Where to begin?

[GreggAlvarez]

You are miscontruing my statement, and I suspect you know it.

Just to be clear, you hope that up in Heaven others will come up to you and tell you that you are their only hope? That all graces are dispensed by your hand alone? If that is truly your ambition, then you are setting yourself up against Christ.

Where do you get these ridiculously stupid remarks? Seriously, do you really think that? You should think before you type. And no, the post your replied to did not say anything remotely close to your childish interpretation.

Perhpas you should check if your misconstruing others’ words before you accuse others.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

That is not true. Only those who have the Holy Spirit (i.e. Christians) can expect to be guided by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14).

This is a statement of utter hubris. You “expect” the Holy Spirit to do things for you? Well, unlike you, Catholics do not “expect” the Holy Spirit to do anything.

Your definition completely trivializes the Holy Spirit.

That passage talks about “spiritual persons”, not nominal Christians, as you seem to think.

Secondly, Christians must be attentive to the Holy Spirit. If our heart and motives are not right, we will not hear the Holy Spirit.

No, but as Acts 8 points out, we can listen to those who do “hear” the Holy Spirit. Oral Tradition goes perfectly well with your statement right there.

In the example you provided, the Ethiopian was not yet a Christian, so of course he did not have the Holy Spirit to guide him.

So, only a nominal Christian is guided the Holy Spirit? The atheist, Jew, Muslim or whoever who is honestly searching for God and makes a prayer to help him learn Scriptures… This poor person will be denied by God who commands everybody to search.

In the case of the Ethiopan, do you really think he would have read the passage and said, “That must be Jesus!” even if he had never heard of Him? Scripture indicates that he did not know about Jesus, much less that He even existed.

In any event, I will put forth the idea that this Jew was indeed guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit led Philip to teach him in the first place! This Jew was struggling and probably frustrated because he really wanted to know but had never heard of Jesus. So, he did have the Holy Spirit with him, in a way.

Oral Tradition and Scripture are involved in that passage by the way. Apostolic witness is where Oral Tradition came from. If it were up to Sola Scriptura, there would be no way of knowing who that passage was talking about.

 

[Lampo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Christus
The Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

The context of my statement is that the Holy Spirit is the real and final authority when it comes to the true meaning of the Scriptures. I come to that conclusion by the simple fact that the Holy Spirit is the Author of the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:21).

Interesting that you quote 2 Peter 1:21. Here is 2 Peter 1:20: “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.”

2 Peter 1:21 does not say that the Holy Spirit is the real and final authority.

 

[Lampo]

That is because there are many churches who call themselves Christian which are not.

Would those churches agree with you that they are not really Christian? What if they say the same about your church? Which one of you is right? Is your church truly Christian?

There is no such thing.

According to whom?

The Church split in 1054.

The chair of Peter remained. That’s how to know the Catholic Church is the one, true Church founded by Jesus.

Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

Even the oldest government is new compared to the papacy, and the churches that send out door-to-door missionaries are young compared to the Catholic Church. Many of these churches began as recently as the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Some even began during your own lifetime. None of them can claim to be the Church Jesus established.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.

Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit. (Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth)

A more sure guide would be to compare the various teachings of the many extant churches against God’s Holy Word, which is the measuring rod against which everything will be judged.

Where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the measuring rod against which everything will be judged? What do you mean by that exactly? What about someone that is severely mentally handicapped and cannot even begin to understand Scripture? How is that person judged against Scripture?

 

[Solus_Christus]

My faith in the RCC (such that my faith is in the RCC - actually, I trust in Jesus, who gave me the RCC as a helper, along with the Bible, and the movement of the stars, and food and water, etc.) is based on the facts of history.

Based on the facts of history as you have been taught them. Yet the actual evidence for some things is rather sparse or even non-existent, which in the end means you must rely on assumptions. For example, that the apostles believed Peter to be infallible, that they believed church polity must be hierarchical, and that they believed Peter’s position was to be passed on to a successor has little or no support in Scripture, and its best extra-biblical support comes centuries after the apostles.

The Catholic faith doesn’t come from the Bible, but rather, the Bible comes from the Catholic faith.

The Bible comes from God as evidenced by the fact that more than half of it existed before the RCC ever did.

The people to whom the New Testament was first given, knew already about the Pope. They didn’t need it explicitly written down, any more than we need to know how often or when Jesus and the Apostles used the bathroom - we know that they did, and we don’t need it in writing.

This would almost be believable except that we see such basic instructions having to be communicated to the churches. At the council held in Jerusalem recorded in Acts, the church leaders sent a letter to instruct the church in Antioch to defer to the weaker faith of the Judaizers. Paul instructs the churches to abstain from drunkeness and immorality. These are all very basic things, and you want me to believe they understood dogmas concerning the role and charism of the Pope, but still did not understand that they should refrain from adultry? Nice try.

