Will Protestantism divide until it fails ultimately?

[tqualey]

Hi, Aefensang,

Ah, but there are several problems with this…

joe370;9665646:

We can know whether someone’s ‘interpretation’ of the Bible is wrong by reading the Bible in a more prayerful and complete way; that is, bothering to read references, footnotes, and related passages. Since we believe the Bible contains the bare truths we need to know & live

in order to go to the place prepared for us in Heaven, it is our bounden duty to search the Scriptures as the Lord Jesus commanded.

Your sister may reject authorities other than the Scriptures, but that does not excuse her from refusing to see what the authoritative Scriptures say about God. To give an example: if your sister believes Jesus is not God, you cannot blame this on her appeal to Scripture alone, because Scripture is quite clear that Jesus is divine. You must blame her for not following her own rule; it is her fault for not having read and prayed about it, not the Scripture’s fault for being ambiguous or for lacking authority.

The basis for this argument is that Scripture defines and explains itself - and no book does that. To this you add the writings of others (references, footnotes, etc) but this too falls apart - how can error prone men clarify inerrant Scripture? They simply fall short of the qualifications - but, of course, this did not stop their efforts in this direction. And, in my opinion, this is the very heart of why there is on-going splintering in Protestantism - personal interpretation of Scripture. If I claim that my interpretation of Scripture is as accurate as yours - and we both produces references, footnotes and whatever else will support our opinion - we’ve accomplished nothing.

There can be no valid argument that personal opinion being the basis for explaining established truth - but, this does not mean that there are no invalid arguments! Not to put too fine a point on this - take a look at how all of the Protestant groups have treated the subject of homosexual behavior prior to 1900. To the best of my knowledge all of them condemned this behavior - and, really if you know of an exception, please share it. The Catholic Church has condemned this behavior from its very beginnings - the OT, NT and Early Church Fathers were quite clear about this ( catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8h.htm ) - in fact this is still the teaching of the Catholic Church today. But, the same can not be said about novel Protestant determinations and decisions after 1900. One does not have to look too far to find the sinful behavior that was once condemned because it violated everything - has now been re-explained and re-interpreted and re-footnoted to now claim that such debased and disordered behavior is now acceptable. In my view, Gene Robinson is the poster boy for such an astounding turn around.

Here is a pratical application of how such an error (personal interpretation of Scripture) causes on-going problems. Either there is an authority that questions can be brought to and answers - or - we are left to our own devices. Christ promised that His Church would bind and lose and teach no error - and for 2,000 years it has been doing just that. Going back to Henry VIII we see another interesting element.

You are correct, all the Catholic leadership that split from Rome as directed by Henry VIII were real baptized, ordained and consecrated Catholics. And, what should not be forgotten, for the most part, they died of natural causes. And, all the Catholic leadership that remianed faithful to the Bishop of Rome were martyered ( Bishops John Fisher, John Clerk, Nicholas West and Henry Standish and archdeacon of Exeter Adam Travers, etc.) The deciding element is not that these men all started out as Catholics - but, how they ended their lives. Henry was quite determined that he would kill to get his way to error - and these faithful Catholics said, “No!” to the king.

God bless

 

[Aefensang]

The basis for this argument is that Scripture defines and explains itself - and no book does that. To this you add the writings of others (references, footnotes, etc) but this too falls apart - how can error prone men clarify inerrant Scripture? They simply fall short of the qualifications - but, of course, this did not stop their efforts in this direction. And, in my opinion, this is the very heart of why there is on-going splintering in Protestantism - personal interpretation of Scripture. If I claim that my interpretation of Scripture is as accurate as yours - and we both produces references, footnotes and whatever else will support our opinion - we’ve accomplished nothing.

Scripture indeed defines and explains itself, or at least begins to give hints, even as early as 1 Corinthians 15:
1 Corinthians 15:3-4:

I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures

etc.

Paul said he wished to know nothing but Christ & Him Crucified, and His Risen Lord. The very essence of faith is put into quite solid words in the New Testament. We can debate about the origin of the Testament and the tradition before it was compiled, but we cannot deny that its text purports to present our faith very simply and understandably.

