Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Question for Protestants in this group
I've been thinking about this discussion.It seems we could all agree that God is the ultimate authority. We could perhaps even go a step farther and say that this God is revealed in Jesus Christ (who incarnates) and the Holy Spirit (who indwells).
The question is, how do we get from God's authority to the Biblical authority?
Bryn's logic seems to be:
1. God is authoritative
2. God's representative is the Pope (the vicar of Christ, who Catholics believe is God) who speaks with God's authority
3. The Pope said which books are in the Bible.
4. The Bible is 27 books and is authoritative
This may be why I see the Pope discussion and the Bible one intertwined - we agree on premise 1 and premise 4, we just disagree on how to get there. Bryn's bridge [premises 2 and 3] is the Pope.
(Also, there seems to be a circular argument at work. If the Pope said which books are in the Bible, how can you use the Bible to support the papacy, as seen in the discussion Matt. 16. It sounds like you are saying: The Bible is authoritative because the Pope says so and the Pope is the authority because the Bible says so. I realize as a Catholic you put more stock in church tradition, so perhaps the authority for the Pope comes there. My point is, if the Pope gives the Bible authority, you can't really use the Bible to support the Pope's authority because it is a circular argument).
Anyway, if I am trying to get to premise 4 from premise 1, it seems I could say:
1. God is authoritative
2. God's clearest revelation is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh. God's Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of Jesus Christ.
3. The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers, these 27 books testify to Jesus Christ in a unique way.
4. The Bible is 27 books and is authoritative
I am not sure if those premises help - basically i am trying to replace the Pope (the person who RC's see as giving the Bible authority) with the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.
(Of course, I am bad at this sort of logic, so maybe it makes no sense)
I don't think you have convinced anyone of your opinion Bryn. The most important person you need to convince is YOURSELF. We are all working on our own little theological projects. :DIf Bob or myself mention something and don't show our source then it's YOUR job to be an expert in these issues. For your own benefit research every question thrown at you to it's fullest conclusion. Your very soul might depend on it. (Maybe not?!)
Personally I am more interested in the Bible than the Catholic Church or it's Popes. If it is possible for me to be a dedicated Christian with eternal Salvation...having never been a Catholic then I see no reason for me to bother with Catholicism.
It does sound to me like you have given the C. Church cultic status (especially the Pope!). How many cults have leaders that claim Holy Infallibility? All of them. They all mention Jesus - so I'll just stick with Jesus.
You are bringing up some great issues Bryn: but if you think you are going to convince any of us - then you are about to wear yourself out in desperation. We are a stubborn lot. :p
Brin wrote - “Bob wrote: "Most of us believe that if you follow Christ’s teaching about salvation you will make it no matter what denomination you might be or what hierarchy you follow." Catholics would agree. However, denominations don't agree on what Christ's teachings are. “
Have you not heard of Unam Sanctam?
This is a papal bull written by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302.
Direct Quote: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"outside of her (the Church) there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins".[
Brin quote - “Bob wrote: "You really have to ask yourself why we would be so open and encourage study of the Bible and Catholicism discourages it."You have been misinformed.”
the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required the bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of the Scripture, unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such readings was likely to prove beneficial.
‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)
‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise there from more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).
Brin quote - “Bob wrote: "In fact, the official Catholic Church’s stance is that if I do not follow their hierarchy then I am going to hell. This was recently reiterated by the Pope."The Church teaches that only people who die in mortal sin enter Hell.”
So, if I don’t make it to heaven based on the papal bull of Pope Boniface, then where do I go?
I saw the reiteration from the Vatican on one of the foreign news stations 4 or 5 years ago when I was out of the country, but, I couldn’t find it on the internet.
As every good debater knows, when you can’t prove the fact you must retract, so I am giving you that one :-p
Brin quote - "Bob wrote: "The only thing I can see that they have in common is that they all have a lot of theology that is contrary to scripture"Such as?"
Wow, are you sure you want me to answer that? It will take awhile. I will have to start a new thread, and it may start world war III ;)
Brin quote - "Before I study doctrine, the Bible, or do something hard, I say a prayer. "O Holy Spirit, beloved of my soul, I adore You."
Why do you pray to the Holy Spirit? Jesus specifically told us that we were to go directly to the God.
John 16:23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
Matthew 6:6
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father,
Acts 8:22
Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord
Acts 26:29
Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God
I am not being nitpicky here, but, this is a major point of Christ’s sacrifice on earth. When Jesus died, the curtain in the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom. This signified that we no longer needed a priest, but we could enter into the presence of God ourselves, unlike the Old Testament. And, in fact, we are commanded by Christ to pray directly to God.
Brin quote - "David wrote: "I don't think Bryn is telling any of us that we need to have someone interpret scripture for us." Correct."
