Exactly. If you accept some tradition and reject others because it's all subordinated to your interpretation of scripture, you only have one rule of faith.
Protestant feeling the pull of Catholicism questions
11,260 Views |
181 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Captain Pablo
Blanco Jimenez said:
This may be a TLDR for a lot of folks but I've lurked here a long time and I'm in search of some answers. A little background, I've been Protestant my whole life. I grew up an ELCA Lutheran and converted to Southern Baptist in my mid 20's because the ELCA had, in my opinion, gone entirely too far left and away from God's word. Fast forward a few years and I've married another Baptist and have kids.
There is something about the Catholic Mass that has always been a draw for me. It's become something that has been on my heart and mind a lot lately. I honestly have been feeling that as Baptist, our church service is just too casual. Not in dress but in reverence for the Lord and the Word. On major church holidays, I take my family to church with my parents in the Lutheran church because I feel the need for the formality, but even this Easter, it wasn't near enough.
I have the desire to learn more. I feel like I need to learn more but there's a few roadblocks. First is that I am very involved in my congregation. I just served on our pastor search committee for close to a year to replace our pastor. My wife has even been asked if I had interest in being a deacon in the congregation. I feel like I have a strong personal relationship with my Savior even though I constantly fall short of where I should be as a Christian.
Second, my wife is a cradle to the grave Southern Baptist. She has very strong anti-Catholic stances and feelings and makes that known. My sister converted to Catholicism when she married so I get to hear about it sometimes. It is important to me that my family goes to church together. I want my wife and sons with me in church.
My question here is, how can I reconcile this? I know many conversations will need to be had with my family, but I foresee major road blocks. How can I learn more about the Church before I have these conversations? I also want to make sure that these feelings I have about Catholicism are real and that it's truly something I want to explore more.
I appreciate any guidance on this. I know a lot of you are strong in your faith and look forward to learning more.
Keep the following verses in mind when learning Catholic doctrines.
Galatians 1:8-9 esv
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
For anyone creating their own version of Christianity, the first thing they have to do is eliminate the belief that the original scriptures are sufficient for following Christ.
The Catholic Church essentially says that Jesus and the apostles negligently forgot to tell us a whole bunch of things and so the Catholic Church is here to save the day from the stupid mistakes made by Jesus and the apostles.
Blanco Jimenez said:
This may be a TLDR for a lot of folks but I've lurked here a long time and I'm in search of some answers. A little background, I've been Protestant my whole life. I grew up an ELCA Lutheran and converted to Southern Baptist in my mid 20's because the ELCA had, in my opinion, gone entirely too far left and away from God's word. Fast forward a few years and I've married another Baptist and have kids.
There is something about the Catholic Mass that has always been a draw for me. It's become something that has been on my heart and mind a lot lately. I honestly have been feeling that as Baptist, our church service is just too casual. Not in dress but in reverence for the Lord and the Word. On major church holidays, I take my family to church with my parents in the Lutheran church because I feel the need for the formality, but even this Easter, it wasn't near enough.
I have the desire to learn more. I feel like I need to learn more but there's a few roadblocks. First is that I am very involved in my congregation. I just served on our pastor search committee for close to a year to replace our pastor. My wife has even been asked if I had interest in being a deacon in the congregation. I feel like I have a strong personal relationship with my Savior even though I constantly fall short of where I should be as a Christian.
Second, my wife is a cradle to the grave Southern Baptist. She has very strong anti-Catholic stances and feelings and makes that known. My sister converted to Catholicism when she married so I get to hear about it sometimes. It is important to me that my family goes to church together. I want my wife and sons with me in church.
My question here is, how can I reconcile this? I know many conversations will need to be had with my family, but I foresee major road blocks. How can I learn more about the Church before I have these conversations? I also want to make sure that these feelings I have about Catholicism are real and that it's truly something I want to explore more.
I appreciate any guidance on this. I know a lot of you are strong in your faith and look forward to learning more.
The Catholic Church teaches that Paul is wrong and that the scriptures are INCOMPLETE. Who do you believe, the Roman Church or Paul?
