correct? If so, I would respond by asking what was the source of the divisions in the Christian Family that led to the Orthodox Church? The Western Schism? The Schism of Utrecht? You are pretty creative, so I suspect you will find some way of attributing them to Protestants as well.

Thus one body of Christians will prove from the Bible that there is one Person in God, while the rest will prove from the same source that a Trinity of Persons is a clear article of Divine Revelation…Please, Solus, explain all of this to us.

And here is where you are mistaken. You seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between Christians and those who call themselves Christians but are not. You have some sort of compulsion to lump wheat and tares together and refuse to discern between the two. Then you demand that I give a defense of it. I cannot, nor will I defend theological liberals anymore than I suspect you would the Gnostic church. Would you consider it fair if I demanded this of you?

And, while you are at it, please tell us where in the Bible does it say that an individual has the right to private interpretation of the very same Bible.

I will be glad to oblige as soon as you produce a passage that declares Christians must await word from the Sacred Magisterium before deciding what to believe.

 

[Solus_Christus]

I’ll play devil’s advocate here…

Okay. Paul did not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man.

Does that necessarily mean that God views things the same way?

Was most of the Bible inspired, or all of it? If it was all inspired then, yes, it seems safe to say that God views things that way. Does God intend for us to observe this restriction today? I would think so as it is consistent with the stations/roles He has ordained for men and women. I do not believe it is a good idea to establish our worldviews on pragmatism, but if we survey the religious landscape today it is interesting to note how most of the churches who do not acknowledge this injunction as binding are the same churches which esteem God’s Word lightly.

 

[fhansen]

When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?

Sometimes I like to use Hebrews 8 where verses containing New Covenant promises from Jer 31 are quoted. These promises reveal Gods’ will in bringing the law to fulfillment in us, but with Him doing this work of grace, coinciding with Jesus teaching about the necessity of fulfilling the law in the Sermon on the Mount and with various NT teachings concerning the need for God the Holy Spirit to effect real change and do a work of His own in us, the Potter molding us into the beings He has in mind.

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
9 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”[c]

 

[Prieldedi]

I will be glad to oblige as soon as you produce a passage that declares Christians must await word from the Sacred Magisterium before deciding what to believe.

Hebrews 13:17

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are concerned for your souls and are accountable for them. Let this be a joy for them rather than a burden, which would be of no advantage for you.”

 

[Solus_Christus]

Original Quote from Liguori: “In thee I entirely confide, and if it be my fate to die before some image of thine, recommending myself to thy compassion, I should have a certain hope of my salvation, and of going to praise thee in heaven, united to all they servants who called upon thee for aid in death, and are saved.”

Wow. We praise athletes for their accomplishments all the time. What is wrong with thinking that those who have “run the race” here on earth most worthily will be held in high esteem in heaven?

Do we also call those who have “run the race” our masters and ouselves their servants? Are they able to aid us and save us in our death? Do we recommend ourselves to their compassion. Is their compassion somehow better than Christ’s or is Christ’s somehow insufficient? Liguori’s words must be considered in their original context.

Since Mary has access to her Son (and the prayers of the righteous availeth much), those who call upon her for assistance are sure to receive it from Him. Duh.

And we don’t? Then why does the writer to the Hebrews exhort: “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:14-16) Was Christ’s sacrifice somehow more efficacious for Mary? Perhaps the stain of sin on the rest of us was too stubborn for the cleansing power of Christ’s atoning blood?

What mother does not care for those entrusted to her. Jesus entrusted the Church to her at the foot of His cross.

What amazing extrapolations are made by the RCC of simple passages.

Understood properly, that Mary does nothing apart from Jesus, this is acceptable. However, I concede that this is pushing the edge of the envelope into a prose that I would not choose personally. Happy?

“…pushing the edge of the envelope into a prose”??? You’re assessment seems much too casual to me. Is it a light thing to rob Christ of His glory? You must believe God to be pretty harmless and docile. Or perhaps you think God is eager to share His glory? If this is the case, then it will be necessary to deny that God is immutable since He must no longer be a jealous God.

 

[jmcrae]

“Right of private judgement”… I think you meant “right of private interpretation.” Whatever the case, it seems you are insinuating that the divisions in the Christian family are tracable to Protestantism itself. Is this correct? If so, I would respond by asking what was the source of the divisions in the Christian Family that led to the Orthodox Church? The Western Schism? The Schism of Utrecht? You are pretty creative, so I suspect you will find some way of attributing them to Protestants as well.

Any time that people forget that the Successor of Peter is the guy in charge, these divisions take place.