Then what did you mean when you said these statements:
“The genius of the Papacy is that without a Pope, we would have no way of knowing how to interpret scripture. You wouldn't know who's interpretation is right. Jesus knew this, and He wanted us to understand what He was telling us in the Bible, so He set up the Pope, to guide the Chruch.” And
“the Holy Spirit simply will not allow these men to teach error officially in their capacity of leader of the Church, and none of them ever have.”
Basically that is saying they have divine rights to interpret scripture and laypeople have to agree them no matter what they tell you.
Brin Quote - "Bob wrote: "Actually Brin, she did not use my system.I seek the truth, I seek to find what message God has for me"
Lisa did believe with her whole heart that what she did added WAS the truth, and what she did throw out WASN'T the truth."
We will have to agree to disagree here.
If she was seeking truth and really desired to serve God and she makes this decision to live in sin and throw out an obvious truth, then Christ is a liar when he says,"seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened."
Bob, what's wrong with praying to the Holy Spirit? (RE: post 109) When I read the Bible, I often ask the Spirit to illuminate truth. I think that most of the time we address our prayers to the Father, but it is valid to pray to Father, Son or Holy Spirit as all are God. Unless a person does not believe in the Trinity.
Thank You Bob, you saved me a ton of referencing. I'm just not up for it at the moment. I'm proud of you! :DBryn your prayer for truth reminded me alot of what the Mormons do. They use their prayers and feelings to discern truth from a prayer to a deity. Basically putting God to the test - basically bypassing their heart and knowledge of God's word to achieve assumed results.
Every Mormon who prays the prayer of burning in their bosom somehow always ends up a justified Mormon. Strange eh?
Is there a single verse in the Bible that shows someone praying to the Holy Spirit? Just curious. I don't think there is. I don't think you can correctly call the Holy Spirit Father.
David quote:
" When I read the Bible, I often ask the Spirit to illuminate truth."
I've watched alot of crazy tv preachers do this exact thing David. I think the truth is written right in front of you in God's word.
I often worry that people want THEIR truth and not God's.
Hopefully when you read the Bible it becomes clear to you. But as we all know: millions of scholars read the Bible and claim to have contradicting truths revealed to them. I don't think God is playing by our spiritual rules.
David, I believe that is a critical part of Christ's ministry to bring us directly to God as explained by the curtain tearing.Is there a precedence to praying to anyone other than God in the New Testament?
I am getting tired so I will try and look it up tomorrow, but, I only found where Jesus tells us to go directly to God so far.
And, I do believe in the Trinity, but there is a hierarchy as laid out by Jesus when he says call no one good except God.
David wrote: "(Also, there seems to be a circular argument at work. If the Pope said which books are in the Bible, how can you use the Bible to support the papacy, as seen in the discussion Matt. 16.)"I'm not using the Bible. I'm using the words of Jesus, which just happen to be in the Bible. The Pope-I believe-doesn't get it's authority from the Bible. He gets it from the words of Jesus.
David wrote: "Anyway, if I am trying to get to premise 4 from premise 1, it seems I could say:1. God is authoritative
2. God's clearest revelation is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh. God's Holy Spirit testifies to the truth of Jesus Christ.
3. The Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers, these 27 books testify to Jesus Christ in a unique way.
4. The Bible is 27 books and is authoritative"
You forgot:
3 1/2. "I know how these books and no others are inspired because(acording to your previous post) the Holy Spirit working in the lives of men and women in the first centuries of the church brought it together. Its sufficiency has been shown in how, through the Bible, the Spirit has changed lives and done great things through St. Augustine and St. Patrick, Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi, John Wesley and Martin Luther, Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Jr.
Rod wrote: "If Bob or myself mention something and don't show our source then it's YOUR job to be an expert in these issues."Why should I have to look up the sources for your evidence for your case? That really doesn't make any sense. Each person should back up their own claims.
Rod wrote: "You are bringing up some great issues Bryn: but if you think you are going to convince any of us - then you are about to wear yourself out in desperation. We are a stubborn lot. :p"I don't expect to do anything of the sort. I have no power. But I do believe that God can do all things, regardless of how stuborn His opponent is. I'm not trying to say you are God's oppenent. I'm trying to say that no amount of stuborness will keep the Shepard from leading His flock to the pasture He chooses, even if that Pasture is called 'Catholicism'. Of course, blindly following the Shepard takes courage. Couragous we are called to be.
Mark 6:50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he spoke with them, and said to them: Have a good heart, it is I, fear ye not.
Psalm 95:8 To day if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts
Rod wrote: "It does sound to me like you have given the C. Church cultic status (especially the Pope!)."Psalm 23:1 The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing. [Not even an infallible Pope.]
