To Pope or Not to Pope?

Halas

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Nov 5, 2012
16,452
26,369
0
33
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
Dude, come on. You know I'm not trying to insult you or anyone else. If I am insulting you, then it's because you disagree, so what do you disagree with? Let me have it. Point out the flaws in my criticisms.

Yep, and for hundreds of years that truth was taught, not read.
I already have. Every single one of your arguments is quite easily used as an argument against it. I’ve tried to be inclusive in the idea that both believe in the resurrected Christ so it’s a matter of preference as to how one wants to worship (if you believe kneeling 23 times a service is the only way please show me where that is biblical). As I already stated, the institution you want to hoist over all of Protestantism is more interested in protecting its power structure throughout history up to and including the rape of children rather than righteousness. Give me a break, dude.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,420
2,411
0
There is no biblical evidence, true. At least, no hard evidence. There is, however, historical evidence. Sts. Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome all write quite clearly that the Church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, and that following Peter's martyrdom, Linus (also mentioned in scripture) was appointed to replace Peter as the Bishop of Rome. No one was chosen to replace Paul, but Peter was deemed important enough to replace. Keep in mind, this is not coming from their spiritual writings, but from their historical accounts.

Let's say for a minute that you're right. The pope is not a legitimate spiritual authority and that Protestantism is the true faith as it was always meant. Where in scripture do you see Jesus calling for his mystical body to be fractured, independent of one another, left to the individual, and answerable to him alone? Or, how can you square such an atomized, chaotic system with the God who brings order to chaos? Jesus, when he prays his high priestly prayer, prays for his body to be unified. The word "Catholic" even means "universal", as in the one, unified Church. Protestantism, to the contrary, is just that - based on protesting. Protesting what, though? Unification? Surely not, but that is exactly what is happening. Catholics long for the day when our Protestant brothers and sisters will come back into full communion, but Protestants seem determined to move further and further away from the reunification.
Where have you seen me argue that? I would argue that the current state of the universal body of believers (the Church) is more of a Romans 8:28 type of situation then following the perfect will of God. I think that if things had gone the perfect way, the church would have maintained the slightly looser structure with the councils being the final arbiter and no one bishop or patriarch being in sole control thus every one would always be subject to the oversight of their peers. This seems to be in line with the biblical model. Had this happened then there would not have been a schism, and in the perfect world the church would have maintained it's focus on the spiritual rather than delving so deeply into the temporal. At that point there would truly have been one Catholic and Apostolic Church even to this day, rather than the mess we have now.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,779
4,118
0
I thought non-denominational meant I believe in God but I don’t like to go to church. Did that change?
Others might have a different way of explaining it but, for me, it means our church accepts all Christians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Horns1960

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
Where have you seen me argue that? I would argue that the current state of the universal body of believers (the Church) is more of a Romans 8:28 type of situation then following the perfect will of God. I think that if things had gone the perfect way, the church would have maintained the slightly looser structure with the councils being the final arbiter and no one bishop or patriarch being in sole control thus every one would always be subject to the oversight of their peers. This seems to be in line with the biblical model. Had this happened then there would not have been a schism, and in the perfect world the church would have maintained it's focus on the spiritual rather than delving so deeply into the temporal. At that point there would truly have been one Catholic and Apostolic Church even to this day, rather than the mess we have now.
Boy howdy, is it a mess.

But it's our mess. What's funny, once one starts getting deep into the writings of the saints, is how critical they tended to be towards the Church. One famous quote, I can't remember who from, goes something like, "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." Another is something to the tune of, "If God hasn't brought an end to the Church by now, then there must be something truly good at its heart." No one is going to pretend that the Church is now, or has ever really been perfect, at least in reality. But at it's heart it is real and true and good, and that is what we - I - are defending. The governance is FUBAR and I think one can reasonably wonder about the salvation of the men involved in that aspect of the Church, but once one gets past the political bull****, and comes to the heart of the Church, one finds the fullest expression of truth, goodness, and beauty, and that is what draws so many disillusioned former Protestants such as myself into the fold. At the heart of the Church is found the antithesis of every complaint I have against Protestantism.

You don't have to like what I think about Protestantism. I don't think it's a blight, but I don't think it's right, either. But if you're going to take offense (the royal you), take offense for good reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,171
2,622
0
These arguments remind me of the passion displayed when an element of the Church body wants to rewrite a hymnal. To this day factions of our denomination still argue tirelessly the differences between the red book and the blue book. Is liturgy really the core of Christianity?