1 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Blanco Jimenez said:
This may be a TLDR for a lot of folks but I've lurked here a long time and I'm in search of some answers. A little background, I've been Protestant my whole life. I grew up an ELCA Lutheran and converted to Southern Baptist in my mid 20's because the ELCA had, in my opinion, gone entirely too far left and away from God's word. Fast forward a few years and I've married another Baptist and have kids.
There is something about the Catholic Mass that has always been a draw for me. It's become something that has been on my heart and mind a lot lately. I honestly have been feeling that as Baptist, our church service is just too casual. Not in dress but in reverence for the Lord and the Word. On major church holidays, I take my family to church with my parents in the Lutheran church because I feel the need for the formality, but even this Easter, it wasn't near enough.
I have the desire to learn more. I feel like I need to learn more but there's a few roadblocks. First is that I am very involved in my congregation. I just served on our pastor search committee for close to a year to replace our pastor. My wife has even been asked if I had interest in being a deacon in the congregation. I feel like I have a strong personal relationship with my Savior even though I constantly fall short of where I should be as a Christian.
Second, my wife is a cradle to the grave Southern Baptist. She has very strong anti-Catholic stances and feelings and makes that known. My sister converted to Catholicism when she married so I get to hear about it sometimes. It is important to me that my family goes to church together. I want my wife and sons with me in church.
My question here is, how can I reconcile this? I know many conversations will need to be had with my family, but I foresee major road blocks. How can I learn more about the Church before I have these conversations? I also want to make sure that these feelings I have about Catholicism are real and that it's truly something I want to explore more.
I appreciate any guidance on this. I know a lot of you are strong in your faith and look forward to learning more.
Invest 90 minutes and listen to this video. If you believe the Bible you'll NEVER become a part of the Catholic Cult.
M1Buckeye said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:The Banned said:AgLiving06 said:Zobel said:
there is no alternative to scripture + xyz. everyone has an interpretive lens.
There is a significant difference between
1. "Scripture + Tradition" are my dual streams of theology
2. Scripture is my source and norm and I will utilize tradition, reason, experience, etc to try and understand it.
To point 2 I ask again: how do you respond to someone who says the Bible says X and you disagree? How would one settle that dispute?
Pretty abstract request, but the standard methodology.
1. Start by identifying all of the "clear passages of Scripture" that talk about the particular topic at hand. This includes proper exegesis and not just proof texting out of context.
2. Key historical developments. Were the fathers talking about this? Was there uniformity or disagreement (it's almost always disagreement). What were their key defenses
3. What key documents exist within my own tradition that might address this topic.
4. What's the current debate over the topic?
5. What position can be articulated and defended from above?
In practical terms though, if it's just a casual conversation, like occurs here, mostly pointing to the clear passage is sufficient to progress the conversation. Maybe it becomes necessary to look at how the historical fathers thought through things, but that's about it.
So you appeal to an authority outside of scripture itself, yes? If you're going to look into historical teachings of the fathers to help you interpret the sticky passages, you are using extra-biblical tradition to settle difficult matters.
Tradition gave us scripture. Tradition helps interpret scripture. They go together hand in glove. When difficult matters arise, someone or some body of people somewhere needs to be able define what is truth. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit guides that process and personally intervenes to make sure we don't teach error. And this process has been credibly successful in shutting down the Arian heresy, defining the Trinity and a whole host of things even Protestants are thankful for.
Is this the first time you've heard of Sola Scriptura?
It's not solo Scriptura. It's not Scripture on it's own.
For anyone creating their own version of Christianity, the first thing they have to do is eliminate the belief that the original scriptures are sufficient for following Christ.
The Catholic Church essentially says that Jesus and the apostles negligently forgot to tell us a whole bunch of things and so the Catholic Church is here to save the day from the stupid mistakes made by Jesus and the apostles.
This is helpful. Thank you
Blanco Jimenez said:
This may be a TLDR for a lot of folks but I've lurked here a long time and I'm in search of some answers. A little background, I've been Protestant my whole life. I grew up an ELCA Lutheran and converted to Southern Baptist in my mid 20's because the ELCA had, in my opinion, gone entirely too far left and away from God's word. Fast forward a few years and I've married another Baptist and have kids.
