A few questions for Protestants

topher694 · Jan 27, 2022

Fidelibus said:
I am sorry you feel that way pastor. Although I will say, my fiance' has told me time from time, that I can come across as aggressive when discussing faith with various non- Catholics. I will see about filtering my posts in the future.

I appreciate this.

-Again, sorry you feel that way. However, remember back on your post #110, when you told me:

My issue was not with content but with tone. There should be no issue discussing differences of view on content as long as it is done respectfully.

-You didn't find it disrespectful informing me that I am wrong in my understanding 1Tim.3:15 and that if I want the truth, that I need to accept your interpretation as the correct and infallible interpretation? To me pastor, I took it as you basically telling me your interpretation is authoritive and superior over mine and of the Church I am a member of.

As long as you are considering your discussions, here is something else for you to consider. You have a tendency to project onto others. I never said anything remotely like "You need to accept my interpretation as the correct and infallible interpretation". Nothing remotely like it. Personally, I think that is you projecting yourself onto me.
A) In general people very often miss it when it comes to context... that is VERY common, among all Christian groups.
B) This is a discussion, so I put out what how I see the scripture and why. Me weighing in does not, and should not, imply I am superior in anyway. In fact, suggesting so when I said nothing of the sort kind of implies the reverse.

-Also, pastor, on your post # 134, when you made the claim that because you taught an entire semester course to some three questions I asked, you failed to answer them for me because you basically said I would not be smart enough to understand your answers.

- I took that as you trying to tell me, (and whomever else was reading your post) that you have some sort of superior and authoritive intelligence over me. Do you not find that as being a bit disrespectful?

Not remotely, because again you are reading far more into my words than is there. I never said you were not smart enough to understand. I said you lack the foundation. I taught for months on the subject. That teaching builds on itself. I cannot reproduce that here, there's no way. First you'd have to be willing to learn from me, which I'm not certain is the case (note, this is not a statement of fallibility or infallibility, but teaching requires a certain about of openness and willingness between teacher & student). Second, you'd need about 6-7 weeks of setting the stage to properly understand what I am talking about and where I am coming from. I'm certain you are capable of understanding, but you don't have that 6-7 week foundation. THAT is what I said... nothing about you or anyone else's intelligence.

However, perhaps a taste would clarify things a bit and help address some of your wrong implications about me and my teaching. At class #1, I stand at the pulpit and tell everyone: I could be wrong about things. I'm certain I AM wrong about some things... we all are. This class isn't about me being right and telling you what to believe. This class is about teaching you how to find the truth for yourself and being able to trust it. I'm here to give you the tools to do that yourself so you don't need me to know the truth.

From there I have to build the foundation which includes giving them those tools (for example, context is one of them), defining what truth actually is, then putting it all into practice. At the beginning of the class each student submits a scripture that they find challenging and/or they have a hard time understanding. Then, once we have the foundation build we spend the rest of the class studying those scriptures together in an attempt to find the proper meaning. I facilitate the discussion, but I don't tell them my interpretation, I let apply the tools to find it for themselves, including challenging one another. It's incredibly rewarding to watch them grow in this process.

BobRyan · Jan 27, 2022

topher694 said:
My issue was not with content but with tone. .

Then content is what matters.

Fidelibus said:
-
if you wish, would you take a shot at these questions?

1.Since I pray to the Holy Spirit before reading Scripture, does your interpretation of Scripture, have more authority than my interpretation of Scripture? Yes, or no? (Again, not a trick question)

obviously you can be mistaken about something just as I can be mistaken but the Holy Spirit is never mistaken.

However when the question was put to you as to whether Paul was writing in the form "I could be mistaken here - so here I am taking my best shot at a doctrinal POV" - you did not answer -- from what I can see.

Fidelibus said:
2. If the infallible Holy Spirit is guiding individual Christians in their interpretation of Scripture, then why does your theological belief standard claim that there are no Christians who can infallibly interpret Scripture?

infallibility rests with God not man - which is why neither I nor the Pope are infallible.

Fidelibus said:
Wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?

Either one of us can be right about something - and either one can be mistaken. Sola scriptura testing reveals which it is.

Fidelibus said:
3. Are there Christians who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same?

just as the disciples did not always agree with Christ - as we see in Matt 16 when Christ calls Peter - Satan for differing with Christ.

In Matt 16 Christ affirms the fact that Peter was being led by the Holy Spirit - and then Peter makes a very goofy statement contradicting Christ - and Christ refers to Peter as Satan... all in the same discussion in the same chapter.