There can be no valid argument that personal opinion being the basis for explaining established truth - but, this does not mean that there are no invalid arguments! Not to put too fine a point on this - take a look at how all of the Protestant groups have treated the subject of homosexual behavior prior to 1900. To the best of my knowledge all of them condemned this behavior - and, really if you know of an exception, please share it. The Catholic Church has condemned this behavior from its very beginnings - the OT, NT and Early Church Fathers were quite clear about this ( catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/8h.htm ) - in fact this is still the teaching of the Catholic Church today. But, the same can not be said about novel Protestant determinations and decisions after 1900. One does not have to look too far to find the sinful behavior that was once condemned because it violated everything - has now been re-explained and re-interpreted and re-footnoted to now claim that such debased and disordered behavior is now acceptable. In my view, Gene Robinson is the poster boy for such an astounding turn around.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Protestants who suffer schism and the loss of unity with their brethren cannot be blamed for the errors of their brethren. We can try to minister to them in charity and bring them back into the fold of unity, but if they are adamant and hard of heart, they will not be convinced by any human agency.

If you’re going to hold X Protestant Church responsible for the heresy & schism of those who leave her, then you must hold the Roman Catholic church responsible for the heresy & schism of those who leave her. I would never say that Rome is responsible for the Hussites, Albigensians, Orthodox, Lollards, Anglicans, Lutherans, or Calvinists, yet those people separated first from Rome. By your logic, Rome must be blamed for them.

With regards to turn-arounds like Gene Robinson (a very sad case), the ability for us to fail miserably is not inconsistent with Protestant theology: we do not claim infallibility for the Church or her hierarchy, so we may admit when we are wrong. This gross attack on morality would be a problem for the Roman Church if it did such a thing; it has not ordained women or practising homosexuals yet, but we believe Rome has erred in other things, no less weighty.

If Protestantism is, by nature, schismatic and in error, I would’ve thought we’d accept homosexuality and other sins much earlier than 1900. That’s almost 400 years after the Reformation. We clearly need another in our hearts. Rome cannot admit that, because she can never admit she was wrong.

Here is a pratical application of how such an error (personal interpretation of Scripture) causes on-going problems. Either there is an authority that questions can be brought to and answers - or - we are left to our own devices. Christ promised that His Church would bind and lose and teach no error - and for 2,000 years it has been doing just that. Going back to Henry VIII we see another interesting element.

Why do you assume that the only options are “the Magisterium” or “total anarchy”? In our system, The Authority that questions can be brought to, and answers given by, is God in His Scripture. Simple reading & interpretation of Scripture is never condemned in Scripture; “no prophecy is made by private interpretation” has to do with prophecy, not the meaning of Scripture. The Fathers totally agree on the clearness of it.

“I wish that they [virtue & faith, i.e. faith & morals]
be arrayed in the unadorned words of Scripture in order that they may gleam in their own light and that in due order they may speak out plainly for themselves. The sun and the moon need no interpreter. The brilliance of their light is all-sufficient a light that fills the entire world. Faith serves as an illumination for the inspired Word. It is, if I may say so, an intestate witness having no need of another’s testimony, yet it dazzles the eyes of all mankind.”

There are dozens of early Fathers who speak in this manner. The pool from which we draw for the ancient believe of Sola scriptura is a deep one. Though the Fathers were not infallible, sacred, or holy like the Scriptures, their historical witness certainly does not allow us to say that the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” was against Sola scriptura.

You are correct, all the Catholic leadership that split from Rome as directed by Henry VIII were real baptized, ordained and consecrated Catholics. And, what should not be forgotten, for the most part, they died of natural causes. And, all the Catholic leadership that remianed faithful to the Bishop of Rome were martyered ( Bishops John Fisher, John Clerk, Nicholas West and Henry Standish and archdeacon of Exeter Adam Travers, etc.) The deciding element is not that these men all started out as Catholics - but, how they ended their lives. Henry was quite determined that he would kill to get his way to error - and these faithful Catholics said, “No!” to the king.

God bless

You did not mention Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, and all the other men burned at the stake & otherwise executed by the Catholic Queen Mary. These were very holy & godly men, as dedicated to the truth as Fisher & More.