There is something about the Catholic Mass that has always been a draw for me. It's become something that has been on my heart and mind a lot lately. I honestly have been feeling that as Baptist, our church service is just too casual. Not in dress but in reverence for the Lord and the Word. On major church holidays, I take my family to church with my parents in the Lutheran church because I feel the need for the formality, but even this Easter, it wasn't near enough.
I have the desire to learn more. I feel like I need to learn more but there's a few roadblocks. First is that I am very involved in my congregation. I just served on our pastor search committee for close to a year to replace our pastor. My wife has even been asked if I had interest in being a deacon in the congregation. I feel like I have a strong personal relationship with my Savior even though I constantly fall short of where I should be as a Christian.
Second, my wife is a cradle to the grave Southern Baptist. She has very strong anti-Catholic stances and feelings and makes that known. My sister converted to Catholicism when she married so I get to hear about it sometimes. It is important to me that my family goes to church together. I want my wife and sons with me in church.
My question here is, how can I reconcile this? I know many conversations will need to be had with my family, but I foresee major road blocks. How can I learn more about the Church before I have these conversations? I also want to make sure that these feelings I have about Catholicism are real and that it's truly something I want to explore more.
I appreciate any guidance on this. I know a lot of you are strong in your faith and look forward to learning more.
The Quran says that Jesus is only a prophet and is NOT the path to salvation. The Pope is supposed to be the "Vicar" of Christ here on Earth and here he is kissing that blasphemous book of LIES. Jesus would NEVER kiss that abomination. pic.twitter.com/sjM9MfNEMw
— Buckeye66 (@Buckeye662) June 13, 2023
Do you think you're winning people over with this stuff? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
Bob Lee said:
Do you think you're winning people over with this stuff? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
I'm demonstrating the falsehood of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church is loved and recognized by the WORLD. What does the Bible tell us about the world? Doesn't it say that "...if you were of the world it would love you as its own..."?
Open your eyes my brother. I was in that cult for 50 years.
M1Buckeye said:Bob Lee said:
Do you think you're winning people over with this stuff? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
I'm demonstrating the falsehood of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church is loved and recognized by the WORLD. What does the Bible tell us about the world? Doesn't it say that "...if you were of the world it would love you as its own..."?
Open your eyes my brother. I was in that cult for 50 years.
The Catholic Church is loved by the world? You are really lowering the level of discourse here. You genuinely felt the world was on your side as a catholic?
The Banned said:M1Buckeye said:Bob Lee said:
Do you think you're winning people over with this stuff? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
I'm demonstrating the falsehood of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church is loved and recognized by the WORLD. What does the Bible tell us about the world? Doesn't it say that "...if you were of the world it would love you as its own..."?
Open your eyes my brother. I was in that cult for 50 years.
The Catholic Church is loved by the world? You are really lowering the level of discourse here. You genuinely felt the world was on your side as a catholic?
The Catholic Church is the ONLY faith system in the world that is recognized by the world. World leaders fall all over themselves to visit the Vatican and, of course, to host the Pope.
I'm sorry, my brother. I don't wish to offend you but, rather, to open your eyes.
Nobody seems to understand anything except you and everything seems to always agree with what you want. Odd how that works.
Of course, we both know why you have to defend Rome in these arguments...because the arguments that apply to them, also apply to the EOdox and you have to protect against that.
The irony of course is that you, like Rome, seem to consistently fail to actually support your position. You just assume you speak the gospel and we should accept it.
In this case, I provided their own position for them. Their response as is yours is great on paper, but useless in reality.
Your claim is that the two streams of tradition don't subordinate one another, but as I've already shown, that's not true.
One stream made a claim about Mary. One stream made a claim about the Pope. One stream made a claim about indulgences. One stream made a claim about purgatory. Wanna take a guess what that one stream is.
So per usual, we can live in the theoretical/abstract world you think exists, or we can live in the messy reality that we are a fallen society, and when mankind has the ability to utilize an "unwritten" tradition to push what they want, to no surprise they do.