You are asking that question as if you had not read Matt 16.

timothyu · Jan 27, 2022

BobRyan said:
In Matt 16 Christ affirms the fact that Peter was being led by the Holy Spirit - and then Peter makes a very goofy statement contradicting Christ - and Christ refers to Peter as Satan... all in the same discussion in the same chapter.

Yes, Jesus did nothing of His own accord but taught the will of the Father. For anyone to question the will of the Father they would be seen as an adversary (the meaning of satan). One would not be considered an adversary for questioning the will of man, or even man claiming to represent God, unless they purely taught the word of God that we have in scripture without interpretation, without the usual accompanying demand of allegiance to an institution or it's hierarchy. Then we have the will of God without the will of man intertwined. Hardly possible in any institution that seeks to gain.

Clare73 · Jan 27, 2022

timothyu said:
Yes, Jesus did nothing of His own accord but taught the will of the Father. For anyone to question the will of the Father they would be seen as an adversary (the meaning of satan). One would not be considered an adversary for questioning the will of man, or even man claiming to represent God, unless they purely taught the word of God that we have in scripture without interpretation, without the usual accompanying demand of allegiance to an institution or it's hierarchy. Then we have the will of God without the will of man intertwined. Hardly possible in any institution that seeks to gain.

It's not about Peter.

It's about Satan tempting Jesus through Peter as the same Satan tempted Adam through Eve.

The issue with Eve's speech was not Eve, and the issue with Peter's speech was not Peter, in both the issue was Satan.

The response of the second Adam to Satan "cleaned up" the response of the first Adam to Satan, which response the first Adam failed to make.[/QUOTE]

timothyu · Jan 27, 2022

Clare73 said:
It's not about Peter.

It's about Satan tempting Jesus through Peter as the same Satan tempted Adam through Eve.

Sorry to disagree but we are responsible for our own actions and even Peter was capable of being human and going against the will of the Father just like the rest of us (without always casting the blame on an outside force). It is too easy to shirk personal responsibility by always blaming something else. There would be no need to repent of who we are if we can simply blame something else. The Tempter as Hebrew lore calls it, is only capable of doing just that... tempting. Those tempted to follow their own will instead of the will of the Father and then do so, then becomes satans (adversaries) to the will of the Father.

Clare73 · Jan 27, 2022

timothyu said:
Sorry to disagree but we are responsible for our own actions and even Peter was capable of being human and going against the will of the Father just like the rest of us (without always casting the blame on an outside force).

Agreed. . .and irrelevant to my point.

timothyu · Jan 27, 2022

Lots of teachings about the function of the institution but nothing about the Gospel of the Kingdom, the very thing Jesus said He was sent to proclaim and teach. So which is more important, scripture or institution?
If you've wanted to become more familiar with key documents of the Church, start here

Fidelibus · Jan 27, 2022

BobRyan said:
obviously you can be mistaken about something just as I can be mistaken but the Holy Spirit is never mistaken.

When you say being "mistaken about something" Bob, that's painting with a very wide brush, you need to be more specific. Yes, you are correct the Holy Spirit does speak "the truth", but not some multiple sets of the truth. The Holy Spirit does not teach one set of truths to this person and a different set of truths to another person. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. Yet, adherents of sola scriptura, i.e., Protestant/non-denominational churches and sects, all going by the bible alone, claim their individual church and beliefs/doctrines "are" being guided by the Holy Spirit. Yet, most if not all of these same churches/sects have a variety of different beliefs.

This is the conundrum of sola scriptura. So, either these Protestant/non-denominational churches and sects, again all adherents of sola scriptura, being guided by the Holy Spirit have to believe that the Holy Spirit can make mistakes, or they have to admit that people who believe different doctrines are not being guided by the Holy Spirit into believing those differing sets of doctrines. It has to be one or the other.

Which brings up another conundrum for these same churches and sects. I am pretty sure they believe the Holy Spirit is infallible, would you not agree? So, if the Holy Spirit is guiding them, and while they are under His guidance, they are infallible in their interpretations of Scripture and understanding of Scripture, right? Sooooo... Bob, if they are not infallible in their interpretations and understandings of Scripture, then the Holy Spirit is not guiding them when they come to those interpretations and understandings. Period. Right?

Either one of us can be right about something - and either one can be mistaken. Sola scriptura testing reveals which it is.

