Thursday, September 06, 2007

Catholic Gospel for the Muslim

In light of the combox discussions in my last post, I thought I would share this excerpt from the Catholic Answers article entitled Sharing the Gospel with Muslims:

I am sharing the gospel with a Muslim friend who is being talked to by some Evangelicals. Now he is not sure whether he should be Catholic or Protestant. What should I do?

This is a common situation in this country since there are so many Protestants here. Fortunately, the solution is simple: Tell your Muslim friend that he should follow the truth as he sees it. If he thinks that Protestantism is true, then he should become a Protestant. If he thinks that Catholicism is true then he should become a Catholic.

Tell him that you yourself are convinced that the Catholic Church is true, that it is the Church Jesus founded, and that if he wishes you will be happy to share with him the evidence for this.

Taking this approach not only corresponds with proper evangelism and faith in God, it also is likely to be more attractive to your friend than what his Evangelical friends are doing. Many of them will try to put pressure on him to become Evangelical, and it is likely that he will not appreciate it.

There are also other things that you may find attract your friend to Catholicism. For one, Islam recognizes the human need for ritual and has ritual prayers in addition to spontaneous ones. Catholicism recognizes that too, but Protestantism tends not to. As a result, many Muslims becoming Christian are attracted to Catholicism because it has a strong sense of ritual prayer that corresponds to the need of the human heart.

Catholicism recognizes that people in other religions may be in good conscience with respect to God, who will honor that fact. As a result, it acknowledges that a convert’s still-Muslim relatives may be saved even if they do not become Christians. Many Evangelicals do not recognize this fact and will tell converts from Islam that all of their Muslim friends and loved ones will be damned unless they convert.

This is hard to accept for many converts from Islam, who recognize many of their loved ones as sincere, pious people who are trying to follow God according to what they think is right. The converts’ hearts tell them that it would be unjust for God to damn such people. Catholicism, by recognizing God’s mercy on all who sincerely try to follow him, corresponds to the intuition of the converts’ hearts, whereas the teaching of Protestant Evangelicalism does not.

52 comments:

dtking said...

Quote: "Catholicism, by recognizing God’s mercy on all who sincerely try to follow him, corresponds to the intuition of the converts’ hearts, whereas the teaching of Protestant Evangelicalism does not."

Yep, that's the way the Council of Florence saw it. :)

The Council of Florence (1441) declared in the Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino: It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. See Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, Thirtieth Ed. (Powers Lake: Marian House, published in 1954 by Herder & Co., Freiburg), #714, p. 230.

DTK

Saint and Sinner said...

Muslims are often turned off by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy due to their Marianism, Saint, and icon veneration. This is why many Jews and Muslims become Protestants instead.

"This is hard to accept for many converts from Islam, who recognize many of their loved ones as sincere, pious people who are trying to follow God according to what they think is right. The converts’ hearts tell them that it would be unjust for God to damn such people."

So, as long as they're pious people (even though they reject Christ as the Son of God), they have a good chance of getting to heaven?! Wasn't this what Pelagius taught?

This truly reveals the emphasis on self-righteousness in RC theology. Thank God for the Reformation!

Leo said...

Yeah, let's have some more of that wonderful Reformation spirit, let's burn some cities, start some wars, destroy Churches, kill Catholics, ect. ect.
Yeah, real Christ-like.

Saint and sinner, what Florence said is teaching of the Church, no matter what comes out next, if it contradicts florence, then it is heretical and non-Catholic.

Council of Ephesus (+ 431): “If anyone ventures to say that Christ is a man inspired by God, and not rather that He is truly God, being by nature one Son, as the Word was made flesh and is made partaker of blood and flesh precisely like us, let him be anathema.” (Can. 5)

Pope Vigilius: "If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost have one nature or substance, that they have one power and authority, that there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons: let him be anathema. There is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Ghost, in whom all things are." (Second Council of Constantinople, Can. 1.)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 11, Art. 2: “Now a thing may be of faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g., the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g., those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.”

Self righteous, and Protestants aren't?!:D

What a laugh.

kmerian said...

Carrie, I am surprised that this comes from Catholic Answers, given that it is a very conservative organization. But, the fact is, this is wrong. Catholicism does not teach the heresy of indifferentism. I think the author was trying to allege to the belief of "intractible ignorance" but did a very poor job.

johnMark said...

leo,

I have a better idea. How about you tell the Muslim that if he joins a protestant church that he may be dug up after his funeral by Rome and his body tried and judged for heresy?

Yours is just not a good argument. :)

Mark

Kaycee said...

Interesting how the Magesterium and official Catholic doctrine does'nt stop the "faithful" from providing their own "private interpretation" on Catholic salvation.

The "unity" is very inspiring.

Leo said...

So, as long as they're pious people (even though they reject Christ as the Son of God), they have a good chance of getting to heaven?! Wasn't this what Pelagius taught?


Catechism of the Council of Trent (+1566): “Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, ex cathedra: “But although Christ died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only to whom the merit of His Passion is communicated.”

Pope Leo XIII (+1896): “Christ’s teaching from the ship signifies that those who are outside the Church can never grasp the divine teaching; for the ship typifies the Church where the word of life is deposited and preached. Those who are outside are like sterile and worthless sand: they cannot comprehend.” (Satis Cognitum #9)

John Mark, The Council of Florence was an authoritative, dogmatic ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church; its decrees are binding on all Catholics, and remain in effect no matter what modern Catholics believe, Catholic belief is not subject to the age in which Catholics live.
If Florence is such an authoritative Council, and it was ex cathedra, which it was, then no Catholic can receede from its decrees and remain Catholic.
Then, it says that all those who are outside the Church are lost, then we hold that as true, no matter what Catholics who live in the modern world, and are taught novel theology, believe. Our beliefs are not based upon what the majority believe, suppose 99.999999 % of Catholics believe that the sky is purple, pink, and a little bit of orange, they would be the ones in error, and the ones who believe as the Church had declared, that the sky was indeed blue, would be the ones in truth, would they not?
Our dogma is not based on the consent of the majority, or else we should all be Arians right now.
We believe what the Church has once declared.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei #46, Nov. 1, 1885: "The defense of Catholicism, indeed, necessarily demands that in the profession of doctrines taught by the Church all shall be of one mind and all steadfast in believing..."

And so the new "Catholics" who believe differently can in no wise be considered Catholic.

St. Augustine - If anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not a Catholic. ("On Heresies," no.88; PL 42)

St. Peter Canisius: "Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. Hence, he is truly a Christian thoroughly condemns and detests. the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects." (St. Canisius Catholic Cate-chism, Dillingen, 1560, Question no. 1)

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra #15, Jan. 6, 1873: "... the neo-Schismatics can in no way convince themselves that they are Catholics even if they declare themselves such."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

St. Cyprian: "He is no Christian who is not in Christ's Church." (Epistle to Antonianus," 52)

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5): " … This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts."

So that the unity of Catholicism in its belief or otherwise is not broken due to the apostasy of any portion of professed believers, the Church would then remain one, even in the face of heresy.

I Lateran Council: "If anyone does not profess properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be anathema."

So, even if there are those who profess the Catholic name, yet who do not agree with her teachings, they are no Catholics, but are following their own errors, to their eternal condemnation.

Pope St. Leo the Great - Therefore, let the blind and foolish subtlety of heretical impiety be despised. Whosoever continues in heresy is unpardonable, nor can he ever attain forgiveness. They are falling into that blasphemy which shall never be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the Judgment to come. (Leo the Great: Sermon 75, PL 54:400; SS vol.III p.44, no.4)

Is my argument really without logic? I say no one can be Catholic and reject the teaching of the Church, this is the Catholic belief, and it is orthodox, as I've shown. Further, the Church teaches the necessity of union with that Church for salvation, those who deny it, deny the teaching of the Church, deny the whole faith, are not Catholic.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Their heresy and apostasy does not break the unity of the Church, they have separated from the Rock for sands of modern theology, but the unity of the Church still remains fully intact.

Rhology said...

Oh, the unity of the church remains intact when you have no Pope, eh? That's interesting.

Looks to me like the gates of Hell have prevailed against the church or something. Or will you appeal to a remnant paradigm?

dtking said...

Actually, I like Leo's honesty about Rome's position. If he believes what he has posted, then he is your traditional Romanist. I prefer much more to deal with this kind of Romanism, than the typical post Vatican II sophists.

Thanks for being honest Leo, and I hasten to assure you, that I am not the least offended by your position. It delineates our differences quite clearly. I just think that you and your communion are wrong, as well as scripturally and historically bankrupt. But I tip my hat to your honesty, because I find it refreshing.

DTK

Saint and Sinner said...

Leo,

Would you say that the current Pope is a heresiarch?

Saint and Sinner said...

BTW leo,

You misinterpreted what I meant by self-righteousness. Read more carefully.

Leo said...

rhology,

my faith still exists even when the Pope kicks the bucket, the Catholic Church is still around, remember the interim between Pope Pius XII and John XXIII? Was not there still a Catholic Church, a one Church, still one, and faithful?

If you say that I am wrong because those of such beliefs are few, then you wrong your own beliefs, for there were not but twelve apostles and Mary on Pentecost; and then those who were not Arians were not the majority during the early days, Christ was one man, Divine, but still merely one in the beginning, Christianity was founded by one, not millions.
___________________

dtking,

Thank you, I should like to know by what standard you say that I am wrong, and before you say the Bible, I might ask, by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

St. Francis of Assisi was spiritually backrupt?
And so were all of those who believed in the faith of Jesus Christ before Martin Luther?
I find that one too difficult to swallow.
___________


saint and sinner,

only if he contradicts the dogma of the Church.

And what did you mean?

dtking said...

Thank you, I should like to know by what standard you say that I am wrong, and before you say the Bible, I might ask, by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

I don't have to claim it. God only requires me to believe what He Himself pronounces of Holy Scripture in Holy Scripture. I don't buy into the "simple simon" argument that the seat of Rome gives Holy Scripture its authority, any more than I believe that John the Baptist is of greater authority than the Lord Jesus because He pointed to Him and testified that He is "the Lamb of God Who bears away the sin of the world."

St. Francis of Assisi was spiritually backrupt?
And so were all of those who believed in the faith of Jesus Christ before Martin Luther?
I find that one too difficult to swallow.


Well, this question is loaded with presuppositions which you have yet to establish. I don't accept the presuppositions of your question, so I will not begin to tackle it.

But you quoted Augustine above as saying...St. Augustine - If anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not a Catholic. ("On Heresies," no.88; PL 42)

Let me provide the fuller context of that quote...