At the wedding feast at Cana, Mary says, "Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." (John 2:5). I belive God has told me to listen to the Pope, and so I do. If I believed Catholicism was a cult, I wouldn't be in it, Rod.
Bob wrote: "Have you not heard of Unam Sanctam?This is a papal bull written by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302.
Direct Quote: “We declare, say, define and pronounce, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
No, I've never heard of that. Let me ask my pastor about that, and then post what he tells me. I'll ask him about the Council of Toulouse and Tarragona also.
Great argument, btw.
Bob wrote: "Why do you pray to the Holy Spirit? Jesus specifically told us that we were to go directly to the God."The Holy Spirit is God.
Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.
It's true we can and should pray to the Father and Son, but also to the Spirit.
John 14:16 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Bob wrote: "We will have to agree to disagree here. If she was seeking truth and really desired to serve God and she makes this decision to live in sin and throw out an obvious truth, then Christ is a liar when he says,"seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened."
Lisa was really seeking the truth. She called on the Holy Spirit, and spent hours in prayer, asking for wisdom. Afterwards, she felt God had told her that homosexuality was right, as was meat eating. She then proceeded to throw out books that were against homosexuality and meat eating, because she decided they were contrary to what she felt God had just told her. Lisa believed God had told her homosexuality was not a sin. She believed the 'revelation' of the Spirit telling her these things was indeed fullfulling of God's promise "seek and you will find". Lisa believed that in her prayer, she sought and found.
Rod: "Is there a single verse in the Bible that shows someone praying to the Holy Spirit? Just curious. I don't think there is. I don't think you can correctly call the Holy Spirit Father."John 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Jude 1:20 But you, my beloved, building yourselves upon you most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost
Romans 9:11 I SPEAK the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost:
2 Timmothy 1:14 Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.
Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.
Mark 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin.
Ephesians 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which ye have been sealed for the day of redemption.
Acts 2:38 But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Brin, none of these scriptures says anything about praying TO the Holy Spirit.Praying in the Spirit is not praying to the Spirit.
All the examples I can find show praying to God the Father.
If Christ sacrificed so that we could be forgiven and go directly to God the Father then why are we still using a middleman. Especially when Jesus tells us to ask God directly.
When you Google "can you pray to the Holy Spirit" the first three sites are all rather conservative (and Protestant) theologically and all answer in the affirmative. I think Bryn's right here, praying to the Spirit is valid because the Spirit is God.
Bob wrote: "Brin, none of these scriptures says anything about praying TO the Holy Spirit.Praying in the Spirit is not praying to the Spirit.
All the examples I can find show praying to God the Father.
If C..."
We pray to GOD.
"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." Philippians 4:6
The Trinity is somewhat specific:Is Jesus ever the Father?
Is the Spirit ever Jesus?
Was the Father on the Cross?
I think people can pray to the Spirit if they really want to. But I don't recall ever reading that in the Bible. I do what Jesus said:
Matthew 6:9
Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.
Bob wrote: "the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required the bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of the Scripture, unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such readings was likely to prove beneficial.‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ (Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)
‘Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise there from more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.’ (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564).
"
I'm still waiting for the chance to ask my pastor about this, but I found a really cool thread. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread...
On this thread, I found this response:
The Council of Toulouse was a regional council, not an ecumenical council. Regional councils have do not have authority on the Church as a whole.
This council was called to deal with the Albigensian/Manichean heresy that was running amok in souther France. The texts it was referring to were doctored versions of the Bible which the Albigensian/Manichean created in order to support their heretical teachings. So no, this council did no forbid the reading and study of authentic copies of the Bible.
There was no Council of Tarragona in 1234. There was a provincial council in 1242 to deal with the details of the Inquisition. Presuming the author simply got the year wrong, I do know the history of this area and time in a general way. Muslim Moors, who had recently been ejected from this region, had produced doctored versions of the Bible, much like the Albgensians had done in France. This was done to support the view that it was Ishmael, not Issac, who Abraham blessed, that Jesus was not crucified and that another even greater prophet would follow Jesus. Many many copies of these false scriptures had been spread throughout the land during the Moorish occupation of Spain.
Another intersting post from http://forums.catholic.com/showthread... :One more myth, that is all-too often repeated to make the Catholic Church look unbiblical, is that in 1229, the Bible itself was forbidden to laymen and placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Valencia. This lie originated in the anti-Catholic book, Roman Catholicism, by Loraine Boettner. Unfortunately, it has been repeated and repeated by other anti-Catholic writers, and even spread into mainstream literature. It is one of the simplest arguments to refute, as it simply cannot stand up to historic scrutiny.