I was born Episcopalian, married into Lutheran, have enjoyed worshiping in various Catholic and Protestant as well as Jewish services. My core belief though hasn’t changed. Jesus is the head dude, he is going to select who will and who won’t join him in heaven. My being a Protestant or others being of other faiths isn’t going to influence the decision. My belief in Him is what is important. I do believe in the model that we are saved by grace through faith. I believe in the structure of Church as a place of learning and fellowship and a place to worship, give thanks, and seek forgiveness. But I don’t believe the clergy is providing the forgiveness rather it is God.

As far as liturgy, I enjoy the semi traditional English speaking version of the ELCA but I am a member of the MSLC, the liturgy isn’t paramount. I have been to a service at St. Peter’s and could follow along but it was still Latin and who the hell speaks Latin?

Now we get down to what is really important, the Bible. There is one true bible inspired by God himself and that is the King James version. All the rest are heretical. I mean really Latin, Greek, New American, NIV all blasphemy. Everyone knows the Bible should only be read in Old English.

Obviously people find process important and I myself get overly focused on process but sometimes we need to step back and refocus on the goal. I think that is the heart of Protestant faith. That sometimes we get hung up on process to the detriment of the goal. That is not to say the Protestant Churches aren’t just as fallible as the other organized religions. They are. It has been 501 years since the reformation. ML did some good work to shake up the hierarchy. At the end of the day the Church is still made up of people and people are fallible. Fortunately we have a path to salvation, let’s not get too wound up over trying to interpret the road map.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
Where have you seen me argue that? I would argue that the current state of the universal body of believers (the Church) is more of a Romans 8:28 type of situation then following the perfect will of God. I think that if things had gone the perfect way, the church would have maintained the slightly looser structure with the councils being the final arbiter and no one bishop or patriarch being in sole control thus every one would always be subject to the oversight of their peers. This seems to be in line with the biblical model. Had this happened then there would not have been a schism, and in the perfect world the church would have maintained it's focus on the spiritual rather than delving so deeply into the temporal. At that point there would truly have been one Catholic and Apostolic Church even to this day, rather than the mess we have now.
You locked in on the hyperbolic statement and ignored the meat of that post.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,420
2,411
0
Boy howdy, is it a mess.

But it's our mess. What's funny, once one starts getting deep into the writings of the saints, is how critical they tended to be towards the Church. One famous quote, I can't remember who from, goes something like, "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." Another is something to the tune of, "If God hasn't brought an end to the Church by now, then there must be something truly good at its heart." No one is going to pretend that the Church is now, or has ever really been perfect, at least in reality. But at it's heart it is real and true and good, and that is what we - I - are defending. The governance is FUBAR and I think one can reasonably wonder about the salvation of the men involved in that aspect of the Church, but once one gets past the political bull****, and comes to the heart of the Church, one finds the fullest expression of truth, goodness, and beauty, and that is what draws so many disillusioned former Protestants such as myself into the fold. At the heart of the Church is found the antithesis of every complaint I have against Protestantism.

You don't have to like what I think about Protestantism. I don't think it's a blight, but I don't think it's right, either. But if you're going to take offense (the royal you), take offense for good reason.
Understand, when I say mess. I don't mean the RCC. I mean the state of the whole body of believers. The massive splintering into little groups. I would prefer that there had been no need for a Reformation. I agree with you that Unity would have been preferable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
161
349
0
"Luther broke off from this Church and took manywith him, "

Luther was forced out, and forced into hiding to avoid execution. He never wanted to start another church. That is a disingenuous argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
Since I have once again proven to be the reason we can't have nice things, I think it would be best if instead of antagonizing myself to defend the faith, I simply present my proofs for the various items we have been dueling over here. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I leave it to you to look at these for yourselves. Let's do this high school geometry style. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church still teaches this.