Augustine (354-430): Even if I knew all of them {that is, the heresies mentioned}, I still could not fulfill that request in your letter, “that we state all those points on which the heretics dissented from the truth.” Far less can I do so, since I do not know all of them. After all, there are, we must admit, heretics who are opposed to the rule of faith on single doctrines or on just a few more, such as the Macedonians or the Photinians and whatever others of this sort there may be. But those myth-makers, if I may use that word, that is, those who compose empty tales that are long and complicated, are so full of many false teachings that they themselves could not count them or could do so only with great difficulty. Nor can any heresy be so readily known to any outsider as it is by its members; hence, I admit that I did not state or had not learned all the teachings of those heresies which I mentioned. Who can fail to see the amount of work and the number of books this request would demand? It is, then, no small benefit to read about and come to know and to avoid these errors which I have incorporated in this book. After all, your request for what the Catholic Church holds in opposition to them—something which you thought I should state—is not necessary, since for the present purpose it is sufficient to know that she is opposed to them and that no one should accept any of them as part of the faith. That we should state and defend what the truth holds against these teachings goes beyond the limits of this work. It is a big help for the heart of the believer to know what one should not believe, even if one cannot refute it with skillful argumentation. Every Catholic Christian, then, ought not to believe these teachings. But not everyone who does not believe them should, therefore, think or say that he or she is a Catholic Christian. After all, other heresies which are not mentioned in this book of ours can exist or come to exist, and whoever holds one of them is not a Catholic Christian. We should, finally, inquire into what it is that makes one a heretic so that, in avoiding that with the Lord's help, we may avoid the poison of heresies, not only of those which we know, but also of those we do not know, whether they already actually exist or merely could exist. Let this volume come to an end. I thought that I should send it to you before I completed this whole work so that whoever reads it may help me with prayers to complete what remains. As you see, there is a great deal to do. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Arianism and Other Heresies, The Heresies, Epilogue, 3, Part 1, Vol. 18, trans. Roland J. Teske, S.J. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), pp. 57-58.

You should be concerned with the heresies that have come into existence since those mentioned by Augustine. Rome has departed from the catholicism of the early church. And Augustine has told us quite clearly that we are not to believe something just because some bishop names it/claims it.

Augustine (354-430): Whatever things of this kind take place in the Catholic Church, are therefore to be approved of because they take place in the Catholic Church; but it is not proved to be the Catholic Church, because these things happen in it. The Lord Jesus himself when he had risen from the dead . . . judged that his disciples were to be convinced by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms . . . These are the proofs, these the foundations, these the supports for our cause. We read in the Acts of the Apostles of some who believed, that they searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so. What Scriptures but the Canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To these have been added the Gospels, the Apostolical Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John. See Goode’s translation, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 341-342 and Vol. 3, pp. 165-166.
Latin text: Quaecumque talia in Catholica fiunt, ideo sunt approbanda, quia in Catholica fiunt; non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea fiunt. Ipse Dominus Jesus cum resurrexisset a mortuis,...eos [i.e., discipulos] testimoniis Legis et Prophetarum et Psalmorum confirmandos esse judicavit,...Haec sunt causae nostrae documenta, haec fundamenta, haec firmamenta. 51. Legimus in Actibus Apostolorum dictum de quibusdam credentibus, quod quotidie scrutarentur Scripturas, an haec ita se haberent: quas utique Scripturas, nisi canonicas Legis et Prophetarum? Huc accesserunt Evangelia, apostolicae Epistolae, Actus Apostolorum, Apocalypsis Joannis. De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XIX, §50-51, PL 43:430.74.

Augustine said that our salvation depends on what God has said, speaking in Holy Scripture...

Augustine (354-430): To which I reply that I have happily reached this very food: namely that I have learned that we should not hesitate to give answers that have to be given, in line with the faith, to people who make every effort to discredit the books our salvation depends on. See John Rotelle, O.S.A., The Works of Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book I, 21, 41, Part I, Vol. 13, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P. (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002), p. 188.

Augustine noted, while referencing them (the Manichaeans) in his Confessions, that “those men were not to be listened unto who should say to me, ‘How dost thou know that those Scriptures were imparted unto mankind by the Spirit of the one true and most true God?’” (See NPNF1: Vol. I, The Confessions of St. Augustine, Book VI, Chapter 5, §7.) In other words, the Roman argument derives its strength, not from faith, but from doubt. And the apostle Paul informs us that “whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23).

Thus Augustine instructs me not to listen to anyone like yourself who would ask me, “How dost thou know that those Scriptures were imparted unto mankind by the Spirit of the one true and most true God?” That was what the heretic Manichee was asking (you know, one of those heretics that Augustine mentioned in that work of his you cited above?), and that’s the impious question that is asked by many Roman apologists, and even Augustine saw through the impiety of such a question.

DTK

Rhology said...

Leo,

Was not there still a Catholic Church, a one Church, still one, and faithful?

There might have been or might not have been then, but apparently there is but a remnant now. Kind of like before the Reformation...

Christ was one man, Divine, but still merely one in the beginning, Christianity was founded by one, not millions.

Once again I've been responding to common RC arguments, in this case, that Prots imagine a great apostasy, that the true church really did perish from the earth for a while, that the gates of hell prevailed.
But perhaps you don't use that argumentation, so, cool.

by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

DTKing can answer for himself (and has), but I have a question for you on this topic.
By what standard do you claim that ex cathedra papal statements are infallible? And how do you know when one is? Which ones have been? Is that list infallible? How do you know that?

Thanks!

Peace,
Rhology

Leo said...

St. Francis of Assisi was spiritually backrupt?
And so were all of those who believed in the faith of Jesus Christ before Martin Luther?
I find that one too difficult to swallow.

Well, this question is loaded with presuppositions which you have yet to establish. I don't accept the presuppositions of your question, so I will not begin to tackle it.


you said that the Catholic faith was spiritually bankrupt.
My point is this, if so, then no one had any spirituality before Martin Luther brought it to mankind in his glorious bloody revolution.
The Catholic faith has produced thousands of saints, many of whom have done many great things.
I am aware of no Protestant saints.
I am aware of No means of santification in Protestantism except one prayer.

You should be concerned with the heresies that have come into existence since those mentioned by Augustine.

I am, that is why my blog exists.

Rome has departed from the catholicism of the early church.


I agree, officially in 1958, unofficially sometime between 1907-1955.

And Augustine has told us quite clearly that we are not to believe something just because some bishop names it/claims it.

I want to know why you accept the epistles to the Corinthians as scriptural, and not the gospel of St. James.

St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Ch.5 #6: "For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."

I prefer a fuller text, as I'm sure you do as well:

"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent?"

which means:

"The Catholic Church is the authority upon which the gospel stands, so if I believe the gospel, I must believe the authority upon which it rests, or else I do not believe it. And that Authority tells men not to believe Manicheaus."


"Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;—Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. "

The Church says not to believe manicheaus, you say that you were right to follow the Church insofar as the gospel, but wrong in their disapproval of the heretic.
For they are choosing the teachings of a heretic above the authority which they believe the scriptures, which they use against the Church, so, you cannot prozyletize me to your heresy because you reject the authority of the gospel, which is the backbone of your contention, you attack your own theology. It was because of the Church that I believe in the authenticity of the scripture, so, to attack the Church is to attack the authenticity of scripture.

"To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it..."


Therefore, you cannot accept one thing on an authority, and not accept another thing on the same authority, for the first is based on the same authority as the former, and to say that the first is right, where the latter is wrong is also to say that the first is wrong, since the same authority promulgated it as well. THerefore, in order to convert me, you must be consistent, either accept this authority as a whole, or reject it as a whole, including the gospel.
However, if you do keep the gospel, I shall not believe you, because you are inconsistent, and deny the authenticity of your very claims.
You might gain a bit of cerdibility if you could show me from the gospel the fact of your claims, for that would in some part lessen the credibility of the Catholics, upon which authority the gospel is based, and which tells me not what you do, but tells me not to believe you and to believe the gospel. However, if that were so, then I would not believe the gospel, since it is them who assure me of the authenticity of the gospel, I would then have to reject the gospel along with the Catholic Church."


Oh, BTW, where did you get that quote from de unitate ecclesiae, I can't find it.:(

I don't have to claim it. God only requires me to believe what He Himself pronounces of Holy Scripture in Holy Scripture.

How do you know what is contained in the Holy Scripture, how do you that Apocalypse is scriptural, I simply want an authority that assures me of the authenticity of that which I am to place my hope in, for no where in the scriptures is contained a list of the works that were to be designated the Word of God?

Leo said...

Was not there still a Catholic Church, a one Church, still one, and faithful?

There might have been or might not have been then, but apparently there is but a remnant now. Kind of like before the Reformation...

Christ was one man, Divine, but still merely one in the beginning, Christianity was founded by one, not millions.

Once again I've been responding to common RC arguments, in this case, that Prots imagine a great apostasy, that the true church really did perish from the earth for a while, that the gates of hell prevailed.
But perhaps you don't use that argumentation, so, cool.

by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

DTKing can answer for himself (and has), but I have a question for you on this topic.
By what standard do you claim that ex cathedra papal statements are infallible? And how do you know when one is? Which ones have been? Is that list infallible? How do you know that?

Thanks!

Peace,
Rhology


The Catholic Church does not consist solely of the existence of the Pope, your logic their is flawed, for that is not the Catholic Faith.

So, in your opinion, what has been Christian all the way through history, what denomination, or interpretation, has been the true one from day one, that you can show has consistently been extant from the Apostles until now, century by century?

I have no precedent at all for the destruction of the faith ever in history, if that were the case, then Christianity is false, we may as well be agnostic. But that does not mean that a great number of persons can not be deceived by a falsehood.

I would like an answer, if it is not the Catholic Church, then I want to know what it is, so that I may not continue faith in something that is not true. On what authority do you accept the authenticity of the Bible?


Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”
And History.

Rhology said...

Hi Leo,

My point is this, if so, then no one had any spirituality before Martin Luther brought it to mankind in his glorious bloody revolution.

Oh, you ARE using this argument.
Which brings me back to the remnant motif. Which you would do well to learn, given that you are in the small minority in your faith now. Did the gates of hell prevail? Does only a tiny fraction of those who name the name of Christ TODAY have faith?

The Catholic faith has produced thousands of saints, many of whom have done many great things.

So has Prot-ism.
And the Catho faith has producted 1000s of very evil people who have done terrible things. This is a terrible argument b/c it depends on humans. That's why I don't use it for my own side.

I am aware of no Protestant saints.

You're talking to one.

I am aware of No means of santification in Protestantism except one prayer.

Then you are very ignorant of biblical theology. You would do well to learn a bit more about that before making ridiculous statements like this one.

I agree, officially in 1958, unofficially sometime between 1907-1955.

So, is the true faith now in the hands of a very small few?

I want to know why you accept the epistles to the Corinthians as scriptural, and not the gospel of St. James.

For starters, the "gospel" of James was written by Gnostics, as I understand.

THerefore, in order to convert me, you must be consistent, either accept this authority as a whole, or reject it as a whole, including the gospel.

