M
mattp0625
Guest
Even so, it does not take an expert to discover Protestant origins with Luther- a 16th century German. He did not meet Jesus Christ in first century Israel.
- Status
P
Perplexity
Guest
No, I don’t mean PhD works are biased, just that there are as many PhD works backing Catholicism as there are Orthodoxy and Protestantism. So those who are best equipped to interpret our data cannot reach agreement: the data is inconclusive.
That doesn’t mean truth is relative, just that which denomination is right is a matter of opinion, not of knowledge.
D
Della
Guest
You are laboring under the false idea that merely because everyone claims to be right no one can be. That’s not the case. Take currency, for instance. There’s only one true currency, but there can be many knock-offs/counterfeits. They may look very much the same and some might be almost perfect copies, but only the real currency put out by the proper authority is the true one.
M
mattp0625
Guest
It’s not opinion at all. That sounds like university speak (relativism).
I await your answer to the above question regarding Luther.
P
Perplexity
Guest
When experts cannot reach agreement on an issue, it’s not that they’re all wrong, but that it’s inconclusive, a matter of opinion.
M
mattp0625
Guest
So when the experts said take fish oil, then other experts said don’t take it, does the community of scientists fail ?
Or, when scientist say there is evidence of global warming and other scientists say there is not evidence of it.
I’m going to guess the answer is no.
D
Della
Guest
An expert is no expert if he is working with a false premise. He’s only building on sand. Matters of opinion are not matters of doctrine/dogma. Those are revealed truths, not ones men came to through consensus. If they aren’t that, then Christ is a liar and our faith means nothing. That’s the bottom line here.
A
Abu
Guest
Why should C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” be “right”?
Why should the Christ be denied, He who not only instituted His Catholic Church but proclaimed His presence with Her “until the end of time.”?
Why should Lewis be placed above God the Son who proclaimed for the whole world His explicit assurances to His Apostles headed by St Peter: “I shall not leave you orphans”; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18). “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)?
P
Perplexity
Guest
I’ve given my argument several times for why Mere Christianity is the most consistent form of Christianity there is. This, like several of the other responses I have received, commits the fallacy of begging the question by presenting objections which merely assume that Mere Christianity is false.
** As an aside, it’s interesting how Biblical texts are self-explanatory when Catholic apologists cite them, but in need of an infallible magisterium to interpret them when non-Catholics cite them.
A
Abu
Guest
There is no assumption as Christ is crystal clear, but Lewis never explored Christ’s Church, as Mark Brumley, President of Ignatius Press, emphasises as a convert to Catholicism.
‘More remarkable still is that, humanly speaking, it is largely due to Lewis, an Anglican, that I converted to the Catholic Church, something as nearly inconceivable to me in my Fundamentalist days as becoming a Martian.
‘Even Walter Hooper, faithful secretary of Lewis in his last days, executor of the Lewis estate and an erstwhile Anglican clergyman, made the pilgrimage from Canterbury to Rome.
‘In fact, there are some notable theological limitations to Lewis’s “mere Christianity.” Yet these are not as great as its benefits, which include diminishing the denominational rancor among followers of Christ and promoting the cause of Christ in united mission before the unbelieving world.
‘Nevertheless, the evangelical Protestant who accepts Lewis as a reliable guide to “mere Christianity” will have to accept distinctively Protestant doctrines as likewise optional or “extras.” That approach is but one step shy of denying Protestantism, for it implies that what was at stake in the Reformation was not the Gospel itself, as the Reformers thought. The next step is to ask, “What is the Church?”, a question Lewis seemingly never fully confronted, but which many of his non-Catholic readers do. And when they do, they often come up with the Catholic answer.’ [My emphasis].
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6799
P
Perplexity
Guest
Abu: I don’t understand how Lewis’ ignorance of Catholicism is supposed to undermine the proposition that Mere Christianity is true. It might have undermined his personal reasons for believing that proposition, but there are other reasons to believe it, such as what I have provided.
And it’s true that Mere Christianity requires that some doctrines are essential and others are not, but this is well understood in the Protestant communion. There is suprisingly more unity among those who allow the Biblical data to lead in whichever doctrinal direction it does – even if that means revising one’s beliefs – than Catholic apologists would have you think.