First of all, the Index of Forbidden Books was established in 1543, so a council in 1229 could not have placed a book on it. Second of all, there has never been a church council held in Valencia, Spain. Plus, the Moors were in control of that area in 1229, so the Church could not have had a council there even if they wanted to.
The words that I gave you are directly from councils.They stand on their own, it has nothing to do with the Index of Forbidden Books.
This is not against you Bryn, but, this happens most of the time when I speak with people who promote Catholicism as the true Church. When the wrong teachings and evil actions of the Popes and the church are brought out, they are whitewashed and buried under semantics like a sleazy lawyer getting a mass murderer off on a technicality. If it was done or said then own up to it and go on, don't try to make excuses or deny it. When you go to your hierarchy they are going to tell you distortions of what happened. You need to look to historical documents to get your info.
The Bible was forbidden to lay people in their own languages because they would read it and question why there was so much extrabiblical teaching.
The examples are so many for this you can find them everywhere in history.
For hundreds of years it was in Latin, which no one but priests and monks understood, that is why the Catholic church killed the people who translated it. Rod has mentioned Tyndale, but there are many more.
Here is another small instance of how they dealt with the Albigensean Heresy:
"The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[31] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."
You serve an institution with a lot of blood on it's hands.
On a mission trip to Mexico a priest led a mob to throw rocks and eggs every night at the missionaries we were helping. The night we were there, they broke their front windshield and hit his wife in the head with rocks and hurt her badly.
The year I went to Costa Rica in 1989 a missionary from Central America came to our Bible School and told how 3 Catholic Priests led a crowd that attacked him and his pregnant wife. They held him down and cut open his wife killing the child and letting his wife die while they made him watch.
The denomination I grew up in was flawed, but, if there was any kind of impropriety in any way, they would take a preachers license. The Catholic church allows this kind of behavior and tries to cover up child rapist and pedophiles, some of it going clear up to the pope.
You have an uphill battle defending this kind of behavior when you read the words of Jesus and the epistles that defining holiness and holding teachers, deacons, and leaders to a higher standard.
You agree popes in the past have done bad things; things that, according to the New Testament, they should have been expelled from the Church for. And yet, in the Catholic religion they are allowed to remain the leaders.
I mean no offense to you by what I say Bryn, I believe that you are a true Christian with a good heart. And I believe there are many true Christians in the Catholic church, some that I have worked with and ministered with. My best friend in High School was Catholic and his family were some of the best people I knew.
But, I believe as an organization the Catholic church is corrupt, even though there are good people in it. You really need to study it from the perspective of those who were persecuted by it. A lot of untrue criticisms are out there, as I am sure you will be told by church officials, but, more than not are true.
Bob wrote: "The words that I gave you are directly from councils.They stand on their own, it has nothing to do with the Index of Forbidden Books.
This is not against you Bryn, but, this happens most of the t..."
Okay, I talked to my pastor. Regarding the councils, the reason the Church forbid the laity from reading the Bible at that time was because at that time, when the Bible had to be hand copied, there were more inacurate translations than acurate ones. People were reading the "Bible", when in fact it didn't even have the same stories, because people were- perhaps purposly-copying things wrong, changing them. To keep Catholics from reading false teachings, the Church put out the decrey.
You must understand, that it had NOTHING to do with keeping Catholics ignorant. At that time, books cost a fortune, and only the rich could read at all. So if some one bought a Bible, that was translated wrong-VERY wrong-then the buyer, who had probably never read the Bible beofore, would be led into believing false things. I agree it wasn't the decision I would have made, but I can see that the Church issued that decree in order to protect the faithful, and had no intention of harm. I feel the need to repeat, that the Church has LONG ago chnaged her position on this subject. The church started apporving Bibles, so that the faithful could know which Bibles were translated accurately.
With regards to your comment "Your church has a lot of blood on their hands" I do not denny it. I must point out that so does yours. I must also point out that Protestants attacked the Catholics first, not vice versa. The first Protestant rebels would kill monks, priests, and sisters, demolish churches, and break statues and windows. It was known as the Peasent Wars. These quotes from Protestant leaders shed light. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/a... . I must also bring up that it would appear from history that Protestants killed more Catholics, than vice versa, because Catholics in America were far more tolerant of Protestants than Protestants were of Catholics. Catholics killed in crusades and killed in the hundreds of years following the reformation. However-correct me if I am wrong-the Protestants continued persecuting Catholics long after, in America. They didn't allow Catholics to vote, get jobs, go to school. Some colonies even killed/tortured Catholics, espeacially priests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Cat.... Meanwhile, the Catholic colonies welcomed other denominations.