1) There is no logical reason to assume that the church is either infallible or completely untrustworthy.
2) The church is not the authority to which one must appeal to know the Canon of Scripture; God is.
3) You can't give us your (fallible or infallible, whichever) Canon of infallible teachings, even given an 'infall interper'. You're in no position to criticise like that. Come back when you can produce such.

upon which authority the gospel is based

1) Christ's.
2) It amazes me you even bring this up.

The Catholic Church does not consist solely of the existence of the Pope

But the Pope has said that it is altogether necessary for all to be under subjection to the Pontiff to be saved. I'd say it's pretty necessary.

what has been Christian all the way through history, what denomination, or interpretation, has been the true one from day one, that you can show has consistently been extant from the Apostles until now, century by century?

This is a terrible question. Kind of like, "can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it?" Not all questions are valid.
No "denomination". Take a look at the history of the OT people of God for the template - I believe the situation is similar in NT times.

I have no precedent at all for the destruction of the faith ever in history, if that were the case, then Christianity is false

In your twisted template, yes.
And given that most everyone in your view has apostatised, that leaves you in a tough spot indeed. It's the same as you would foist on me.

if it is not the Catholic Church, then I want to know what it is, so that I may not continue faith in something that is not true.

You are more than welcome at my church this Sunday, if you're in the area. I'm sure between the commenters and posters on this blog, we can find you a good Reformed church in your area.

On what authority do you accept the authenticity of the Bible?

1) God's.
2) Numerous lines of evidence, such as textual, archeological, prophetic, etc. (Since you asked about authenticity and not authority.)

when he speaks ex cathedra

Fine, how can you know when he does that?
Where is your Canon of when he has done that?

Peace,
Rhology

dtking said...

Leo said that I said: "you said that the Catholic faith was spiritually bankrupt."

No, I said that the Roman communion is "scripturally and historically bankrupt." Go back read read my original words.

Leo, if you cannot read my words accurately, there is no need to exchange with you. What that tells me is that you are not even taking the time to read me correctly. If you are going to expect me to deal with what you actually say, then I expect you to do the same. If you can't do that, then you will engage a straw man and not me.

DTK

Leo said...

Oh, you ARE using this argument.
Which brings me back to the remnant motif. Which you would do well to learn, given that you are in the small minority in your faith now. Did the gates of hell prevail? Does only a tiny fraction of those who name the name of Christ TODAY have faith?


Who were the Christians before Martin Luther, say in 800 AD?

I canot judge the faith of the world, for were I to, I would say maybe less than 1% of the populace of the planet of earth for the last 2,000 years has been because they took the broad path to condemnation, and few there are who find the path to salvation, and few there are who do the will of the Father, else this world is heaven.

So has Prot-ism.
And the Catho faith has producted 1000s of very evil people who have done terrible things. This is a terrible argument b/c it depends on humans. That's why I don't use it for my own side.


Would you like me to cite for you some history?

Cromwell, Calvin, Muntzer, King George, ect. ect. Would you like me to cite the Protestants' ransack of the cities of central Europe during the Renaissance? Would you like for me to tell you what Protestant England did to all who profess Catholism? Would you like for me to cite France's huguenot wars? ect ect.

Numbers don't mean much when you're talking about Holy people, because there are not a whole lot of them.

am aware of no Protestant saints.

You're talking to one.


You are without fault, are holy, are truly humble, without the slightest flaw? I doubt that.

Then you are very ignorant of biblical theology. You would do well to learn a bit more about that before making ridiculous statements like this one.

Sinner's prayer, altar call, once I say that prayer I am justified and sanctified, no?

I agree, officially in 1958, unofficially sometime between 1907-1955.

So, is the true faith now in the hands of a very small few?


Can you point out to me who will go to Hell, and who will go to heaven, in our own American society?

I want to know why you accept the epistles to the Corinthians as scriptural, and not the gospel of St. James.

For starters, the "gospel" of James was written by Gnostics, as I understand.


You still did not answer my question, why do you accept the epistle to the Corinthians, who said that it was scriptural?


1) There is no logical reason to assume that the church is either infallible or completely untrustworthy.

What does that mean?

2) The church is not the authority to which one must appeal to know the Canon of Scripture; God is.

Who did God tell the canon of scripture to, and when? When did Christ come down to define for us the Word of God? Who says that the gospel of Matthew is genuine? For nowhere in the Bible does that claim of scripturality appear.

3) You can't give us your (fallible or infallible, whichever) Canon of infallible teachings, even given an 'infall interper'. You're in no position to criticise like that. Come back when you can produce such.

In otherwords, where is your inspired list of scripture?

) Christ's.
2) It amazes me you even bring this up.


When did He tell you what was and was not part of the Bible?
To whom did He appear with the list of the books of the Bible?
Who says that the epistle of St. James is scriptural? Where is it contained that God said that it was?

But the Pope has said that it is altogether necessary for all to be under subjection to the Pontiff to be saved. I'd say it's pretty necessary.

That just means that one must be a member of the Church for salvation, not that the Pope IS the Church.


This is a terrible question. Kind of like, "can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it?" Not all questions are valid.
No "denomination". Take a look at the history of the OT people of God for the template - I believe the situation is similar in NT times.


I just want to know what sect has been Christianity for the last 2,000 years if not the Church?

Who was Christian in 900 AD if not Catholics?

In your twisted template, yes.
And given that most everyone in your view has apostatised, that leaves you in a tough spot indeed. It's the same as you would foist on me.


I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.


You are more than welcome at my church this Sunday, if you're in the area. I'm sure between the commenters and posters on this blog, we can find you a good Reformed church in your area.

Show me how your profession of faith is the same as that of Christians of 1000 AD.
In Otherwords, is your faith consistent and continual?

1) God's.
2) Numerous lines of evidence, such as textual, archeological, prophetic, etc. (Since you asked about authenticity and not authority.)


Where is it contained that God said that those books currently in the Bible are dinvinely inspired word of God?

Fine, how can you know when he does that?
Where is your Canon of when he has done that?


Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4: “…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

Obtain a copy of Enchridion.
And History.

Leo said...

Leo, if you cannot read my words accurately, there is no need to exchange with you. What that tells me is that you are not even taking the time to read me correctly. If you are going to expect me to deal with what you actually say, then I expect you to do the same. If you can't do that, then you will engage a straw man and not me

What that means is that I'm speed reading, I'm replying to multiple things at once, and trying to work as best as I can with the time I have, ok? I'm sorry I misread you, but that is no reason to question my integrity.

Rhology said...

Leo,

Who were the Christians before Martin Luther, say in 800 AD?

God knows His remnant.
Who are the Christians NOW?

I canot judge the faith of the world

1) OK, then it's fair for me to say I don't know who the Christians were in 800 AD.
2) Don't cop out - I want to know where the One True Church is TODAY.

Cromwell, Calvin, Muntzer, King George, ect. ect.

You must be kidding.
Inquisition, Tetzel, Bloody Mary, the Pornocracy, Avignon. Let's just get over this drivel, can we?

Would you like me to cite the Protestants' ransack of the cities of central Europe during the Renaissance?

Sure, right after the Crusaders' sack of Constantinople and the St Bartholomew's Day massacre.

You are without fault, are holy, are truly humble, without the slightest flaw? I doubt that.

1) It doesn't appear you read the psg I cited.
2) Or care to.
3) Clothed in Christ's righteousness, I am all that and more.

Sinner's prayer, altar call, once I say that prayer I am justified and sanctified, no?

No.
Geez, man, what kind of churches have you been exposed to? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and explain. Don't make me regret it, please.

Biblically, a man is justified when he bows the knee before God, repents of his sin past, present, and future, and asks Jesus to save him, believes that Jesus rose from the dead.
Sanctification, as it is usually referred to (though this is not the case in, say, Hebrews), is a lifelong process performed by the Holy Spirit and the believer working in conjunction. The fatal flaw of RC dogma is to conflate justification and sanctification. They are separate and distinct.

why do you accept the epistle to the Corinthians, who said that it was scriptural?

B/c God led the church to understand that He inspired it. God said.

What does that mean?

You've been setting forth a false dilemma, and I'm responding to it.

Who did God tell the canon of scripture to, and when?

The church. Over time.

where is your inspired list of scripture?

Go get a NASB and check the Table of Contents.
I'll believe you have an advantage when you can produce a canon of RC infallible statements. If you can and it's fallible, we're on equal footing on that point. If infallible, then you have an advantage on that point. But you can apparently do neither. Consider this a 4th challenge to do so. When will you come up with the goods?

That just means that one must be a member of the Church for salvation, not that the Pope IS the Church.

1) It says "The Roman Pontiff," not the church. That's pretty clear.
2) This sounds like your private interpretation.

Who was Christian in 900 AD if not Catholics?

1) God knows His remnant.
2) You said earlier that you don't know who are true Christians now anyway, so why should I answer this question?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Your infallible interper has let you down and apostatised. You are up a creek.

Show me how your profession of faith is the same as that of Christians of 1000 AD.

You keep saying 800 AD, 900 AD, 1000 AD. I'm interested in the faith that Jesus taught. Why would I care what people believed in 900 AD?

Obtain a copy of Enchridion.
And History.


1) "History" is not an infallible document of the Magisterium.
2) Many RCs have told me that Enchiridion is not infallible. Why believe you and not them? Fr Mitch Pacwa told me face to face it's not - I believe a priest before you.
3) So let's grant that it's fallible. Is it a COMPLETE list of infallible teachings? How do you know?


In case you missed it, Leo, I won't question your integrity if you'll bite the bullet and answer this question to the exclusion of the others, if necessary:

**1) What is the INFALLIBLE list of INFALLIBLE teachings of the RCC?
**2) How do you know that list is infallible?
**3) Does that list include itself (as an infallible teaching)?
**4) If you can't produce it, on what basis do you criticise me for not having an infallible Canon of Scripture?




Peace,
Rhology

Leo said...

God knows His remnant.
Who are the Christians NOW?


You say that I am not among them because I am Catholic, but you have yet to define your sect.


1) OK, then it's fair for me to say I don't know who the Christians were in 800 AD.


That's nowhere near what I was talking about, your telling me that Catholicism was not Christianity, but something else was, and you don't know what that was?
That's too shady.

) Don't cop out - I want to know where the One True Church is TODAY.


Those who follow the one Apostolic Faith - the Historical Catholic faith.

3) Clothed in Christ's righteousness, I am all that and more.
rash arrogance.


B/c God led the church to understand that He inspired it. God said.

Where, and what Church?

The church. Over time.

What Church? NO, at one point or another we knew what was and was not scripture, infallibly assured by some authority, what authority, and when?

Go get a NASB and check the Table of Contents.

How do you know that that list is correct? It is not Divinely inspired.


1) It says "The Roman Pontiff," not the church. That's pretty clear.
2) This sounds like your private interpretation.


I spoke in reference to this:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

1) God knows His remnant.
2) You said earlier that you don't know who are true Christians now anyway, so why should I answer this question?


Since the Church is not, what is?
What interpretation is correct? Which denomination is true?