And here is where you are mistaken. You seem unable or unwilling to differentiate between Christians and those who call themselves Christians but are not.

How much heresy must there be, before you are “not a Christian”?

Either no heresy at all can be permitted, or else, if we are to permit heretics to call themselves Christians, then we have to permit all heretics to call themselves Christians. We can’t pick and choose among “acceptable” and “unacceptable” heresies.

You have some sort of compulsion to lump wheat and tares together and refuse to discern between the two. Then you demand that I give a defense of it. I cannot, nor will I defend theological liberals anymore than I suspect you would the Gnostic church. Would you consider it fair if I demanded this of you?

The Gnostic Church also rejects the Pope’s authority. They are in the same basket with you.

I will be glad to oblige as soon as you produce a passage that declares Christians must await word from the Sacred Magisterium before deciding what to believe.

Red herring - hopefully, everyone already knows what the Magisterium is going to teach, since they already learned it in Sunday School. No one is “waiting” since they don’t actually come up with new stuff - all they do is preserve the old stuff, and keep it from getting blown away in the winds of confusion.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

What amazing extrapolations are made by the RCC of simple passages.

What should be amazing is the fact that you think “simple” means “simplistic”. There are many dualities of meaning in Scripture. It is a shame that you fail to see that. But, let us shed light on some of your Evangelical beliefs and see what kind of amazing extrapolations you have done. I only show these to show you the hypocrite inside you.

You want to go there? Ok…

1. Peter was given keys to the Kingdom of Heaven but this has no authoritative siginificance.
2. Jesus says, “This is my body”, but He does not actually mean it.
3. “He who hears you, hear me” cannot mean there is authority outside Scripture.
4. “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says He has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (James 2:14) This means “We are saved by faith alone”.
5. “Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven”. No Purgatory is necessary because although I am a dirty sinner, Christ died for my sins, so I am clean despite my uncleanliness.
6. Mary is not the Mother of God, even if Jesus was God and Mary His Mother.
7. “Whoever since you forgive are forgiven…” does not mean what it actually says.
8. 1 John 5 warrants no difference of the Catholic term “venial and mortal” sins.
9. Rev 21:14 means that Christ is the foundation, not the Apostles.
10. Titus 2:15 has nothing to do with authority.
11. 2 Thes 2:15 says nothing about oral tradition.
12. Malachi 1:11 is not talking about Christ.
13. Despite all foreshadowings and clear prophecies, Mary is not the Immaculate Ark of the Covenant.
14. That woman in Revelations 12 is not actually a woman, but a city.

There are plenty more examples, but I will now go to the side where it is NOT written in Scriptures, but you believe it:

1. Scripture says that Scripture is sufficient means Scripture alone is the infallible authority.
2. Even though it is not written, Mary still sinned.
3. Galatians 1:7 is clearly talking about the Catholic Church.
4. 1 John 5 means “Once Saved, Always Saved”.
5. “Do this in memory of me” means “symbolic”.
6. Proverbs 30:5 is talking about Scripture and Scripture only despite the implication from verse 1.
7. “Whoever eats my flesh…” means that we have to eat the Word of God with our hearts. (Whetever that means, I have heard if by Evangelicals.)

THESE are amazing extrapolations.

We have not extrapolated because we actually realize that there can be a duality of meanings within Scripture. I am sorry that you cannot see that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I continue to maintain that various Catholic positions are contrary to Scripture, and therefore cannot be the right position. The net effect is error on a massive scale.

I will be happy to discuss your views in other threads. Which “error” would you like to discuss most urgently?

And while this notion of having someone who can articulate what your position is for you may seem appealing, the notion itself is nowhere found in Scripture.

I disagree. I think there is ample evidence that Jesus established an authoritative Church to which we may refer questions of doctrine.

To the contrary, when discussing differing opinions between believers in Philippians 3, Paul does not exhort believers to appeal to the Sacred Magisterium, but rather takes it for granted that God will clarify things for the believer (verse 15).

Hmmm…one wonders why that big meeting in Acts 15 was necessary.

The fact that, as Randy cheerfully pointed out, Protestantism continues to abound in new denominations does not invalidate Paul’s exhortation, but merely reveals that there is a lot of spiritual immaturity among believers.

That is understandable with regard to individual believers, but the governing bodies of the various denominations, which should be more mature, do not seem to be coming closer together over time, do they?

How can a Christian build that relationship of trust in His Spirit and be led by His Spirit when the Christian is instead led by the bishops in union with the pope, and allow the Magisterium to speak for him? This is a vastly different paradigm than what is laid out in Scripture.

