Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Random Answers to John, Part 2

-Yep, you have relativism in Protestantism, where each person decides what the truth is.

Wrong, the truth is the truth, Protestants just allow some disagreement on the non-essentials.

This canned Catholic argument is getting old. There is plenty of disagreement in the Catholic church, you just pretend there is not. And you know for a fact that amongst the laypeople there is a variety of beliefs spanning from universalism to all non-Catholics go to hell. Then there are the sedevacantists, the traditionalists, and the mainstream/VII Catholics all of whom are in differing degrees of disagreement.

Where is your source of authoritative scripture interpretation? I have yet to see a verse by verse, infallible interpretation anywhere. Until then you are pretty much left to your own interpretation which is exactly what you and your “apologist” friends engage in. You even told me once that there are very few dogmatic proclamations which means for most things you laypeople are left to your own interpretations.

This has been shown on this blog many times where multiple Catholic commenters gave conflicting answers. Even you John, have been wrong in your interpretations and corrected. If you think that kind of relativism is truth just because you pretend to all be of one unified opinion, then you are clearly blind.


Either the Catholic Church is the masterpiece of Satan and his greatest trick, or it is fully Christ established/H.S. run and an individual's salvation is in jepardy for not being in full communion (which makes all other 'churches' the whore of Babylon). No two options here.

Well, I am happy to hear you finally admit that non-Catholics are in jeopardy of hell rather than your usual Prot-Cat kumbaya. We agree, only one way is correct.

More later…

9 comments:

jswranch said...

Carrie,
Thank you for attempting to answer some of my comments. Let me leave some rebuttles:

-Really? 1500? Name fifty for me.
To the best of my knowledge, all are converts, not reverts. To a minimum, they were ordained in their denomination, or they graduated from a protestant college/seminary in theology. I'm not so sure 50 or 500 will sway you either way, but here are 25. If you insist, I will begin to research another 25 for you.
Scott Hahn
Kimberly Hahn
Tim Staples
Mrs. Tim Staples
Jimmy Akin
Marcus Grodi
Dwight Longnecker
Paul Thigpen
Steve Ray
Mrs. Steve Ray
Peter Kreeft
Steve Wood
Matthew Pinto
Mrs. Mattew Pinto
Kenneth J. Howell
Todd Allen
Steve Anderson
Pattie Bonds
Micah Wright
Jeffrey W. Bail
Christopher Dixon
Chris Robinson
Alex Jones
Larry Lewis
Burns K. Seely

As for your 1 John 2:19, I would accuse your doctrines of it (Luther, Calvin etc).

-Can you provide me with a percentage value for the word “usually”?
51%

-Whether they are laypeople or scholars it doesn't matter - more in the kingdom is great no matter who they are.
While I agree all souls are equal before God despite their education or ordination, I disagree that it is irrelevant to this discussion. Joe Pew Catholic who becomes Protestant usually does not understand his faith(who never had the second conversion or personal relationship with Jesus Christ), just as Sarah Pew Protestant might also be ignorant. However when a Protestant Seminarian becomes Catholic, it is because he has weighed all the options and seen all the arguments from both sides. A Joe Pew Catholic hasn't.

-Do a quick survey at your next group and tell me how many former Protestants there are versus cradle Catholics.
From Sunday night men's group:
Me (ECUSA)
Mike (UMC)
Dave R (Baptist)
Dave L (revert)
Douglas (revert, ex-Evangelical)
60%

-Paul, Peter, John and James. They didn’t use the term “protestant” obviously, but these men did follow God’s word as written through their own hands.
They didn't use the term "Catholic" obviously, but these men did follow God's word as written through their own hands. ;) They were the first Catholic Bishops. The bible is a Catholic book. The reason I leave out the first 100 years is because you and I can spend all day arguing who the apostles belong to. They were Catholics. The ECFs are a bit harder for you to make look Protestant.

-People who use God’s Word as their only authority (Protestants) have been around since the time of the apostles because that is what the apostles taught.
First, we use God's Word as our only authority (read Trent or VII). However, it was the tradition of your denominational ancestors to define God's Word as scritpure alone: a direct violation of 1 Thess 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15 etc. The debate is not whether to trust the Word of God as our only authority, but the question is what is the Word of God? We both agree scripture is the Word of God, but are we not to hold fast to their spoken word also? We, the apostles, and the bible teach both. You teach bible alone.

Second, if the Protestants have been around since the time of the apostles, show me where. Show who they were between 100-400 AD.

-You seem to care more about the writings of 100-300AD than those before 100AD,
Just in discussion to ask/show the beliefs of the ealy church, those who had heard the Gospel for the apostles personally. See my explanation above. The church came before the bible. The church wrote the bible, then the church decided which books belong based on tradition.