The Church as Authority:
Mt. 16-18 - Jesus builds his Church on Peter
Jn. 16.13 - The Spirit guides the Church in all truth
1 Tim. 3.15 - Church is the "household of God" and "a pillar and buttress of truth"
Mt. 18.17-18 - Cast out whomever refuses to listen to the Church
Mt. 28.18-20 - Jesus' authority is the Church's authority
1 Jn. 4.6 - Whoever knows God listens to us
Lk. 10.16 - 'The one who hears you, hears me; who rejects you..."
Mt. 16.19 - Keys of the kingdom
Acts 15.28 - Decisions of the Church are decisions of the Holy Spirit
Acts 15.6-29 - Apostles/elders settle dispute authoritatively via councils
Acts 16.4 - Decisions of the Apostles/elders are observed
Acts 1.15-26 - Apostles choose successors (bishops)
Titus 1.6 - Bishops appoint presbyters (priests)
1 Pt. 5.5, Heb. 13.17 - Submit yourselves to your elders/leaders
Jn. 10.16 - One flock, one shepherd - the Church is meant to be one
Eph. 4.4-5 - One body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism
Rm. 16.17-18 - Avoid those who create division
1 Cor. 1.10 - There must be no division among you
Jn. 17.11 - 'let them be one, as we are one"
 
Last edited:

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
Sola Scriptura:
2 Tim. 3.16-17 - Scripture profitable for teaching
Acts 8.26-35 - Guidance needed to interpret scipture
2 Pt. 1.20 - Scripture not a matter of one's interpretation
1 Tim. 3.15 - The Church, not scripture alone, is the pillar and foundation of truth
Acts 2.42 - Church followed Apostles teaching (authoritative scriptures not to be agreed upon for another 360-ish years)
2 Pt. 3.16 - The ignorant/unstable twist scriptures to their own destruction

Sola Verbum Dei (The Word of God Alone)
Mt. 15.3, Mk. 6.8, Col. 2.8 - Human traditions condemned
  • 2 Thes. 2.15 - Believers commanded to hold fast to Sacred tradition
2 Thes. 3.6 - Shun those not living in accordance to Sacred tradition
1 Cor. 11.2 - Corinthians commended for maintaining the traditions handed down to them
Rm. 16.17 - Avoid those who are in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught
Acts 15.1-30
- Decisions of the Church are decisions of the Holy Spirit; Apostles/elders settle disputes authoritatively through councils
2 Pt. 1.20-21 - No prophecy of scripture comes from someone's interpretation, no prophecy has ever been spoken by the will of man
Mt. 18.17 - If a sinful brother refuses to listen, tell it to the Church
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
Peter as Pope
Jn 1.42 - Jesus names Simon Cephas (Peter)
1 Cor. 1.12, 3.22, 9.5, 15.5; Gal 2.9, 11, 14 - Paul refers to Peter as Cephas
Mt. 16.13-20 - Jesus build Church on the rock (Peter); keys of the kingdom (v.19; unique to Peter)
Jn. 21.15-17 - Jesus entrusts the care of his sheep to Peter (unique to Peter)
Lk. 22.32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren (unique to Peter)
Acts...
  • 1.15-26 - Peter presides over meeting to replace Judas
  • 2.14-42 - Peter preaches first public sermon of the Church
  • 3.6-8 - Peter performs first miracle at Pentecost
  • 5.1-11 - Peter inflicts punishment
  • 10.9-16 - It is revealed to Peter that gentiles are to be admitted into the Church (unique to Peter)
  • 10.44-48 - Peter baptizes first gentiles
Lk. 10.16 - Jesus says to Peter, "the one who hears you, hears me and the one who rejects you, rejects me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
The Church (more)
Mt. 28.20 - Jesus promises to be with the Church always
Eph. 3.21 - The Church is the instrument by which all generations will know God's wisdom
Mt. 28.18-20 - The Church's authority is Jesus' authority
1 Jn. 4.6 - Anyone who knows God listens to the Church
Jn 10.16 - The Church must be one
Phil. 2.2 - Be in full accord and of one mind
Jn. 17 - Jesus prays that we would be one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
I also have detailed notes on the following topics:
  • Mary and the Rosary
  • The Saints
  • Sola Fides (a lot on Sola Fides)
  • Works
  • Purgatory
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,171
2,622
0
None of these speak to the inerrancy of the Church or the Pope. They are Catholic interpretations that are easily disputed or put into the context that Protestants support. If you love the teachings of the Catholic Church then go in peace, it is great. If you believe the Protestant concepts of Faith, Grace, Bible, Christ, and God alone that is great too.

I like the Cross with a risen Christ, you guys like the Cross with Christ attached. At the end of the day we are on the same team.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
None of these speak to the inerrancy of the Church or the Pope. They are Catholic interpretations that are easily disputed or put into the context that Protestants support. If you love the teachings of the Catholic Church then go in peace, it is great. If you believe the Protestant concepts of Faith, Grace, Bible, Christ, and God alone that is great too.

