Do you consider?

[Reformationist]

As for partiality, you should see my bookshelf...tee hee. You'd think I was a Calvinist-Arminian-Nietzsche/Emerson-Lewis reading theologian/apologist/philosopher/free-thinker/cosmologist college boy.

I personally have nothing against my being wrong; it is the contingency of pride on behalf of the correct party that arises my anxiety. I like truth. It helps me live. But when such people are arguing -- even if their claims are scriptural or deductive --, I cannot give a hint of my respect towards them, in the moments of debate, when indeed their responses are being thrown. I look back and see how firm Calvin was in his claims regarding the 'Institutes', and I ruminate on the actions of Servetus, and the hundreds of theologians who would later come and correct his theology. Luther was a fatalist. Arminius...well, he was an Arminian. Man, being a finite spec in this infinite cosmos, possessing a mind of utter fallibility in perception of such a wide state of ideas admitted to him -- such a creation is not something I want to wager my epistemological coin on in decent hopes of winning. We are guaranteed imperfection. This is why our calling is love, and not doctrine; though certainly doctrine can be an expression of love. You cannot be wrong with the former, though you can be vulnerable; and heaven only knows the inevitable difficulties that may arise from this. Indeed, as Lewis would have it, the only place outside Heaven where you can be free of all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell. The true heroes are not those who impress their razor sharp logic upon the various problematas that come our way. Truth, we should all realize, is subjectivity. It must be lived. And it is wisdom and dignity that would dare to step beyond the realm of comprehension and into the realm of existence. Knowledge will never be complete; and we will never know when a single argument may come and reveal the otherwise trivial incompatibilities that our theology holds as true, that we may start all over again, helpless, muddled, and holding fast nothing but our faith.

Excellent thread, Reformationist.

Blessings.

As intellectually inferior as I am to you I must say that I think I actually understood this post. Anyway, I'd like to comment on a portion of this post:

We are guaranteed imperfection. This is why our calling is love, and not doctrine; though certainly doctrine can be an expression of love. You cannot be wrong with the former, though you can be vulnerable; and heaven only knows the inevitable difficulties that may arise from this.

This is one of the most profound and Christian things I've ever heard on this MB in the whole time I've been here.

One more comment. You said, "Excellent thread, Reformationist." Well, all I can say is that thanks to your insightful comments it has most certainly become an excellent thread.

Thank you very much for sharing that.

God bless,
Don

 

[Received]

Please, Don, the pleasure is all mine. The very fact that you can post such a confessional thread reveals very much to me, and to the many who see this.

Blessings.

 

[Benedicta00]

So you believe them before you are skeptical? Does that mean that you initially believed every church?

I am not sure what your point is, let me see if I can try to explain this better.

I found out why the Catholic Church says that they are the Church that Jesus Christ himself established. Based on the history and the verification I have come to believe this.

Now Don, if you knew for a fact, with out a doubt in your mind or heart that the faith you are apart of is the Church that Jesus Christ himself established personally, would you not believe all it taught and purposed for your belief?

Well I do, so I have no problem accepting what the Church teaches because I see it as "he who hears you, hears me" coming straight from Christ himself and like I said before I was happy just to accept but when challenged I found out that the Church just don't blindly tell us to believe this and that, they are biblically sound and true.

When you really start to probe and challenged and you learn the culture and historical context of the scriptures and learn about the early first century Christians, IOW, when you put back in all that the reformers took out, all the pieces of why the Catholics believe this and that start to fit and you begin to see this beautiful picture of Christ's Church and then you really come to see that this is the Church that he spoke about in Matthew’s gospel.

So someone really is going to have to explain to me why the Catholic Church is NOT the Church that Christ built, that would be the only reason I would have to disbelieve what the Church teaches us the bible says.

So because other churches don't have Popes that makes them wrong?

No. What I originally said in the context that it was said in was that I saw first hand with my own family members what having no teaching authority in ones life can do, not that it necessarily will do to every non Catholic.

If no one but you has the authority to teach you, then truth can be what ever you make of it.

I already said that I admire Calvinism because it does not promote one to believe what ever they are inspired to believe, it does teach with authority, it's just, I need to know who's authority does it teach with?

Okay. How about some advice? Where can I find a resource for why your church has the authority to teach me?

I would suggest you start with some apologetics work written by former protestants who converted and struggled with some of the same issue that you may have with the Church. Scott Hahn is very good person to start with, he was a Calvin himself, IIRC.

Not at all.

So you do understand that their is a lot of information that we all went through, we do not just believe blindly in the Church?

You ask us to consider what you say about scripture and that is fine but to a Catholic, we do not only consider the scriptures so it is difficult for us when you to ask us to consider this interpretation leaving out tradition. It is the same way you feel when we ask you to accept our interpretation based on tradition. You are going to have to first tell us why we do not have to follow the apostolic traditions in order for us to consider your interpretaions.

Well, I believe that he has been given the grace by God to teach the Truth.

Don, but surly you know that all denominations believe that, even the "Christian" faiths that deny Christ believe this.

This here is the crux of why I am Catholic. I simply can not rationally believe that God for 1500 years after ascending into heaven who gave those apostles a list of instructions of what they are to do to make disciples of all nations, waited until the 16 century to reveal the truth.

He never once told his apostles to write anything down, he told them to go “teach” and I can not accept that he waited 1500 years to have them teach.

This would then have to mean that for 1500 years Christians went through all that time in darkness, believing error.

And when we take into account and go by the belief that scripture is all we have to gage truth, how could God allow his Church to be in such error for that length of time if all he gave us was the bible?

It seems to me that God would also made sure, since this is the only thing we have to know him by that he would have made sure that we would not be confused and have to guess at who has the correct interpretaion, especially when he said that he would be with us always and that he was sending his spirit to lead the Church in truth.

And then when you consider the Church councils who defended heresy and protected Christians from the heretics that wanted to deny the trinity or the two natures of Christ and the councils that confirmed the scriptures for us in the first place, I can not rationally accept that the RCC was good enough for all that but when it came time for interpretation of God’s word, we got it all wrong, taught it all wrong and believed error for 1500 years.

Do you realize that it was not only the Roman Catholics who believed and taught error for 1500 years? It was the eastern rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox who believed and taught this same error for 1500 years to.

I see the Truth of the Gospel in all of his teachings.

I tell you what I see, I see it fits what he says but what does one have to do in order to have it fit? This is how I, IMO see what is needed to do in order to have it fit.

You have to have a lot of ground work laid first. You have to ignore the early, 1, 2, 3 etc century Christians, tradition, the deuteron. books, the early Church councils, etc.

You then have to, from a hand full of verses, create a premise. Calvin's premise is this election thing so you read with that in mind and hey, some of it really does start to fit into what you are reading but when you come across those verses that don't fit so good, like "...for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that who-so-ever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." then you have to step back and say, "well we know based on our premise that it does not actually mean the whole world or every body because our premise tells us that if it was the world then the world would be saved" so you basically have to do some schmoosing to make it fit and John 3;16 is just one example of many verses that do not fit so good but what troubles me the most is that if you are a sola scripture person, there is no verse that truly can support the belief that if God died for the whole world then the whole world would be saved.

The closet thing I can find is "the word of God does not come back void" and that is to broad to assume that he meant that if he wanted all to be saved he would save all. And then there is the culture to the language that Christ used, it is known that when Christ said many he meant all because back then the two words had the same meaning. One would have to ignore this fact in order to read many as only being some people and not all people.

Another premise that bothers me is the fact that the whole gospel is taken to be directed at specific persons when Christ spoke, he spoke about specific people in mind and I see nothing to support that he was only speaking about specific souls that were going to be saved. I see him speaking about the power of his sacrifice, that the power of his sacrifice is sufficient to save all souls, not only specific souls.

Last but not least I can not find anyone from before the 16 century actually interpreting this for themselves, I can not find any early Christians who supported and taught this. I know you feel Augustan did but from my investigation and based on what I know about the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Predestination, I have no reason to believe Augustan interpreted predestination any different from what the Church says.