 

[Solus_Christus]

The understanding of it took time. The fact of it was always there.

It is funny how you want to have your cake and eat it to. On one hand it is insisted upon that what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18 was crystal clear, since in the Aramaic it would have been clear Christ was referring to Peter. And then we have Mr. Boncore’s elaborate reinterpretation of the Jerusalem Council. But now, when it suites your needs, it turns out these things only developed over time. If what you say is true, then it could not have been passed along by the disciples, now could it? That would mean the notion of papal infallibility was a later innovation of the RCC, which is precisely what I have been arguing all along.

 

[Solus_Christus]

I would have to disagree with you on the part that no one is willing to die for a lie, history has shown many times that people have died for a lie.

There are many people willing to die for a lie, but NOT when they know it to be a lie. Muslim homicide bombers die for a lie, but they truly believe it not to be a lie. I was very careful in what I said because it is an important point. If all of the disciples had gotten together and concocted the resurrection, then sooner or later one of them (and more likely all of them), while being tortured, would have confessed to the scheme. And if that had happened, then Christianity would have died in infancy.

Yes the gospel accounts are well preserved but would you answer WHO preserved them? Protestant religions, or the Catholic Religion, or do you know of someone else that did?

Yes, I will gladly answer. As God preserved the Old Testament so He preserved the New. Let not anyone arrogate to themselves what God Himself has done.

I know Protestant have trouble trusting in someone else because they have always been told to trust in their own interpretation

Not sure who you have been talking to, but they have been lying to you. I know I must depend on God’s Spirit to lead me. Apart from Him I’m just stumbling around in the dark.

There is also nothing in the bible that said Jesus waited 1500 years to start establishing His church. Why is that?

Because He didn’t wait 1500 years. No one is arguing that He did.

I would like to know how Protestant get around their extrapolation that if I read Scripture I will understand it completely

That is your mischaracterization - not a Protestant extrapolation. Anyone who claims they completely understand God’s Word should be dismissed as an arrogant lunatic.

THEREFORE I am guided by the Holy Spirit

I have provided ample Scripture toward this end. It is God’s statement, not anyone’s extrapolation.

 

[Solus_Christus]

But the questions require lengthy, extensive answers to do them justice. I might post a few paragraphs, or give you a link to an article, but some questions (most, I suspect) have had whole BOOKS written about them.

Such is the limitation of this forum, I agree (nothing is wrong with the forum itself, just that the nature of it only allows us to go so deep). It is difficult to progress past a certain point as after a while we seem to start going around in circles. I think we are at that point now I have also noticed this general trend: As time increases, I am becoming increasingly farther behind in my responses. Sorry guys.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Solus-

Regarding some of your other questions and responses to me, jmcrae has done a great job answering, so I won’t repeat his comments.

I think we have a lot of issues on the table, at present - too many topics for a single thread to remain coherent. Therefore, I propose we prune off a few branches of this discussion and work on them later.

What is the single, most important issue that you would like to discuss with a group of Catholics?

Randy,

I absolutely agree that there are a lot of issues on the table right now (and that jmcrae has been doing a great job ), yet it is so difficult to narrow down exclusively on one subject as they are all interrelated.

If I had to focus on the single most important issue, it would be the question of ultimate authority. I was actually thinking about where we are with this subject yesterday. This is the way I understand it at this point: You have told me that while some faith is required to accept the claims the RCC makes concerning the Pope and Sacred Magisterium, that you consider the evidence available to be sufficiently strong to make that faith a reasonable faith. I do not want to mischaracterize your position, so please make any corrections or additions you feel are necessary until you are satisfied it is correctly stated.

If I can come to a correct understanding of your position as a starting point, then we can proceed to look at that evidence which supports your position. At a high level, perhaps we could categorize that evidence into the following buckets:

1. Scriptural evidence
2. Evidence from the Early Church Fathers (say 200A.D and earlier?)
3. Other historical evidence
4. Any other kind of evidence(?)

Does this sound ammenable to you?

Thanks for suggesting we re-focus! A very good one. :tiphat:

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Based on the facts of history as you have been taught them. Yet the actual evidence for some things is rather sparse or even non-existent, which in the end means you must rely on assumptions. For example, that the apostles believed Peter to be infallible, that they believed church polity must be hierarchical, and that they believed Peter’s position was to be passed on to a successor has little or no support in Scripture, and its best extra-biblical support comes centuries after the apostles.

It has a lot of support in Scriptures, which you have already disagreed with. That is fine, but do not give us the statement that there is little or no support in Scriptures because there is support and much to go around. But again, you choose to disagree.