I like the Cross with a risen Christ, you guys like the Cross with Christ attached. At the end of the day we are on the same team.
I doubt that you actually read or gave any consideration to anything I posted above. I'm curious what "context" there is to put the word of God into, or why it needs to be put into context at all. That flies in the face of scripture alone.
 

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,171
2,622
0
I doubt that you actually read or gave any consideration to anything I posted above. I'm curious what "context" there is to put the word of God into, or why it needs to be put into context at all. That flies in the face of scripture alone.
You are taking verses out of books to justify your point and that is simplistic and often wrong. People do it all the time. One of my favorites is people quoting “Judge not yet you should be judged” when addressing judgemental people. Yet a few verses later you are cautioned to beware of false prophets. Meaning you have to judge.

I looked up the first few and they fall into these categories. Is Peter the Church or is Peter’s confession the rock on which the Church is founded. Does it matter? It is clear throughout the Bible that Christ is the head of the Church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TexasPalladin

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
161
349
0
. I'm curious what "context" there is to put the word of God into, or why it needs to be put into context at all. That flies in the face of scripture alone.
Btw, the classical Protestant (rather tha anabaptist) view is that Scripture alone is the final authority, not that it is the only authority.

The context is the whole counsel of God, rather than a few pet verses (Protestants are guilty of this, too, of course). I will delve into his further when I get home from church (haha!).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PFD and bHero

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
161
349
0
HornsWin -Okay, to add on, please understand that I am trying to broach this very carefully, and not trying to offend. I have a lot more in common with serious Catholics than I do with mainline Protestants.

I follow a lot of Catholic twitter, because we do have a lot in common. I see a lot of "haw haw, those silly Protestants and their 30 bajillion denominations", Luther jokes, etc, etc. When the last round of abuse scandals hit, I held my tongue, because I knew it was painful for them, and ALL institutions have scandals. Then, Catholic twitter starts saying, "We're going to fight back and reform from within", and I had to inwardly respond, "Sure you will. Ask Luther how that works out." Three months later, and the furor has died down, and Pope Francis is still sitting smugly in "Peter's chair". No one can or will touch him, because the institution is their god. The only reason the Counter Reformation happened was because of the mass exodus of Protestants. It was damage control. You can laugh at Protestants and their scandals, too, but you know what, we can throw our pastors out if they are abusing our kids, or go somewhere else that still believes in the importance of the witness of the church. Meanwhile, I can stand shoulder to shoulder with Baptists, Lutherans, Reformed, and minister together with no qualms whatsoever, because "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty".

Here's some context, if you like: it is a common biblical theme that the unbelieving can be cut out - New Testament and Old. Call it being carried off into captivity, the lampstand being removed, the branches being cut out, a la Romans 11, there is no way to make a biblical case that the RCC via Peter is untouchable if you take the whole Bible into account. Perhaps that is not your stance, but it is one I see very commonly, so my apologies if that is not your view.
 
Last edited:

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,779
4,118
0
"Luther broke off from this Church and took manywith him, "

Luther was forced out, and forced into hiding to avoid execution. He never wanted to start another church. That is a disingenuous argument.
I’ve often wondered how history would have changed, had he been allowed to stay Catholic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and cincomom

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,779
4,118
0
I doubt that you actually read or gave any consideration to anything I posted above. I'm curious what "context" there is to put the word of God into, or why it needs to be put into context at all. That flies in the face of scripture alone.
There’s no question in my mind that a sharp guy like you understands the importance of context.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,779
4,118
0
I like the Cross with a risen Christ, you guys like the Cross with Christ attached. At the end of the day we are on the same team.
We should be on the same team, but in reality it hasn’t always been that way.
 

40A

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 20, 2012
12,149
4,730
0
Oklahoma City, OK
Fair enough. To your first point, no, praying to Mary is not found in the Bible but, at the risk of sounding glib, neither are any of the solas, particularly for our purposes here sola scriptura. The Trinity is also not founded in the scriptures, but it is a core belief among Catholics and Protestants alike. In fact, it is a Catholic idea.