Aside from Sir Thomas More, who Henry loved dearly, I don’t believe the King willfully went around executing everyone. Even if he did, our Protestant religion, reformed in its essentials after the abuses of the long middle ages, was established finally with the 39 Articles in 1571. Dear old Henry only made it possible, even if his motives might’ve been horrid. Julius II was the Warrior Pope who went around conquering small Italian cities in the early 1500s, so does that make him invalid? I think not.

All these, and more, are why I’m a prottie.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aefensang,

Hey, stick to what you believe in… but, give me a break on spinning out fiction. So, let’s start out simply with your first item and see where it takes us.

Scripture indeed defines and explains itself, or at least begins to give hints, even as early as 1 Corinthians 15:

I am talking about knowing what is said and meant and you are talking about ‘hints’!? You immortal soul is in the balance and you are guessing you got it right?

If Scripture really does define and explain itself - why do differing Protestant groups dispute and/or claim
there is no Trinity of Persons, baptism is necessary, sins are not to be taken to men for forgiveness, marriage is not a Sacrament, there are no actions that provide God’s Grace (valid reception of the Sacraments), there is no Real Presence, Mary is the Mother of God, Christ is True God and True Man, hell is forever, there really are angels - the list is virtually endless - given 500 years to privately interpret Scripture and cook up one’s own religion.

I gave you the example of Protestant groups now saying homosexual behavior is not sinful - and they get this by re-interpretating Scripture to fit their own agenda. Robinson is a tragic case - but, I only used him as an example of the hierarchy that twisted … oops… interpreted Scripture to allow such disordered behavior to be elevated to being a flashpoint.

There can not be such divergent views - and all be correct. Claiming that Scriptures interprets and defines and explains itself would mean that these differences do not exist. And all you have to do is just look around and seeing all the groups that denounce the interpretations of other groups. God is One - He Is Order - and what we see in these man-made religions is chaos.

So, you tell me where Scripture says it is able to interpret or define itself. And, if you can’t find that passage, maybe you can show me where Scripture says it is the final authority. No such statements exist in Scripture. Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 is quite clear about private interpretation - here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/2_Peter

God bless

Scripture indeed defines and explains itself, or at least begins to give hints, even as early as 1 Corinthians 15:

etc.

Paul said he wished to know nothing but Christ & Him Crucified, and His Risen Lord. The very essence of faith is put into quite solid words in the New Testament. We can debate about the origin of the Testament and the tradition before it was compiled, but we cannot deny that its text purports to present our faith very simply and understandably.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Protestants who suffer schism and the loss of unity with their brethren cannot be blamed for the errors of their brethren. We can try to minister to them in charity and bring them back into the fold of unity, but if they are adamant and hard of heart, they will not be convinced by any human agency.

If you’re going to hold X Protestant Church responsible for the heresy & schism of those who leave her, then you must hold the Roman Catholic church responsible for the heresy & schism of those who leave her. I would never say that Rome is responsible for the Hussites, Albigensians, Orthodox, Lollards, Anglicans, Lutherans, or Calvinists, yet those people separated first from Rome. By your logic, Rome must be blamed for them.

With regards to turn-arounds like Gene Robinson (a very sad case), the ability for us to fail miserably is not inconsistent with Protestant theology: we do not claim infallibility for the Church or her hierarchy, so we may admit when we are wrong. This gross attack on morality would be a problem for the Roman Church if it did such a thing; it has not ordained women or practising homosexuals yet, but we believe Rome has erred in other things, no less weighty.

If Protestantism is, by nature, schismatic and in error, I would’ve thought we’d accept homosexuality and other sins much earlier than 1900. That’s almost 400 years after the Reformation. We clearly need another in our hearts. Rome cannot admit that, because she can never admit she was wrong.

Why do you assume that the only options are “the Magisterium” or “total anarchy”? In our system, The Authority that questions can be brought to, and answers given by, is God in His Scripture. Simple reading & interpretation of Scripture is never condemned in Scripture; “no prophecy is made by private interpretation” has to do with prophecy, not the meaning of Scripture. The Fathers totally agree on the clearness of it.

There are dozens of early Fathers who speak in this manner. The pool from which we draw for the ancient believe of Sola scriptura is a deep one. Though the Fathers were not infallible, sacred, or holy like the Scriptures, their historical witness certainly does not allow us to say that the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” was against Sola scriptura.