I will give you this example from Scripture. I will create a picture with words.

Matthew 16:18 says Christ will build a Church. Revelations 21:14 says that the walls of New Jerusalem (A.K.A., Christ’s Bride, or the Church) had 12 “courses of stones as its foundation”; These 12 foundations had the Twelve’s names written on them. Keep in mind their names were written in stone. Jesus said He would build a Church. How does anybody build anything? On a foundation. Jesus built the walls.

Just picture that.

Picture everything about those two passage: Jesus will build a Church and walls of this Church have the Apostles as the foundation.

First, picture the structure and Jesus building the structure with stones or bricks or whatever. Second, ask yourself what the picture means. What does each stone represent above the foundation? What is inside the walls? What does the whole walls itself represent? What does the wall do? Why would Jesus build a wall?

Then, when you realize the simple picture that is being drawn by Scripture itself (instead of just reading the words), you will realize that there is plenty of evidence to suggest an authority built by Jesus. Whether or not you agree with the evidence is another matter, but the evidence is there whether or not you believe it.

This would almost be believable except that we see such basic instructions having to be communicated to the churches. At the council held in Jerusalem recorded in Acts, the church leaders sent a letter to instruct the church in Antioch to defer to the weaker faith of the Judaizers. Paul instructs the churches to abstain from drunkeness and immorality. These are all very basic things, and you want me to believe they understood dogmas concerning the role and charism of the Pope, but still did not understand that they should refrain from adultry? Nice try.

You need to stop asking questions like this. You sound really unintelligent.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

The Bible comes from God as evidenced by the fact that more than half of it existed before the RCC ever did.

No Christian says the Bible does not come from God.

I can see it coming already.

 

[Lampo]

Yes, I will gladly answer. As God preserved the Old Testament so He preserved the New. Let not anyone arrogate to themselves what God Himself has done.

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
-St. Augustine, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

 

[guanophore]

Based on the facts of history as you have been taught them.

Actually, not much. I was taught my first church history during three years in Protestant Seminary. At that point, I was overwhelmed by the clear Catholicity of the CC, so I took it upon myself to study the rest.

Yet the actual evidence for some things is rather sparse or even non-existent, which in the end means you must rely on assumptions.

I can understand why it would seem that way to someone that has been separated from the Apostolic Succession for 500 years. Such a significant portion of the Apostolic faith has been lost in your tradition as to leave you with a “different gospel” than the one that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

I can also see why, for a person who cannot trust in Jesus for the paradosis, that it would seem like “assumptions”. It seems to me that lack of faith in God to protect His Word is a prerequisite for Sola Scriptura.

For example, that the apostles believed Peter to be infallible, that they believed church polity must be hierarchical, and that they believed Peter’s position was to be passed on to a successor has little or no support in Scripture, and its best extra-biblical support comes centuries after the apostles.

I will certainly concede that the Apostles could not have even imagined the Church of today, and how it has grown from a small mustard seed into the largest tree. As for these things having support in Scripture, well, we read it differently, don’t we? It is curious to me that Catholics are somehow prevented from reading and reaching their own conclusions from Scripture, such as the Petrine gift, but everyone else can do this.

The Bible comes from God as evidenced by the fact that more than half of it existed before the RCC ever did.

I am sorry that I have not finished reading the thread. Did you tell us when the “RCC” started? Did you know that the Catholic Church is not “Roman”? When did the other 22 Rites ofthe CC “start”, and why do they have the same Scriptures, and call themselves Catholic when they are not “Roman”?

This would almost be believable except that we see such basic instructions having to be communicated to the churches. At the council held in Jerusalem recorded in Acts, the church leaders sent a letter to instruct the church in Antioch to defer to the weaker faith of the Judaizers. Paul instructs the churches to abstain from drunkeness and immorality. These are all very basic things, and you want me to believe they understood dogmas concerning the role and charism of the Pope, but still did not understand that they should refrain from adultry? Nice try.

It is quite clear that they were babes in the faith. Some of them did not even defer to Apostolic Authority. There have always been people in the Church who were poorly catechized, and those that behaved badly, and wolves among the sheep. None of this, however, amounts to God losing His ability to watch over His Word.

 

[guanophore]

It is funny how you want to have your cake and eat it to. On one hand it is insisted upon that what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18 was crystal clear, since in the Aramaic it would have been clear Christ was referring to Peter. And then we have Mr. Boncore’s elaborate reinterpretation of the Jerusalem Council. But now, when it suites your needs, it turns out these things only developed over time. If what you say is true, then it could not have been passed along by the disciples, now could it? That would mean the notion of papal infallibility was a later innovation of the RCC, which is precisely what I have been arguing all along.