Your infallible interper has let you down and apostatised. You are up a creek.

What that interpreter revealed still remains. the unity of the Church, and its authority is not subject to the faith of any person, or persons in the Church.

You keep saying 800 AD, 900 AD, 1000 AD. I'm interested in the faith that Jesus taught. Why would I care what people believed in 900 AD?

So there were no Christians at this point in time?

Wherever it is found that the Pope DEFINES for the Whole Church any point of doctrine to be believed by all, usually in an ecumenical Council, but sometimes extra concilliar, such as the immaculate Conception. Denzinger contains a pretty good amount of them.

#'s 1-4:

I'll answer when you answer my questions.

dtking said...

What that means is that I'm speed reading, I'm replying to multiple things at once, and trying to work as best as I can with the time I have, ok? I'm sorry I misread you, but that is no reason to question my integrity.

I'm not questioning your integrity, only your ability to read with careful comprehension. The fact that you have gone on the defensive, as if I accused your integrity only underscores the fact to me again that you are not respon ding to what I'm saying. If you can't follow my words accurately (for whatever reason), I'm not interested in responding to you. That's not to charge your character; it just means that I'm not going to respond to things I never said.

DTK

Leo said...

dtking,

I'll be more careful next time, but was a mistake, I know the feeling, many Prots have held me for things I never said, mainly on forums though. Have nice weekend,

Leo

Rhology said...

#'s 1-4:

I'll answer when you answer my questions.


Lame, Leo.
I'm thru with you until you at least make an attempt. I've answered many of your questions already.

But I'll answer for you in the spirit of co-operation.

1) What is the INFALLIBLE list of INFALLIBLE teachings of the RCC?

There is none.

2) How do you know that list is infallible?

Can't - see answer #1.

3) Does that list include itself (as an infallible teaching)?

It would be a neat trick if it did, but there is none, see answer #1.

4) If you can't produce it, on what basis do you criticise me for not having an infallible Canon of Scripture?

It is very inconsistent of me and all RC apologists to do so. The accusation is that your infallible teachings (ie, Scripture) are bound up in a list that is known only fallibly. So we RCs trumpet our advantage - we have an infallible interpreter! Alas, it's a shell game; our infallible teachings are bound up in a list that is known only fallibly as well. Sssshh, don't tell anyone! In fact, don't tell anyone that we can't even produce a fallible list that is complete, and I am not sure how we would know it even if we did have one.

Nice talking to you, Leo. Have a good weekend.

Peace,
Rhology

Richard Froggatt said...

Hi Alan,

1) What is the INFALLIBLE list of INFALLIBLE teachings of the RCC?
The only reason you want one is to object to the doctrine of Infallibility on the same basis that we object on the basis of your canon of scripture. However, it wouldn’t be hard for the Church to declare infallibly, an infallible list of infallible teachings. If there was such a list that would be just one more objection for you to raise, because you don’t believe in the doctrine anyway.
However, even this objection fails in comparison. Our objection is not that you don’t know the milk that nourishes you but that you say your mother, who has breast fed you, when she lets you drink from your own cup, you say she is dead when she is alive and well.

2) How do you know that list is infallible?

The definition of the doctrine of infallibility guides us.

3) Does that list include itself (as an infallible teaching)?

I’m sure it would; see # 1


4) If you can't produce it, on what basis do you criticise me for not having an infallible Canon of Scripture?

See # 1

Leo said...

Very interesting, I said:

I should like to know by what standard you say that I am wrong, and before you say the Bible, I might ask, by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

I was not answered.

I asked:

I want to know why you accept the epistles to the Corinthians as scriptural

for a third time, I asked:

How do you know what is contained in the Holy Scripture, how do you that Apocalypse is scriptural, I simply want an authority that assures me of the authenticity of that which I am to place my hope in, for no where in the scriptures is contained a list of the works that were to be designated the Word of God?

I was never answered.

So, in your opinion, what has been Christian all the way through history, what denomination, or interpretation, has been the true one from day one, that you can show has consistently been extant from the Apostles until now, century by century?

Answer?

Ah, uh, ahhh, uuhh, hmmm, ah, well, Does only a tiny fraction of those who name the name of Christ TODAY have faith?


Instead of honestly answering me, I was met with silence, and then questions.

I asked for a fourth time:

On what authority do you accept the authenticity of the Bible?

I was answered:

You can't give us your (fallible or infallible, whichever) Canon of infallible teachings, even given an 'infall interper'. You're in no position to criticise like that. Come back when you can produce such.

Hold on a sec, I'm asking the question, one that no one will answer, yet claims that they can. further, I'm not criticising,
I was asking questions, but was met that condescending arrogance and was stalled.

In your twisted template

I was criticised, and my questions were never answered.

Where is your Canon of when he has done that?

Wait a sec, I asked first, further, why won't you answer me?

I was again met with:

Leo, if you cannot read my words accurately, there is no need to exchange with you. What that tells me is that you are not even taking the time to read me correctly. If you are going to expect me to deal with what you actually say, then I expect you to do the same. If you can't do that, then you will engage a straw man and not me.

Woa, That issue was settled, further, that was a mistake, it should not have been such a big deal as to warrent ignoring my legitimate questions.

I again asked:

Who were the Christians before Martin Luther, say in 800 AD?

I was never answered. So I asked again:

I just want to know what sect has been Christianity for the last 2,000 years if not the Church?

Who was Christian in 900 AD if not Catholics?


I asked again:

Show me how your profession of faith is the same as that of Christians of 1000 AD.
In Otherwords, is your faith consistent and continual?



My initial questions still remain unanswered:

why do you accept the epistle to the Corinthians, who said that it was scriptural?

Another one of my questions, essentially the same one as before, just rephrased:

Who did God tell the canon of scripture to, and when? When did Christ come down to define for us the Word of God? Who says that the gospel of Matthew is genuine?
In otherwords, where is your inspired list of scripture?


Again, I asked:

When did He tell you what was and was not part of the Bible?
To whom did He appear with the list of the books of the Bible?
Who says that the epistle of St. James is scriptural? Where is it contained that God said that it was?


I asked again:

Where is it contained that God said that those books currently in the Bible are dinvinely inspired word of God?

I asked again:

What Church? NO, at one point or another we knew what was and was not scripture, infallibly assured by some authority, what authority, and when?

Since the Church is not, what is?
What interpretation is correct? Which denomination is true?



You claim I am wrong because I am Catholic, but you have yet to define your sect. you're telling me that Catholicism was not Christianity, but something else was, and you don't know what that was.

None of those answers have been answered. I've asked them on numerous forums to Protestants, all claim to have the answers, but will not provide them. Since no Protestant will answer them, I will take a stab at it:



I should like to know by what standard you say that I am wrong, and before you say the Bible, I might ask, by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

By their own Personal opinion, that they call "private interpretation".
That standard? Who knows?

How do you know what is contained in the Holy Scripture, how do you that Apocalypse is scriptural, I simply want an authority that assures me of the authenticity of that which I am to place my hope in, for no where in the scriptures is contained a list of the works that were to be designated the Word of God?

Answer: you don't, you have no asusurance that what is in your bibles is genuine, and no infallible list of scripture.

I just want to know what sect has been Christianity for the last 2,000 years if not the Church?

Catholicism.

Who was Christian in 900 AD if not Catholics?


Nothing.


I was not met wit honest good will and answers for my objections and questions, but dishonest tactics at avoiding my questions.

Oh, well, I guess I'll resume next week.

GeneMBridges said...

How do you know that that list is correct? It is not Divinely inspired.

How do you know that Rome had it right and is divinely appointed to establish the canon? Even if the Protestant view of canoncity is incorrect, that does not automatically mean that the one of Rome is correct. What about Eastern Orthodoxy? The Abyssinian Churches? The Syrian Orthodox? Etc.

Protestants establish the canon by internal evidence and external evidence. We have done this many times on T-Blog. Read our archives and tell the folks here which arguments are bogus. For example: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/04/canon-of-scripture-1.html

The NT canon comes down to us via tradition, but its validation does not depend on tradition alone.

Keep in mind, too, that “tradition” can mean different things. Tradition can mean a historical witness, or it can mean sacred tradition, in the dogmatic sense.

A Protestant can affirm the former, but deny the latter.

You seem to operate with an infallibilist contraint on knowledge. Where is the supporting argument?

Who infallibly defined the canon of the Jews? Where was the canon of Scripture prior to Trent? If your argument is that Protestants need infallible certain to establish the canon, then how did people function before it was infallibly defined by Rome?

Since the Church is not, what is?
What interpretation is correct? Which denomination is true?


A. Protestantism has a doctrine of the visible and invisible church. A standard confession like the WCF provides that information. If you differ with it, then you need to refute the distinction.

B. Apropos A, Protestant denominations differentiate between a saving and credible profession of faith. It would help you to familarize yourself with the opposing position.

See: http://blog.solagratia.org/2007/02/15/a-credible-profession-of-faith/

C. Any of the following confessions could supply the basis for a credible profession of faith:

i) The Thirty-Nine Articles
ii) The Formula of Concord
iii) The Baptist Faith & Message
iv) The C&MA statement of faith
v) The JFJ statement of faith
vi) The EFCA statement of faith
vii) The Campus Crusade statement of faith
vii) The AG statement of faith

Notice not all are Reformed, Lutheran, or even Arminian. They all agree on their basic doctrine of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The all affirm justification by faith alone. The faith of the person professing belief under one of those confessions has a faith in Christ that we presume to be undivided. However, we say that, as a general rule, those in Rome have a faith divided between the merits of Christ, their own congruent merit, and that of others. Ergo, you cannot provide us with a credible profession of faith. We will, however, go so far to state that one can rejection justification by faith alone and still be justified by faith alone, but if one runs about cultivating your error against a fundamental article of the faith, of which justification by faith alone is one, you are displaying your unregenerate state. We'll cut more "slack" to the Romanist in the pew than to the members of the hierarchy or Rome's apologists, as a result.

D. You're acting as if membership in a visible institution is enough to qualify a person as genuine Christian. Where is the supporting argument?

What that interpreter revealed still remains. the unity of the Church, and its authority is not subject to the faith of any person, or persons in the Church.

In this thread and the other on Muslims and Catholicism, you have expressed variance with other Catholics. So much for the "unity" of the Catholic Church.
How does one adjudicate between the claims of rival Catholic sects? What has your Communion done about Liberation Theology? Hans Kung and his followers reject papal infallibility. What about them? Sedevacantists? Your communion says on paper it supports inerrancy, but we can find as much if not more German Higher Critical theory in it today than among Conservative Evangelicals. As in the way Ratzinger or Jaki take Genesis at “face value”:

Cf. S. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Thomas Moore Press 1992); J. Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans 1995).

Other examples would include the way in which Joseph Fitzmyer and Cardinal Kasper selectively demythologize the miracles of Jesus.