You did not mention Ridley, Latimer, Cranmer, and all the other men burned at the stake & otherwise executed by the Catholic Queen Mary. These were very holy & godly men, as dedicated to the truth as Fisher & More.

Aside from Sir Thomas More, who Henry loved dearly, I don’t believe the King willfully went around executing everyone. Even if he did, our Protestant religion, reformed in its essentials after the abuses of the long middle ages, was established finally with the 39 Articles in 1571. Dear old Henry only made it possible, even if his motives might’ve been horrid. Julius II was the Warrior Pope who went around conquering small Italian cities in the early 1500s, so does that make him invalid? I think not.

All these, and more, are why I’m a prottie.

 

[Aefensang]

Tqualey, let me answer you with some rhetorical antitheses to your questions.

]I am talking about knowing what is said and meant and you are talking about ‘hints’!? You immortal soul is in the balance and you are guessing you got it right?

There’s no need to be droll, friend. I said the New Testament has some first clues that they indeed thought Luke, Paul, and the Gospels to be “Scripture” already, by the A.D. 50s-70s. Please see Post #580 in the “Protestants, why?” thread on this forum for a better explanation.

If Scripture really does define and explain itself - why do differing Protestant groups dispute and/or claim
there is no Trinity of Persons, baptism is necessary, sins are not to be taken to men for forgiveness, marriage is not a Sacrament, there are no actions that provide God’s Grace (valid reception of the Sacraments), there is no Real Presence, Mary is the Mother of God, Christ is True God and True Man, hell is forever, there really are angels - the list is virtually endless - given 500 years to privately interpret Scripture and cook up one’s own religion.

If tradition really does define and explain itself and all truth, why have differing Catholic groups disputed and claimed that the Host becomes regular bread when a mouse eats it? Why did an infallible Pope & Council in the 7th century excommunicate Pope Honorius I as an heretic? If he wasn’t an heretic, why did the Pope & Council err in such a grave matter? Why have some said there was no Immaculate Conception of Mary? Why have some said a thousand other things about free will & salvation in the Schools, without any papal intervention for hundreds of years?

Every bizarre idea advocated by the “New Theologians” of the 20th century was allowed by Rome for a scandalous amount of time. Can we blame your hierarchy for erroneous opinions from theologians, as you blame the Scripture for the injustice done against it by Protestants?

Scripture defines and explains itself very clearly. The sins and ugliness of fallen man do not respect its truths. How on Earth do you suppose that is an argument against scripture? “Let God be faithful, and every man untrue”. To make a secular example, can the DVD manual be blamed if an imprudent man refuses to read it, and screws the thing up?

You do us injustice by mocking our “cooked up religion”. Catholicism had to go through some very dirty scholastic and theological fist-fights to get to where it is today. Even now, dangerous radicals like de Chardin, Rahner, and numberless others constantly challenge Rome - yet they are/were Roman Catholics. Almost nothing was agreed upon by the Schoolmen for 300 years. This does not make Catholicism a religion of schism and heresy, does it?

I gave you the example of Protestant groups now saying homosexual behavior is not sinful - and they get this by re-interpretating Scripture to fit their own agenda. Robinson is a tragic case - but, I only used him as an example of the hierarchy that twisted … oops… interpreted Scripture to allow such disordered behavior to be elevated to being a flashpoint.

Something can only be re-interpreted wrongly if there’s a correct interpretation. Since Scripture is clearly against homosexual behaviour, the wrong interpretation is the fault of sinful, proud man - not of the Scripture. Again, an example: a violin has 4 strings, and to rip one of the strings off is to have a broken violin. They may break scripture, the liberals and schismatics, but it doesn’t mean the true unbroken scripture is ambiguous.

There can not be such divergent views - and all be correct. Claiming that Scriptures interprets and defines and explains itself would mean that these differences do not exist. And all you have to do is just look around and seeing all the groups that denounce the interpretations of other groups. God is One - He Is Order - and what we see in these man-made religions is chaos.

Again, there has been massive chaos across Christian history. Do you blame the Catholic hierarchy for those who left in schism after Chalcedon? For the schisms of the Novatians, Arians, Gnostics, and a thousand other heretics? If not, why do you insist on blaming Protestant churches for those who left them in petty disagreements? There is a double-standard in this approach.