I just pointed out above the perils of sola scriptura. That being dis-unity among all the churches I spoke of. Jesus prayed at the Last Supper that we, His followers - both current and future - would be one as He and the Father are one. Do the Father and the Son disagree on doctrine and practice? Any doctrine and practice? No! So, for Christians to be in the same church, to be one as the Father and Son are one, to be truly guided by the Holy Spirit - they need to be one in doctrine and practice. Does Scripture not say, "Let there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment," (Cor 1:10)? Does Paul not tell Timothy to make sure that no one teach ANY different doctrine, (1 Tim 1:3)? Does not Scripture say the believers were of one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)?

However when the question was put to you as to whether Paul was writing in the form "I could be mistaken here - so here I am taking my best shot at a doctrinal POV" - you did not answer -- from what I can see.

-Could you please be more specific on what passage you are referring too?

infallibility rests with God not man - which is why neither I nor the Pope are infallible.

You are absolutely sure about that? Was not Philip infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit in explaining the Scriptures to the eunuch? Do not the disciples receive authority to heal the sick, to cast out demons, and even forgive sins (Matthew 10:1; 9:8; John 20:21-23)? Did Jesus not send out the Apostles with the authority that He was sent by the Father with (John 20:21-23; Matthew 28:18-20)? Do Peter and Jude not talk about wicked men who "reject authority" (2 Peter 2:10; Jude 8)?

just as the disciples did not always agree with Christ - as we see in Matt 16 when Christ calls Peter - Satan for differing with Christ.
In Matt 16 Christ affirms the fact that Peter was being led by the Holy Spirit - and then Peter makes a very goofy statement contradicting Christ - and Christ refers to Peter as Satan... all in the same
discussion in the same chapter.

Thank you for bringing up this Scripture passage Bob. Yes, I agree with this passage 100%! However, that does not mean I agree with your (fallible) interpretation of it. However, in my group bible studies on this passage, at the parish I am a member of, and studying The Catholic Church's teaching, let me ask you. Why does Peter resist what Jesus has told the disciples about His suffering and death, and why does Jesus rebuke him so harshly in front of the others?

Hint.... As far as the elders and other religious leaders are concerned, Peter may be thinking of the fate of others who have unsuccessfully opposed God's plan in favor of their own (see Lev 10:1-2).

-What we as Catholics believe? Peter now understands that Jesus is the divine Messiah. He is God Himself come to gather His scattered people and fulfill the prophecy of Ezekiel chapter 34. Peter knows the Temple hierarchy has no power over the Christ, and so he cannot comprehend why Jesus would allow Himself to be killed by those in authority over the Church of the Sinai Covenant when He could simply consume them in holy fire like the rebellious priestly sons of Aaron. Jesus rebukes Peter publicly as an object lesson to the others because Peter has voiced opposition to God's plan when he should be humbly accepting God's plan and assisting Jesus in His mission.

Jesus gives Peter the same rebuke that He gave Satan in Matt. 4:10. The Hebrew word satan means adversary. Whenever one stands as an adversary to God's plan for man's salvation, that person is indeed acting as Satan in human form. Notice the increased use of the title "Son of Man" in Mark's narrative from this point forward.

You are asking that question as if you had not read Matt 16.

Do you still think that!

Have a Blessed Evening!

topher694 · Jan 27, 2022

Fidelibus said:
This is the conundrum of sola scriptura. So, either these Protestant/non-denominational churches and sects, again all adherents of sola scriptura, being guided by the Holy Spirit have to believe that the Holy Spirit can make mistakes, or they have to admit that people who believe different doctrines are not being guided by the Holy Spirit into believing those differing sets of doctrines. It has to be one or the other.

This is where you are mistaken and fallible. Different people or groups can have different beliefs and still be guided by the Holy Spirit. It happens all the time in scripture. This does not diminish the Holy Spirit in any way nor make Him or His word fallible. It actually magnifies Him. God specializes in using flawed people and circumstances.

BobRyan · Jan 28, 2022

Fidelibus said:
When you say being "mistaken about something" Bob, that's painting with a very wide brush, you need to be more specific. Yes, you are correct the Holy Spirit does speak "the truth", but not some multiple sets of the truth. The Holy Spirit does not teach one set of truths to this person and a different set of truths to another person. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

agreed.

So then the "protesting Catholics" found one Truth in scripture and an opposing one in their church traditions.

Christ in Mark 7:6-13 found one Truth in scripture and an opposing one in supposedly "infallible" nation-church tradition of His day.

This is the value of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition - as Christ demonstrates in Mark 7.