As I already pointed out, Rome and the EOdox (and probably the coptics and whoever else), all claim an unwritten tradition, all "received from the Apostles," and yet none of yall agree on what that tradition says.
So for all the bluster about how Sola Scriptura can't be correct because people disagree, it is no different than all those supposed "ancient" groups with their "unwritten" tradition that still doesn't agree.
Of course, we both know why you have to defend Rome in these arguments...because the arguments that apply to them, also apply to the EOdox and you have to protect against that.
The irony of course is that you, like Rome, seem to consistently fail to actually support your position. You just assume you speak the gospel and we should accept it.
In this case, I provided their own position for them. Their response as is yours is great on paper, but useless in reality.
Your claim is that the two streams of tradition don't subordinate one another, but as I've already shown, that's not true.
One stream made a claim about Mary. One stream made a claim about the Pope. One stream made a claim about indulgences. One stream made a claim about purgatory. Wanna take a guess what that one stream is.
So per usual, we can live in the theoretical/abstract world you think exists, or we can live in the messy reality that we are a fallen society, and when mankind has the ability to utilize an "unwritten" tradition to push what they want, to no surprise they do.
As I already pointed out, Rome and the EOdox (and probably the coptics and whoever else), all claim an unwritten tradition, all "received from the Apostles," and yet none of yall agree on what that tradition says.
So for all the bluster about how Sola Scriptura can't be correct because people disagree, it is no different than all those supposed "ancient" groups with their "unwritten" tradition that still doesn't agree.
M1Buckeye said:The Banned said:M1Buckeye said:Bob Lee said:
Do you think you're winning people over with this stuff? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
I'm demonstrating the falsehood of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church is loved and recognized by the WORLD. What does the Bible tell us about the world? Doesn't it say that "...if you were of the world it would love you as its own..."?
Open your eyes my brother. I was in that cult for 50 years.
The Catholic Church is loved by the world? You are really lowering the level of discourse here. You genuinely felt the world was on your side as a catholic?
The Catholic Church is the ONLY faith system in the world that is recognized by the world. World leaders fall all over themselves to visit the Vatican and, of course, to host the Pope.
I'm sorry, my brother. I don't wish to offend you but, rather, to open your eyes.
I'm very willing to open my eyes, if they are shut. Having spoken to a variety of Protestants, atheists, agnostics and even "Catholics in name only" I can say that our faith is not at all welcome to the world.
All forms of contraception are evil? That didn't go over well
The Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Jesus? Get roundly mocked for that one.
The first book of the Bible wasn't written for 20 years, all books weren't written for nearly 100 and it required a council of bishops asking the Holy Spirit to lead them in discerning what was truly scripture means than sola scriptura is false prima facie? Yah, a good chunk of Christians hate you for that.
You're going to have to be much clearer on what you mean by "recognized". Sure, the Vatican gets political emissaries. That doesn't mean they give a second thought about the faith itself. Are you saying that when a president meets with the president of the SBC that he "recognizes" the SBC in the same manner as you've characterized the Catholic Church? Shall we dismiss all Baptist theology on the grounds that political leaders seek approval from them?
The Banned said:
Claim: the Bible is inerrant
Rebuttal: The Bible doesn't say that
We both agree the Bible is inerrant. I believe that was authoritatively and infallibly defined by The Church, led by the Holy Spirit. How do you arrive at this conclusion without any level of true authority and why should I believe you or whoever you're depending on to arrive at that conclusion? If they weren't given the charism of infallibility, why can't we review the words today for ourselves and arrive at conclusions that hold equal weight to theirs?
Appeal to tradition and history all you want. I can claim those guys were wrong. I can cite verses that give me reason to believe they're wrong. Under your theology we have no way to settle this, and even by appealing to church structure and authority, I can suggest that those passages have been misinterpreted as well.
How can we infallibly say the scriptures are infallible when they scriptures don't call themselves infallible without an infallible authority led by the Spirit? Any debater on sola scriptura I've heard accepts this as some sort of brute fact but that is still a fallible position if they want to be consistent.
