The quiet despair of Protestants

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
[I know this is somewhat of a long post, so I have a request to make for those of you who will skim it: If you only read 1 paragraph, read the one I've bolded. Thank you, and may God's blessings be ever in your soul!:amen:]

Since coming to college, I've gotten very involved in the Christian Campus House (CCH). Due to the demographic of the area, most of the people I know are Protestant. I've been involved in small groups with CCH for 2 years now, talked a lot with a lot of my Protestant friends, and occasionally they say something that should be deeply worrying to all Christians: They believe that we don't have a Biblical truth. We often discuss many theological issues, like the dispute of faith-alone or faith-and-works, where a thoroughly Biblical argument can be made for both. In my small group now, we're reading through Romans, and various verses point in either direction.

But it's very unsettling to hear how so many decently devout Christians so readily accept the idea that we just don't know how to settle issues like faith-alone or faith-and-works. We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians often thought to be unbiblical are fierce in reverence to Holy Scripture holding the truth. But interpretations within Scripture vary wildly, and far too many Christians say that we'll never know how to settle theological issues, because everyone's interpretation of the Bible is different.

In some ways, this is correct. Sermons have applied Scripture to various parts of life for 2,000 years now, and applying a given verse or idea to various circumstances can yield different results. This is the flexibility of Scripture.

But to say there is no theological truth seems like a contradiction to the nature of God!

Jesus is the truth; no one here will deny that. But does the truth say that we are saved by faith alone (believe in me and be saved), or by faith and works (all will be judged according to their works)?

God knows the Bible was written by many different authors to different audiences from different time periods. He knows that the Bible can be hard to interpret. He also sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us out. And as long as He's forming a Church, it's only logical that He would grant His Church guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead people to the truth.

And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.

The infallibility of the Papacy is vital to preserving the truth, and the framework for it is laid out in the Bible. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

While we all have the Holy Spirit guiding us, we're imperfect in accepting it. Much of these forums would not exist if we all accepted the Spirit enough to be led to the truth, because these arguments wouldn't exist. Throughout the Old Testament, it can be said that the Prophets have infallibility. The Bible itself is believed to be true because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!

And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.

Please remember the Spirit of Gentleness & self-control as you write your responses, and thank you for taking the time to read & think about this critical issue in the Church! May God bless us all, and remind us of our complete & total dependence on Him!:priest:
What you described here is interesting. Young people tend to think for themselves more and more now and that's not a bad thing, even if sometimes we might think so. We can over-question everything but at the same time we need to have honest answers to honest questions.

And what sounds like might be happening on a larger scale now is what happened to many of us as individuals in the past. The bottom line is that you eventually find out that the doctrine of Sola scriptura is simply fallacy. There's no way that our faith has to do with best-guess exegesis or even whatever famous and erudite bible scholsrs have to say, because any two of them can easily disagree with each other widely on relevant points of the faith.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
While the Catholic Church has never claimed to have a conclusive interpretation of the Bible, it does have a solid set of teachings, in the Catechism.

So first the Roman Catholic Church is the only one with the Holy Spirit, and now it's the only one with a Catechism?

Give me a break. :doh:
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

NeedyFollower

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,024
437
63
N Carolina
✟71,145.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Celibate
[I know this is somewhat of a long post, so I have a request to make for those of you who will skim it: If you only read 1 paragraph, read the one I've bolded. Thank you, and may God's blessings be ever in your soul!:amen:]

Since coming to college, I've gotten very involved in the Christian Campus House (CCH). Due to the demographic of the area, most of the people I know are Protestant. I've been involved in small groups with CCH for 2 years now, talked a lot with a lot of my Protestant friends, and occasionally they say something that should be deeply worrying to all Christians: They believe that we don't have a Biblical truth. We often discuss many theological issues, like the dispute of faith-alone or faith-and-works, where a thoroughly Biblical argument can be made for both. In my small group now, we're reading through Romans, and various verses point in either direction.

But it's very unsettling to hear how so many decently devout Christians so readily accept the idea that we just don't know how to settle issues like faith-alone or faith-and-works. We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians often thought to be unbiblical are fierce in reverence to Holy Scripture holding the truth. But interpretations within Scripture vary wildly, and far too many Christians say that we'll never know how to settle theological issues, because everyone's interpretation of the Bible is different.