There is actually scriptural support for praying for the intercession of the saints. In fact, if you believe that someone goes to heaven once they have died, then you also believe in saints. Sainthood is not a unique condition, but more of a qualifier. It is a formal proclamation that this person, the Church is confident in saying, is right now in heaven and thus in the presence of the Lord. Of course, this calls into question the reality of purgatory, which I know is a whole other can of worms.
Interesting points, however, I do not believe that praying to Mary (or any intercessors) or confessing sins to an intermediary such as a pastor are in the same realm as the solae or the Trinity, which is specifically found in the Scriptures. The Father and The Christ both appear separately in the Old Testament and of course the Holy Spirit appears separately in the New Testament.

In fact, my beef with intercessory prayer and intermediary confession is that it violates Christ's role as both who we pray to and who we confess to.

Yeah, I also do not believe in sainthood as a Catholic does, nor do I believe in purgatory. According to the New Testament,true believers are all saints, Greek word "hagios", which simply means consecrated to God. So, in that vain, I do not esteem St. Peter over St. BHero.

EDIT: changed "incidentally found in the Scriptures" to "specifically found in the Scriptures" because I used the wrong word. There was nothing incidental about it.
 
Last edited:

40A

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 20, 2012
12,149
4,730
0
Oklahoma City, OK
You’ve listened to your Pope in modern issues, yes?

I don’t disagree that modernists have come in and perverted the scripture and made it about how you feel and a religion of convenience rather than conviction but the Pope gives you very little room to use this as a point in your favor.
Actually, it's funny. It may just be where my interests of late have been, but I see a schism forming between a new "reformation" type movement back to conservative Christian roots and a movement to experience based, universalist type religion. Guess which side the Catholic Church and this Pope are aligning themselves with?
 

40A

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 20, 2012
12,149
4,730
0
Oklahoma City, OK
I doubt that you actually read or gave any consideration to anything I posted above. I'm curious what "context" there is to put the word of God into, or why it needs to be put into context at all. That flies in the face of scripture alone.
Context means interpreting the Scriptures not by one verse alone, to fuel a viewpoint, but to take entire passages and even books as one context, to give a full understanding. A perfect example is that you use 1 Timothy 3:15 out of context to support that "the Church, not Scripture alone, is the foundation of truth." This is a contextual fallacy and, unfortunately, falls into Biblical eisegesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cincomom

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
36,831
44,517
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
At what point, in your opinion, did the ancient Church go wrong?
Yo no se senor. I've just started my deep dive tracing the different influences. I'm only a little over a month in and a long ways to go. That's why I started the paganism & pantheism thread first. It's low hanging fruit and interesting. There's a ton on influences on the church just from those areas. And I hope it's clear that I'm an equal opportunity reprover. I don't have a predisposition to one camp or another. I started my study looking for the influences BC & even in prehistory. What were the "days of Noah" and why where they so wicked? What were the influences? How have those religions & beliefs persevered? How is today similar?

I personally feel like we're in a time strongly applicable to what @The_Major referenced in the other thread: "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound [healthy] teaching [doctrine], but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." And this belief has led me to become very cautious about who and where I get my doctrine from. I've regressed to studying the scriptures and comparing it to doctrine, so it may be a long time until I can give you a straight answer.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
36,831
44,517
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
There is a difference between holy writ and authoritative.

I'm also going to have to push back on your claim that "the writings of several books date within 10 years of his death." Back this up because I have not seen any scholarship to back this up. James is universally agreed to be the earliest written NT book sometime between 45-50 (12-17 years post Ascension), which, again, is not among Protestants favorite NT books generally speaking. The earliest Gospel, which you and I agree are the cornerstone for knowing Christ, is Mark, written between 50-60. How, then, did men and women come to know Christ prior to this? It could only have been through teaching.