Do you have any writings of any early Christians who believed the Calvin view of predestination?

Like I said, I found none and I find it hard to believe something as important as that, God waited 1500 years to reveal.

I don't think that means he has never made a mistake but I do think he teaches the Gospel as accurately as any person ever did.

It is not about being mistaken or not. I do not believe that Christ would establish a Church, give it his own spirit to guide it to truth but then not be clear on what that truth is. We do not have to guess and the word of God and get as close as one person can get to knowing the truth leaving room for some error.

I do not believe that God wanted it this way, or that he gave us only a bible and no correct interpretation of that bible for us to know and I do not believe that he meant for us to choose for ourselves who has the correct interpretation or who comes closet to it.

You yourself say that God accomplishes what he sets out to do and if he set out to equip every believer with the Holy Spirit and the ability to discern truth and scripture, then don’t you think they would all believe the same truth about the bible? The mere fact that not even Protestants can agree with one another stands to confirm my belief that Christ established one Church and gave that Church his authority to teach us the correct meaning of his word.

Don’t you think, I mean really think that God could if he wanted to, he could give us the truth with out having us try to figure it out on our own? I do not accept that he only gave us a bible and nothing objective to interpret the bible with.

 

[Reformationist]

Now Don, if you knew for a fact, with out a doubt in your mind or heart that the faith you are apart of is the Church that Jesus Christ himself established personally, would you not believe all it taught and purposed for your belief?

Not unless the leader was either Christ Himself or someone who is protected from error in their teachings which, I understand, is something that the RC church believes to be the case of their church leadership. However, the only thing I've ever been shown that Catholics believe imply this divine protection from error is the verse about "the gates of hell shall not prevail." I have yet to see a credible explanation of how "the gates of hell shall not prevail" means that you can't make an error in matters of faith and morals. Is there something else that leads you to believe that your leaders are divinely protected from error on matters of faith and morals? The man you recognize as your first Pope made theological errors and he was an Apostle. How can he have not been protected but you are? I see that verse as duplicating the Lord's intervention in the preservation of His Body in the same way He preserved Peter from fully falling.

So someone really is going to have to explain to me why the Catholic Church is NOT the Church that Christ built, that would be the only reason I would have to disbelieve what the Church teaches us the bible says.

Do you really think someone could show you this in any way? You don't think you are so fully indoctrinated in to the beliefs of your church that anything anyone said that questioned or contradicted the views of your church would just be brushed of with the age old comment, "If it contradicts the teachings of the Catholic church then your understanding of either Scripture or the teachings of the Catholic church are erroneous. The church isn't wrong because they're the ones who've been given the key to understanding and interpretation. You have no authority so you're the one that's wrong." I've heard that very thing, or variations of it, from you personally on numerous occasions.

No. What I originally said in the context that it was said in was that I saw first hand with my own family members what having no teaching authority in ones life can do, not that it necessarily will do to every non Catholic.

Protestants churches have positions of teaching authority. Protestants submit themselves to the teachings of their church. One area in which we differ is that we do not believe our church leaders to be incapable of error in matters of faith, nor do they claim it so we are not bound by their authority. We are, however, bound by the authority of the Bible. We can acknowledge that whether we, and our church leaders, are right or wrong, whatever the Bible does actually say has authority over us. That's why we can thank God so strongly for His grace. If our ability to be devout Christians was dependant on our ability to comprehensively and exhaustively understand the entirity of God's Word then we'd all fail.

If no one but you has the authority to teach you, then truth can be what ever you make of it.

No. Our opinion of the Truth can be whatever we believe but the Truth is still the Truth. We may just be wrong. Thank God for His grace.

I already said that I admire Calvinism because it does not promote one to believe what ever they are inspired to believe, it does teach with authority, it's just, I need to know who's authority does it teach with?

The authority of the Holy Spirit.

Scott Hahn is very good person to start with, he was a Calvin himself, IIRC.

Okay, thanks.

So you do understand that their is a lot of information that we all went through, we do not just believe blindly in the Church?

I believe that many Catholics do blindly believe their church, just as do many Protestants.

Don, but surly you know that all denominations believe that, even the "Christian" faiths that deny Christ believe this.

I know that. It doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

This here is the crux of why I am Catholic. I simply can not rationally believe that God for 1500 years after ascending into heaven who gave those apostles a list of instructions of what they are to do to make disciples of all nations, waited until the 16 century to reveal the truth.

He never once told his apostles to write anything down, he told them to go “teach” and I can not accept that he waited 1500 years to have them teach.

This would then have to mean that for 1500 years Christians went through all that time in darkness, believing error.

And when we take into account and go by the belief that scripture is all we have to gage truth, how could God allow his Church to be in such error for that length of time if all he gave us was the bible?

It seems to me that God would also made sure, since this is the only thing we have to know him by that he would have made sure that we would not be confused and have to guess at who has the correct interpretaion, especially when he said that he would be with us always and that he was sending his spirit to lead the Church in truth.

The "crux" of why you believe the Catholic faith is that you, as a finite being, cannot rationalize why God would have done something you cannot understand? The whole section above implies that the foundations of your belief in your church is based on only what you can rationally understand? Have I misunderstood?

And then when you consider the Church councils who defended heresy and protected Christians from the heretics that wanted to deny the trinity or the two natures of Christ and the councils that confirmed the scriptures for us in the first place, I can not rationally accept that the RCC was good enough for all that but when it came time for interpretation of God’s word, we got it all wrong, taught it all wrong and believed error for 1500 years.

Do you realize that it was not only the Roman Catholics who believed and taught error for 1500 years? It was the eastern rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox who believed and taught this same error for 1500 years to.

I don't believe that the Catholics "taught it all wrong." I think they, like every other denomination, have some measure of error in their beliefs. This is the product of being finite. There are many things we do not understand because of the limitations of being a created being and other things that God has chosen not to reveal to us because it suits His purpose to withhold that from us.

You have to have a lot of ground work laid first. You have to ignore the early, 1, 2, 3 etc century Christians, tradition, the deuteron. books, the early Church councils, etc.

Why would you have to do that? He didn't ignore them.

You then have to, from a hand full of verses, create a premise. Calvin's premise is this election thing so you read with that in mind and hey, some of it really does start to fit into what you are reading but when you come across those verses that don't fit so good, like "...for God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that who-so-ever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life..." then you have to step back and say, "well we know based on our premise that it does not actually mean the whole world or every body because our premise tells us that if it was the world then the world would be saved" so you basically have to do some schmoosing to make it fit

Come Michelle...if God so loved the entirity of mankind then why is the Bible full of admonishments for Christians to separate themselves from the world? It is waaay easier to show that "world" in John 3:16 doesn't mean everyone who will ever be created than it is to show that it is saying God loves the whole of created humanity. That verse, read according to your belief, makes a serious distinction between those who will inherit eternal life and those that won't. If God loved everyone equally, as you contend, why doesn't He ensure that everyone will believe on His Son and have everlasting life? I understand you put a whole lot of weight in man's "free will" but if you purport that God "loves" everyone, not only do you have to throw out a slew of passages that show God's divine, righteous hatred of certain people, you making the case that God loves someone so much that He would rather them suffer for all eternity in hell then ensure their safety. Sorry, but that doesn't sound like a omnipotent or loving God to me.

and John 3;16 is just one example of many verses that do not fit so good but what troubles me the most is that if you are a sola scripture person, there is no verse that truly can support the belief that if God died for the whole world then the whole world would be saved.

A lot of things don't fit into Calvinism if they're taken out of context.

The closet thing I can find is "the word of God does not come back void" and that is to broad to assume that he meant that if he wanted all to be saved he would save all.

That's too broad but believing "the gates shall not prevail" means that the Papacy and the councils are incapable of error on matters of faith and morals isn't a broad assumption? That's a bit inconsistant.

And then there is the culture to the language that Christ used, it is known that when Christ said many he meant all because back then the two words had the same meaning. One would have to ignore this fact in order to read many as only being some people and not all people.