With regards to "The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered...". Did the Pope even aprove of these actions? You never said he did. At any rate, the Church herself has admited to her errors in the past, regarding how she delt with non-Catholics, and I'm sure protestants have done the same. However, this article makes a valid point: (Source:http://fatherjoe.wordpress.com/instru... ) "Development along these lines does not impinge upon the charism of infallibility regarding faith and morals given the Church. While the Church is holy because of the abiding presence of Christ, her members are always sinners in need of their redeemer, Christ. Regarding matters of science and practical matters of government, the Church has had to feel her way through time just like other organizations. The Church may be infallible, but she is not always impeccable. Anti-Catholics often fail to make this distinction."
With regards to the priests, Rod, it is no secret that their are evil priests. The point you seem to be missing is that these men aren't evil because they are priests. There are rapists, pedephiles, lunatics, etc. in every denomination, race, and country. Have you looked at how many Protestants have been convicted of sexual abuse? http://www.reformation.com/ Because you really should. You are making Catholicism look like it's this big evil orginization. It's NOT. Just as Protestantism isn't evil because they happen to have evil members in their church. Catholicism does NOT support rape, sexual abuse, throwing rocks/eggs at people, or cutting pregnant women open (Cutting women open??? Are you seriously accusing the CHURCH of supporting THAT?? PLEASE!!) The Catholicism church DOES NOT suport the covering up of sexual abuse. Like in other denominations, sadly, priests do cover it up.
You said that "You agree popes in the past have done bad things; things that, according to the New Testament, they should have been expelled from the Church for. And yet, in the Catholic religion they are allowed to remain the leaders.". With regards to the Pope, you don't just re-elect a Pope by will. Once a Pope is chosen, he and he alone has the power of infalibility until his death. I have no idea what Gospel passage you are refering to, but mine teaches forgivness and tolerance. For the sake of others, you can't always be forgiving. But that logic isn't in the gospels.
Matthew 5:39: But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you
Matthew 6:14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.
I'm not familiar with a Bible passage that says throw out bad leaders.
What we are hoping you will learn from all of this Bryn is that it is not about what church you belong to. It is about Jesus and God's Word.You seem to have faith in things outside of God. The only man worth having absolute faith in was Jesus - and that is because he was fully God as well. Even the Apostle Paul and King David were not perfect -
We no-longer have to trust any person or organization: we have God's Word.
If you were a Missionary stuck in a chinese prison how much use would your Church be? OR your Pope? You would be alone with God's Word in your mind and heart. That is all that matters. It is ENOUGH!
Rod wrote: "What we are hoping you will learn from all of this Bryn is that it is not about what church you belong to. It is about Jesus and God's Word.You seem to have faith in things outside of God. The on..."
What I see you doing is attacking my Church point blank.
The only person I absolutly trust is God. And because I absolutely trust my God I will follow the Pope I believe GOD asked me to follow. If you don't believe God told you to follow the Pope, then don't. But I don't understand why you don't respect the fact that I am doing what I BELIEVE wholeheartedly God wants me to do.
If I was a missionary in a chineese prision, the Bible would NOT BE ENOUGH. Without an infallible Pope, I wouldn't know what the heck the Bible means, frankly. Have you ever noticed that Protestants can't agree? Have you ever noticed there are hundreds of denominations, each of which decide the Bible teaches different things? You Protestants say the Holy Spirit guides you, that He is truth. Yes the Holy Spirit is truth. But I can't possibly be the only person to realise that the Holy Spirit (Truth), can't be in every denomination's teachings. He can be in every person, and in SOME of Protestant teachings. But He can't be in one teaching, and also be in a teaching that proclaims the exact opposite of the other teaching. One of you has it wrong. And unless you have an infallible authority, you can't do anything but guess who REALLY has the right teachings. I don't believe that the brilliant, loving God who is my savior, would leave me in that mess. Jesus loved me so much, he died on a cross, and undergoed torure. For me. For you. That same God isn't going to leave me with the mess of guessing what teahings-or books-are really from the Holy Spirit. He's too great, too loving, and too wise for that. If I was in a Chineese prision, I would be thanking God that I am a Catholic. That I don't have to base my eternal destination on a guess. On a feeling. On what "probably" is inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would be praying to the Saints who faced imprisionment as well, ask them to help me though this. I would ask Mary to give me the courage she had when she said yes to God, risking her own death by stoning when she did. I would thank God for dying for me. I would pray to St. Joseph, the patron of happy deaths. (I don't dream of being a mayrter). And I would pray the chaplet of divine mercy. For myself. For my enemies. To ask forgivness for my sins, in the case I never got to go to confession before my death.
BTW Rod. You say the Bible is ENOUGH. I want to see the passage, where the Bible says "The Bible is enough."
Also, I'd like to see what you think of this article: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scri...