Cf. J. Fitzmyer, A Christological Catechism (Paulist Press 1991); W. Kasper, Jesus The Christ (Paulist Press 1985).

So much for Catholic unity.

Who was Christian in 900 AD if not Catholics?

A. This assumes without benefit of argument that Rome then and Rome today are the same.
B. It assumes without benefit of the argument there is no distinction between the visible and invisible church.
C. It also assumes that all "Catholics" were "Christians," but where is the supporting argument that they are one and the same?
D. It was in the 800 - 900 period that Gottschalk and his followers arose and taught the doctrines of grace largely as known among the Reformed churches today. Were they Christians? If so, there's your answer.

Froggett says:

) How do you know that list is infallible?

The definition of the doctrine of infallibility guides us.


This is viciously circular reasoning, sir. You've just appealed to tradition - which defines infallibility for you - to substantiate tradition. Sola Ecclesia!

Richard Froggatt said...

Gene,

I disagree.

GeneMBridges said...

As we can see, Richard is either unwilling or unable to argue his assertion, because he does not seem to have a grasp of rudimentary logic:

To say when asked "How do you know that list is infallible?" that you know it by the definition of infalliblity is a viciously circular argument, for you are assuming what you need to prove, since Tradition is supplying, for you, that definition. You're appealing to Tradition to validate Tradition. That's a circular argument. It also commits the regressive fallacy, for it only backs up the question by one step. Is there something about being a Romanist that selects for making such bad arguments?

Vicious circularity is a special case of begging the question. Vicious circularity is where you reproduce the premise in the conclusion. Instead of showing that y follows from x because y is a subset of x, and if x is true, then y is true, you simply paraphrase your original claim, so that you’ve done nothing to advance the argument. You seem to give reason x for your belief in y, but x and y are really the same thing.

Vicious circularity is usually a bit more roundabout than this bare-bones outline. For example, this is how a Roman Catholic will often argue for his faith:

“How do you know that the Catholic Church is not an apostate church?”
“ Because the Church is indefectible.”
“How do you know that?”
“Because Christ has promised us that the gates of hell will not overcome the church.”
“Haven’t the Popes made mistakes?”
“Only when expressing a private opinion, and not when speaking ex cathedra.”
“How do you know when a Pope is speaking ex cathedra or not?”
“If he made a mistake, he was not speaking ex cathedra.”
“Is it not possible for your church to commit apostasy?”
“No, for the true church is indefectible.”
“How do you know that your church is the true church?”
“Because she has never fallen into heresy.”
“How do you know she’s never fallen into heresy?”
“Because Christ has promised us that the gates of hell will not overcome the church.”

If you think this is a parody of Catholic reasoning, just read some of exchanges with Roman Catholics.

Richard Froggatt said...

Gene,

If I said I know the list is infallible because the list says it is then that would be circular.

But, that's not what I said.

To sum up. If an infallible teacher declares something infallible then we know it's infallible by the declaration. And we know this because if the Pope were to speak Ex-Cathedra then we would know it was an infalliby declared list.

Again, your objection would be not that it's circular, though that's a great aspersion to throw, but that you deny the doctrine of infallibility. Throw in your objections to Tradition (obviously you accept your own Tradition though) and you have what you think is a great case.

And just in case that's not clear enough; I don't have to prove the infallibility of the list but the doctrine.

Which is why I said to Alan -The only reason you want one is to object to the doctrine of Infallibility - I also said that the definition -guides us- which I didn't realize was going to mean proves for us to you.

Peace

Richard Froggatt said...

Oh, and one more thing; you forgot to mention scripture. Catholics appeal to scripture and tradition.

GeneMBridges said...

Oh, and one more thing; you forgot to mention scripture. Catholics appeal to scripture and tradition.

But Catholic Tradition lends Scripture its authority, so Scripture's authority is derivative of Tradition, so it's still an appeal to Tradition. Any appeal to Scripture, for you, would be, outside of an infallibly defined exegesis, private speculation - which is a standard criticism of the Protestant rule of faith.

If I said I know the list is infallible because the list says it is then that would be circular.

Notice how I didn't make this argument or say RF was making this argument.

There is a difference between vicious circularity and virtuous circularity. For you, this appeal is vicious, not virtuous.

That would also be the argument of a simpleton.

ii) Virtuous circularity can take two forms:

a) It can be a special case of the ad hominem argument, where, for the sake of argument, the disputant will reason from his opponent’s assumptions and standards.

b) When it takes for granted whatever truth-conditions are necessary to reason at all—truth-conditions common to disputant and opponent alike.

Since Scripture is taken for granted by us both, for me to appeal to Scripture's self-witness is a case of virtuous, not vicious circularity.

Further, the argument for the inspriation and infallibility of Scripture is not "because it says so."

Even on its own grounds, let’s consider the argument for a moment.

Instead of the Bible, let’s construct a parallel argument: Who wrote A Farewell to Arms? Earnest Hemingway. Why do you think Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms? Because it says so.

Would that be an example of sloppy reasoning? No.

If you were reading A Farewell to Arms, and a friend asked you who wrote it, you would say Earnest Hemingway. And if your friend asked you how you knew that, you would show him your copy of the book, which says that Hemingway was the author.

Is that an unreasonable answer to his question? No. Is it viciously circular to appeal to the title itself? No.

ii) Of course, this is not a compelling argument for authorship. It’s possible that the conventional attribution is false.

But if the publisher gives Hemingway as the author, that is prima facie grounds for believing that Hemingway is the author, is it not?

That, all by itself, is evidence for the authorship of the novel, and you wouldn’t have any reason to question that attribution unless you had evidence to the contrary.

Do you know for a fact that Hemingway wrote the novel because it says so? No. The ascription could be mistaken.

But, absent evidence to the contrary, it’s reasonable for you to believe that he wrote it simply because it says so.

And that’s because, to doubt his authorship, you’d have to assume some sort of conspiracy to palm off this novel as the work of Hemingway, even though the publishers were in a position to know better.

Now, conspiracies do occur. But you would need specific evidence to justify your belief in a conspiracy. Absent evidence of a conspiracy, it’s more reasonable to take the ascription at face value.

iii) If God intended to communicate with the human race, don’t you suppose that he would identify himself as the speaker? What would be the point of a divine communication if we didn’t know the source? If this was from God, but we didn’t know it was from God, then we would treat it like any other human communication.

Suppose the Bible never identified itself as the Word of God. Would we pay the same amount of attention to Scripture? No.

If it never said it was the Word of God, we would have no particular reason read it or consider it to be the Word of God. After all, there are far more books in the world than anyone has the time to read. So how do you choose? How do you know what’s important?

iv) Is a divine self-ascription sufficient reason to believe that a document is inspired by God? No.

But a divine self-ascription does make a document a candidate for divine revelation. We will judge it on that basis, whereas—if it never made such a claim in the first place—it wouldn’t even be a candidate for divine revelation.

So the self-witness of Scripture is quite germane to the overall case for the inspiration of Scripture. The self-witness of Scripture is not a sufficient reason to believe that Scripture is what it says it is, but it’s no more unreasonable to take that claim as your starting point than it is to begin with Hemingway as the stated author of A Farewell to Arms.

Again, your objection would be not that it's circular, though that's a great aspersion to throw, but that you deny the doctrine of infallibility.

I deny infallibility, but that's not the root of my objection. Rather, saying, "You deny infallibility" is a diversionary tactic by you.

My objection is that the appeal you are making is viciously circular, and this is true, regardless of my theological beliefs.

I also said that the definition -guides us- which I didn't realize was going to mean proves for us to you.


Poor Richard, he is unable to grasp basic logic.

This is still a viciously circular appeal.

You were asked:2) How do you know that list is infallible?

You answered: The definition of the doctrine of infallibility guides us.

Where, Richard, would this definition come from? It would come from Tradition.

So, you are appealing to Tradition to validate Tradition.

You have thereby proven what I said you is true. "Guides us" is just a weasel term for you, but to know what infallibility means, you still have to make the appeal. Nice try, but you lose - again. Is there something about being Roman Catholic that makes for such poor arguments?

Let's illustrate:

If an infallible teacher declares something infallible then we know it's infallible by the declaration.

So, it's infallible because Tradition says so.

And we know this because if the Pope were to speak Ex-Cathedra then we would know it was an infalliby declared list.

Because the Pope speaking ex-cathedra is infallible.

Which is, of course, known by an appeal to Tradition.

So, you appeal to Tradition to validate Tradition. That is the very definition of vicious circularity.

So, one more time, for Richard:

If an infallible teacher declares something infallible then we know it's infallible by the declaration.

Question: How do you know the teaching ("something") is infallible?

Answer: By the declaration.

Question: How do you know this?

Answer: because if the Pope were to speak Ex-Cathedra it would be infallible.

Question: How do you know the Pope, when speaking Ex-Cathedra is infallible?

By the declaration

or

Because the Church teaches it.

Either way, it's still viciously circular, because you still have to prove infallibility by an appeal to Tradition. It is exactly like the argument I outlined above. Thank you for proving it correct.

Leo said...

How do you know that Rome had it right and is divinely appointed to establish the canon? Even if the Protestant view of canoncity is incorrect, that does not automatically mean that the one of Rome is correct. What about Eastern Orthodoxy? The Abyssinian Churches? The Syrian Orthodox? Etc.

Again, instead of answering my question, the burden was directed at me. But my point is, YOU don't consider them Christian, so I'm asking YOU what is the true interpretation of scripture, what denomination in your opinion has it right? And can you demonstrate it's consistency down through history?

Protestants establish the canon by internal evidence and external evidence.

What is that supposed to mean, what external evidence?
Tradition? AN unwritten, or oral, or rather extra-scriptural authority?

The NT canon comes down to us via tradition, but its validation does not depend on tradition alone.


Right, there has to be an authority to assure us that indeed, this is the truth, and this is not, this book is scriptural, and this one is not.

Keep in mind, too, that “tradition” can mean different things. Tradition can mean a historical witness, or it can mean sacred tradition, in the dogmatic sense.


Then you do in fact conceede that Tradition had a part to play in the canonization of the scriptures?
Nevertheless, according to your belief, what determines what is scriptural?
Who can determine and discerne such, with an impeccable assurity to ensure infallibility of the scriptures, unhindered by falliblility on the part of men?

A Protestant can affirm the former, but deny the latter.

You seem to operate with an infallibilist contraint on knowledge. Where is the supporting argument?


Here we go again, I asked you, what do you support sola scriptura's canon with? What is your answer?
I shall respond when my objections are met, this will not be a one-sided debate, I am not here to defend my theology, but to find out how you can claim it erroneous honestly.

Who infallibly defined the canon of the Jews?

They had a hierarchy who had authority in matters spiritual, remember? The seat of moses, and I'm not asking for that wrap on that seat, but an answer to my above objections.

Where was the canon of Scripture prior to Trent?

Here you display an ignorance of history. The Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. defined a canon of scripture for Catholic use, that was in use for over 1,000 years before Trent.