So it is your contention that whenever Christ says "many" He means "all?"

Another premise that bothers me is the fact that the whole gospel is taken to be directed at specific persons when Christ spoke, he spoke about specific people in mind and I see nothing to support that he was only speaking about specific souls that were going to be saved. I see him speaking about the power of his sacrifice, that the power of his sacrifice is sufficient to save all souls, not only specific souls.

Umm... fighting... the... urge... to... comment... on... the... incorrect... usage... of... the... word... sufficient... once... again...

Last but not least I can not find anyone from before the 16 century actually interpreting this for themselves, I can not find any early Christians who supported and taught this. I know you feel Augustan did but from my investigation and based on what I know about the Catholic Church’s doctrine of Predestination, I have no reason to believe Augustan interpreted predestination any different from what the Church says.

Okay, but he did.

Do you have any writings of any early Christians who believed the Calvin view of predestination?

I'll find some.

Like I said, I found none and I find it hard to believe something as important as that, God waited 1500 years to reveal.

Again, just because you have a hard time believing something doesn't mean that it's not true.

It is not about being mistaken or not. I do not believe that Christ would establish a Church, give it his own spirit to guide it to truth but then not be clear on what that truth is. We do not have to guess and the word of God and get as close as one person can get to knowing the truth leaving room for some error.

I do not believe that God wanted it this way, or that he gave us only a bible and no correct interpretation of that bible for us to know and I do not believe that he meant for us to choose for ourselves who has the correct interpretation or who comes closet to it.

Again, just because you have a hard time believing something doesn't make it wrong. I'm sure that the Pharisees had a hard time believing the the authority of Christ and they were the "religious" people of the day. They weren't right and they were people who had spent their whole lives seeking to live by the Law.

You yourself say that God accomplishes what he sets out to do and if he set out to equip every believer with the Holy Spirit and the ability to discern truth and scripture, then don’t you think they would all believe the same truth about the bible?

Of course. However, I never contended that God's goal was for every believer to be able to comprehensively grasp the fullness of the Truth or for anyone, for that matter, to be able to teach without error. In fact, our ignorance in understanding serves God's purposes. That is not a reason to be ignorant of the Truth but that ignorance is not outside of God's sovereign providence.

The mere fact that not even Protestants can agree with one another stands to confirm my belief that Christ established one Church and gave that Church his authority to teach us the correct meaning of his word.

See, now that makes no sense. It's not an issue of Christians vs. non-Christians. It's a doctrinal issue between denominations. I know that you don't consider the Catholic faith a denomination of Christianity but the point remains, we could make the exact same case stated a different way:

The mere fact that Christians as a whole, Catholics and non-Catholics, can not agree with one another stands to confirm my belief that redemption is not based on one's understanding of the Gospel.

In fact, a slight variation of my statement is used by non-believers as proof positive that Christianity is nothing but false beliefs. They don't differentitate between Catholic and non-Catholic the way Christians do. To many of them we are are all just Christians and they often say, "The mere fact that Christians as a whole, Catholics and non-Catholics, can not agree with one another stands to confirm my belief that Christianity is a man made religion and not divinely inspired."

Don’t you think, I mean really think that God could if he wanted to, he could give us the truth with out having us try to figure it out on our own?

Absolutely.

I do not accept that he only gave us a bible and nothing objective to interpret the bible with.

I never said he didn't. In fact, we know that we can understand many of the lessons of the Bible from our interaction with others. However, Protestants don't claim that that interaction with others, believers and non-believers alike, is authoritative in the way that Scripture is. Whereas, Catholics do say that the Traditions of their church are equally, if not more, authoritative than Sacrad Scripture. I know for a fact that Catholics subordinate Sacrad Scripture to Church Tradition because you say Scripture is part of Tradition.

God bless

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I have just had one of the most aggravating exhanges in all my time here on this MB and it made me wonder something.

When you participate in a thread, do you actually consider what the other person says or are you just waiting for your turn to give your opinion?

The most productive discussions are the ones where people actually respond to what you are saying.

Sometimes it seems they totally ignore your points and just throw a bunch more of theirs at you.

We have had whole threads that eventually broke down into both sides saying " ''cause we say so ".

 

[Reformationist]

The most productive discussions are the ones where people actually respond to what you are saying.

Sometimes it seems they totally ignore your points and just throw a bunch more of theirs at you.

We have had whole threads that eventually broke down into both sides saying " ''cause we say so ".

I know that I have been guilty of not listening to others and seeking only to make my point. I pray that God will use that to mature me and help me to extend grace to others. I think that's one of the main reasons God allows us to see the sinfulness of others, so that we may extend grace to them because we understand what it's like to be guilty of the very thing they are.

God bless

 

[tomtom]

the answer to what?

 

[tomtom]

this topic interests me very much, thank you reformer...however as a first time user of a "board" rather than chat i find myeself anxious to engage more quickly. is there a better venue?

 

[Benedicta00]

However, the only thing I've ever been shown that Catholics believe imply this divine protection from error is the verse about "the gates of hell shall not prevail." I have yet to see a credible explanation of how "the gates of hell shall not prevail" means

Yes and here it is...

From Isaiah 22:15-25
20
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. 23
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
24
On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.

And Matthew 16

16
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

13 [18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter"). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, "rock." Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus' church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.

14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts" (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter's exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

The man you recognize as your first Pope made theological errors and he was an Apostle.

No...I do not think he did...he just has real bad personal behaviors, but theology, he don't think he erred. One must not confuse the two.

How can he have not been protected but you are?

He was.

I see that verse as duplicating the Lord's intervention in the preservation of His Body in the same way He preserved Peter from fully falling.

When did Peter fall in a theological matter???

Do you really think someone could show you this in any way?

Not at this point, that is my point. Unless you have some new argument to present me with that I have not heard and checked out myself, probably not. All signs point to Rome for me.

How much research have you done? Is there anything that you think I may not know about the reformation and the early Church that may make me see that Rome is not the true Church?

The church isn't wrong because they're the ones who've been given the key to understanding and interpretation. You have no authority so you're the one that's wrong." I've heard that very thing, or variations of it, from you personally on numerous occasions.

I beg to differ that I told you this personally, I do not dismiss the bible views you have, I acknowledge that some of the verse fit your theory but I simply do not have any biblical evidence or historical evidence that those verse are to be interpreted with in Calvin's view of predestination in mind.

Protestants churches have positions of teaching authority.

So what do you all do then when you disagree with one another? Each one is to just believe what *they* think it means?

No. Our opinion of the Truth can be whatever we believe but the Truth is still the Truth. We may just be wrong. Thank God for His grace.

And can you tell me what that truth is, and then can you tell me if it is indeed truth then why we do not all agree? And what ever you reason is, can you provide me where in scripture will I find that very reason why no one can agree?

The authority of the Holy Spirit.

Where does scripture itself say that each one of us have been given the Spirit to interpret scripture and teach it to others? I always read that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church in truth and it will dwell in us to sanctify us, not make us all bible scholars.

I believe that many Catholics do blindly believe their church, just as do many Protestants.

Maybe, but I do not.

I know that. It doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

Doesn't mean you are right either so I have to go back to square one and that is I have no reason to disbelieve the Church.

The "crux" of why you believe the Catholic faith is that you, as a finite being, cannot rationalize why God would have done something you cannot understand? Have I misunderstood?

Yes, very much so. The crux is this; one spirit, one faith, one Christ, one Church, one bible, but yet so many beliefs. I need to know why should I believe one interpretation over the other and the "Holy Spirit" given for an answer does not cut it. He is one so his truth and inspiration should be one.

I don't believe that the Catholics "taught it all wrong." I think they, like every other denomination, have some measure of error in their beliefs. This is the product of being finite. There are many things we do not understand because of the limitations of being a created being and other things that God has chosen not to reveal to us because it suits His purpose to withhold that from us.

Right...and that is precisely why God gave us a Church that teaches in his name.