So, you tell me where Scripture says it is able to interpret or define itself. And, if you can’t find that passage, maybe you can show me where Scripture says it is the final authority. No such statements exist in Scripture. Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 is quite clear about private interpretation - here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/2_Peter

If scripture says scripture is able to teach us salvation (John 20:31 & 2 Timothy 3:15), that is enough. What one thing does perfectly, another cannot do in addition.

No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Exactly what does this have to do with reading the scripture and knowing that we must have faith in Jesus Christ, incarnate, dead, risen, and reigning in glory? Prophecy is not simple reading.

For all the vaunted infallible tradition, the Roman Catholic Church kept the Johannine Comma in 1 John for hundreds of years, in its officially-infallible Vulgate edition. The Nova Vulgata of John Paul II, however, removes this passage of scripture because there is not enough evidence to prove its canonical status. The Nova Vulgata is now the official Biblical text of Rome; so, was the magisterium of Trent correct in keeping this comma, or is the Magisterium of the 1990s correct in removing this comma? Contradiction.

 

[Aefensang]

Just a little bit of information from a great Protestant, a valued brother, on the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The verb “is” in verse 20 is the translation of the word ‘ginomai’ which according to Strong’s Lexicon means, “to cause to be, to become, come into being.” Hence the sense of this verse is this: “no prophecy of Scripture ‘came into being’ by any private interpretation.” The apostle Peter is here speaking about the process by which the Scriptures came into being, namely, their origin, and not about the understanding of Scripture already given.

Peter says that no scripture came into being by ‘private interpretation’ - that is by one’s own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader, or the men who penned the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, it seems likely that he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets’ own understanding. This could be confirmed if we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets’ own understanding, “for” he continues, “prophecy never came by the will of man.” The prophets did not invent the scriptures. Rather, they were God’s instruments to write his Word: "…holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

True classical unified Protestant Christians say we need godly teachers! Even the Baptist chapel appoints a teacher, a pastor. The difference between we Anglicans (the only protestants I can speak for) and Catholics is that we say a godly, educated bishop is a great authority, while he is not ever counted infallible, by himself or in a council.

 

[joe370]

Aefensang

Scripture indeed defines and explains itself…

Scripture is comprised of a collection of books. How can a book, or a collection of books define and explain itself? People do the interpreting, defining and explaining - right? For example, my old macroeconomics book does not define, interpret and explain anything; the teacher does, when the student is unsure.

 

[joe370]

Aefensang;9663824]The Lord Jesus founded His Church on Pentecost, and continues to build it. As many Fathers declare, the rock upon which the Church was founded is the faith confessed by Peter.

Of course. Without Simons profession, Jesus would not have said: You are kepha and on this kepha…You do believe, as per all the early church fathers, that Jesus’ church was built on Cephas as well as the other apostles - right? As a former protestant I was shocked to find out how many ECFs believed what the CC believes.

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”** (confession) **Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,** (the church)** built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. Ephesians 2

 

[joe370]

Just a little bit of information from a great Protestant, a valued brother, on the meaning of 2 Peter 1:20.

True classical unified Protestant Christians say we need godly teachers! Even the Baptist chapel appoints a teacher, a pastor. The difference between we Anglicans (the only protestants I can speak for) and Catholics is that we say a godly, educated bishop is a great authority, while he is not ever counted infallible, by himself or in a council.

If you were to ask the Pope: are you infallible, what do you think he would say? We both know he, of course, would say no. Infallibility has to do with the charism granted to Jesus’ church. Only God is infallible, not the apostles, their successors etc…God promised to guide His church into all truth until the end of time, and I for one believe Him. Don’t you?

 

[joe370]

Hi, Aefensang,

I really would appreciate some refeences on the “English Church began to exist sometime afterward, probably by the 200’s”.

To the best of my knowledge, Henry VIII was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and grew up as a practicing Catholic. His desire to be united with the Catholic Church waned when his desire to be united with Ann overcame his desire to remain with Catherine. And, that means the ‘Englich Church’ had its start in the 16th Century Protestant revolt.