It's fascinating that you would pray to so many different Saints. Why would you do this? Did Jesus do this?Sorry, it's kind of my hobby attacking people's churches and false doctrines. That is basically part of what apologists do. (Some seem to do it alot nicer though. I just don't have the time.)
I care about people Bryn - not their beliefs and organizations. You should see how I challenge and abuse charismatics and pentecostals (now that's nasty.)
Are you aware Bryn of all the verses in the Bible that deal with it being God's Word? They are very helpful. Maybe a bunch of us can find them for you. I'm off too the movies to see how this Twilight mess ends. I'm rooting for the Werewolves. :D
Bryn quote:" To ask forgivness for my sins, in the case I never got to go to confession before my death."
Do you question your salvation? Is it not assured?
Now i'm off to the movies...
A Christian whose hobby is to attack people! :)
Rod wrote: "It's fascinating that you would pray to so many different Saints. Why would you do this? Did Jesus do this?"I will answer that question when you answer mine: How on earth can you possibly justify Sola Scriptura when the BIBLE ITSELF teaches the opposite of Sola Scritpura. The Bible teaches the Bible is not ENOUGH.
Rod wrote: "I'm off too the movies to see how this Twilight mess ends. I'm rooting for the Werewolves. :D "
I am SO JEALOUS! I'm a total Twilight fanatic, and I've had too much homework to go see it. BTW, sorry to break it to you, but I'm proud to say that the vampires (good) win. (JSYK, I'm team Edward all the way. But don't get me started on Twilight, because I'll get this thread way off topic.)
Rod wrote: "Is it not assured?"
Absolutely not. I'm far from sinless. God is my judge, and I don't deserve Heaven. Lucky for me, God is also merciful. :D
I don't think we are accomplishing any answers Bryn. You are very happy being set in your beliefs and theology. But that's okay - we all have pretty set beliefs and theology. The problem is: I chat with hundreds of people from different religions and scientific beliefs, and guess what: they all claim to have incredible well thought out and logical beliefs that they can spend hours justifying through very long posts.
So where does that leave us? We have to get beyond the logic and impressive information to find TRUTH. That is where the fun starts.
You should challenge yourself someday Bryn: go sit through a scientific/philosophy lecture on the truth and logic of Evolution, Communism, Atheism, Marxism, Pornography...well maybe not that - but find something you fully disagree with and learn how people manipulate information to justify their true desires. Then attempt to find the flaw in their system.
This will help you to either enjoy or dissect Catholicism fully. I do this to Protestantism all the time. I'm constantly evaluating my methods of looking at the church and religions. Sometimes you learn that you are right in many areas. That is always a blessing.
But it can be hard on your heart.
Rod, I'm curious. Since everybody seems equally convinced that they are the "right" ones, what do you consider the odds that you might be wrong and Byrn right?
Lee question:"what do you consider the odds that you might be wrong and Byrn right?"
Normally I would say that is a possibility. Everyone should seriously question whether they are really looking carefully and unbiased at their own beliefs.
I have been chatting with people for years who disagree with me: I love to hear stories by people who have walked away from Christianity and their numerous problems with it. Maybe they found a flaw that I have missed.
I am now totally convinced that there is a truth to the Bible that cannot be undone. I find it very easy to see and figure out exactly how people have abused and twisted the Bible for their own desires. Most people only take small bits of the Bible that pleases their worldview...and they ignore or twist the rest. Whatever their heart really wants.
We should read the Bible to see what God wants from us - not what WE want from God.
Lee quote:
"A Christian whose hobby is to attack people! :)"
My hobby is also to cheer people on when they are glorifying God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. I'm not a negative person - I generally laugh at everything. :D
I would like to give my two cents although at this point it seems that lines have been drawn pretty clearly and nobody seems to be moving towards an agreement, but hey, I got a pot full of coffe, a shelf full of books and a mind full of opinions. Shall we begin?The question asked by Bryn was "How do protestants know what books belong in the NT." In order to answer this question accurately we need to survey over a thousand years of church history seeing how the NT was Cannonized in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage and the Protestant Reformation began to build steam in 1519 with the nailing of the 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenburg, Germany.
So the argument that Bryn seems to be trying to convey is that because the "Roman Catholic" Church conducted the original Counsel which resulted in the compilation of 27 documents which is known as the New Testament, and because we (Protestants) rest our souls on this compilation of documents, it is unreasonable to reject the authority of the catholic church because it was the means to such ends.
If this is the basic vein of the arugment then I will attempt to respond from a Reformed Protestant position. If I have misrepresented or misunderstood your position I apologize and would request that the rest of this post be regarded as irrelevant.