Why would you have to do that? He didn't ignore them.

No, he choose for himself that they were not inspired again where is the authority and why should I believe him?

Come Michelle...if God so loved the entirity of mankind then why is the Bible full of admonishments for Christians to separate themselves from the world?

Did you miss the part of my post where I said that I can not find scripture or the early Church supporting this premise that God only died for some and not all? That is what I need to be convinced or to reconsider.

A lot of things don't fit into Calvinism if they're taken out of context.

The context is what I have the most trouble with, where does it come from?

That's too broad but believing "the gates shall not prevail" means that the Papacy and the councils are incapable of error on matters of faith and morals isn't a broad assumption? That's a bit inconsistant.

But read the whole text, the early Church; take into account the oral traditions and the early councils etc, the scales begin to fall from ones eyes.

So it is your contention that whenever Christ says "many" He means "all?"

Yep, just the way Paul meant many when he said all.

Okay, but he did.

Well if you think Augustan was really a Calvinist then cite?

I'll find some.

Good, I'll wait with anticipation.

Again, just because you have a hard time believing something doesn't mean that it's not true.

So you believe that God waited 1500 Years to reveal the truth?

Again, just because you have a hard time believing something doesn't make it wrong.

Again, so you think God waited 1500 years after Christ already established a Church to reveal the truth to that Church?

Of course. However, I never contended that God's goal was for every believer to be able to comprehensively grasp the fullness of the Truth or for anyone, for that matter, to be able to teach without error. In fact, our ignorance in understanding serves God's purposes. That is not a reason to be ignorant of the Truth but that ignorance is not outside of God's sovereign providence.

And where can I find this in scripture?

That God was going to give us only a bible to know him by with out ever being able to fully grasp it?

We can't grasp it, your right, that is why we have a Church.

See, now that makes no sense. It's not an issue of Christians vs. non-Christians. It's a doctrinal issue between denominations. I know that you don't consider the Catholic faith a denomination of Christianity but the point remains, we could make the exact same case stated a different way:

What are you talking about? I said, the mere fact that the reformed Christians who say they "needed" to be freed from Rome so they can read the bible themselves, who have the bible themselves, can not agree on what it says.

The mere fact that Christians as a whole, Catholics and non-Catholics, can not agree with one another stands to confirm my belief that redemption is not based on one's understanding of the Gospel.

I agree it's not, so again what are you talking about? What does this have to do with all denominations saying they have the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture and then all of them coming up with something different? If the Holy Spirit is one and true and we all have him, then it would it stand to reason that we all would come up with the same interpretation.

In fact, a slight variation of my statement is used by non-believers as proof positive that Christianity is nothing but false beliefs.

Which confirms my point, why God gave us just one, not many Churches.

I never said he didn't. In fact, we know that we can understand many of the lessons of the Bible from our interaction with others. However, Protestants don't claim that that interaction with others, believers and non-believers alike, is authoritative in the way that Scripture is. Whereas, Catholics do say that the Traditions of their church are equally, if not more, authoritative than Sacrad Scripture. I know for a fact that Catholics subordinate Sacrad Scripture to Church Tradition because you say Scripture is part of Tradition.

No, we say that they both equally are God's word.

But where in scripture itself does it say that we are to only use scripture? These are the kind of questions I need answered.

 

[Reformationist]

this topic interests me very much, thank you reformer...however as a first time user of a "board" rather than chat i find myeself anxious to engage more quickly. is there a better venue?

Well, there's the shout box on the main page.

That may be more your hyper-speed.

You chat room gurus impress me.

God bless,
Don

 

[Reformationist]

Michelle, as your post is quite long I will have to address it at home.

Don't worry, I won't ditch on you.

God bless,
Don

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I know that I have been guilty of not listening to others and seeking only to make my point. I pray that God will use that to mature me and help me to extend grace to others. I think that's one of the main reasons God allows us to see the sinfulness of others, so that we may extend grace to them because we understand what it's like to be guilty of the very thing they are.

God bless

Well said Refmst. It is indeed hard. Before I came to these sort of discussions, I was unaware if just how many different opinions and positions there were on even the most basic concepts. It is most difficult to not have personalities enter into the discussion.
Believe me when I say I respect the Mods and the Job they do. It is not easy! But maybe some active conflict resolution would help raise the bar in certain areas. What I mean is to have a third party just sit by for the sole purpose of facilitating the discussions. He would enter in only to point out logical inconsistancies and help guide the discussions toward productive ends. Stern warnings when folks do what you and others are describing here... such as not responding to your opponents points. Also pointing out when things do turn personal.
Again... let me say I appreciate what the mods do (I have even consider applying myself). At this time this is not something that they are required to do... so I am not questioning their actions. I am only suggesting an added functionality to the job description.

 

[Reformationist]

Yes and here it is...

From Isaiah 22:15-25
20
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. 23
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;
24
On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs.

And Matthew 16

16
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

13 [18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter"). It is translated as Petros ("Peter") in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, "rock." Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus' church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.

14 [19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts" (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter's exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven.

Michelle, I understand that you trust your church. That's totally fine with me. I have to ask a few questions though. Which of those verses is it that you think conveys that your church is divinely protected from all error on matters of faith and morals. The reason I ask is that you've just given me verses that say that Christ's church does not end with His ascension and that His work continues and that the church has the authority to teach His Gospel. None of those verses, as far as I can tell, even imply that those to whom He entrusted the leadership of His Body are infallible in anything, much less matters of faith and morals. Secondly, I know you claim Peter as the first human leader to whom all authority was given by Christ but I've never read that in Scripture either. Even if Peter was the "senior" Apostle to whom more was given, what gives you exclusive claim to his leadership? It may surprise you to know that R. C. Sproul, a man whose teachings I am completely on board with, believes that the passage about "on this rock..." is a reference to Peter. Granted, He says that if the fact that the passage being about Peter wasn't applied so incorrectly by the Roman church then there never would have been any question about it being Peter. Please don't ask what exactly he means by that because I have not had the opportunity to study his teachings on that portion of Scripture.

No...I do not think he did...he just has real bad personal behaviors, but theology, he don't think he erred. One must not confuse the two.

Mark 8:31-33
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He spoke this word openly. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. But when He had turned around and looked at His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, "Get behind Me, Satan! For you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

That sound like just "bad personal behaviors" to you? Sorry Michelle but that is some serious lack of faith. That is straight up theological error.

He was.

Let me get this straight. You think a man that said Jesus must not endure that for which He was sent to endure and showed his lack of faith on numerous occasions even to the point of denying the Lordship of Christ was protected from error? I think the exact opposite. Peter was providentially put in a position where he would deny Christ so that the power of Christ in preserving His chosen, Peter, would be contrasted with His divine right to leave those who aren't His sheep to their depraved existance, Judas.

All signs point to Rome for me.

Well then, I'm glad you feel like you're home and I pray that your church assists you in maturing in the faith the Lord has given us.

How much research have you done? Is there anything that you think I may not know about the reformation and the early Church that may make me see that Rome is not the true Church?

Michelle, I don't believe that a church is "the true Church." I believe that believers are "the true Church." The Roman church, just like every other Christian church, has within it members of God's family and some who only outwardly live by faith.

I beg to differ that I told you this personally, I do not dismiss the bible views you have, I acknowledge that some of the verse fit your theory but I simply do not have any biblical evidence or historical evidence that those verse are to be interpreted with in Calvin's view of predestination in mind.

Okay Michelle. I don't want to argue about that. Most vocal Protestants on this MB who have debated with you could support what I'm saying so I don't feel the need to try to prove it. It's not an attack. It's an observation. And, it's one that the Lord has seen fit to allow me to be aware of. My guess would be that He permits me to experience that aspect of your personality because I, too, am very adamant in my views and strong willed.

So what do you all do then when you disagree with one another? Each one is to just believe what *they* think it means?