Yes. But none of this matters, because you aren't beholden to the Church, but specifically to the Pope and his Magisterium. That's the difference. Your true authority isn't the Scripture, but that authority,
----------------
"How can we infallibly say the scriptures are infallible when they scriptures don't call themselves infallible without an infallible authority led by the Spirit? Any debater on sola scriptura I've heard accepts this as some sort of brute fact but that is still a fallible position if they want to be consistent."
This is of course hugely problematic for you as well. Are you claiming that Rome also decided the OT canon? Because if not, you have a problem. Or are you saying, authority is arbitrary only when it fits what you want.
AgLiving06 said:
So for all the bluster about how Sola Scriptura can't be correct...
Paul told us that the scriptures are sufficient for the man of God to be complete. Obviously, the Catholic Church refutes Paul's teaching.
1 Timothy 3:16-17 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The Banned said:M1Buckeye said:Bob Lee said:
Do you think you're winning people over with this stuff? What is it you're trying to accomplish?
I'm demonstrating the falsehood of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church is loved and recognized by the WORLD. What does the Bible tell us about the world? Doesn't it say that "...if you were of the world it would love you as its own..."?
Open your eyes my brother. I was in that cult for 50 years.
The Catholic Church is loved by the world? You are really lowering the level of discourse here. You genuinely felt the world was on your side as a catholic?
I believe that around 85 nations have embassies at the Vatican.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_to_the_Holy_See
i didn't say no one could understand anything, i said you don't understand the claims you're arguing against. the reason this is apparent is because you keep misrepresenting them, even when they are clarified. so either you don't understand or you don't want to. case in point, you continue to talk about "unwritten" tradition when that's not what tradition means, and you keep pressing on an issue when people have told you that is not what they believe.
as for supporting my position, there has been an affirmative defense or explanation posed a couple of times in this thread. even quoted scripture, which seems to be conspicuously absent from your posts on the topic.
at any rate, there are two axiomatic position being thrown out. One is the idea of <<scripture>> as a thing which exists and is taken for granted without support, source, history, generation, or context...out of nowhere, as it were. The other is the idea of perspicacity of scripture, that because this axiomatic scripture exists we must also axiomatically accept that it is self-revealing or self-clarifying. Neither of these are scriptural, of course, and no one quotes scripture to support them. both are historically unworkable as principles and demonstrably false in history. when confronted with these, the response is not to defend them. i don't think i have seen an attempt to address either of these two issues, even though they have been brought up several times. they're carefully avoided.
what comes next is actually sad, because rather than post an affirmative defense of these core beliefs, the response is a tu quoque - "you also". this is bad enough in the context of a discussion with no real importance, but in the discussion about faith and the Church such a response is destructive to the ideas of truth and the promises of Christ. it is tantamount to saying that because there is disagreement, there can be no truth - truly in the spirit of Voltaire when he said "a long dispute means that both parties are wrong." Or in this case, a long dispute means nobody is right.
i disagree with the RCC on several things - some trivial, some quite severe and to the point of anathema. but this agreement absolutely does not extend to the destruction of the promise that the Church has been lead into the truth by the Spirit, will not fail, and indeed is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
i don't believe i have anything else to say on this matter, so feel free to have the last word.
as for supporting my position, there has been an affirmative defense or explanation posed a couple of times in this thread. even quoted scripture, which seems to be conspicuously absent from your posts on the topic.
at any rate, there are two axiomatic position being thrown out. One is the idea of <<scripture>> as a thing which exists and is taken for granted without support, source, history, generation, or context...out of nowhere, as it were. The other is the idea of perspicacity of scripture, that because this axiomatic scripture exists we must also axiomatically accept that it is self-revealing or self-clarifying. Neither of these are scriptural, of course, and no one quotes scripture to support them. both are historically unworkable as principles and demonstrably false in history. when confronted with these, the response is not to defend them. i don't think i have seen an attempt to address either of these two issues, even though they have been brought up several times. they're carefully avoided.
what comes next is actually sad, because rather than post an affirmative defense of these core beliefs, the response is a tu quoque - "you also". this is bad enough in the context of a discussion with no real importance, but in the discussion about faith and the Church such a response is destructive to the ideas of truth and the promises of Christ. it is tantamount to saying that because there is disagreement, there can be no truth - truly in the spirit of Voltaire when he said "a long dispute means that both parties are wrong." Or in this case, a long dispute means nobody is right.
i disagree with the RCC on several things - some trivial, some quite severe and to the point of anathema. but this agreement absolutely does not extend to the destruction of the promise that the Church has been lead into the truth by the Spirit, will not fail, and indeed is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
i don't believe i have anything else to say on this matter, so feel free to have the last word.