No wonder the first century Christian church reports this about how Paul's doctrine was being tested - "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken by the Apostle Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

Fidelibus said:
. So, either these Protestant/non-denominational churches and sects, again all adherents of sola scriptura, being guided by the Holy Spirit have to believe that the Holy Spirit can make mistakes, or they have to admit that people who believe different doctrines are not being guided by the Holy Spirit into believing those differing sets of doctrines. It has to be one or the other.

And obviously they include the RCC in that list of what they view as "other denominations" that have some doctrinal error that is not at all approved of by the Holy Spirit.

I would agree that they would always consider that error is not coming from the Holy Spirit.

How is that helping your point?

Fidelibus said:
Which brings up another conundrum for these same churches and sects. I am pretty sure they believe the Holy Spirit is infallible, would you not agree?

yes.

Fidelibus said:
So, if the Holy Spirit is guiding them, and while they are under His guidance, they are infallible in their interpretations of Scripture and understanding of Scripture, right? Sooooo... Bob, if they are not infallible in their interpretations and understandings of Scripture, then the Holy Spirit is not guiding them

Not guiding them "on that point that is in error" just as they would conclude when they see errors taught by the RCC and others.

I agree. How does that help?

That is the peril of not following the Holy Spirit on those points of error. It is not the fault of the Holy Spirit or the fault of scripture, or the fault of the Word of God and obviously since they do claim to see the error taught by the RCC and other denominations on certain points - "Sola Scriptura" is in fact working to reveal that error.

If they could "see no error" and yet know so many differences do exist -- they would be "confused indeed" and such is not the case.

Fidelibus said:
I just pointed out above the perils of sola scriptura. That being dis-unity among all the churches I spoke of.

1. God's Word cannot be blamed for error found in the Catholic church or in any other church.
2. Saying that God's Word showed them error exists in the Catholic church and in others as well - does not lead to the conclusion "so do not trust God's Word". That is not logical.

Fidelibus said:
Jesus prayed at the Last Supper that we, His followers - both current and future - would be one as He and the Father are one. Do the Father and the Son disagree on doctrine and practice? Any doctrine and practice? No!

Indeed - God agrees.. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in agreement.

So in that SAME Chapter Jesus said "Sanctify them in Thy Truth - Thy word IS Truth" John 17:17

instead of "do not lead them to trust Thy word as truth - rather may they trust consensus in church tradition".

Fidelibus said:
So, for Christians to be in the same church, to be one as the Father and Son are one, to be truly guided by the Holy Spirit - they need to be one in doctrine and practice.

And they are - each denomination is fully satisfied in its own communion - even Catholics are pretty happy "to be Catholic". But that does not prove that all denominations are correct in all their doctrine.

Fidelibus said:
Does Scripture not say, "Let there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment," (Cor 1:10)? Does Paul not tell Timothy to make sure that no one teach ANY different doctrine, (1 Tim 1:3)? Does not Scripture say the believers were of one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32)?

Yes and 1 Tim 1 points to division and dissension in that very same church. Gal 1:6-9 says "even though WE (apostles) or an Angel from heaven - should preach to you a different Gospel other than has already been given - let him be accursed"

We read the NT and see what doctrine they were teaching. And comparing that to what we see around us today - shows that bad doctrine has crept in - just as Paul said it would in Acts 20.

Acts 20:
28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore, be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

Obviously in all the various doctrine added over the centuries and variations seen today - that did happen. The much predicted "Falling away" of 2 Thess 2 - has indeed been seen in history.

BobRyan · Jan 28, 2022

BobRyan said:
infallibility rests with God not man - which is why neither I nor the Pope are infallible.

Fidelibus said:
You are absolutely sure about that? Was not Philip infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit

To be infallibly guided by God is not the same as the human having the attribute of infallibility. You are conflating two different things. It is not Philip's infallibility that is trusted - rather it is the Holy Spirit and so "study the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things are so" Acts 17:11 is how even the Apostles were tested rather than "well you are an apostle so you are infallible and anything you say must be so" (which is flat out condemned by Paul in Gal 1:6-9).

Fidelibus said:
Do not the disciples receive authority to heal the sick, to cast out demons, and even forgive sins (Matthew 10:1; 9:8; John 20:21-23)? Did Jesus not send out the Apostles with the authority that He was sent by the Father with (John 20:21-23; Matthew 28:18-20)?