Well, we study, we debate, we discuss, we pray, and we seek the counsel of those more learned than us. And most importantly, we thank God for His grace knowing that enlightenment comes by the providence of God.

And can you tell me what that truth is, and then can you tell me if it is indeed truth then why we do not all agree?

I can tell you what I believe is the Truth. I can tell you what I have faith in. I can even tell you that I believe the Lord has providentially revealed much to me through His divine intervention. What I cannot tell you is that there is no possibility that I'm wrong. But, then again, I need not be right to know that God is sovereign and whatsoever He brings to pass is the righteous thing, even if I don't agree with it.

And what ever you reason is, can you provide me where in scripture will I find that very reason why no one can agree?

I think it's antagonistic to say that "no one can agree" but I can share with you one area of Scripture that addresses why there are many disagreements and why faith in God often takes a backseat to Christ's example for us. James 4.

Where does scripture itself say that each one of us have been given the Spirit to interpret scripture and teach it to others? I always read that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church in truth and it will dwell in us to sanctify us, not make us all bible scholars.

I never said all have been graced by God with the ability to teach the Truth so this doesn't apply to me. "The authority of the Holy Spirit" was a reference to Calvin. Try not to take things out of context.

Maybe, but I do not.

That's good to know.

Doesn't mean you are right either so I have to go back to square one and that is I have no reason to disbelieve the Church.

I never claimed to be infallible on anything so this is a non-issue. Whether I'm right or wrong isn't nearly as crucial to the credibility of my views and my church because, unlike you, I admit the possibility of error in my understanding and in my church leadership. In fact, Calvin said, "At our best we are only right in 80% of our views." If, however, there ever was found to be error in the teachings of the Catholic church on issues of faith and morals you'd be faced with a problem from which there could be no recovery. One little mistake and you're entire faith is in jeopardy because your faith (I'm talking about your faith in your church, not your faith in God) hinges on your belief that your church leaders are divinely protected from error.

Yes, very much so. The crux is this; one spirit, one faith, one Christ, one Church, one bible, but yet so many beliefs.

People, all of them, are fallen. People are not infallible. As a result, unbiblical views are pushed as the Truth in this age just as they were in the church age.

I need to know why should I believe one interpretation over the other and the "Holy Spirit" given for an answer does not cut it. He is one so his truth and inspiration should be one.

There isn't even complete unity of beliefs within your own community. Does that mean that that division lessens the Truth taught by your recognized leadership?

Right...and that is precisely why God gave us a Church that teaches in his name.

Your church is not the only church that "teaches in His name" and it's comments like that that make you an undesireable person to discuss Catholicism with. As I said, just because you don't believe your church can be wrong doesn't make it so. You haven't, despite what you may think, settled the issue on infallibility with those verses at the beginning of your last post. Just because you, as a finite being, cannot see how God could be glorified regardless of whether your church can make errors doesn't mean that He can't.

Did you miss the part of my post where I said that I can not find scripture or the early Church supporting this premise that God only died for some and not all?

I could give you Bible verses but I'm sure you have your own opinion as to what they mean so it would do little good. I doubt if I showed you a verse from a book that you acknowledge as authoritative that said "Michelle, you are wrong" that you'd actually think you were wrong. Face it, you're not really willing to discuss this unless it's a discussion wherein you can tell me that my beliefs are wrong because you don't acknowlege the authority of those that teach it.

For the record, can you define "early Church" for me? What period of time does that cover?

That is what I need to be convinced or to reconsider.

I don't need you to reconsider nor do I have the power to make that happen. If God reveals that to you then it will happen by His power. If not, then it wasn't His Will that you believe what I believe.

The context is what I have the most trouble with, where does it come from?

Don't be condescending.

But read the whole text, the early Church; take into account the oral traditions and the early councils etc, the scales begin to fall from ones eyes.

Well, you know us scaly eyed Protestants...

Yep, just the way Paul meant many when he said all.

So when Christ said "many" He really means "all" and when Paul says "all" he really means "many." Is that what you are actually contending?

Well if you think Augustan was really a Calvinist then cite?

I never said Augustine was a Calvinist. Calvin wasn't a Calvinist. They were Christians. Calvin did most certainly glean much of his understanding of the Gospel from the teachings of Augustine. If you don't see that then you haven't studied Augustine or Calvin, or Luther for that matter.

Good, I'll wait with anticipation.

I'm sure you will...not

So you believe that God waited 1500 Years to reveal the truth?

I told you already that I don't believe man, in his fallen state, is capable of comprehensively and exhaustively grasping the fullness of the Truth. If he was then your church would just issue ex cathedra statements about every single verse.

Again, so you think God waited 1500 years after Christ already established a Church to reveal the truth to that Church?

Of course not. I think His Truth was revealed to them then. Over the years I think that Truth got distorted by some wicked people and that's why the reformation happened. It was a call to return to the faith that Christ and the Apostles taught.

And where can I find this in scripture?

Romans 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

Uh oh!!!! That statement was in Romans, a book by Paul. He must have really meant this:

Romans 8:28
And we know that many things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

Strange, the word for "all" used by Jesus all throughout Romans 5, pas, is the same word used here in Romans 8:28 yet, according to you, Jesus meant all and Paul means many. Oh no!!! Does that mean that some things don't work together for good to those who love God?

That God was going to give us only a bible to know him by with out ever being able to fully grasp it?

I wasn't aware that even Catholics believed that they "fully grasped" the Word of God. Are you honestly telling me that there is nothing about the Word that Catholics are unsure of?

What are you talking about? I said, the mere fact that the reformed Christians who say they "needed" to be freed from Rome so they can read the bible themselves, who have the bible themselves, can not agree on what it says.

Well then I guess it's fortunate for them that they don't claim any infallibility. Wouldn't you agree?

If the Holy Spirit is one and true and we all have him, then it would it stand to reason that we all would come up with the same interpretation.

Do all Catholics have the same interpretation? If not (which I know the answer is a resounding NO), does that mean that the Holy Spirit isn't One and True or could it just possibly be that people can make mistakes and the Holy Spirit is still One and True.

Which confirms my point, why God gave us just one, not many Churches.

So no church except the Catholic church are from God? What are the rest of us, just a bunch of heathens?

Tell me honestly how you think it would come across if I went in to the OBOB forum, also a limited debate forum, and said, "God gave us just one church, and it's not the Catholic church?" Do you think I'd get reported?

say that they both equally are God's word.

You don't say that Scripture is part of Tradition?

re in scripture itself does it say that we are to only use scripture? These are the kind of questions I need answered.

These are the kind of questions for which you'll never accept any answer Michelle.

God bless

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The title of the thread is, 'Do you consider?', meaning to ask whether I consider the words of others when in discussion, or do I presume myself or my church to be true and everyone else a liar. I can honestly say that I have considered all sides. I was born catholic, became a fundamentalist, believed Arminianism, converted to Calvinism by reading scripture, and was eventually convinced, by the grace and mercy of God, that there was no biblical reason for leaving the Roman Catholic church in the first place. Does that make me proud? I know I am the lowest of low.
I, as a Roman Catholic, will grant you that calvinist teaching on soteriology is true. We are saved by the grace of God; we cannot save ourselves, the elect are predestined to salvation, and God will have His saints persevere. That begs the question, What then? We don't know who the elect are exactly; therefore, we have no right to tell any human that he is reprobate and incapable of salvation or that he is elect and incapable of falling. We simply do not know. God alone decides.
Do you consider the catholic position on soteriology?

 

[Reformationist]

I, as a Roman Catholic, will grant you that calvinist teaching on soteriology is true.

This truly confuses me. I applaud your obvious desire to understand the Gospel. What I don't understand is that you claim the title of Roman Catholic but acknowledge that the reformed teachings of salvation are true.