The Vatican is a nation, a sovereign country. By this standard every country is evil, lol
They are recognizing the nation not the religion.
This is one of your weakest arguments
They are recognizing the nation not the religion.
This is one of your weakest arguments
Your standard response. When you really can't defend it, you hide behind "I have nothing more to say..."
We see it though. You don't actually support your claim, but state it and hope nobody looks further.
My claim is very simple.
We have two groups, Rome and EOdox that claim two things as infallible (Rome makes this clear at Trent with no differentiation regardless of what you claim):
1. Scripture
2. Unwritten Tradition
The two groups disagree on what their infallible unwritten tradition says and yet both use the claim of that infallibility to determine what the Scripture says.
Unless you're now agreeing the Pope is the Supreme authority, you have a problem and we all know it.
We see it though. You don't actually support your claim, but state it and hope nobody looks further.
My claim is very simple.
We have two groups, Rome and EOdox that claim two things as infallible (Rome makes this clear at Trent with no differentiation regardless of what you claim):
1. Scripture
2. Unwritten Tradition
The two groups disagree on what their infallible unwritten tradition says and yet both use the claim of that infallibility to determine what the Scripture says.
Unless you're now agreeing the Pope is the Supreme authority, you have a problem and we all know it.
jrico2727 said:
The Vatican is a nation, a sovereign country. By this standard every country is evil, lol
They are recognizing the nation not the religion.
This is one of your weakest arguments
You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I said in order to "win an argument". I didn't say that the Catholic Church is "evil". Your dishonest response comes off as something a cultist would say.
I said that the Catholic Church is "of the world" and that it is accepted and loved by the world, which is an indisputable FACT.
You have been in every thread trashing the Church falselyM1Buckeye said:jrico2727 said:
The Vatican is a nation, a sovereign country. By this standard every country is evil, lol
They are recognizing the nation not the religion.
This is one of your weakest arguments
You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I said in order to "win an argument". I didn't say that the Catholic Church is "evil". Your dishonest response comes off as something a cultist would say.
I said that the Catholic Church is "of the world" and that it is accepted and loved by the world, which is an indisputable FACT.
It is hard to take you seriously
I have trouble determining if you are just a troll in general or a bored Catholic coming on here giving a caricature of poor protestant apologetics
And I am fairly certain the Martyrology of the Catholic Church that extends from St. Stephen to the present day would paint a different picture of the world's acceptance of the Catholic Church.
Doesn't anyone else see the blatant contradiction in this?Quote:
i disagree with the RCC on several things - some trivial, some quite severe and to the point of anathema. but this agreement absolutely does not extend to the destruction of the promise that the Church has been lead into the truth by the Spirit, will not fail, and indeed is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Zobel sees error in the RCC "to the point of anathema" yet also is adamant that the Church (apparently the RCC since that is what he's referencing) has been lead [sic] into the truth by the Spirit "and is indeed the pillar and foundation of the truth".
Both can't be true.
Also, I am curious what authority Zobel relies upon for his conclusion that the RCC is wrong on anything.
Hang in there AgLiving, you're doing a great job!
jrico2727 said:You have been in every thread trashing the Church falselyM1Buckeye said:jrico2727 said:
The Vatican is a nation, a sovereign country. By this standard every country is evil, lol
They are recognizing the nation not the religion.
This is one of your weakest arguments
You're deliberately mischaracterizing what I said in order to "win an argument". I didn't say that the Catholic Church is "evil". Your dishonest response comes off as something a cultist would say.
I said that the Catholic Church is "of the world" and that it is accepted and loved by the world, which is an indisputable FACT.