Several things need to be defined in order for a debate to be rational and fair. For example, I as a protestant am not opposed to the "catholic church" per se. The word catholic simply means "universal" and in that regard I am quite fond of the catholic church and in fact consider myself a member. But when the word Roman precedes the title "catholic" there is more to be considered. Historically, the reason Rome laid claim on christianity was because they could not stop it, so Emperor Constantine supposedly envisioned a cross in the sky the night before he lead Rome to victory at "The Battle of Milvian Bridge." Again, historians have been extremely skeptical of this claim because of the political expediency that Constantine enjoyed at the time of his "conversion." In other words, there was never a more convenient time to become a christian, and therefore the shadow of doubt is cast over this event. Nevertheless, as Dr Steven J Lawson writes "the emperors newfound allegiance to Christianity changed the status of believers across the empire. With Constantine openly professing Christ, Christians no longer needed to fear persecution from the Roman authorities. The Edict of Milan (313 AD) soon greanted official tolerance to all relions in the empire. Furthermore, in light of Constantine's conversion, Christianity gained a prominent standing, becoming the unofficial faith of the empire. But acceptance of Christianity brought with it significant dangers. At this time, hordes of unregenerate Roman citizens came into the church and were baptized as believers. The sacred merged with the secular, and the immediate result was doctrinal compromise. Such concessions prepared the soil of the church for the corruptions of Roman Catholicism" (Lawson, Pillars of Grace, Pg 145). Twelve years after the Edict of Milan the Arius Controversy erupts in Alexandria and causes violence and division among the Church. Arianism heavily influenced the Church from the late 3rd century and most of the 4th. When the Church rallied roughly 300 bishops together at the Council Nicea in 325 AD only 2 of them did not side against Ariunism. Thus condemning the Arius sect as Heretics forever to be Anethema.
Now this may seem a bit off topic, seeing how Im talking about the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in a response about the Protestant view of the NT. But Im on course to make my point. When debating over these issues, the bishops at Nicea studied and debated from the view of Scripture being authoritative. In fact, there was not one recital of an early church father in the whole council, and the bishop of Rome was seen as one among equals, not a head above others. To establish this argument I would direct your attention to Canon 6 of the Nicene Creed where it is written ""Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges..." In this passage it is clearly seen that the Bishop of Rome is on level ground with the other Bishops. Obviously Alexandria is given preference because it was ground zero for the Arius Controversy, but in regards to Rome there is no special treatment. Noted Church Historian Philip Schaff writes "Rome was named only for illustration; and Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their admitted rights. The bishoprics of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, Pg 275-276).
So the point I am trying to make is that the early "Catholic Church" seemed to point to the scriptures for their authority, not the traditions of the church fathers, or the bishop of Rome (I.e. the Pope). So with this understanding of how the early church councils were conducted, we fast forward about 80 years to the council of Carthage where on August 28, 397 AD the Church issued a Cannon of Scripture. Now the fact that these scriptures were commonly referred to and thoroughly examined prior to Carthage is clearly seen in the fact that they were the source of authority in the Arius Controversy. So we shouldn't assume that these books were foreign to the church up to this point. In fact, Bruce Metzger, Professor of NT at Princeton Theological Seminary states "even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers" (Quoted in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, Pg 59).
In other words, the council of Carthage was not necessarily trying to figure out which of the writings were authentic or not, but instead were officially confirming what the had been common knowledge to the church for many years. Thats why in 367 AD (30 years before the Council of Carthage) Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave an exact list of the books that would later become the New Testament, many Church Historians refer to this as "the proto-canon" (the first Canon). Historically, the only books that were even questioned was Hebrews (because of unknown authorship) and Revelation (because of obvious interpretive difficulties. Some scholars suggest that Revelation was ommitted from the first Canon, but was later added in 419. See McDonald & Sanders' The Canon Debate, Appendix D-2, note 19.) The point I am trying to make is that the Cannon of Scripture was not given by the authority of the Papacy, but through general consensus of the church bishops.
So now that we have established (I hope) that the early "Catholic Church" gave scripture authority over the bishop of Rome and church tradition, and that the scriptures were Cannonized through relatively simple means by the church as a whole, not Rome, we can agree that the heresies of the papacy which would be on full display in latter times, had not yet begun (or at least they were not noticed at this point).
Now let us fast forward to the era of the Protestant Reformation and specifically the Council of Trent which is the official Roman Catholic response to the protestant's accusations, namely that the Catholic Church had committed apostasy through the invention of teachings such as purgatory,indulgences and rejecting the apostolic teaching of justification by faith alone apart from works. And also the abuse of God's word by not allowing it to be translated into common languages so that all men could benefit from it's riches. In this Council the Roman Catholic Church, under the authority of Pope Paul III, went on record saying "The Church is the ultimate interpreter of Scripture" and "the Bible and Church tradition are equally authoritative." Also in the sixth session of the council the Catholic Church, understanding the Protestant "faith alone" doctrine to be one of simple human confidence in divine mercy, the Council rejected the "vain confidence" of the Protestants, stating that no one can know who has received the grace of God unless it be confirmed by works. In other words, your right standing with God is half faith and half works. But the Apostle Paul writes "we know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified (Gal 2:16) and also "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph 2:8-9) and also "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith (Rom 3:28-30).