The very nature of Catholicism, at least in the Roman view, is that your church is unable to err on matters of faith and morals because they are divinely protected from error in said matters. Now, I could honestly say that I understand why some people may be more comfortable with the worship style in the Catholic tradition. I can say that I understand why people feel more comfortable with the solidity of your liturgical hiarchy. However, what I don't understand is how one can claim to be in communion with a church that teaches a doctrine on something as important as salvation that you do not believe. Aren't you bound, by virtue of being a professing Roman Catholic, to submit to your church's views on matters of faith? Wouldn't your belief that they teach an incorrect view of salvation give you pause as to their other views or, at the very least, make you unable to take communion in your church?

That begs the question, What then? We don't know who the elect are exactly; therefore, we have no right to tell any human that he is reprobate and incapable of salvation or that he is elect and incapable of falling.

I agree completely. Just for the record, reformed believers that are studied in the reformed views do not, as Calvin did not, espouse either of those things.

Do you consider the catholic position on soteriology?

Well, I've considered what I've been exposed to here on this MB. I've found it to be contrary to the sovereign and efficacious nature of God as well as unsupported by Scripture. I feel that it paints a picture of God as either impotent to actually bring about that which He desires or indifferent to the point of allowing those He loves to burn in hell, just to preserve their "free will." I feel that it seeks to make the work of God in His sovereign and righteous act of incarnation about man's glory rather than His own. In short, I find it quite anthropocentric.

I am not against discussing it. If there is anything that you feel I should know about it then please feel free to share it. I will say that I'm not sure why you would being that you have stated that you disagree with their position.

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Don,

I am going to post a reply to you. I just have not had any tme today, sorry about that.

 

[Reformationist]

Don,

I am going to post a reply to you. I just have not had any tme today, sorry about that.

No problem. Take you're time. You and I are both posting long responses that require time to respond to.

God bless,
Don

 

[Benedicta00]

I have to ask a few questions though. Which of those verses is it that you think conveys that your church is divinely protected from all error on matters of faith and morals...It may surprise you to know that R. C. Sproul, ...believes that the passage about "on this rock..." is a reference to Peter. .

Is not uncommon at all for a *serious* Protestant theologians (and Sproul, I hear is very reputable and looked up to with esteem by both Catholics and non-Catholics) to interpret Matthew this way.

In fact Scott Hahn mentions that when he studied for himself and came to discover this very thing while he was still a protestant minister, that there were many Protestant scholars who indeed very candidly will admit that Jesus meant that Peter is the foundational rock of the Church and to say that Jesus was building his Church on the faith or confession of Peter is nothing more than a over reaction to the Catholic Church’s three doctrines which are the primacy of Peter, the Apostolic succession, and papal infallibility.

Dr, Hahn even says that on one occasion he encountered a Protestant apologist who in a debate with a Catholic only used the “confession of Peter” argument, so he could undermined the Catholic position in his debate and he himself admitted to Hahn afterwards that he believed that Peter is indeed the “rock” but said he is not willing to admit that to Catholics.

The reason why most Protestants do not admit that verse is out of a bias they have towards the Catholic Church’s claim regarding the pope. I am glad to see that there are many intellectually honest Protestant scholars out there.

Now to answer you questions first let’s make sure you understand the three papal doctrines first.

The Pope, the bishop of Rome, the Holy Father, AS the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ when he speaks from the chair of Peter AS the universal teacher when defining faith and morals he does so with a infallible chrism, which is a gift ( that would be grace to you, the same grace you think Calvin had or that you may have to read scripture) through the Holy Spirit so that we can give over to him our religious assent of our intellect and of our will so that we can here the voice of Christ speaking to us coming from the Pope when and only when, he speaks in this capacity.

Now for you, I understand that we have to established from the bible the primacy of Peter and then the succession of his office, that he passes on the chrism (gift or grace) of infallibility to his successors and then we have to establish from the bible, infallibility itself, which is that God grants this gift or grace of infallibility to the successors of Peter, NOT to give anything new or in addition to the revelation that we have alreadybeen given through the written word or the oral word. Christ has given all revelation to us handed down to his apostles and with the death of the last apostle all PUBLIC revelation has ceased.

What the Pope’s task to do is to preserve, protect, explain, transmit and in-force that public revelation, not new revelation, so the doctrine of infallibility is this; that when he is preserving, explaining, protecting, in-forcing, and transmitting what has ALREADY been given to us BY Christ, TO the apostles handed down to us, that they are granted a chrism, a gift, the grace to not error in this matter, which is the one and only ceased public revelation of Christ, which is faith and morals that Christ taught the apostles who handed that teaching down to us.

The third doctrine of infallibility is God’s grace that he bestows on the Pope when and only when he is protecting, preserving, transmitting, in-forcing, and explaining the ceased, closed, already established public revelation of God.

Now here is where you question comes in, how “…the gates of hell…” is applied to this…

What I just explained above, the three doctrines … (the first doctrine of the primacy of Peter, that he is the first among equals, that he has primacy, a different role in the Church as a bishop from the other apostles, or bishops and the second doctrine which is apostolic succession, that the office of Peter and the office of the apostles is indeed that, a office that is passed on through the “laying on of hands” which is a chrism, a gift, a grace that they posses by virtue of their office to bind and loose, to ordain priests who have been called to serve the in the divine commission of Christ and to pass on their succession along with the third doctrine, the grace of infallibility to protect, preserve, in-force transmit, and explain with out error the written word and the oral word of God) …is what the gates of hell will not prevail is applied to.

Because Peter is first among equals, and because he passes that primacy on in apostolic succession and because of his primacy, he has been given the grace of infallibility, he can not teach us error when and only when he is speaking from the Chair, seat, of Peter as the vicar of Christ himself, which is when and only when he is speaking to us about faith and morals which is IOW, the ceased public revelation of God, which of course is the written and oral word of God.

So the doctrine of infallibility is just that, the biblical passage that promises that Satan will not prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ which was built on the Rock of Peter which holds the ceased public revelation of God, which is his written word and his oral word.

Meaning in other words, that the Roman Catholic Church when and only when she speaks to us using the voice of Peter, which is the voice of Christ, which is what ever Pope who sits in the chair of Peter, we can trust that we are not being taught error because Christ promised we would not be, that is why we can “blindly” as so many would say, give to the pope the assent of our will and intellect because as you say we are fallible, we can not trust our own interpretations of the revealed, ceased, public revelation of God, he did NOT give to US the gift, charism or grace of infallibility, he only gave it to one person which is who ever is sitting in the chair of Peter, because as you say, we have a 80-20% chance of getting it right.

Also, Jesus says in Matthew 16 that “I”, HE will build, not a Church or the Church but HIS “MY” Church so that is why we do not think or even can comprehend why it is we are told that we place our trust and give away our assent to a man made religion. Who ever thinks this simply does not understand the three doctrines at all and how scripture supports them.

We believe that this Church (RCC) is not man’s or the Popes, but Christ’s so we understand that since, and because, the Church is not man’s but Christ’s and that he said in Mathew that HE, HIMSELF will be the one to build it, that he is the one who has built it, that this Church that we call the Roman Catholic Church is Jesus Christ’s very own Church built by him and him alone and that he has and still can use what ever tools or instruments he chooses to build it with, that what ever he uses, they will be under HIS, not the Pope’s, control to govern us, his faithful, with. That is why he says that human hands do not build his Church.

“The gates of hell will not prevail” against his Church which is the ROCK, Peter, for the simple reason, the Church belongs to him and what ever means he chooses to use build his Church with, are under HIS sovereign control that he uses to govern his people with. We believe the bible says that this instrument that he uses and is under his control is the “Holy See” (Chair of Peter).

Now to the biblical proof all three doctrines which as I understand you require. “Rock”, the primacy of Peter, the “Keys”, Apostolic succession, and the “the gates of hell…”, the charism of infallibility, begins in Matthew’s gospel, chapter 16 verses 16-17-18-19.