Besides, I do not think that ‘English’ as a language was not spoken in the 2nd Century Middle East…

God bless

I cannot locate, in the 200’s, an Anglican church. I always thought the Anglican church was the product of King Henry VIII, and like you mentioned, Henry VIII was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and grew up as a practising Catholic.

 

[GKC]

I cannot locate, in 200’s, an Anglican church.

The reference was to the earliest time the Church (in 200+AD, which Church might that have been?) can be dated, historically, as being in the British Isles. Given the attendance of 3 British bishops at the Council of Arles (Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelphius, probably of Colchester), the assumption is that the Church had to be present there in the 200s.No other earlier date is supportable, on the current evidence.

GKC

 

[joe370]

The reference was to the earliest time the Church (in 200+AD, which Church might that have been?) can be dated, historically, as being in the British Isles. Given the attendance of 3 British bishops at the Council of Arles (Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelphius, probably of Colchester), the assumption is that the Church had to be present there in the 200s.No other earlier date is supportable, on the current evidence.

GKC

Are you talking about the catholic church?

 

[GKC]

Are you talking about the catholic church?

Aren’t we all?

The point is that the earliest history of how and when the Church was brought to Britain is cloaked in mystery; history knows little of it. Real history, that is.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aefensang,

Droll? How about just staying focused and actually defending your statement that Scripture expalins itself. What is NOT needed is obfuscating rhetoric. This is a real topic and one where you are asked to defend your statment. For all of this dancing around the topic, and floating back to the 7th Century for a criticism - you still have yet to give the biblical reference that is needed to make your statement work.

The truth of the matter is that if you must try and evade the topic by criticizing the Scholastics - you really have no real argument. This really appears to be simply an ad hominen type argument that is fraying badly.

Please, stay focused and just provide the biblical basis for your statements. Terms liks ‘hints’ and ‘clues’ are meaningless when it comes to an explanation of Christ founding His Church on Peter, giving the First Pope the Keys and the power to bind and lose (Matt 16) and later on promising the Holy Spirit to keep His Church from teaching error by providing all Truth (John 20).

God bless

Tqualey, let me answer you with some rhetorical antitheses to your questions.

There’s no need to be droll, friend. I said the New Testament has some first clues that they indeed thought Luke, Paul, and the Gospels to be “Scripture” already, by the A.D. 50s-70s. Please see Post #580 in the “Protestants, why?” thread on this forum for a better explanation.

If tradition really does define and explain itself and all truth, why have differing Catholic groups disputed and claimed that the Host becomes regular bread when a mouse eats it? Why did an infallible Pope & Council in the 7th century excommunicate Pope Honorius I as an heretic? If he wasn’t an heretic, why did the Pope & Council err in such a grave matter? Why have some said there was no Immaculate Conception of Mary? Why have some said a thousand other things about free will & salvation in the Schools, without any papal intervention for hundreds of years?

Every bizarre idea advocated by the “New Theologians” of the 20th century was allowed by Rome for a scandalous amount of time. Can we blame your hierarchy for erroneous opinions from theologians, as you blame the Scripture for the injustice done against it by Protestants?

Scripture defines and explains itself very clearly. The sins and ugliness of fallen man do not respect its truths. How on Earth do you suppose that is an argument against scripture? “Let God be faithful, and every man untrue”. To make a secular example, can the DVD manual be blamed if an imprudent man refuses to read it, and screws the thing up?

You do us injustice by mocking our “cooked up religion”. Catholicism had to go through some very dirty scholastic and theological fist-fights to get to where it is today. Even now, dangerous radicals like de Chardin, Rahner, and numberless others constantly challenge Rome - yet they are/were Roman Catholics. Almost nothing was agreed upon by the Schoolmen for 300 years. This does not make Catholicism a religion of schism and heresy, does it?

Something can only be re-interpreted wrongly if there’s a correct interpretation. Since Scripture is clearly against homosexual behaviour, the wrong interpretation is the fault of sinful, proud man - not of the Scripture. Again, an example: a violin has 4 strings, and to rip one of the strings off is to have a broken violin. They may break scripture, the liberals and schismatics, but it doesn’t mean the true unbroken scripture is ambiguous.

Again, there has been massive chaos across Christian history. Do you blame the Catholic hierarchy for those who left in schism after Chalcedon? For the schisms of the Novatians, Arians, Gnostics, and a thousand other heretics? If not, why do you insist on blaming Protestant churches for those who left them in petty disagreements? There is a double-standard in this approach.