If your argument is that Protestants need infallible certain to establish the canon, then how did people function before it was infallibly defined by Rome?

I'm asking here, you're the Protestant. You know my answer to this: Tradition, Magisterial episcopate, seat of Peter. But I'm not here to defend my position, rather, to learn yours against mine, so, where is your inspired canon?

Protestantism has a doctrine of the visible and invisible church.

What?

A standard confession like the WCF provides that information.

Is this universal authoritative Protestant Creed? Then why the thousands of sects and differences on interpretations of scripture?
Do you mean that you say I'm wrong, but you can't show me how?

If you differ with it, then you need to refute the distinction.

What in the world? I'm not asking you to research the Council of Carthage and Nicea, but a simple answer.

Protestant denominations differentiate between a saving and credible profession of faith.

So you mean you can't give me an answer to my question, who is right?
What interpretation of scripture, according to what denomination of Christians has it right?

i) The Thirty-Nine Articles
ii) The Formula of Concord
iii) The Baptist Faith & Message
iv) The C&MA statement of faith
v) The JFJ statement of faith
vi) The EFCA statement of faith
vii) The Campus Crusade statement of faith
vii) The AG statement of faith

Notice not all are Reformed, Lutheran, or even Arminian. They all agree on their basic doctrine of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.


But you still can't agree on other issues, because no one has a definite true opinion of scripture.
So, who of the above is apostolic absolutely, with one faith, as St. Paul says, who has the truth?

Now, you'll say scripture, but by who's interpretation?

The all affirm justification by faith alone.

They have to to legitimatize their schism with the Church.

Ergo, you cannot provide us with a credible profession of faith.

What in the world? Do you want me to post it? It's the same as every other Catholic I know, I don't disagree with them anywhere.
Ever hear of the Athanasian Creed?
Ever hear of the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent?
Or of the First Vatican Council?
All of which affirm the same thing, some maybe more than others, to be professed by all Catholics everywhere. I don't know what you mean here.

You're acting as if membership in a visible institution is enough to qualify a person as genuine Christian.

No, I'm acting as if there is one faith, as St. Paul said it, to be held by all of the flock of Christ.
That one faith is historical, and consistent, and true.

Where is the supporting argument?

Uh, I thought I'd asked you something, remember?
Care to answer now?

In this thread and the other on Muslims and Catholicism, you have expressed variance with other Catholics. So much for the "unity" of the Catholic Church.

My advice would be to keep your hands out of something you don't understand. I asked you about your faith and assurance, not to defend mine, go debate matatics or Armstrong if you want a debate on doctrine.

What has your Communion done about Liberation Theology?

In the Catholic faith, there is no such thing, but, in the bogus ordo epicopalian sect, there is. Make a distinction between Catholicism and episcoprotestantism.

Hans Kung and his followers reject papal infallibility. What about them?

You're demonstrating your ignorance of Catholic theology. If you knew what we believed, you would know that any one who rejects just one article of the faith ceases to be catholic, and is destined for eternal damnation, following their own minds, unless they repent. I've already demonstrated that point.

Your communion says on paper it supports inerrancy, but we can find as much if not more German Higher Critical theory in it today than among Conservative Evangelicals.

Again, you're forgetting to destinguish Catholicism from episcoprotestantism.

So much for Catholic unity
.

So, instead of answering my questions, you want to bash my faith, yeah, I see what's going on here. But you can't play that card, when you have no unity to speak of, remove the speck from your eye, and then we'll consider the one in mine.

. This assumes without benefit of argument that Rome then and Rome today are the same.

So that's why you won't answer, you don't want to condeede that Catholicism was Christianity then.
This is a dishonest argument.
I just want you to show me the historicity of your faith.

It was in the 800 - 900 period that Gottschalk and his followers arose and taught the doctrines of grace largely as known among the Reformed churches today. Were they Christians? If so, there's your answer.


Well, then does your profession of faith match theirs down to the letter, with no difference, does it conincide perfectly and exactly what they believed? If not, then you have failed to prove your sect.
But can you show me, the existence of your faith from the death of St. John, all the way to Martin Luther, century by century?

Leo said...

For example, this is how a Roman Catholic will often argue for his faith:

“How do you know that the Catholic Church is not an apostate church?”
“ Because the Church is indefectible.”
“How do you know that?”
“Because Christ has promised us that the gates of hell will not overcome the church.”
“Haven’t the Popes made mistakes?”
“Only when expressing a private opinion, and not when speaking ex cathedra.”
“How do you know when a Pope is speaking ex cathedra or not?”
“If he made a mistake, he was not speaking ex cathedra.”
“Is it not possible for your church to commit apostasy?”
“No, for the true church is indefectible.”
“How do you know that your church is the true church?”
“Because she has never fallen into heresy.”
“How do you know she’s never fallen into heresy?”
“Because Christ has promised us that the gates of hell will not overcome the church.”


“How do you know when a Pope is speaking ex cathedra or not?”

I'm not posting to that again, but I did post the criteria for knowing that, but since it was declared by a Pope, no one read it, oh well, maybe you'll never read it, and continue this fallacious premise.

“How do you know she’s never fallen into heresy?”



If you say it can, you call Christ and the scriptures liars.

But if it does, and it is Christianity, then Christianity is all false, and we may as well be buddhist or atheist.

Leo said...

I reiterate my question:

I should like to know by what standard you say that I am wrong, and before you say the Bible, I might ask, by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

Richard Froggatt said...

So the self-witness of Scripture is quite germane to the overall case for the inspiration of Scripture. The self-witness of Scripture is not a sufficient reason to believe that Scripture is what it says it is, but it’s no more unreasonable to take that claim as your starting point than it is to begin with Hemingway as the stated author of A Farewell to Arms.

Good try. But, unsuccessful. Do I need to explain why?

Let's say there were three books that claimed to be Auto-Biographies of Hemingway. They are all copies of originals and they were all found in the Library of Congress. All three tell three different stories.

How do you know which one is the real Hemingway?

You can understand my point can't you?

And you called my argument circular. LOL

Rhology said...

Leo,

You don't have a good memory in some cases it would seem.

so I'm asking YOU what is the true interpretation of scripture, what denomination in your opinion has it right? And can you demonstrate it's consistency down through history?

Southern Baptist COnvention is in general a good pattern to follow.
But it's not the only True Church.
And I couldn't care much less whether it is "historically consistent", whatever that means.
1) Rome isn't.
2) EOC isn't.
3) No Prot denom is.
I don't care. What I care about is agreement with Scr.

What is that supposed to mean, what external evidence?

Go read up on that. Josh McDowell "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" comes to mind. Metzger, FF Bruce, etc.

Tradition? AN unwritten, or oral, or rather extra-scriptural authority?

Don't think I mentioned tradition anywhere.

Right, there has to be an authority to assure us that indeed, this is the truth, and this is not, this book is scriptural, and this one is not.

1) God is that authority.
2) This is why I asked about the infallible list of the infallible statements of the church. The way it's going so far, you don't have one. So your church's statement carries no authority besides an appeal to the same evidence to which I do. Except it won't; RCC keeps trying to assure me of its infallibility.

Then you do in fact conceede that Tradition had a part to play in the canonization of the scriptures?

1) Why did you capitalise the "T" of Tradition?
2) In the sense that "tradition" can be defined as what the church believes throughout history, it is informative, not authoritative.
3) God defines the Canon by inspiration. We discover it.

Who can determine and discerne such, with an impeccable assurity to ensure infallibility of the scriptures, unhindered by falliblility on the part of men?

God.
If you'd say otherwise, you can start by providing an infallible Canon for RCC. SCripture or otherwise. Make sure you tell me how you, a fallible man, know it's infallible. Any appeal to external evidence or tradition would not only beg the question, it would also be a display of fallible judgment from you and that's unacceptable for obvious reasons.

what do you support sola scriptura's canon with? What is your answer?

Protestants establish the canon by internal evidence and external evidence.
God inspires, we discover.
RCC is not infallible and has not infallibly defined even the Canon of Scr, so what option do you offer me that's better?

I am not here to defend my theology

Then you'll be a poor conversation partner. Why should anyone here talk to you? You have a burden of proof as well.

They had a hierarchy who had authority in matters spiritual, remember? The seat of moses

1) What is the seat of Moses?
2) Where has its nature been infallibly defined by RCC?
3) Would that be the same hierarchy and authority that held on to the Corban rule of Mark 7?
4) How did they exercise infallibility?
5) Why didn't anyone in the Gospels show any evidence that they understood the "seat of Moses" to be an infallible authority?
6) Why is it, if they were infallible, they made so many theological mistakes?

The Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. defined a canon of scripture for Catholic use

1) Carthage defined a different canon than Athanasius'.
2) Carthage defined a different canon than Pope Gregory the Great.
3) Carthage defined a different canon than Cardinal Cajetan.
4) Carthage was a provincial council. It wasn't infallible was it? If not, then how can I have any more faith in it than in the SoBap COnvention?

Protestantism has a doctrine of the visible and invisible church.
What?


I have no idea what you mean here.

Is this universal authoritative Protestant Creed? Then why the thousands of sects and differences on interpretations of scripture?

1) No it's not universal. It's authoritative but subordinate to Scr for Presbyterians.
2) Don't you ever get tired of the same old tired canards? Just b/c sthg is authoritative doesn't mean sinners won't twist and disobey it.
3) Just look at the many denoms inside Rome - sedevacantists like you, charismatics, non-charismatics, traditionalists, Latin Rite, creationists, evolutionists, liberals, dissenters from papal infall. Does their presence mean RCC is not authoritative?

Do you mean that you say I'm wrong, but you can't show me how?

See the context - I was referring to the diff between local and universal church. You very adroitly responded "What?" If you have a specific question, I'll try to help some.

So you mean you can't give me an answer to my question, who is right?

The ones who agree with the Scr.
As for those many statements of faith you listed, most everythg you'll find in there is spot on. The one that agrees most with Scr, well, agrees most with Scr. None are perfect.
It's like the CCC - you don't believe it's 100% right either. So where's your full statement of faith? Is it infallible? How do you know?
I ask all these questions b/c you act like you have an epistemic advantage, and this is common for RC apologists. It's when you have to answer your own questions that you're shown to be wanting in the brightest light.

you'll say scripture, but by who's interpretation?

1) Scr interps itself.
2) Since there is no infallible interper (and the system of the infall interper leads to an infinite regress), what other option do you offer?
3) In general, you seem to be ascribing this huge variety of beliefs to SS-ist churches. Among us we vary not much, probably less than among RCs.

They have to to legitimatize their schism with the Church.

RCC teaches blasphemy. Done and done.

Ever hear of the Athanasian Creed?

Yes.

All of which affirm the same thing,

1) No they don't. They vary in scope and scale of info they present.
2) And Vatican I straight up tells lies.
3) Why didn't you include Vatican II in there?