So Protestants hold to the position of Justification by Faith alone. Not as a "vain confidence" but as a glorious gospel message, one we can trust because it was written in the Sciptures which according to Jesus cannot be broken (John 10:35).
We also believe along with Martin Luther, John Calvin and the other great reformers, that the equalization of Holy Scripture and church tradition has rendered the Roman Catholic Church as apostates from the true faith of the Apostles and Prophets on which the the true Church has been built (see Eph 2:20.) And therefore because the Roman Catholic Church has rejected the biblical gospel of a righteousness that is obtained by faith (see Phil 3:9) and have trusted in another Gospel they are eternally Anethema (Gal see 1:6-8)unless they repent of their error and trust fully in Christ for their salvation.
Let me close with this quote by Luther:
"Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen!"
Martin Luther - The Imperial Diet of Worms.
SOLA DEO GLORIA!!!
Rod wrote: "I don't think we are accomplishing any answers Bryn. You are very happy being set in your beliefs and theology. But that's okay - we all have pretty set beliefs and theology. The problem is: I ch..."
Rod, I've done exactly that. In fact, my whole science curiculum is about showing the flaws in the aithiest's evolution, and how evolution is possible when we accpet the soul did not evolve, and that God started the evolution process.
I must point out you are still ignoring my question. How can you believe the Bible is ENOUGH, when the Bible itself teaches the Bible is NOT ENOUGH?
Hi Luke. Welcome to our debate here! I'm so glad you can join us. I don't have time at the moment to read through your whole post, and reply to all of it, so I'm going to do so in parts.
That is the basic vein of the argument, yes. However, I would add that 1) The Bible itself tells us the Bible alone is not enough. 2) If Jesus actually inteneded His followers to be saved by a book, wouldn't it be logical that Jesus would tell us this specifically? Wouldn't it makes sense for Hoim to preach Sola Scriptura? I mean, if Jesus wanted His followers to base their salvation on a book alone, then His Church was in pretty bad shape, because that didn't start to happen until 1519! Wouldn't it be logical that His diciples taught this Sola Scriptura stuff as well? Yet they didn't.
With regard to your quote about Canon 6 of the Nicene Creed, this article sheds light:
http://www.catholic-legate.com/Apolog...
I'll post more latter.
No,we do not believe that salvation is by Scripture alone.... You are obviously not familiar with the 5 Solas of the Reformation. Salvation is by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, For the Glory of God alone, all of which is revealed in the Scriptures Alone.P.S. your not playing by your own rules, No where did Jesus say that Rome would be the Champion of the Faith and that the Church would be centered around it, but rather that all the Apostles would be his witnesses to the ends of the earth. Nor did he say that His word should be kept from the common people, but that it should be sown to all soils (Matt 13:1-23).
Why bother referring to what Jesus taught at one point and then ingnoring him on another?
"My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it" (Luke 8:21).
Luke wrote: "No,we do not believe that salvation is by Scripture alone.... You are obviously not familiar with the 5 Solas of the Reformation. Salvation is by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, in Christ Alone, ..."Forgive me. I said that wrong. What I’m saying is that Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura.
“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”-Wikipedia.
Jesus and the apostles DID NOT spread that message. Yet you profess it. In fact, ironically, that doctrine is not in the Bible. That idea of Sola Scriptura didn't develop until 1519, long after Jesus, long after the Church Fathers, long after Christianty was established.
With the exception of a few groups (none of which were Protestant) I feel the need to point out that the early Church was in fact both the universal church, and the Roman Catholic church. Early Christians followed the Pope.
Source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a2...
""Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops' successions of all the city-churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that all other city-churches agree with this church (Rome) because of its preeminent authority." Ireneaus then goes on to list the succession from Peter's successor Linus to the Pope of his day. (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies 3, 3:2)."
Actually, I am playing by my own rules.
Matthew Chapter 16: [16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
http://www.catholicthinker.net/peter-...
If you scroll up a little, you’ll see we just had this discussion, but the Church does NOT teach the Bible should be kept from the common people.
Source: Catachism of Catholic Church
ARTICLE 3 SACRED SCRIPTURE
V. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.”109 Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”110
132 “Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”111 (94)
133 The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’”112 (2653, 1792)
That's true.