If scripture says scripture is able to teach us salvation (John 20:31 & 2 Timothy 3:15), that is enough. What one thing does perfectly, another cannot do in addition.

No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. Exactly what does this have to do with reading the scripture and knowing that we must have faith in Jesus Christ, incarnate, dead, risen, and reigning in glory? Prophecy is not simple reading.

For all the vaunted infallible tradition, the Roman Catholic Church kept the Johannine Comma in 1 John for hundreds of years, in its officially-infallible Vulgate edition. The Nova Vulgata of John Paul II, however, removes this passage of scripture because there is not enough evidence to prove its canonical status. The Nova Vulgata is now the official Biblical text of Rome; so, was the magisterium of Trent correct in keeping this comma, or is the Magisterium of the 1990s correct in removing this comma? Contradiction.

 

[joe370]

Aren’t we all?

The point is that the earliest history of how and when the Church was brought to Britain is cloaked in mystery; history knows little of it. Real history, that is.

GKC

My only point is: I do not see any historical proof that supports the idea of a 3rd century Anglican church.

 

[joe370]

I don’t think there will ever be a union. I think the protestant movement will keep growing because the main reason it existed in the first place still exists…many don’t believe in the doctrines and structure of the Catholic church.

I don’t think it’s falling apart at all, I think it’s gaining speed, strength, and numbers.
Don’t forget, it’s only a few hundred years old.
It took the Catholic church approx 350 years before putting a bible together. Protestantism is still young, still in growing and forming stages.
I also think more and more people want and will want a religion with more flexible views of marriage, female ordination, and birth control, etc.

Yup…

 

[GKC]

My only point is: I do not see any historical proof that supports the idea of a 3rd century Anglican church.

Some folks do. Don’t know if there are any posting in here, but I can recommend books.

GKC

 

[joe370]

Some folks do. Don’t know if there are any posting in here, but I can recommend books.

GKC

 

[tqualey]

Hi, DaddyGirl,

Well, that’s what makes for a horse race… Take a look at the on-going splintering in the Anglican groups - with many joining the Catholic Church.

Actually, your view that Protestantism will continue to grow - and considering the thread we are on - I guess you mean by on-going splintering. But, really the different groups contradict one another at every turn - there is no factual evidence to substantiate the claim that, ‘we agree on the important stuff’ or that there is a ‘core Protestantism’. If truth be known the only item that they all agree on is that they disagree with the Church founded by Christ on Peter! So, what is being said - or, at least what I am hearing, is that man-made religions are the way to go. The only real question is just where are they going if they are not being lead by the Spirit of God?

God bless

I don’t think there will ever be a union. I think the protestant movement will keep growing because the main reason it existed in the first place still exists…many don’t believe in the doctrines and structure of the Catholic church.

I don’t think it’s falling apart at all, I think it’s gaining speed, strength, and numbers.
Don’t forget, it’s only a few hundred years old.
It took the Catholic church approx 350 years before putting a bible together. Protestantism is still young, still in growing and forming stages.
I also think more and more people want and will want a religion with more flexible views of marriage, female ordination, and birth control, etc.

 

[joe370]

Hi, DaddyGirl,

Well, that’s what makes for a horse race… Take a look at the on-going splintering in the Anglican groups - with many joining the Catholic Church.

Actually, your view that Protestantism will continue to grow - and considering the thread we are on - I guess you mean by on-going splintering. But, really the different groups contradict one another at every turn - there is no factual evidence to substantiate the claim that, ‘we agree on the important stuff’ or that there is a ‘core Protestantism’. If truth be known the only item that they all agree on is that they disagree with the Church founded by Christ on Peter! So, what is being said - or, at least what I am hearing, is that man-made religions are the way to go. The only real question is just where are they going if they are not being lead by the Spirit of God?

God bless

That is so true…The big question I had to ask myself as a former non-catholic was: by whose authority can I or anyone else start a church and call it the church founded by Jesus? No one…

 

[GKC]

Books?

If not, ok. I probably know more on the subject than anyone within a radius of 100 yards, but it doesn’t interest me a lot.

GKC