I'm acting as if there is one faith

1) This from a schismatic.
2) Since there is no infallible interper, and
3) ...since there's no one unified denomination, here's guessing that Christ didn't mean ORGANISATIONAL unity when He said what He said in John 17.

My advice would be to keep your hands out of something you don't understand

It's always easier to throw poop against the wall than to clean it off. Answer the questions or forfeit your credibility to claim an epistemic advantage. You can drag SS-ist churches down, but you need sthg to replace them with.

In the Catholic faith, there is no such thing, but, in the bogus ordo epicopalian sect, there is. Make a distinction between Catholicism and episcoprotestantism.

1) This from a schismatic.
2) Give me a good reason to. What is the infallible statement from RCC that they are differentiated? How do you know it's infallible?

If you knew what we believed, you would know that any one who rejects just one article of the faith ceases to be catholic, and is destined for eternal damnation, following their own minds, unless they repent.

The question is not what you believe but the justification for it.
On what authority can you say that? Where has it been infallibly defined? How do you know?

If you say it can, you call Christ and the scriptures liars.

1) Or maybe you just have no conception of what that psg could mean outside of your narrow interpretative scheme.
2) How do you know what that psg means?
3) Has its meaning been infallibly defined? By whom? How do you know?

But if it does, and it is Christianity, then Christianity is all false

1) RCC is not Christianity, so that's one thing.
2) Christ's prophecy will not fail. We just have to understand what He really meant. Unlike you, I don't assume that a human institution is right before I go to the Scr. I go to the Scr to test ALL traditions.
3) Xtianity stands or falls with God and with Christ's resurrection, not this.

by what standard do you claim that the books of the Bible are scriptural and Divinely inspired?

Protestants establish the canon by internal evidence and external evidence.
God inspires, we discover.
RCC is not infallible and has not infallibly defined even the Canon of Scr, so what option do you offer me that's better?

Peace,
Rhology

Leo said...

What assurance have you that the book you have is the inspired Word of God; for every part of the Bible is far from possessing intrinsic evidences of inspiration? It may, for all you know, contain more than the Word of God, or it may not contain all the Word of God. The Bible was not always, as it is now volumized. It was for several centuries in scattered fragments, spread over different parts of Christendom; While many spurious books, under the name of Scripture, were being circulated among the faithful. There was, for instance, the spurious Gospel of St. Peter; there was also the Gospel of St. James and of St. Matthias.

Even today Protestant sects don't agree on what books are to be accepted as genuine and inspired. So how do you know what is inspired, and what is not, how do you know that the Talmud is not part of it, or the Koran?

Since your religion at one time did not exist, we may safely conclude that your religion is not divinely inspired, for you cannot prove that it is. Your Bible is just a set of books written by men, for your cannot prove to us that they are the infallible Word of God.

Discussion over, your sect is not the Church of God, you just admitted that it has not existed from the time of the Apostles, Satan won over it, so, your sect has failed.


You're up a creek.

Le0 said...

Rhology,

I'm sticking my fingers in my ears! I can't hear you!!!!

Rhology said...

That was me, BTW. Nice talking to you, Leo. I'll be happy to continue talking to you when you decide you want to play nice and answer a few questions yourself.

Leo said...

Rhol,

I asked you a week ago to tell me how you know that your Bible is accurate, you never answered, your questions have been positioned since that time.

Since my questions was posted first, it will be answered first, and then I will consider your questions, in this pointless debate, since you will not concede anything I say, for in your disbelief, you decry anything I shall say, be it from the Bible, or from Tradition; this is a waste of time, for obviously, if you have not by now accepted that challenge, you will not now do so either.
You are trying to turn the tables on me, to place the burden on me of answering your objections to my faith, but that is not what this is, I have asked you a question, will you or will you not now answer it?

Leo said...

Southern Baptist COnvention is in general a good pattern to follow.

Your infallible ecclesiastical Council?

But it's not the only True Church.
And I couldn't care much less whether it is "historically consistent", whatever that means.


I asked you if your faith has existed from the time of the Apostles, you have provided no such proof. I want from you a timeline, of the existence of your faith.



I don't care. What I care about is agreement with Scr.


You mean your interpretation of scripture.

Go read up on that. Josh McDowell "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" comes to mind. Metzger, FF Bruce, etc.

Go do some reading:

"Sources of Catholic dogma" by Henri Denzinger,


1) God is that authority.



Who did he reveal the Bible to, and when? When's the last time you saw Him? The Mall?


2) This is why I asked about the infallible list of the infallible statements of the church.


This is a moot point, we don't claim that all divine truth is bound up in one volume, you do, that why this objection only applies to you, and not a Catholic.


So your church's statement carries no authority besides an appeal to the same evidence to which I do.


And what evidence is that?



In the sense that "tradition" can be defined as what the church believes throughout history, it is informative, not authoritative.

And what, in your opinion, outside of the Bible, is authoritative?





God defines the Canon by inspiration. We discover it.

Define that, please.


Make sure you tell me how you, a fallible man, know it's infallible.

We don't claim that something has to be canonized to exist, you do, so, o vain man, where is your authority, who told you that the Bible was the Word of God, and that the gospel of Mark was part of it?
A voice that you can hear, the one that tells you that Revelation is scriptural, one that is bodily present on earth, that can be consulted and heard by all, that we may see and believe?



Any appeal to external evidence or tradition would not only beg the question, it would also be a display of fallible judgment from you and that's unacceptable for obvious reasons.


What does that mean?



Protestants establish the canon by internal evidence and external evidence.

Please define that.



God inspires, we discover.

What? how do you know that what you "discover" is divinely inspired?


RCC is not infallible and has not infallibly defined even the Canon of Scr

That is a lie, third ecumenical council of Carthage, ex cathedra, defined the canon of scripture.
Further, if the Pope is the vicar of Christ, he does operate with that infallibility, which only does not exist in your understanding of the scr.



"so what option do you offer me that's better?"

What authority can you offer me, that can assure me of the canonicity of the Bible?



Then you'll be a poor conversation partner. Why should anyone here talk to you? You have a burden of proof as well.

I began with a comment and a question. I made my comment, and asked my question, one that you will not answer.


1) What is the seat of Moses?
2) Where has its nature been infallibly defined by RCC?
3) Would that be the same hierarchy and authority that held on to the Corban rule of Mark 7?
4) How did they exercise infallibility?
5) Why didn't anyone in the Gospels show any evidence that they understood the "seat of Moses" to be an infallible authority?
6) Why is it, if they were infallible, they made so many theological mistakes?


show me where I said they were infallible.




Just look at the many denoms inside Rome - sedevacantists like you, charismatics, non-charismatics, traditionalists, Latin Rite, creationists, evolutionists, liberals, dissenters from papal infall. Does their presence mean RCC is not authoritative?

This is a false argument, only one of those is Catholic, and the others are heretical sects.

Also, where did you get the idea that I was sedevacantist?


It's like the CCC - you don't believe it's 100% right either. So where's your full statement of faith? Is it infallible? How do you know?


I aswered that, but you did not like the answer. Read the first Vatican council.


I ask all these questions b/c you act like you have an epistemic advantage, and this is common for RC apologists.

I'm not an RC apologist, but a Catholic blogger.



Scr interps itself.

Really? Is that why you Protestants can't agree on so many verses?
Show me how Revelation is fully explained, footnotes and all, in the Bible.



Since there is no infallible interper

According to your twisted template.

and the system of the infall interper leads to an infinite regress

If the Pope has the authority of God on earth, then there you have it, now, what do you mean "regress"?


Among us we vary not much, probably less than among RCs.

Ok, then, since some of you claim that there is no Trinity, some claim that speaking in tongues is a core belief, others say that Baptism with water is not scriptural, some believe in bigamy, some believe that there is no Holy Spirit, can you tell me, now, that you don't vary much?:D



RCC teaches blasphemy.

only in your twisted template

And Vatican I straight up tells lies.

prove it.

Why didn't you include Vatican II in there?

I'm still waiting on my last question to be answered.



This from a schismatic.

This from a heretic.
Let's not go there.




Since there is no infallible interper

excuse me, but show me where it says that the Apostles offered a free for all that people could deny what they said and still be Christian, where Paul did not care what the Churches under his care believed, where he passed out new testaments, where he told all that their guess was as good as his concerning scripture.

Answer the questions or forfeit your credibility to claim an epistemic advantage.

Yes, please do, answer the questions I asked over a week ago.



This from a schismatic.

Do you really want to go there?

The question is not what you believe but the justification for it.
On what authority can you say that? Where has it been infallibly defined? How do you know?


Fourth and fifth Lateran Councils, Council of Trent, Vatican Council.


RCC is not Christianity, so that's one thing.

You have yet to prove that SS is Christianity.

I don't assume that a human institution is right before I go to the Scr.

I assume that someone put the Bible together and called it scripture, that's all, and that God has the power over it, and he who has that authority does go before the Bible.



I go to the Scr to test ALL traditions.

And what tests the scriptures?




Protestants establish the canon by internal evidence and external evidence.


Please define what is meant by this.

RCC is not infallible and has not infallibly defined even the Canon of Scr

Only by your fallible interpretation.

I'm done here.

Fere licredunt mebenter homines id quod volunt,

Leo

Rhology said...

Leo,

I've given answers to you. You followed up and I illustrate the futility of your claim to an epistemic advantage by my questions.
But I thank you for actually trying to answer.

Your infallible ecclesiastical Council?

Where did I say that it was infallible?
Why does it have to be infallible to be worthy of emulation?
The SBC's doctrinal statement lines up in very large part with biblical teaching, so I follow it.

I asked you if your faith has existed from the time of the Apostles, you have provided no such proof.

You seem to be asking whether my faith has been believed by someone at every second in the history of the world since the time of Christ. I don't see why that would be necessary.
Are you familiar with the OT paradigm of the remnant? In the OT, the people of God were promised wonderful things from God and possessed a covenant with Him. Yet they fell away many, many times into nat'l apostasy. Even during their wanderings in the wilderness they carried idols with them. Elijah told God that he was the only faithful Israelite left, and God responded that He reserved for Himself 7000. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently speak of a remnant. Why wouldn't we expect this pattern to be followed in NT times, given the many warnings of the Narrow and Broad paths and the many churches falling into doctrinal trouble even during the times of the apostles?
My faith is the biblical faith, which precedes yours. I'm fine with that.

You mean your interpretation of scripture.

Ice cream has no bones and the further they fly 34 much.

1) Interpretation is not totally subjective.
2) The Scr interps itself.
3) If you disagree with my interp then you'd need to present an alternative argument and we'll see which one holds water.
4) My choice is apparently between "my interp" of Scr and your interp of Scr + Trad + what the Magisterium says. Problem is, there are many infall interpers to choose from. The one in Rome says you're a schismatic, BTW. How can I know your infall interper is right?
5) BTW, for a sedevacantist, who comprises the Magisterium now? If nobody, how is anythg you say not just your own private interp?