Hardly. I am taught by the leaders of my Church just as you are by the leaders of your Church. However, they can only teach us *about *God; it’s still up to you and me to get to know Him personally, isn’t it?

So, why is it okay for you to soak in your pastor’s sermon (which he spent a whole week preparing) but not okay for me to soak in what the Magisterium teaches (after 2,000 years of reflection)?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If the Catholic Church went to the trouble to concoct a special term for Marian devotion, then it must be condoned and even encouraged, official document or not. The point here is not that Catholics are forced into hyperdulia, but since declarations concerning Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception were uttered ex cathedra, it is binding on Catholics to accept this.

So, you don’t have anything. I thought as much.

Interesting you should mention this. When I search the Old Testament for the Queen of Heaven I only find references in the book of Jeremiah. But I suppose you already know what those references say about the Queen of Heaven. Is it just an odd coincidence?

Yes.

However, when you search the OT, you should also see that the Davidic kings had queens who were NOT their wives but their mothers. Jesus is a king, he did inherit the throne of His forefather, David, and He does have a mother who is His queen.

Her name is Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not at all. Christ said that He is the Truth. Since Christ is God He is transcendent, which also means Truth is transcendent. There is, therefore, only one Truth. Truth is not relative.

Agreed.

So, who has the truth?

The Methodist who baptizes infants or the Baptist who does not?

According to your way of thinking, both have studied the Word of God and have the Spirit leading them individually into all truth.

How is it that the Spirit leads them into conflicting and contradictory positions?

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Right of private judgement”… I think you meant “right of private interpretation.” Whatever the case, it seems you are insinuating that the divisions in the Christian family are tracable to Protestantism itself. Is this correct?

Personally, I would attribute the divisions within Christianity to the evil one. Make of that what you will.

Since you have enjoyed articles by Jimmy Akin, here is another:

SOLA SCRIPTURA** AND PRIVATE JUDGMENT **
by James Akin
cin.org/users/james/files/private.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

Red herring - hopefully, everyone already knows what the Magisterium is going to teach, since they already learned it in Sunday School. No one is “waiting” since they don’t actually come up with new stuff - all they do is preserve the old stuff, and keep it from getting blown away in the winds of confusion.

Well said. :clapping:

 

[EricFilmer]

You want to go there? Ok…

1. Peter was given keys to the Kingdom of Heaven but this has no authoritative siginificance.

(etc…)

Awesome post, Gregg!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

The RCC, with all of its dogmas and doctrines, takes great care in ceremonies and other religious observances, but the Lord Jesus searches the mind and heart (Revelations 2:23).

Why do you talk as if there is a dichotomy between honest religious worship and Jesus searching hearts? Have you ever thought why the RCC teaches those Truths and has observances? Have you ever thought that perhaps they are outward signs of our human desire of worship? Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, these ceremonies bring us closer to God? You probably just look at the plain view of it and think, “Look at them, such empty rituals.” I hope I am mistaken…

And I bet you go to church and have your own little ceremonies and observances. You also have all of your little dogmas and doctrines. Why single us out?

Therefore, even if we all confess the same thing and even if we confess the right thing, some of our hearts may still be far from Him.

Amen.

The washing of water (baptism) itself is not efficacious to save anyone’s soul.

So, Jesus command to be baptized and born again by water are inefficacious. Jesus’ own action of Baptism was completely meaningless itself. In other words, some of Jesus words and actions are indeed not efficacious and therefore, meaningless. That may not be what you meant, but that is exactly what you said in a more blunt format.

I continue to maintain that various Catholic positions are contrary to Scripture, and therefore cannot be the right position.

Bad reasoning.

“I disagree with the Catholic position; therefore, they are not right.”

There is nothing contrary to Scripture in the Catholic Church. Whether or not you disagree is irrelevant to the Truth.

The reason why the Jews hated Jesus was because of His claims of authority, to be God, to forgive sins, seemingly insane teachings, claims seemingly contrary to Scripture, actions seemingly going against Scripture, etc… The Jews disagreed with all of this.

Gee… Where have we seen this before? The Catholic Church! Almost identically! (Minus the claiming to be God part).

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Solus Christus

Interesting you should mention this. When I search the Old Testament for the Queen of Heaven I only find references in the book of Jeremiah. But I suppose you already know what those references say about the Queen of Heaven. Is it just an odd coincidence?

The notes on my Bible say that this is “the Assyro-Babylonian Ishtar, goddess of fertility”.