In some ways, this is correct. Sermons have applied Scripture to various parts of life for 2,000 years now, and applying a given verse or idea to various circumstances can yield different results. This is the flexibility of Scripture.

But to say there is no theological truth seems like a contradiction to the nature of God!

Jesus is the truth; no one here will deny that. But does the truth say that we are saved by faith alone (believe in me and be saved), or by faith and works (all will be judged according to their works)?

God knows the Bible was written by many different authors to different audiences from different time periods. He knows that the Bible can be hard to interpret. He also sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us out. And as long as He's forming a Church, it's only logical that He would grant His Church guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead people to the truth.

And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.

The infallibility of the Papacy is vital to preserving the truth, and the framework for it is laid out in the Bible. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

While we all have the Holy Spirit guiding us, we're imperfect in accepting it. Much of these forums would not exist if we all accepted the Spirit enough to be led to the truth, because these arguments wouldn't exist. Throughout the Old Testament, it can be said that the Prophets have infallibility. The Bible itself is believed to be true because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!

And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.

Please remember the Spirit of Gentleness & self-control as you write your responses, and thank you for taking the time to read & think about this critical issue in the Church! May God bless us all, and remind us of our complete & total dependence on Him!:priest:
Hi Brother ...While I appreciate some of John Henry Newman's sermons ( Watch , for you know not the hour " is one that sticks in my mind ), I know too much history to hold to the belief that the church has been guided by the Holy Spirit and this in both the Catholic and Protestant groups ...It is God's will that none perish and we all come to the knowledge of the TRUTH...so in order to do truth and to love truth , I have to be honest . I love Christ more than any assembly which has been called church , be it Roman C , or any of the protestant children birthed by the reformation . And I when I say truth ..I am not talking about theology per se .. For example, it would seem odd to me that so many protestant churches have the same "theme" on various holidays ..like Fathers Day or Mothers Day ( Honor your Father and Mother ) Or 4th of July ..or thanksgiving ..I believe that many in the congregations expect sermons or themes during these times but is the message driven by the Holy Spirit ? Why does God need St Peters when he said He does not dwell in a building built with hands ? No , brother ..if we are able to do "truth" , we will see that God needs nothing ...these ideas were Man driven , not Holy Spirit driven ...Only Solomon was told to build a temple ..Neamiah was told to rebuild it ...but God destroyed it in 70 AD because we are His temple . Does God care about lifeless things ? Really ? Really ? I think there is a case to be made that we have been following traditions of man for many , many years or God LOVES dead bricks , stained Glass , etc. and would that we spend His money on these type things while people go hungry . Really ? Think brother. Think .
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Unless I have misread that paragraph, what you are describing does not amount to "they believe that we don't have a Biblical truth."

It simply means that there is some disagreement among Christians of different denominations about what IS Biblical truth. You are referring to a gathering composed of members of different churches (you included), aren't you?

I read him as saying that Protestants are becoming doctrinal cynics (and perhaps relativists). One could make use of different metrics, but the multiplication of denominations and congregations since the Reformation seems like a good one. When unity of doctrine is practically nonexistent (and especially conspicuous in the information age) relativism inevitably ensues.

(Toss in the decline of theology, a lessening respect for tradition and the past, strong egalitarianism, and rampant secularization and the ante just increases.)
 
  • Useful
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

liberty of conscience

created anew
Dec 3, 2018
374
125
Visistate
Visit site
✟12,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, that's not at all what he said, nor is it the position of the Catholic Church.
Do you agree with this:?

" … Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3. " [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

I do not agree on several points, especially on the "Catholic faith" aspect which I find nowhere in scripture (I do however find "the faith of Jesus"; please keep in mind I was born into and raised Roman Catholic for 30 years, confirmed, etc.), but I do agree with the point that when I deny said points, I am "opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic church."
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Do you agree with this:?

" … Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3. " [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

" … Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty. …" [Roman Catholic Canon Law; BOOK VI. SANCTIONS IN THE CHURCH LIBER VI. DE SANCTIONIBUS IN ECCLESIA; PART II. PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL DELICTS; TITLE I. DELICTS AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 - 1369)] - Code of Canon Law - IntraText

I do not agree on several points, especially on the "Catholic faith" aspect which I find nowhere in scripture (I do however find "the faith of Jesus"; please keep in mind I was born into and raised Roman Catholic for 30 years, confirmed, etc.), but I do agree with the point that when I deny said points, I am "opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic church."
The "Catholic faith" is simply the Christian faith as per the Roman Catholic Church. That Church has simply never known another form of the faith.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
[I know this is somewhat of a long post, so I have a request to make for those of you who will skim it: If you only read 1 paragraph, read the one I've bolded. Thank you, and may God's blessings be ever in your soul!:amen:]

Since coming to college, I've gotten very involved in the Christian Campus House (CCH). Due to the demographic of the area, most of the people I know are Protestant. I've been involved in small groups with CCH for 2 years now, talked a lot with a lot of my Protestant friends, and occasionally they say something that should be deeply worrying to all Christians: They believe that we don't have a Biblical truth. We often discuss many theological issues, like the dispute of faith-alone or faith-and-works, where a thoroughly Biblical argument can be made for both. In my small group now, we're reading through Romans, and various verses point in either direction.

But it's very unsettling to hear how so many decently devout Christians so readily accept the idea that we just don't know how to settle issues like faith-alone or faith-and-works. We all believe the Bible has the truth; Catholics, non-denominationals, Orthodox, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, even the Christians often thought to be unbiblical are fierce in reverence to Holy Scripture holding the truth. But interpretations within Scripture vary wildly, and far too many Christians say that we'll never know how to settle theological issues, because everyone's interpretation of the Bible is different.

In some ways, this is correct. Sermons have applied Scripture to various parts of life for 2,000 years now, and applying a given verse or idea to various circumstances can yield different results. This is the flexibility of Scripture.

But to say there is no theological truth seems like a contradiction to the nature of God!

Jesus is the truth; no one here will deny that. But does the truth say that we are saved by faith alone (believe in me and be saved), or by faith and works (all will be judged according to their works)?

God knows the Bible was written by many different authors to different audiences from different time periods. He knows that the Bible can be hard to interpret. He also sent us the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us out. And as long as He's forming a Church, it's only logical that He would grant His Church guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead people to the truth.

And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.

The infallibility of the Papacy is vital to preserving the truth, and the framework for it is laid out in the Bible. Papal Infallibility | Catholic Answers

While we all have the Holy Spirit guiding us, we're imperfect in accepting it. Much of these forums would not exist if we all accepted the Spirit enough to be led to the truth, because these arguments wouldn't exist. Throughout the Old Testament, it can be said that the Prophets have infallibility. The Bible itself is believed to be true because of inspiration from the Holy Spirit. So it would logically follow that God would grant the modern Church infallibility on theological & moral issues!

And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.

Please remember the Spirit of Gentleness & self-control as you write your responses, and thank you for taking the time to read & think about this critical issue in the Church! May God bless us all, and remind us of our complete & total dependence on Him!:priest:
What I dont understand is why so many readily accept divisions and chalk it up to people searching for the truth.

Divisions are because of pride. My interpretation is correct. I'm ok, you're ok. We agree on most things. We agree on what's important. All hogwash. Many just dont like authority.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
[
And, as convert John Henry Newman noted, there's only 1 church that even claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit: The Catholic Church.
And as Newman (known for his labor in the Roman art of Development of Doctrine due to lack of “unanimous consent ” of the fathers - while making use of forgeries ) confessed,

It does not seem possible, then, to avoid the conclusion that, whatever be the proper key for harmonizing the records and documents of the early and later Church, and true as the dictum of Vincentius ("we..hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all") must be considered in the abstract, and possible as its application might be in his own age, when he might almost ask the primitive centuries for their testimony, it is hardly available now, or effective of any satisfactory result. The solution it offers is as difficult as the original problem. — John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., reprinted 1927), p. 27.

And even Catholic researchers (among others) provide testimony against RC papal propaganda.
And I'll state it again: Everything the Catholic church teaches is thoroughly Biblical. Getting into the apologetics for this would be far too long, but Dave Armstrong has a number of writings on the topic, after he converted from Evangelical Protestantism after doing an in-depth Bible study to disprove Catholicism.
Rather, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

As for unity, the vain imagination of RC unity is based upon the false premise that what a church officially says is the basis for determining what it believes, but which is not the Scriptural basis, which instead is based on what one does and effects, (James 2:18; Matthew 7:20) for what we choose to do manifests what we truly believe (at least at the moment).

And in partly showing what she believes, Rome treats most everyone as church members, from liberal proabortion, prohomosexual public figures to cultic traditionalists (though it is a class of which who are the ones said to be in formal schism).