And it’s true that Mere Christianity requires that some doctrines are essential and others are not, but this is well understood in the Protestant communion. There is suprisingly more unity among those who allow the Biblical data to lead in whichever doctrinal direction it does – even if that means revising one’s beliefs – than Catholic apologists would have you think.
D
Della
Guest
Your proposal is merely another form of indifferentism. I was a Protestant who had been a member of both liturgical and evangelical/Pentecostal ecclesial bodies and I can tell you they did not agree on many essential doctrines. You seem to be looking at Protestant differences through rose-colored glasses.
There are NO unessential doctrines. Doctrines are revealed truth given to us by Christ. None of them can be jettisoned without doing great harm to people’s lives and eternal destination. Doctrine is one piece, whole and indestructible no matter who thinks otherwise, even Lewis, who is hardly, as an amateur theologian, to be ascribed to over the great ones, such as Aquinas or even Chesterton, from whose writings he borrowed heavily, although he couldn’t or wouldn’t admit where he, Lewis, went wrong. I got a great deal from Lewis’ writings, for which I’ll be ever grateful, and I pray he is in heaven, but he doesn’t trump the Catholic Church and her teachings, not one iota.
P
Perplexity
Guest
You seem to be looking at Protestant differences through grim-colored glasses. If, as you say, these Protestant denominations do not agree on essential doctrines, then they differ in kind and should no more stand or fall together than Catholicism and Jehova’s Witnesses.
I can’t discern any argument against Mere Christianity here, you’re just saying that it’s false and that Catholicism is true, when that is precisely what is at issue. Look, you have a lot of respect for Catholic thinkers like Aquinas, and I do too, but which religion or denomination has the most brilliant thinkers is not a good way to discern between religions or denominations, since they all have had brilliant thinkers. (And if we did do that, we’d have to all be Pagans since there’s no one we’re more indebted to than the Pagan giants like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus or Proclus.
)
N
Nicene
Guest
Not quite right, messianic Judaism had it’s early roots towards congregations in the 1800’s. Prior to that there were Jewish converts who independently tried to convert other Jews but not in organized fashion. In the mid 1900’s congregations of messianic communities began to spring up. It’s current shape formed in the 1960/70’s. Only the Catholic Church can trace its roots to Christ.
Peace and God bless
Nicene
D
Della
Guest
Catholicism isn’t the only faith that is fundamentally different from Jehovah Witnesses. Protestants are fundamentally opposed to JW beliefs, as well. Sorry, this won’t work. Protestants, true Protestants vary wildly in their beliefs. If they didn’t there wouldn’t be different denominations. I am looking at Protestantism for what it is, not what I’d like it to be, as you apparently are.
Excuse me, but you are the one touting Lewis as if his “mere Christianity” is the right way to believe. Who says so? You? And who gave him that authority? I’ll tell you. No one. So, which church has direct authority from God to speak for him? It’s the Catholic Church, not because I’d like to believe it–at one time I’d have denied it in the strongest terms. No, it’s true because it can be shown to be true–historically, theologically, and scripturally. That’s just how it is no matter who believes it, or who uses sophistry to deny it, or who likes it or not.I can’t discern any argument against Mere Christianity here, you’re just saying that it’s false and that Catholicism is true, when that is precisely what is at issue. Look, you have a lot of respect for Catholic thinkers like Aquinas, and I do too, but which religion or denomination has the most brilliant thinkers is not a good way to discern between religions or denominations, since they all have had brilliant thinkers. (And if we did do that, we’d have to all be Pagans since there’s no one we’re more indebted to than the Pagan giants like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus or Proclus.
M
mattp0625
Guest
Dr Holly Ordway made the transition from atheism to Protestantism to Catholicism. Check out her books or her interviews (including EWTN’s The Journey Home).
I also like Dr Wesley Vincent’s interview on EWTN’s The Journey Home, as well as Dr David Anders.
I also like Dr Wesley Vincent’s interview on EWTN’s The Journey Home, as well as Dr David Anders.