Further, even while the Bible was compiled in the 400s, it wasn't widely available until around the time of Luther thanks to the printing press, meaning that even after the Bible was settled, men and women still were reliant on its being taught, rather than having it readily available. In other words, for the first 1500 years of the Church, men and women's salvation relied upon teaching of the scriptures, not the scriptures alone. Sola scriptura is not found anywhere in the bible, making it an extra-biblical teaching, which also makes it a contradiction. Clearly, tradition (e.g., teaching) plays a critical role in one's salvation.
  • Like the eunuch asks in the book of Acts. Philip asked if he understood what he, the eunuch, was reading, and the eunuch responds, "How can I, unless someone guides me?"
  • Or 2 Peter 1.20-21: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke through God as they were carried by the Holy Spirit."
Scripture itself is tradition, since prior to its compilation into the Bible, it was passed around with assumed authority, but not official authority. For about 400 years these various letters and gospel accounts were passed around and taught from because, traditionally, that is what the earlier teachers taught from. Further, before being written, these were all oral traditions, calling further into question how scripture alone can be legitimate if for at least a decade after the Ascension, there was no scripture aside from the scrolls of the Torah, the Books of Law, etc. After all, when NT scripture refers to scripture, it isn't refering to itself, unless you want to argue that each of the NT authors knew that their letters would one day be compiled into a collection of books from which the Church would teach. But again, there is no scriptural backing for that, so such an argument would be extra-biblical and thus, anti-sola scriptura.
No offense, the dating phase of the debate isn't really germane. I don't want to spend a ton of time on the exact historicity of Jesus and the Bible since that's not really in contention. I certainly disagree with some of your assertions, but not going to go into the root because it doesn't alter the outcome of my conclusions even if you were correct and I was 100% off. I was too loose with my words, not expecting the semantics of the dating to be relevant. I can assure you that there is pre-pauline material that was written as well as orally preserved within a few years and is widely agreed upon as present in the pauline texts (i.e. the Corinthian Creed). But again, the semantics of the dates wasn't a point.

The argument that sola scriptura is a self contradiction is a debate tactic, not genuine discourse. This is an old topic and it consistently leads to reductio ad absurdum or infinite regress. Usually one side says "that's not in the bible," the other side quotes several verses, then the first side that's not the right context and wah wah wah wah charlie brown from both, every time. Trying to logically maneuver someone with this stuff is only a temporary salve or utterly divise, but never results in satisfaction. There are several good points on both sides, i.e. preserving the untainted traditions and letters, ensuring proper accountability, rightly dividing scripture, protecting against false prophets (because sola scriptura does enable false teachers), and more technical arguments, and on and on. I support a lot of what most are saying, like when there's a perceived conflict between what the church is doing and what the bible says, then we're to bring it to the church, and if the church cannot respond in agreement with scripture, then the bible wins. And I also believe that if someone washed up on a beach and there was only a Bible then they could still find salvation. The scenarios get sillier (like the inference that because of tradition people should not have bibles), as they usually do when both sides are being semantic and stubborn.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we should be without leaders, i.e. shepherds, or tradition. And sola scriptura does not extend to leaders and then end with the church. That's the same argument in inverse. In other words, someone can't argue that the cure for sola scriptura is the infallible interpretation of the church. Do you know who makes that argument (aside from some Catholic apologists)? William Branham, the self-proclaimed prophet of the Latter Rain Movement and the progenitor of the New Apostolic Reformation. He says that the scripture is God-breathed. And he says there's one major prophet who gives an inspired interpretation of the "Word" for each generation. Mosses, Noah, Jesus, Elijah, all had the interpretation of the Word for their generation. And he [Branham] claimed to carry it for his generation. And John Bentley claims this inspiration of infallibility and interpretation was passed down to him.

To save you time, I'll give you the quick version of why the argument isn't logically sound. The reduction of the argument is that the Protestant rule of faith is self refuting unless it is self-referential. The Protestant apologist points to a priori Catholic rules of faith that are not self referential (i.e. the second dogma of the Catholic faith, that the church is the infallible interpreter of the inspired word). Catholic apologist says their rules don't have to be self referential due to it being self-evident or a necessary precondition. Protestant complains why can you and not me. Verbal games ensue. The other course is where they both start slinging scripture with their own "infallible interpretation. " Or they hit infinite regress.

I say this to hopefully avoid chasing this rabbit any further. I don't think there is a knock-down argument against sola scriptura. But there doesn't need to be for the Catholic. Just because something cannot be disproven doesn't mean it is true. This is the whole flying spaghetti monster argument from Dawkins. And on the other side, there are some failures of sola scriptura in it's original form. As I clarified earlier, I'm not a subscriber to the doctrine (or it's rebuttal), my position on this is that scripture comes first, and everything I'm taught is to be tested with the Word before I trust the teacher.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
48,685
41,409
0
Holy ****ing ****. I wanted to read what fomented this fight between Halas and HornsWin and it was arduous to put it nicely. You people are wasting tremendous amounts of brain power on what is, fundamentally, nonsense. (And I mean that to imply that these are some of the best arguments you all have ever written.)