And the reality is that rather than holding Scripture to be the wholly inspired and accurate and thus authoritative word of God fostering the most division, overall those who most strongly affirm this testify to being the most unified (in conservative Biblical beliefs) major religious body here, far more than Catholics, and much show it, and thus are attacked the most by both liberals and trad. RCs alike. Despite their differences, most of which should not be.

Meanwhile, having a central magisterium - which should be a goal but not as in sola ecclesia (SE) Rome with her fantasy of ensured veracity and thus require assent of faith on that basis - does not solve the problem of variant interpretations. For the interpretive body is itself subject to interpretation, and indeed, V2 has even resulted in Catholics being more divided.

Division in Catholicism consists both of things which RCs can validly disagree one, as well as variant opinions that what Rome implicitly sanctions.

Partial List Of Divergent Beliefs Between Catholics
  • Within official teachings:
  1. Where unbaptized babies go if and when they die?

  2. Geocentricity or Heliocentricity

  3. Whether Trent closed the canon or not

  4. Whether canonizations are or always infallible.

  5. Who all the [so-called] “church fathers” are.

  6. What the church Fathers meant in many cases.

  7. How many Scripture verses have been infallibly or officially interpreted.

  8. What multitudes of Scripture verses surely mean.

  9. The meaning and scope of the inerrancy of Scripture (“for our salvation” or more).

  10. The official immutable position on many theological issues.

  11. The reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom.

  12. The relationship between Scripture and Tradition: partim-partim or not.

  13. How many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are

  14. What magisterial level multitudes of teachings belong to, and thus the manner of assent required.

  15. What required assent to non-infallible official teachings all entails.

  16. The meaning of official Catholic teaching to varying degrees.

  17. How to reconcile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Lumen Gentium,and if former Catholics who die as faithful evangelical-type Protestants are lost.

  18. Whether the anathemas of Trent apply to Protestants today and what they entail.

  19. Whether or not a pope can be deposed.

  20. How many bishops are necessary for this Collegial infallibility to be ensured?

  21. Whether the Virgin Mary died and then was assumed or whether she was assumed before death

  22. Whether Roman Catholicism promoted slavery
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I've heard it from several of my Protestant friends, always along the lines of, "We have the Bible, and the Bible tells us all we need to know, but we just don't know how to interpret it to get solid teachings. We have discussions about various verses or parts of the Bible to try to figure it out, but we really don't know." They tend to bring it up for issues that aren't explicitly described in the Bible, such as marrying a non-Christian. There's the famous "Don't be yoked with non-believers" line, but in the Old Testament, Hosea is ordered by God to marry a prostitute. Malachi 3:6 says God doesn't change, so He wouldn't break His own law.
And Rome does not settle this, lacking the very thing RCs tell us we need the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility for, since we often disagree on what some of the Bible means (while RCs disagree on what their church teaches), and for decades NAB commentary and study helps have taught such errors as that historical accounts were largely "folk tales, while such things as Jonah and the fish, the Flood of Noah, and Balaam and the donkey were fables, and things like Joshua's conquests were folk tales, and the sermon on the Mount was not actually where it says, etc..

As for Hosea and "Don't be yoked," that is not left without a Scriptural answer, which is that, as with Abraham and Issac, a instance of a direct word from the Lord to a Biblical prophet (which is not what popes get or speak) providing Biblical revelation can override a general command of God in that instance (and too often presumed for missionary dating).
While the Catholic Church has never claimed to have a conclusive interpretation of the Bible, it does have a solid set of teachings, in the Catechism.
Which is subject to change, including clearly contradicting the Bible as in disallowing capital punishment .
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The bottom line is that you eventually find out that the doctrine of Sola scriptura is simply fallacy. There's no way that our faith has to do with best-guess exegesis or even whatever famous and erudite bible scholsrs have to say, because any two of them can easily disagree with each other widely on relevant points of the faith.
Which confirms that your subscribe to a strawman or unreasonable concept of SS, as if it meant only the Bible is to be used, or that sufficiency must refer to formally provides, and excludes synods and the magisterial office.

An extensive debate took place on this issue a little while ago here, by the grace of God.

Meanwhile presuming that the alternative is true, that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome being essential to ascertain what is of God (men and writings), and that being the historical magisterial stewards of the express word of God means such is that infallible magisterium, and which disallows the validity of dissent as regards binding teachings.