If you choose to remain here, you will soon learn that Catholics differ in their thinking from most Evangelicals in that we do not have an “either/or” mentality. Ours is “both/and”. For example, we believe the Apsotles all deferred to Peter as their leader, “and” he was fallible and prone to sin.

We believe Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH, and the four marks of the Church He founded are that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - “and” we believe that all who are in Christ are members of His One Church, though they may not be visible to us as such.

Such is the limitation of this forum, I agree (nothing is wrong with the forum itself, just that the nature of it only allows us to go so deep). It is difficult to progress past a certain point as after a while we seem to start going around in circles. I think we are at that point now I have also noticed this general trend: As time increases, I am becoming increasingly farther behind in my responses. Sorry guys.

I commend you for your efforts. You are presently being mobbed by a fervent group of Catholics that know their faith, and you don’t have a lot of help on your side.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I will gladly answer. As God preserved the Old Testament so He preserved the New. Let not anyone arrogate to themselves what God Himself has done.

To acknowledge what is True is real humility. The Truth is that God worked through the Catholic Church to write, promulgate, preserve, and canonize His Holy Word. This is not arrogance but historical fact. It did not just drop out of the sky.

Further, those who do not trust God to preserve His word have no explanation for the history provided to us in Genesis from Adam to Moses, before any of it was written. How is it God was able to preseve His word through paradosis for how many thousands of years, yet He cannot do so in His Own Holy Bride?

I know I must depend on God's Spirit to lead me. Apart from Him I'm just stumbling around in the dark.

Great!

It is very Catholic of you to say this. But how do you account for the fact that the “Spirit” is leading Christians in opposite directions?

Because He didn’t wait 1500 years. No one is arguing that He did.

Yes, Sola Scriptura presumes such an arguement.

Anyone who claims they completely understand God’s Word should be dismissed as an arrogant lunatic.

You are starting to sound more Catholic all the time.

I have provided ample Scripture toward this end. It is God's statement, not anyone's extrapolation.

God promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”. Those who depart from her also depart from the protection of the promises given to her. This is why the Apostle states that excommunicaiton is the same as delivering a person to the devil - outside the protecton of the Church, the promises may not protect such a one.

 

[guanophore]

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
-St. Augustine, Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

Hey! Have you not read the Evangelical Apologetics Rulebook?! You are only allowed to quote Augustine, and other Fathers, when they seem to support the Protestant point of view.:dts:

 

[Lampo]

Hey! Have you not read the Evangelical Apologetics Rulebook?! You are only allowed to quote Augustine, and other Fathers, when they seem to support the Protestant point of view.:dts:

My bad!

 

[Lampo]

As God preserved the Old Testament so He preserved the New. Let not anyone arrogate to themselves what God Himself has done.

How, precisely?

 

[jmcrae]

It is funny how you want to have your cake and eat it to. On one hand it is insisted upon that what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18 was crystal clear, since in the Aramaic it would have been clear Christ was referring to Peter. And then we have Mr. Boncore’s elaborate reinterpretation of the Jerusalem Council. But now, when it suites your needs, it turns out these things only developed over time. If what you say is true, then it could not have been passed along by the disciples, now could it? That would mean the notion of papal infallibility was a later innovation of the RCC, which is precisely what I have been arguing all along.

The word “infallible” was coined in a later generation than Peter’s or his first six Successors.

That Peter and his Successors were to be believed and obeyed because the words they spoke were oracles of God (what you bind is bound) when spoken to the whole Church on subjects related to the Christian faith, everyone has always known.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

I absolutely agree that there are a lot of issues on the table right now (and that jmcrae has been doing a great job ), yet it is so difficult to narrow down exclusively on one subject as they are all interrelated.

If I had to focus on the single most important issue, it would be the question of ultimate authority. I was actually thinking about where we are with this subject yesterday. This is the way I understand it at this point: You have told me that while some faith is required to accept the claims the RCC makes concerning the Pope and Sacred Magisterium, that you consider the evidence available to be sufficiently strong to make that faith a reasonable faith. I do not want to mischaracterize your position, so please make any corrections or additions you feel are necessary until you are satisfied it is correctly stated.

If I can come to a correct understanding of your position as a starting point, then we can proceed to look at that evidence which supports your position. At a high level, perhaps we could categorize that evidence into the following buckets:

1. Scriptural evidence
2. Evidence from the Early Church Fathers (say 200A.D and earlier?)
3. Other historical evidence
4. Any other kind of evidence(?)

Does this sound ammenable to you?

Thanks for suggesting we re-focus! A very good one. :tiphat:

I think your assessment is correct. The ultimate point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants is over authority - the Church or the Bible Alone.

A new thread is probably in order, and we need to establish a single statement to be defended or denied.

Any suggestions?