It is hard to take you seriously
I have trouble determining if you are just a troll in general or a bored Catholic coming on here giving a caricature of poor protestant apologetics
And I am fairly certain the Martyrology of the Catholic Church that extends from St. Stephen to the present day would paint a different picture of the world's acceptance of the Catholic Church.
I attack Catholic doctrines just as you attack me.
Zobel also says this:
I'll turn the RCC argument on its face - they incorrectly claim that the church created the Canon, but if so, then from what did the church obtain its authority? They constantly point to the verse in which Jesus is talking to Peter and states that upon this rock I will build my church (which can mean a lot of things). But that then becomes a circular argument - that is, the church is turning to Scripture for its own authority, the Scripture that the church claimsh as authority only because of it.
Protestants, on the other hand, don't believe it was the church councils that created the canon. The canon existed long before the church councils. From history, it is clear that the primary purpose of the early councils on the Bible was to exclude books being proposed as additions to the canon, not to create a canon from nothing. Protestants believe that the scriptures are self-authenticating and it is the testimony of the Holy Spirit within our individual lives that provides the strongest evidence that they are God-breathed. It's the same testimony of the Holy Spirit that Zobel and the RCC rely on in advising posters how to choose a church.
One, that's not true. Second, the precisely same criticism, if not more, can be made about the Church councils and the magisterium. That is, from whence do they get their authority?Quote:
One is the idea of <<scripture>> as a thing which exists and is taken for granted without support, source, history, generation, or context...out of nowhere, as it were. The other is the idea of perspicacity of scripture, that because this axiomatic scripture exists we must also axiomatically accept that it is self-revealing or self-clarifying.
I'll turn the RCC argument on its face - they incorrectly claim that the church created the Canon, but if so, then from what did the church obtain its authority? They constantly point to the verse in which Jesus is talking to Peter and states that upon this rock I will build my church (which can mean a lot of things). But that then becomes a circular argument - that is, the church is turning to Scripture for its own authority, the Scripture that the church claimsh as authority only because of it.
Protestants, on the other hand, don't believe it was the church councils that created the canon. The canon existed long before the church councils. From history, it is clear that the primary purpose of the early councils on the Bible was to exclude books being proposed as additions to the canon, not to create a canon from nothing. Protestants believe that the scriptures are self-authenticating and it is the testimony of the Holy Spirit within our individual lives that provides the strongest evidence that they are God-breathed. It's the same testimony of the Holy Spirit that Zobel and the RCC rely on in advising posters how to choose a church.
Jesus granted the Apostles their authority, and the apostles passed on their authority through the laying on of hands. In order for it to be a circular argument, you'd have to disprove these as a matter of historical record. Not merely that they aren't scriptural. But that they aren't true. I don't think you want to go down that road.
How do you know that to be true? What is your source?Quote:
Jesus granted the Apostles their authority, and the apostles passed on their authority through the laying on of hands.
Jabin said:How do you know that to be true? What is your source?Quote:
Jesus granted the Apostles their authority, and the apostles passed on their authority through the laying on of hands.
1 and 2 Timothy, and Acts
You are making my point. You rely on the Bible to establish the Church's authority. You cannot also rely on the Church to establish the Bible's authority. That's circular.
Jabin said:
You are making my point. You rely on the Bible to establish the Church's authority. You cannot also rely on the Church to establish the Bible's authority. That's circular.
Where did I say their authority (either of them) is derived from each other. To be clear, you've gone from one infallible rule of faith to zero infallible rules of faith?
Bob Lee said:Jabin said:How do you know that to be true? What is your source?Quote:
Jesus granted the Apostles their authority, and the apostles passed on their authority through the laying on of hands.
Why not paste the actual verses rather than asking the reader to go look them up?
1 and 2 Timothy, and Acts
I posted the above ACCIDENTALLY in Bob's message.
Sorry!
I don't know the actual verses.
I'm Catholic
I'm Catholic
You are completely missing the point.Bob Lee said:Jabin said:
You are making my point. You rely on the Bible to establish the Church's authority. You cannot also rely on the Church to establish the Bible's authority. That's circular.