Now its time for me to sleep.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

liberty of conscience

created anew
Dec 3, 2018
374
125
Visistate
Visit site
✟12,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The "Catholic faith" is simply the Christian faith as per the Roman Catholic Church. That Church has simply never known another form of the faith.
True on both counts, but that is not "the faith of Jesus", but something else, entirely foreign to scripture (meaning, they redefined "Christian faith"). According to scripture when tested, "the Catholic faith" is not Christian faith, at all, but is identified as the antiChristian faith (not being mean, it is just defined that way; p.s. I didn't say 'catholics' couldn't be Christian, this is a matter of theology).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

liberty of conscience

created anew
Dec 3, 2018
374
125
Visistate
Visit site
✟12,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Absolutely.

It doesn't mean "since God has spoken infallibly in the Scriptures that therefore the Roman church teaches infallibly concerning faith and morals".

What about when, "... Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals ..."

Is that which is "proposed definitively ..." (sic) "infallible" then? In otherwords when it is so "defined" can it ever be wrong, and can you ever disagree with it while it is so defined and not incur latae sententiae excomm.?
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,375
✟241,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Division in Catholicism consists both of things which RCs can validly disagree one, as well as variant opinions that what Rome implicitly sanctions.

And yet division in Catholicism does not consist in dogma, for heretics are outside the faith and those who teach heresy are censured.

There is division in Catholicism (as well as legitimate diversity) but there are also established and effective means to limit division, and comparing the division in Catholicism to the division in Protestantism is comparing apples and oranges.

And Rome does not settle this...

Tu quoque will only get you so far. The legitimate danger expressed in the OP is not limited to Protestantism, but it is strongly localized there. It is basically the danger of Enlightenment liberalism and relativism, the childhood friends of the Protestant traditions.
 
Upvote 0

liberty of conscience

created anew
Dec 3, 2018
374
125
Visistate
Visit site
✟12,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
... It is basically the danger of Enlightenment liberalism and relativism, the childhood friends of the Protestant traditions.
Actually it is the result of the Hegelian dialectic of Jesuitism which has long since infiltrated the 'protestant' seminaries, theology dept. etc and even pulpits.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
True on both counts, but that is not "the faith of Jesus", but something else, entirely foreign to scripture (meaning, they redefined "Christian faith"). According to scripture when tested, "the Catholic faith" is not Christian faith, at all, but is identified as the antiChristian faith (not being mean, it is just defined that way; p.s. I didn't say 'catholics' couldn't be Christian, this is a matter of theology).
Thanks for your opinion, one of many from those who apparently think they can pick up the bible centuries after the fact and know (infallibly?) what the Christian faith is meant to be, all the while not necessarily agreeing with each other on it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Which confirms that your subscribe to a strawman or unreasonable concept of SS, as if it meant only the Bible is to be used, or that sufficiency must refer to formally provides, and excludes synods and the magisterial office.

An extensive debate took place on this issue a little while ago here, by the grace of God.

Meanwhile presuming that the alternative is true, that of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome being essential to ascertain what is of God (men and writings), and that being the historical magisterial stewards of the express word of God means such is that infallible magisterium, and which disallows the validity of dissent as regards binding teachings.

Now its time for me to sleep.
Wait, not yet! Awaken from thy slumber oh sleepy one, and from the deception ye laboreth under.

Sorry. Ok, so how much weight does one such as yourself place on synods and magisterial teachings? And whose synods and magisteriums? And recognize that not all non-Catholics would agree with you on that. Many are strictly and solely Scripture, accepting no input from any ancient historical legacy of the church.
 
Upvote 0

liberty of conscience

created anew
Dec 3, 2018
374
125
Visistate
Visit site
✟12,005.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for your opinion, one of many from those who apparently think they can pick up that bible centuries after the fact and know (infallibly?) what the Christian faith is meant to be, all the while not necessarily agree I with each other on it.

Do you agree with this?

Psa_33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Tit_1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh_17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Do you agree with this?

Psa_33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Tit_1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Joh_17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Of course the Word of God is truth. But whose understanding or interpretation of it? Should I agree with SS adherents such as JWs? Or Luther who believed in baptismal regeneration? Or most evangelicals who don't? Or maybe the Eastern Orthodox or other ancient churches who can at least trace their history and beliefs to a time before the New Testament was even written? And whose members wrote it?
 
Upvote 0