P
Perplexity
Guest
I think Lewis’ theory is the most consistent one a Christian can adopt, and I’ve given an argument for that conclusion, an argument that Lewis never mentioned. This has nothing to do with personal authority and everything to do with argumentation. Is the argument valid? Are the premises true? These are the sorts of questions that should be asked, not by whose authority the argument is proposed. Maybe you’re right, and the Catholic Church is all that it claims to be. But, you haven’t given any reason to think so. You just keep saying that it is. The bottom line is that the state of Christian scholarship is messy. Every denomination teems with extremely educated academics who scoff at the objections leveled against their beliefs. Most people are not equipped to sort through this mess, and God wouldn’t expect them to. In Christian terms: salvation has nothing to do with which denomination you belong to or the dogmas you hold, but with your relation to God. As you grow in that relation, you can change your mind about denominations or dogmas, that needn’t affect your relation to God at all.Excuse me, but you are the one touting Lewis as if his “mere Christianity” is the right way to believe. Who says so? You? And who gave him that authority? I’ll tell you. No one. So, which church has direct authority from God to speak for him? It’s the Catholic Church, not because I’d like to believe it–at one time I’d have denied it in the strongest terms. No, it’s true because it can be shown to be true–historically, theologically, and scripturally. That’s just how it is no matter who believes it, or who uses sophistry to deny it, or who likes it or not.
D
Della
Guest
I gave the most cogent reasons possible for the Catholic Church being Christ’s true Church–that she is historically, theologically, and scripturally the best contender.
As for one’s salvation being based on what one believes, well yes and no. If someone knows the truth but willfully rejects it, he is very much in danger of losing his salvation. The Church has addressed this issue in the Catechism.
Doctrine is not a messy issue at all. It’s very clear-cut and discernible. The Church has told us what we are to believe–it hasn’t been hidden or secret, but quite openly available to anyone who wishes to know it.
And yes, authority is vitally important. St. Paul was quite strict about it. If those who are not teaching what was handed on by Christ to the Apostles ,his teaching is to be rejected, not accepted with the idea that he may be right, after all. It doesn’t work the way you’d like it to because Christ didn’t set up his Church as a free for all in matters of faith and morality.
P
Perplexity
Guest
You told me that Catholicism is “historically, theologically, and scripturally the best contender”, but you didn’t give me any reason to think that was true. Claims like that come a dime a dozen.
You’re not an expert in history, theology and scripture – hardly anyone is, including most apologists. So, how do you know enough about history, theology and scripture to say that Catholicism is the best contender? All we can do is study the issues as good as any amateur can and draw the conclusion that seems most reasonable to us. Fair enough. But, that is at best an educated opinion, and no more reasonable than any other educated opinion on the matter. If anyone really knows which denomination is right, it’s an expert, but because there are so many of them in utter disagreement, we can’t know which ones are right. All we can do is humbly develop the best educated opinion we can.
As Mere Christianity would have it, as long as you’re honest with yourself and strive after God, it really doesn’t matter which denomination you join, you’ll be judged by your relation to God, not by whether or not you were smart enough to figure out which denomination got it right.
D
Della
Guest
I told you because it is verifiable by facts, which any reasonable person can ascertain for himself. I have looked into it. It doesn’t take an expert to see the plain facts of history bear out the fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church, that it was carried on by the Apostles, and that it changed the world in ways nothing ever has–in moral law, in charity, in the taming of pagan societies, etc. It’s reasonable on every level, again, for anyone with an open mind and a desire to know the truth. This is not up to interpretation. No matter who obfuscates or tries to muddy the facts. The Church is who she claims to be because she can prove it. It’s not a matter of opinion.
I know what the book says, I’ve read it more than once.
And while I was in flux between the Assemblies of God and Episcopal Church of my childhood (long story) it sufficed. I know that God understood where I was on my journey to the truth. But, once I came to know the truth–that Christ founded a Church still here for all to see and know, I had to reject Lewis’ idea. For it is only Lewis’ idea, not doctrine, after all.No one needs to be smart enough to figure out anything to be saved. Again, the Catechism explains how salvation is possible apart from being a member of the Church, but once one knows the truth, then one needs to pursue it until he finds it, as best as he is able. We cannot dismiss the need to pursue truth by laying it all at God’s feet–that his mercy will cover willful denial of the truth, when it is known. The Pharisees and Sadducees certainly thought they could get away with it, relying on their Jewishness being enough. But Christ clearly taught that they were wrong to presume. Ignorance is one thing, and God definitely understands that, but presumption is quite another when one knows better.
And now I’ve said all I need to say to answer your objections, and to answer the OP’s question. I hope you let go of Lewis, as good as he was, especially if his writings let you deny pursuing better theology. There is much more waiting for you, but it’s up to you to want it.
- Status