Where did I say their authority (either of them) is derived from each other. To be clear, you've gone from one infallible rule of faith to zero infallible rules of faith?
And to be clear, I view the Bible as the only source of authority and the basis of our faith. I put little to no trust on the traditions of fallible men and their institutions.
Jabin said:You are completely missing the point.Bob Lee said:Jabin said:
You are making my point. You rely on the Bible to establish the Church's authority. You cannot also rely on the Church to establish the Bible's authority. That's circular.
Where did I say their authority (either of them) is derived from each other. To be clear, you've gone from one infallible rule of faith to zero infallible rules of faith?
And to be clear, I view the Bible as the only source of authority and the basis of our faith. I put little to no trust on the traditions of fallible men and their institutions.
You said I rely on the Bible to establish the Church's authority. That isn't true. These are things that happened whether or not they were transcribed.
How would you build the development of the theology of the Trinity into your framework? Not a "gotcha" or a trick question. I generally agree with what you've laid out in terms of the challenges associated with the elevated nature of Tradition in the Roman and EO worlds.AgLiving06 said:
Your standard response. When you really can't defend it, you hide behind "I have nothing more to say..."
We see it though. You don't actually support your claim, but state it and hope nobody looks further.
My claim is very simple.
We have two groups, Rome and EOdox that claim two things as infallible (Rome makes this clear at Trent with no differentiation regardless of what you claim):
1. Scripture
2. Unwritten Tradition
The two groups disagree on what their infallible unwritten tradition says and yet both use the claim of that infallibility to determine what the Scripture says.
Unless you're now agreeing the Pope is the Supreme authority, you have a problem and we all know it.
Having said that, the struggle to develop a solid superstructure of dogma and doctrine in the early church - say, pre-4th century - does create some interesting questions for our side of the aisle to handle as well, no?
Pretty much every scholar of every flavor out there - Protestant, Reformed, Catholic, whatever - agree that the theology of the Trinity wasn't really fleshed out fully until late in the 3rd century. Said another way - what all mainline denominations today (Trinitarian anyway) hold as dogmatic today was, at best, a strong theory in the 2nd Century - to be "ratified' at Nicea in 325; AND is mentioned nowhere directly in Scripture.
And - at the risk of putting too fine a point upon it - one could argue that the very reason the doctrine was developed was to shore up orthodox Christian dogma against Gnosticism (more in the 2nd century) and Arianism - or in other words to suppress schismatic activity. That the doctrine happened to be true and now ,with the benefit of 1700 years or so of hindsight, obvious - is beside the point.
We all rely on - (ignoring Nicea - which few if any mainline Trinitarian denominations do) - an unwritten...analysis?...well supported and perhaps "evident" as it may be - to underpin our theology and doctrine.
And I would appreciate Zobel's view upon this as well - especially if I've mis-stepped in my early church history (which I very likely have and apologize for in advance).
Let me start with the primary issue. Over 2000 years, man has built walls that weren't there with our manmade definitions of Church. Modern day Rome didn't exist, modern day EOdox didn't exist.
So with that, lets talk through your question? How would it have been resolved? Exactly how it was resolved because the Church wasn't broken then like it is now. The Councils themselves aren't correct because they are infallible. They are correct because they spoke the truth of what the Scriptures said.
What we should be doing today, is what was done then. Come together as the Christian Church to argue and debate and figure out and try to become the one Church Christ left. Instead the walls are up and so we fight and cherrypick people from one group or the other.
So with that, lets talk through your question? How would it have been resolved? Exactly how it was resolved because the Church wasn't broken then like it is now. The Councils themselves aren't correct because they are infallible. They are correct because they spoke the truth of what the Scriptures said.
What we should be doing today, is what was done then. Come together as the Christian Church to argue and debate and figure out and try to become the one Church Christ left. Instead the walls are up and so we fight and cherrypick people from one group or the other.
Featured Stories
See All
Players to Watch: No. 20 Texas A&M vs. No. 3 Texas
by Olin Buchanan
85:33
1d ago
6.1k
11:37
3h ago
1.3k
25:08
7h ago
1.1k