True but He did not give them permission to "make stuff up" which is what Paul predicts would occur in Acts 20 and is what Paul condemns in Gal 1:6-9

Fidelibus said:
Do Peter and Jude not talk about wicked men who "reject authority" (2 Peter 2:10; Jude 8)?

Reject the authority of the Word of God is to reject the Holy Spirit according to Peter in 2 Pet 1:20-21

BobRyan said:
just as the disciples did not always agree with Christ - as we see in Matt 16 when Christ calls Peter - Satan for differing with Christ.

A good example of why we don't argue that it was "Peter" that was infallible.

BobRyan said:
In Matt 16 Christ affirms the fact that Peter was being led by the Holy Spirit

So the fact that the Holy Spirit was leading Peter - did not stop Peter from going on to "make stuff up" to "come up with a bad idea". A good example of why we don't argue that it was "Peter" that was infallible.

BobRyan said:
- and then Peter makes a very goofy statement contradicting Christ - and Christ refers to Peter as Satan... all in the same discussion in the same chapter.

Fidelibus said:
Thank you for bringing up this Scripture passage Bob. Yes, I agree with this passage 100%!... Why does Peter resist what Jesus has told the disciples about His suffering and death, and why does Jesus rebuke him so harshly in front of the others?

Because fallible Peter did not fully comprehend the mission of the Messiah in dying for the sins of the world. For fallible Peter the main job of the Messiah was to rescue Israel from the Romans - not to be condemned by the Jews and crucified by the Romans.

how is this helping your POV?

Fidelibus said:
-What we as Catholics believe? Peter now understands that Jesus is the divine Messiah.

Peter figured that out shortly after Christ's resurrection - the fact that fallible humans can be "corrected later" on a given POV -- has never been disputed.

... then after that - in Gal 2, fallible Peter gets slam hammered again for being wrong - this time by Paul. A good example of why we don't argue that it was "Peter" that was infallible.

Fidelibus said:
he cannot comprehend why Jesus would allow Himself to be killed by those in authority over the Church of the Sinai Covenant when He could simply consume them in holy fire like the rebellious priestly sons of Aaron.

Indeed - given his fallible view of what the Messiah's mission was - it is no wonder he makes those mistakes.

But he should have gotten "a clue" about the supposedly infallible tradition of the one True Nation Church started by God at Sinai - when he saw Jesus slam-hammer their tradition "Sola Scriptura" in Mark 7:6-13

Fidelibus said:
Jesus rebukes Peter publicly as an object lesson to the others because Peter has voiced opposition to God's plan when he should be humbly accepting God's plan and assisting Jesus in His mission.

Agreed. A good example of why we don't argue that it was "Peter" that was infallible.

Fidelibus said:
Jesus gives Peter the same rebuke that He gave Satan in Matt. 4:10.

agreed. Pretty strong language

concretecamper · Jan 28, 2022

bbbbbbb said:
God, and God alone, is the Truth (not to mention its pillar and foundation). God needs no support. His truth stands alone, unchanged and unchanging.

Christ and His Church are One. So the Church IS the pillar amd foundation of truth, just like Paul wrote to Timothy.

concretecamper · Jan 28, 2022

ChristianForCats said:
Catholics read Bibles that are not 100% the infallible Word of God and put what fallible men say above the Bible in many things about their faith

such as?

timothyu · Jan 28, 2022

concretecamper said:
So the Church IS the pillar amd foundation of truth

Jesus told Peter truth was the foundation

concretecamper · Jan 28, 2022

timothyu said:
Jesus told Peter truth was the foundation

1Tim 3:14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly.
3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

GodLovesCats · Jan 28, 2022

concretecamper said:
Such as?

The Apocrypha

concretecamper · Jan 28, 2022

ChristianForCats said:
The Apocrypha

was scripture for the universal Church until the protestant phenomenon began.

Try again

GodLovesCats · Jan 28, 2022

concretecamper said:
was Scripture for the universal Church until the Protestant phenomenon began.

Try again.

Those books originally were in the Torah. Jews removed it without consulting Martin Luther.

concretecamper · Jan 28, 2022

ChristianForCats said:
Those books originally were in the Torah.

really? Ok then. Make sure you tell Moses

timothyu · Jan 28, 2022

concretecamper said:
1Tim 3:14 These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly.
3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth

Remember what Jesus said about truth coming from God and not man? That means also that Jesus' words come over any of His followers.

Matthew 126:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

A few questions for Protestants

Go Turtle!

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Go Turtle!

Junior Member

Junior Member

Member of His Church

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Well-Known Member

Similar threads