Now, we take the Pythagorean Theorem today as unchanged from the time Pythagoras came up with it. It has been passed down across an untold number of math teachers since then, but we don't question it. We don't suggest that somewhere along the line someone changed it. Why not? Yet, Protestants seem to think that someone or many someones decided to completely pervert the teachings of their master, who got them from their master, all the way back to Christ.
I can explain this one: because it’s math.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
36,831
44,517
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
A quote:
  • “I am firmly convinced that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was as near as any mortal thing can come to unmixed evil. Even the parts of it that might appear plausible and enlightened from a purely secular standpoint have turned out rotten and reactionary, also from a purely secular standpoint. By substituting the Bible for the sacrament, it created a pedantic caste of those who could read, superstitiously identified with those who could think. By destroying the monks, it took social work from the poor philanthropists who chose to deny themselves, and gave it to the rich philanthropists who chose to assert themselves. By preaching individualism while preserving inequality, it produced modern capitalism. It destroyed the only league of nations that ever had a chance. It produced the worst wars of nations that ever existed. It produced the most efficient form of Protestantism, which is Prussia. And it is producing the worst part of paganism, which is slavery.”
This comes from G.K. Chesterton, one of the most widely admired Catholic thinkers of the 20th c. or since. Interestingly, this quote comes from several years before his conversion, when he was still an Anglican.

Protestants tend to think that Catholicism cannot be true because it doesn't hold the Bible as the sole rule of faith, because it holds in equal primacy the traditions of the Church which, according to Protestants, are man-made and lacking in Biblical grounding. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible in the form held as supreme by Protestants was assembled by the Catholic Church. To uphold it as unfailingly true and good is to affirm that at least once, and at the most critical juncture, the Catholic Church was perfectly in line with the Spirit, and was able to carry out his will perfectly. Were it not for the early Church councils, the Bible as we know it might not exist. All that would be left for instruction would be that which was used before the compilation of the scriptures - the teaching that comes from tradition.

The scriptures are quite explicit - tradition is the pillar of truth. For the first several hundred years of the Christian faith, the scriptures were divided, scattered, and confused in their authority. How, then, was one to come to faith? By a teaching authority, which was the Church. One with that central teaching authority was the Church held together in the face of so many heresies inspired by those who interpreted the scriptures differently. The Bible was only compiled as a means of centralizing the source of the Church's teachings. When the scriptures refer to the scriptures, they do not refer to themselves. They refer to the holy writ that came before - scrolls that were taught, rather than shared.

The Church is founded on the Bible, and the Bible is the governing document of the Church. They are not in conflict with one another but co-exist peacefully.

As for extra-biblical teachings, e.g., the Church Fathers, Doctors, saints, etc., one takes on faith that these men and women are speaking the truth. But they take this on faith because they believe the source that has told them their words are true - the Church, founded on the Scriptures. It's all a circle, but there is no conflict in it. This is why when crap like what is happening in the Church right now is so damaging because it calls into question their ultimate spiritual authority.

Now, your reponse.
I’ve read Chersterton and used him in debate before. I’ve always liked his articulation, even when I didn’t agree.

One thing I agree with him on is that Protestantism has enabled the proliferation of charlatans.

I blame the RCC for the Protestant Reformation. And I blame the Protestants for the outbreak of the charismania that’s swept up “370 million.” One interesting notion of this is that both outbreaks originated in the corruption of the body.

Lazily said, Protestantism began with the 95 theses, largely due to corrupting influences. And the perceived miscarriage of the stewardship of God’s word caused His people to “leave the sheephold.” This new Church was a flawed attempt to correct the course. Francis gets credit for trying to bring them back. Some of the doors he is using are concerning. But how exactly do you repair 500 years of schism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HornsWin

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
161
349
0
One thing I agree with him on is that Protestantism has enabled the proliferation of charlatans....

But how exactly do you repair 500 years of schism?
1) One word about charlatans:
Tetzel.

2) I believe the church will be united again one day, because God loves to raise the dead, but not in an "only one giant formal institution" kind of way. The Church in China doesn't have to be exactly like the Church in Namibia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesrh and bHero

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,171
2,622
0
1) One word about charlatans:
Tetzel.