Jesus says to his apostles, “who do you say that I am?” and they answer, some say John the Baptist, etc but Jesus says to them, “but who do YOU (his apostles, his would be Church, his “bishops” who will ordain his priests) say that I am?” He was looking for the one who would be the first among equals, his vicar, and who is the one who steps forward?Peter and he says, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God” and what does Jesus say next? “ Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my father in heaven and I tell you, YOU are Peter (Solid Rock) and on this rock, (Solid Rock which is Peter) I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ” What is ‘it’? The Church which is built on solid rock, which is Peter. The verse goes on to read… “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven and what-so-ever you shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven and what-so-ever you shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” and then he instructs them not to tell anyone who he is.

All those verses right there are the biblical teachings of the three doctrines, the primacy of Peter, apostolic succession, and the charism of papal infallibility. We believe this scripture tells us that Christ was really and truly saying that he was building his Church on Peter because Peter is the “rock” that Christ was speaking of that is his own Church.

Now of course I know how Protestants interpret “rock” in which that interpretation, the keys and the gates of hell not prevailing hang on that. So I shall explain to you why Jesus was not building a invisible Church on the confession of Peter or that Jesus named Peter as little rock and said his Church was the solid rock, but that he established his own Church that he built on Peter, the instrument that is under his sovereign control who has his own teaching authority, in which because it is under Jesus’ control, the gates of hell will not prevail against it, by allowing his very own Church that belongs to him to ever fall into or teach to his people, his covenantual family/children error when his “rock” his vicar, speaks to them from the Holy See on matters of faith and morals which we know is the ceased, closed, public revelation of God’s word, both oral and written.

I know that Protestant understands that the Greek words that Matthew used was little rock for Peter and big rock for Church and that Christ was referring to himself as the big rock that is his Church, but Jesus did not originally speak in Greek, he spoke in Aramaic and the word Jesus gave Peter was Cephas which means, solid rock, in Aramaic, there is no other word to say “solid rock”. The Greek word that Matthew applied to Peter was the masculine version of solid Rock, which properly translates as Little Rock.

No place in history before this, was there anyone else who used the word Cephas, (solid rock) as a name for a person. The word itself that Jesus used, Cephas is feminine word, this is an important point because Jesus was not going to change his name by giving him a feminine word for his name, that would be inappropriate so Matthew under the guidance of the Holy Spirit gives Peter the Greek masculine version of the name Cephas which does means in it’s translation, little rock but he gives him this only because it would be inappropriate to give him as his name a feminine word.

Matthew still uses the Greek word for “solid rock” to show us that Peter is the solid rock that is the Church of Christ but he gives him as his name “little rock” because not to would be would be like giving you the name Donna, instead of Don or giving me the name Michael, instead of Michelle.

So this is why we believe that Peter is the Rock that Jesus built his Church on and who has primacy as a bishop to be the head, the vicar, the one who speaks for Christ himself…the “man with the hat”… after the ascension when Jesus takes his seat in heaven at the right hand of God.

Now I am sure you would like to see the biblical support for apostolic succession.

First, the name Peter which is rock does not represent the character of Peter but represents him having primacy as the first among equals. The other apostles may have had the same insight and wisdom as Peter but it was Peter who steps up and gives his confession, as it is always Peter who “stands up” through out the scriptures on behalf of the Church and it was Peter and only Peter whom Christ gave his blessing to in Matthew 16.

This simply demonstrates that Peter’s role in the Church is the foundational rock of Christ’s Church and I believe what furthers this argument is the fact that Peter’s character was not rock like or stable, but it was rather unstable and fallen, and the fact that Peter is this foundational rock is the reason why his mistakes are pointed out over and over again in scripture precisely because he is our leader.

I find it irrational to assume that Peter was the only one to make mistakes, I am sure the others did but the NT authors emphasis on Peter’s mistakes only stand to tell me that it is because Peter has primacy in the Church and I believe they also stand to show us that his mistakes has no effect on us in matters of faith and morals, that also because his mistakes do not correspond with his teachings.

Meaning he can have mistakes, he can even have theological mistakes, but what he can not do, is TEACH us those mistakes. The faithful in the Church is protected because Christ has given this gift (grace) to the pope not to make mistakes when he is teaching us faith and morals. Peter and the succeeding popes can make mistakes, even theological mistakes, but he what he can not do is turn around and teach those mistakes to us, we are protected by the Holy Spirit from ever being taught a mistake.

I'm going to have to continue this in another post.

 

[Benedicta00]

The issue of apostolic succession can be solved in Isaiah 22.

20 On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;

Hilkiah is the king from the line of David and his office of Prime Minister is vacant and we know this because in verse 15-19 it reads:

15 Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace,
16 Who has hewn for himself a sepulcher on a height and carved his tomb in the rock: "What are you doing here, and what people have you here, that here you have hewn for yourself a tomb?"
17 The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly
18 And roll you up and toss you like a ball into an open land To perish there, you and the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master's house!
19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.
21 I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

What this says is that the office of Prime Minister has become vacant and we know by the words “that official”, that he was one official among many officials in the King’s cabinet but because of the symbols of authority, the keys, the robe, the sash we know he held the position of Prime Minister which means he was “first among equals”, that he was given authority over the kings cabinet.

Because Shebna had disgraced the office of Prime Minister now the “keys” of this office is being given over to Eliakim who is given this authority of primacy over the kings cabinet, binding and losing on the king’s behalf.

What this has to do with apostolic succession is that Jesus quoted this himself to Peter in Matthew’s gospel and Scott Hahn mentions that many Protestant scholars also candidly admit this to, that Jesus’ words in Matthew came straight from Isaiah. The apostles being Jews, knew what Jesus was quoting and what he was quoting meant.

In the next two verses you can see where Jesus drew his word from.
22 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

We all know that the house of David refers to the Davidic kingdom, which prefigures the kingdom of God.

23 I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;

Who are his family, his people, his faithful? We are, read the parallel in Isaiah and Matthew, Christ is giving Peter his own authority to teach us with, that is why we can “trust” the pope and that is why we do not need any charism of infallibility ourselves in order to “trust” them.

Jesus in Matthew hands over to Peter who is solid rock the keys to his kingdom to have authority over his Church, which is the kingdom of God. This does not mean that the other apostle were not also given authority to bind and lose, they were but it is only the pope who can loose what they bind and bind what they lose.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Mark 8:31-33
That sound like just "bad personal behaviors" to you?

First, I am not convinced that it is a “theological error” but Peter can be in error theological or other but what he can not do is teach that error, Jesus gives his Church his Holy Spirit to protect us from ever being taught a error. Jesus did not allowed Peter to teach that “error” then and he will not allow any pope to teach us a error now. Infallibility is not about making theological mistakes, it is about not ever teaching that mistake to us as truth that we would be bound to believe.

Let me get this straight. You think a man that said Jesus must not endure that for which He was sent to endure and showed his lack of faith on numerous occasions even to the point of denying the Lordship of Christ was protected from error?

No, he was not protected from error, he is protected from ever passing down that error or teaching us that error as a truth of the Christ’s Church.

I think the exact opposite. Peter was providentially put in a position where he would deny Christ so that the power of Christ in preserving His chosen, Peter, would be contrasted with His divine right to leave those who aren't His sheep to their depraved existance, Judas.

As I already mentioned, I think the reason why we hear so much about his “mistakes” in scripture is because he was our leader and all eyes was on him.

So what do you all do then when you disagree with one another? Each one is to just believe what *they* think it means?

Well, we study, we debate, we discuss, we pray, and we seek the counsel of those more learned than us. And most importantly, we thank God for His grace knowing that enlightenment comes by the providence of God.

IOW, in the end you believe what it is you think it says.

I never said all have been graced by God with the ability to teach the Truth so this doesn't apply to me. "The authority of the Holy Spirit" was a reference to Calvin. Try not to take things out of context.

First there is no biblical support for “the authority of the Holy Spirit” falling on individuals to teach their personal interpretation of scripture to others. Next, as I explain what infallibility is, it is the charism of the Spirit to protect from the faithful error when it pertain to the written word and oral word of God, isn’t what you say you believe Calvin had is indeed infallibility? Isn’t it what every “believer” says they have? The authority of the Holy Spirit when interpreting the bible?