Let us make an objective comparison between these two called “Queen of Heaven”: Mary and Ishtar.

1. Did God create Ishtar? No. Did God create Mary? Yes.
2. Did Ishtar exist? No. Did Mary exist? Yes.
3. Is Ishtar even in Heaven? No. Is Mary in Heaven? Yes.
4. Can Ishtar rightly be called “queen of heaven”, since she is not in Heaven? No. Can Mary? Yes. (Whether or not it is true is not relevant yet. I am just talking about eligibility right now. Since Ishtar was not in Heaven, even her title is a big fat lie.)
5. Did they worship Ishtar? No. Do Catholics worship Mary? No. (Bringing up the word “worship” used in Church documents about Mary from many many centuries ago hardly suffices with the current strict definition and/or usage of "worship.)
6. Did they think Ishtar as the provider of everything without the aid of God? Yes (cf. Jer 7:16-18) Do we think Mary like this? No.
7. Did they pour out libations to Ishtar? Yes. Do we do that for Mary? No.
8. Did Ishtar give birth to the Word of God? No. Did Mary? Yes.
9. Did Ishtar “ponder things in heart”? No. Did Mary? Yes.
10. Was Ishtar part of the Davidic Kingdom? No. Is Mary a part of the Davidic Kingdom? Yes, as the Davidic Kingdom can be and is also considered Heaven.
11. In the Davidic Kingdom, David’s mother was the queen. Was Ishtar Jesus’ (Son of David) mother? No. Was Mary Jesus’ mother? A most emphatic YES!

So, all in all, your comparison is not valid. One has to exist in reality to rightly be called “queen” in reality and one must actually be in Heaven to rightly be called “queen of heaven”.

I am not here defending or explaining the doctrine of Queen of Heaven. I am merely saying that she at least makes the cut. The “queen of heaven” in Jeremiah cannot even be considered for the “queen of heaven” audition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How can a Christian build that relationship of trust in His Spirit and be led by His Spirit when the Christian is instead led by the bishops in union with the pope, and allow the Magisterium to speak for him? This is a vastly different paradigm than what is laid out in Scripture.

How can a non-Catholic Christian build that relationship of trust in His Spirit and be led by His Spirit when the non-Catholic Christian is instead led by the elders and deacons in union with the pastor, and allow this Magisterium to speak for Him?

The idea of a teaching authority (which provides guard rails for the exercise of private judgment) is EXACTLY the paradigm laid out in Scripture.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Awesome post, Gregg!

Thanks!

The point was to show that the statement that the RCC makes “amazing extrapolations” is a completely hypocritical statement considering the bizarre twists and turns of Scripture itself that his/her belief actually does.

I can see Solus “returning the favor” here. Solus will cite a Scripture verse without a thought to the fact that the Church is our final authority, not Scripture. So, saying “‘All have sinned’ means Mary did not sin” in accordance with my post would be an invalid comparison. Solus would have to find an ex cathedra statement on faith and morals binding on all Catholics and see to it that we actually believe something contrary or different or reject it as contrary to the Church’s infallibility. Evangelicals (who are Sola Scriptura advocates) believe things completely different (and even contrary) from Scriptura and indeed reject things clearly taught in Scripture because it goes against Sola Scriptura (like oral traditions in 2 Thes 2:15!).

 

[Prieldedi]

1. In the Davidic Kingdom, David’s mother was the queen. Was Ishtar Jesus’ (Son of David) mother? No. Was Mary Jesus’ mother? A most emphatic YES!

Gregg, I think you mean Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba:

1 Kings 2:

16 Now I have one thing to ask of you and I beg you not to refuse me." She said, “Speak,”
17 and he continued, “Please ask King Solomon to give me Abishag the Shunammite for my wife. I know that he cannot refuse you.”
18 Bathsheba answered, “Very well, I shall speak to the king on your behalf.”
19 So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. The king met her and bowed to her. Then he sat on his throne and had a seat brought for the king’s mother who sat on his right.
20 She said, “I have one small request to make of you. Do not refuse me.” And the king answered her, "Make your request, my mother, for I will not refuse you."

The Queen of Heaven is biblical.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Gregg, I think you mean Solomon’s mother, Bathsheba:

For anybody reading, I meant to put “yes” for the first question in the 5th comparison between Ishtar and Mary. They did indeed worship Ishtar. My mistake…

Anyway, back to your response.

Yeah… I completely screwed it up. Not surprisingly… Huge brain fart.

Thanks for noticing that and clearing it up!

The point still stands, right?