2) I believe the church will be united again one day, because God loves to raise the dead, but not in an "only one giant formal institution" kind of way. The Church in China doesn't have to be exactly like the Church in Namibia.
There are certainly no lack of charlatans. Unfortunately we have seen the worst of Catholic and non Catholic in the last 40 years or so. Jim Jones, child molesting priests, Branch Davidians, unfortunately we can go on and on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

cincomom

Member Who Talks
Nov 23, 2016
161
349
0
There are certainly no lack of charlatans. Unfortunately we have seen the worst of Catholic and non Catholic in the last 40 years or so. Jim Jones, child molesting priests, Branch Davidians, unfortunately we can go on and on.
Charlatans inside and outside the church have abounded since the beginning of time. Modern times has no monopoly there. (I am a contrarian on the "world is getting worse and worse" thesis, but that is a another can of worms.)

Praying for a safe delivery! That's so awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesrh

scout3dave

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
8,171
2,622
0
Charlatans inside and outside the church have abounded since the beginning of time. Modern times has no monopoly there. (I am a contrarian on the "world is getting worse and worse" thesis, but that is a another can of worms.)

Praying for a safe delivery! That's so awesome.
Thanks. She was born around 4:30 this morning and all are in good shape. My job was taking care of our three year old granddaughter and getting her to the hospital this morning to meet her new sister. Mission accomplished.
 

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,779
4,118
0
Thanks. She was born around 4:30 this morning and all are in good shape. My job was taking care of our three year old granddaughter and getting her to the hospital this morning to meet her new sister. Mission accomplished.
Congrats!
 
  • Like
Reactions: scout3dave

Shane3

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 17, 2015
13,779
4,118
0
A quote:
  • “I am firmly convinced that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was as near as any mortal thing can come to unmixed evil. Even the parts of it that might appear plausible and enlightened from a purely secular standpoint have turned out rotten and reactionary, also from a purely secular standpoint. By substituting the Bible for the sacrament, it created a pedantic caste of those who could read, superstitiously identified with those who could think. By destroying the monks, it took social work from the poor philanthropists who chose to deny themselves, and gave it to the rich philanthropists who chose to assert themselves. By preaching individualism while preserving inequality, it produced modern capitalism. It destroyed the only league of nations that ever had a chance. It produced the worst wars of nations that ever existed. It produced the most efficient form of Protestantism, which is Prussia. And it is producing the worst part of paganism, which is slavery.”
This comes from G.K. Chesterton, one of the most widely admired Catholic thinkers of the 20th c. or since. Interestingly, this quote comes from several years before his conversion, when he was still an Anglican.

Protestants tend to think that Catholicism cannot be true because it doesn't hold the Bible as the sole rule of faith, because it holds in equal primacy the traditions of the Church which, according to Protestants, are man-made and lacking in Biblical grounding. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bible in the form held as supreme by Protestants was assembled by the Catholic Church. To uphold it as unfailingly true and good is to affirm that at least once, and at the most critical juncture, the Catholic Church was perfectly in line with the Spirit, and was able to carry out his will perfectly. Were it not for the early Church councils, the Bible as we know it might not exist. All that would be left for instruction would be that which was used before the compilation of the scriptures - the teaching that comes from tradition.

The scriptures are quite explicit - tradition is the pillar of truth. For the first several hundred years of the Christian faith, the scriptures were divided, scattered, and confused in their authority. How, then, was one to come to faith? By a teaching authority, which was the Church. One with that central teaching authority was the Church held together in the face of so many heresies inspired by those who interpreted the scriptures differently. The Bible was only compiled as a means of centralizing the source of the Church's teachings. When the scriptures refer to the scriptures, they do not refer to themselves. They refer to the holy writ that came before - scrolls that were taught, rather than shared.

The Church is founded on the Bible, and the Bible is the governing document of the Church. They are not in conflict with one another but co-exist peacefully.

As for extra-biblical teachings, e.g., the Church Fathers, Doctors, saints, etc., one takes on faith that these men and women are speaking the truth. But they take this on faith because they believe the source that has told them their words are true - the Church, founded on the Scriptures. It's all a circle, but there is no conflict in it. This is why when crap like what is happening in the Church right now is so damaging because it calls into question their ultimate spiritual authority.

Now, your reponse.
Well, nice biased quote to start with.
 

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
6,237
8,726
0
Holy ****ing ****. I wanted to read what fomented this fight between Halas and HornsWin and it was arduous to put it nicely. You people are wasting tremendous amounts of brain power on what is, fundamentally, nonsense. (And I mean that to imply that these are some of the best arguments you all have ever written.)


I can explain this one: because it’s math.
I didn't ask why it was true. I asked why we take our teachers at their word that it has not been changed or altered since it was first written down. Those are different.