Difference is, Protestants say every believer has this gift, Catholics only say one person has it.

In fact, Calvin said, "At our best we are only right in 80% of our views." If, however, there ever was found to be error in the teachings of the Catholic church on issues of faith and morals you'd be faced with a problem from which there could be no recovery. One little mistake and you're entire faith is in jeopardy because your faith (I'm talking about your faith in your church, not your faith in God) hinges on your belief that your church leaders are divinely protected from error.

But it is not that they are protected from error in that they can’t be in error, they can, but it is that they will never actually teach that error to us where would be in the position to be bound to it.

In 2000 years it has never happened, the Church has never taught a error that we were bound to believe.

People, all of them, are fallen. People are not infallible. As a result, unbiblical views are pushed as the Truth in this age just as they were in the church age.

And that is why Jesus gave us his own Church that HE built, so that we could know the truth that he teaches with out error or confusion. There is no pressure on us fallen humans to have to even try to figure out what truth is, he gives it to us plain and simple.

There isn't even complete unity of beliefs within your own community. Does that mean that that division lessens the Truth taught by your recognized leadership?

I understand your point, but what I think you do not understand is that religious dissent is not an option like it is among Protestants. We do not just agree to disagree and say, “but we agree on the essential.”

Some schism like the society of Pious X have been excommunicated and this is done in order to protect our community of believers to keep unity of beliefs in tact and to protect the faithful from error.

Your church is not the only church that "teaches in His name" and it's comments like that that make you an undesireable person to discuss Catholicism with. As I said, just because you don't believe your church can be wrong doesn't make it so. You haven't, despite what you may think, settled the issue on infallibility with those verses at the beginning of your last post. Just because you, as a finite being, cannot see how God could be glorified regardless of whether your church can make errors doesn't mean that He can't.

Again, it is not about never being capable of being wrong, it is about not teaching us wrongly.

I could give you Bible verses but I'm sure you have your own opinion as to what they mean so it would do little good. I doubt if I showed you a verse from a book that you acknowledge as authoritative that said "Michelle, you are wrong" that you'd actually think you were wrong. Face it, you're not really willing to discuss this unless it's a discussion wherein you can tell me that my beliefs are wrong because you don't acknowlege the authority of those that teach it.

What authority do they have to teach me that I am not acknowledging is what I am trying to find out. And like I asked before, if you can tell me where the premise that I am supposed to open my mind up to, comes from then I may possibly consider your views.

For the record, can you define "early Church" for me? What period of time does that cover?

1, 2,3, 4, century. Have you read the Ante-Nicene Fathers? In any of their writings can you show me any support at all for any of the Calvin ideas of predestination?

So when Christ said "many" He really means "all" and when Paul says "all" he really means "many." Is that what you are actually contending?

This is what I am saying, that it is a known fact that in those days, during the time of Jesus that the word “all” and “many” were two words that shared the same meaning for both, which was that “all” could mean many and “many” could mean all.

I never said Augustine was a Calvinist. Calvin wasn't a Calvinist. They were Christians. Calvin did most certainly glean much of his understanding of the Gospel from the teachings of Augustine. If you don't see that then you haven't studied Augustine or Calvin, or Luther for that matter.

And if you believe his writings reflected Protestantism, you have read nether him or Catholicism in the least.

I told you already that I don't believe man, in his fallen state, is capable of comprehensively and exhaustively grasping the fullness of the Truth. If he was then your church would just issue ex cathedra statements about every single verse.

What do you think an ex cathedra statement is? It is when the Church calls a council to proclaim a dogma of faith in order to protect, transmit, in-force, persevere or explain a doctrine that has already been given to us through the ceased, closed, public revelation of God which is his written and oral word.

The Church does not prohibit us from reading and interpreting the bible, nor do they condemn us if we get something incorrect but what we can not do is teach what we think something the Church has not defined dogmatic, as a truth. We can hold any pious belief we wish as long as it does not contradict the deposit of faith that we have already been given.

Of course not. I think His Truth was revealed to them then. Over the years I think that Truth got distorted by some wicked people and that's why the reformation happened. It was a call to return to the faith that Christ and the Apostles taught.

I really am going to need some citations to support this one, please.

Uh oh!!!! That statement was in Romans, a book by Paul. He must have really meant this:

Would you mind toning down the sarcasm? I find it unbecoming.

Why would Paul have meant “many” and not all, when back then, one could have used all to say all just they way the could have used many to convey all, since it was a known factthat the two words shared the same meaning?

I wasn't aware that even Catholics believed that they "fully grasped" the Word of God. Are you honestly telling me that there is nothing about the Word that Catholics are unsure of?

I am personally unsure about many things, but thank God for his Church.

That is why God gave us a Church, so we could be sure that we are being taught the truth about him.

Do all Catholics have the same interpretation? If not (which I know the answer is a resounding NO), does that mean that the Holy Spirit isn't One and True or could it just possibly be that people can make mistakes and the Holy Spirit is still One and True.

I do not know about all the Catholics who have different interpretations, all I know is that the Church does not and that is all that matters, we do not give any credence or attention let alone assent to those who interpret scripture for themselves whether they be Catholic or non Catholic so your point is moot.

So no church except the Catholic church are from God? What are the rest of us, just a bunch of heathens?

Don, I am just going to dismiss this all together because you should know me better by now, that I do not think that and I am quit tired of having to repeat myself to those who should know me better.

Tell me honestly how you think it would come across if I went in to the OBOB forum, also a limited debate forum, and said, "God gave us just one church, and it's not the Catholic church?" Do you think I'd get reported?

Don, where in any of my post, not just in this thread but any thread have I said that born again Christians are not members of the one Church of Jesus Christ?

Do you think Jesus has one body or many? That was my point, not that non-Catholics Christians are not a part of the body of Christ. That is baring false witness to even assume that I would suggest otherwise.

You don't say that Scripture is part of Tradition?

To be honest, I do not know what I said. However, this is what I know, that the written word of God is his written word, and the oral word of God is his oral word. They are both equally are God’s reveal truth that was handed down to us by the apostles.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Don,

Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is by grace and not works. I see no conflict with four of the five points of calvinism that I mentioned and Roman Catholicism.
Jansenism however has been declared heresy by Pope Innocent X, in 1653. Jansenism contains the belief in Limited Atonement. First, let me comment on what is meant by heretic. A person has to be baptized catholic in order to be declared a heretic if they preach heretical doctrines. They must willingly and knowingly renounce their catholic faith. I just wanted to clarify that I am not calling any protestants heretics. I am just stating a fact of what the Pope did.
Now to the question of why the Roman Catholic Church declared "Limited Atonement", Heretical. I cannot say for sure; I need more research, but my thinking goes along this line. The call of the Gospel is universal. Christ commanded us to preach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. The big unknown is the identity of the elect. We won't know who they are until we are told by God Himself. So, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, we must allow both to grow in the church until their works are revealed on the last day. We don't know who is saved and who is not, so we put forth the universal call of the Gospel. The preaching of limited atonement causes unnecessary discord and strife in the body of Christ and leads to endless speculation as to the identity of those elect, so the Pope declared it heretical.
I would also like to point out that "sole fide" is not contained in the "five points", so my catholic faith is not in conflict with the rest of calvinism. The catholic church teaches salvation by grace through faith, and saving faith always results in good works. We teach that saving faith is not a one time event, but a way of life. The Bible says that we are predestined to good works and faith without works is dead. The catholic church trains the faithful in works of righteousness in order to make their calling and election sure. Take Matthew 25, where Jesus describes the seperation of the sheep and the goats. The sheep were the ones that did good works; the goats neglected good works. There is no mention of "sole fide" at that judgement. Even Martin Luther in the quote in your signature says that we are not saved by "...a faith that is alone".
I hope that this clears up your confusion about my being a Roman Catholic, but recognizing truth in Calvin's doctrine. There are many more things that I would like to discuss with you, Don, if you are willing.

Can you tell me which catholic teachings you find in error?

In Christ,

Jerome