(The point, obviously, is that this objection is a canard.)

Who did he reveal the Bible to, and when? When's the last time you saw Him? The Mall?

The people of God.
After He breathed out the books.
I've never seen God with my physical eyes. Why would that matter?

This is a moot point, we don't claim that all divine truth is bound up in one volume, you do, that why this objection only applies to you, and not a Catholic.

You criticise me for not having an infallible list of my infallible teachings. But I have a fallible complete one. You don't even have that.

And what evidence is that?

I referred you to it above. McDowell et al.

what, in your opinion, outside of the Bible, is authoritative?

Nothing is as authoritative as God's speaking.
But the Scr commands me to submit to the elders of my local church, the consciences of other Xtians in certain situations, etc.

Define that, please.

God breathed out a certain # of books. That's His thing. Then He reveals which books those were to His people slowly, over time, passively.
It obviously doesn't require an infall authority to tell me what the Canon is b/c the OT Jews didn't have one and still knew the OT Canon.

o vain man, where is your authority, who told you that the Bible was the Word of God, and that the gospel of Mark was part of it?

You talk a high and holy line for someone who openly doubts GOd's ability to communicate His Canon to His people.

What does that mean?

It means that you keep insisting on infallibility. So I'm going to hold you to that and demand infallible statements at every step of the way.

how do you know that what you "discover" is divinely inspired?

Internal and external evidence.
How do you know infallibly that your church is the right one?
You don't - you're no better off.


third ecumenical council of Carthage, ex cathedra, defined the canon of scripture.

I thought the 3rd Ecum Council was Ephesus.
Maybe we're using diff definitions.
How do you know it was ex cathedra? Where was that defined infallibly? And how do you know the statement that infallibly defined the ex cathedra nature of the statement of the council is infallible?
You don't - you're no better off.

if the Pope is the vicar of Christ,

He isn't, the Holy Spirit is.

he does operate with that infallibility, which only does not exist in your understanding of the scr.

How do you know?
Where was that infallibly defined? How do you infallibly know that statement was infallible?
You don't - you're no better off.

What authority can you offer me, that can assure me of the canonicity of the Bible?

I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. Either you believe in the authority of the Bible or you don't. Are you an atheist? If so, our convo changes. IF not, you've been answered many times.

My 6 questions
show me where I said they were infallible.

Very well.
I originally asked:
Who infallibly defined the canon of the Jews?

You answered:
They had a hierarchy who had authority in matters spiritual, remember? The seat of moses, and I'm not asking for that wrap on that seat, but an answer to my above objections.

I answered:
1) What is the seat of Moses?
2) Where has its nature been infallibly defined by RCC?
3) Would that be the same hierarchy and authority that held on to the Corban rule of Mark 7?
4) How did they exercise infallibility?
5) Why didn't anyone in the Gospels show any evidence that they understood the "seat of Moses" to be an infallible authority?
6) Why is it, if they were infallible, they made so many theological mistakes?


Why back off from your position now? Is it b/c you can't answer the question?
If it wasn't infallible, then why would anyone need an infallible church to know the NT Canon today?

only one of those is Catholic, and the others are heretical sects.

I'm supposed to take YOUR word for it?
How is that not just your private interp?
How can I know which is right? Your word?
I could be wrong (correct me if I am), but you say on your blog you're "traditionalist", you have links to the Lies of Vatican II, etc.
Just correct me - Is Benedict XVI a valid Pope?
If he is, how does that mesh with your belief that Vat II was invalid?

I aswered that, but you did not like the answer. Read the first Vatican council

1) that doesn't tell me whether Vat I is infallible. Spell it out for me so I can be sure - I'm not very smart.
2) How do you know Vat I is infallible?
3) How is your answer to #2 not fallible?

Is that why you Protestants can't agree on so many verses?

Just look at the many denoms inside Rome - sedevacantists like you, charismatics, non-charismatics, traditionalists, Latin Rite, creationists, evolutionists, liberals, dissenters from papal infall. Does their presence mean RCC is not authoritative?

Show me how Revelation is fully explained, footnotes and all, in the Bible.

1) To know Revelation, you need to know the OT. This doesn't mean it's easy or possible without a little time invested into it.
2) If you don't understand Revelation, how can I trust you to accurately represent the voluminous decrees, bulls, declarations, canon law, etc, of Rome?

If the Pope has the authority of God on earth, then there you have it, now, what do you mean "regress"?

If he's infallible, then you have to have a way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible.
If it is, you need to know infallibly whether that way way to know infallibly whether what he said yesterday is infallible.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.
If you solve that, you need an infallible interper to tell you the infall interp of the infall interp of the infall interp of what he said.

Etc.

since some of you claim that there is no Trinity

1) Among SS-ists, who believes there's no Trinity?
2) You mean to tell me there are no liberals within Rome who don't disbelieve the Trinity?

some claim that speaking in tongues is a core belief

Oneness Pentecostals are not SS-ist.

others say that Baptism with water is not scriptural

1) What does that mean?
2) Who?

some believe in bigamy,

Mormons aren't SS-ists. They ARE sola ecclesia-ists, though. Like you.

some believe that there is no Holy Spirit

You are a fool. Mormons aren't SS-ists. They ARE sola ecclesia-ists, though. Like you.

And Vatican I straight up tells lies.

prove it.


Vat I says that what it teaches is the "ancient and constant faith of the universal church." Which is manifestly untrue.

This from a heretic.

Unlike your weak return shot, my statement actually means sthg for our convo.

but show me where it says that the Apostles offered a free for all that people could deny what they said and still be Christian

that's not what SS teaches. You are ignorant.

Paul did not care what the Churches under his care believed

Where are you getting this garbage?

where he passed out new testaments

Haha, I knew it.

where he told all that their guess was as good as his concerning scripture.

Where are you getting this garbage? None of this is what SS-ists teach. You're just throwing poop against the wall, as I said. Try touching my position and we can talk.

Fourth and fifth Lateran Councils, Council of Trent, Vatican Council.

You never answer HOW you know. I want to know HOW.

And what tests the scriptures?

Once again you prove yourself foolish.
Nothing tests God. He is the final authority.

Only by your fallible interpretation.

I keep asking for infallible ones and you never provide them. What else am I supposed to do?
Your evangelism skills could use some work - if you want to help the Prot in his futile fallibility, give him the good stuff. You're just hoarding it in your little schismatic sedevacantist box. Hopefully it won't bite you...too hard.

Peace,
Rhology

Leo said...

Who says that your current canon of scripture is correct?

Answer that, then we'll talk.

Leo said...

Whatever you say is contrary to scripture is only contrary to it by your understand of how you interpret the scr, your interpretation is not objective, even by your own standards, my interpretation is my own, and in the end, you can only appeal to your interpretation to claim it is error, and then, only by your interpretation.

Leo said...

You never answer HOW you know. I want to know HOW.

I did, you did not read it. Go back and read my earlier reply.

Leo said...

Unlike your weak return shot, my statement actually means sthg for our convo.

but show me where it says that the Apostles offered a free for all that people could deny what they said and still be Christian

that's not what SS teaches. You are ignorant.

Paul did not care what the Churches under his care believed

Where are you getting this garbage?

where he passed out new testaments

Haha, I knew it.


You obviously do not understand what I meant.
I refer to a principle, a standard, can you guess what it is?

Anonymous said...

Can I interject?

IMHO...
This crusade to claim as being the ONLY TRUE CHURCH and that it is INFALLIBLE leads to irrational thinking. That's what I can see here. Can't think out of the box.

However for me, the bible is straightforward, looking for those who come in simple faith to the saving knowledge of the Saviour Jesus Christ. The offer of salvation is for all. But salvation is given as a free gift to WHOMS0EVER believes! This is simple enough requirement.

Then, these believers are called out by God to assemble (Gr ekklesia) for the purpose of worship, praise, evangelism, preaching, teaching, prayer, caring, helping, etc. with
APOSOTLES as the foundation and Jesus Christ himself the chief cornerstone.

Rev. 5:9 has the complete list of the members of this true church:

And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Oh, I'm sorry, no names? Apostle Paul said not to worry: In 2 Tim 2:19...
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his.

My point is that spiritually there is ONE body in Christ (Rev 5:9)- That's the true catholic church. We should endeavor to be found in it! And not to worry or to gossip who else is and who is not there.

However in this world the redeemed has to congregate in a local body of believers called the "visible church". The LORD (not the church) knoweth them that are his in this setting. This church is not "one" PHYSICALLY because its an impossiblility. But is "one" spiritually.

Therefore: There are MANY TRUE VISIBLE LOCAL CHURCHES(as physical limitations can only allow for it) which constitute the ONE TRUE CHURCH or the Body of Christ (which BTW includes the saints who are already with Christ).

This local body of believers in this world is not without a guide for God provides His Word and the presence of the Holy Spirit to guide it in matters of faith. This is a natural understanding of the spiritual reality of the Christian faith and not a forced and stretched one.

The claim of this church to be the only true one and its claims of infallibility has only lead in her to struggles and pain trying to enforce it to everyone. Their premise, by its nature, demands for it not to give up no matter what is the truth...

... and so this debate can go on and on without end!


Thanks

Jerry

Anonymous said...

Dude said:

Jerry, nice reply. However, your remarks in paragraph 2, would be enough to start a new church within Protestantism...based upon Pope Calvin. A reformed Church would absolutely cringe upon the notion that salvation is for all, and all you have to do is believe.

This sounds an awful lot like Arminianism, which puts this whole Protestant argument for 'the illumination of the Holy scriptures being clear to all,' right back on it's head.

Anonymous said...

Dude,

It may come as a surprise to you, but I'm a Calvinist :)

A Calvinist can use without any qualms WHOMSOEVER because its lifted from the bible (John 3:16 at that). So its stays.

John 6:37 says All that the Father gives to Me shall come to Me, and the one coming to Me I will in no way cast out.

And of course, in this divine transaction between the Father and the Son, the IDENTITY of the elect then belong only to the Father and the Son. Not to me.

My finite mind can only fathom at the level of whomsoever with regards to the Gospel. However, personal assurance of salvation is very certain for the believer who has found his Savior. John 10:27,28a declares this truth- My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:And I give unto them eternal life;

Having said this there is no excuse for the Calvinist to blog the time away while the world out there is dying in want of the Gospel!

So I'm not an Armenian :) BTW Scripture is clear my friend- Psalms 119:105 says Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

Jerry

Anonymous said...

From Dude:

Jerry, How can you reconcile that salvation is for all and then later state (Calvinism)with a straight face that God predestined only the elect to heaven?

I've seen the twists Calvisnists do to reconcile these two...they have answers, but none make sense within the realm of logic.

Also, if scriptures are so clear, then why so much Protestant strife and confusion. Why Arminianism?

Or are Calvinists the only ones who can really understand scripture within the Protestant spectrum, however one defines Protestantism, and by whomever is qualified by Sciptures to make such a definition?