-in other words, the early church fathers seem to carry more weight than Scripture.
Not for me they do not. I spend about an hour a day in scripture, not an hour a day in the ECFs. No one claims as you say.

-If error was already creeping into the churches during the Apostolic age, what makes you think the writings of later, fallible men can be trusted?
First, we know what that error was. Namely it was either that of the Judaizers or the Gnostics. Study some history. Early church history helps in understanding the bible, such as that the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, a fact that is not explicitly stated in scritpure.

Second, the Judaizers and Gnostics were not selected by the apostles and ordained as Bishops, Presbyteres, and Deacons. Study the apostolic succesion and laying on of hands for this one.

Third, the historic option of Protestantism did not exist for more than a thousand years. Heck, the bible was not put togther yet, how is anyone to hold to Sola Scriptura when there is no Scriptura? The first time a NT existed in the format it is today was about 365 AD from a Catholic Bishop.

-Now, while the ECFs don't carry any weight with me, I think there is still a fair amount of gymnastics to make them entirely Roman Catholic-like. This quote from Irenaeus is a good example:
"...by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

I have no idea how you plan to make this quote look like something against Catholicism. We agree completely with these words. Perhaps you do not understand Catholicsim, as I have asserted in the past. Remember, that the bible did not exist as you have it today until about 200 years after Irenaeus had died.
Speaking of Irenaeus, perhaps you should read more of his book:

3.3.1-2
"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the TRADITONof the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.....
...[we do this, I say,] by indicating that TRADITION derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally(AKA. CATHOLIC) known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church (AKA. THE CHURCH IN ROME), on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical TRADITION has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Realize, that in using Irenaeus in an attempt to prove the ECF's as Protestants, you are using a man who taught primacy of Rome, Mary as New Eve, the Mass as a sacrifice, Transubstantiation/Real Presence, calling religious instructors 'father' etc, and basically explained how Mary the Co-Redemptrix without using the word.

-Until you can prove to me that the ECFs were either inerrant or infallible, it is basically irrelevant.
I would never try to prove to you that the ECFs were inerrant. The bible is the only writting that has that protection. I want you to see what Catholicism does actually teach (see CCC or Dei Verbum). Your statement reminds me of Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen's comment: "There are but a few people who hate the Catholic Church, but millions who hate WHAT THEY THINK is the Catholic Church."

Carrie said...

John,

First, can you provide me with the ordination information or seminary name where Patty Bonds and Mrs Tim Staples were ordained/graduated?

If not, then your list is a deception and I suggest you start over. I don’t have time to check the rest of your list, but if you can’t prove these two then I won’t be able to trust your integrity anyway.

However when a Protestant Seminarian becomes Catholic, it is because he has weighed all the options and seen all the arguments from both sides. However when a Protestant Seminarian becomes Catholic, it is because he has weighed all the options and seen all the arguments from both sides.

That is a man-made reason for a man-based decision so I can’t entirely disagree for the few people that fall in that category. All the former-RCs I know had a conversion by God whom they met through the gospel message and their bibles. Only God can unblind the blinded.

They didn't use the term "Catholic" obviously, but these men did follow God's word as written through their own hands..

That’s right, which means they are not Catholic.

We both agree scripture is the Word of God, but are we not to hold fast to their spoken word also?

If we had been alive to hear it from the horse’s mouth, then maybe, but we still know the apostles were not inerrant outside of their scriptural writings as portrayed by Peter's antioch stumble. This should be no surprise to you since your pope is only infallible under very special occasions.

But the only “word of God” that we have access to today is the written word. That was the same issue during Jesus’ ministry and why in his conversations (especially with the Pharisees) he held them accountable to the scriptures, not to traditions.

The church came before the bible. The church wrote the bible, then the church decided which books belong based on tradition.

I always shudder when I hear these things said by a Catholic. You really should watch yourself John because these are foolish statements at best, blasphemous at worst.

Not for me they do not.

Then stop talking about the ECFs and the historical claims and stick with scripture.

Second, the Judaizers and Gnostics were not selected by the apostles and ordained as Bishops, Presbyteres, and Deacons.

Catholics are modern day Judaizers. Exchange circumcision for sacraments.

Heck, the bible was not put togther yet, how is anyone to hold to Sola Scriptura when there is no Scriptura? The first time a NT existed in the format it is today was about 365 AD from a Catholic Bishop.

I’d like to deal with this whole issue in another post.

Realize, that in using Irenaeus in an attempt to prove the ECF's as Protestants

That is not what I am attempting to do. I realize you can find very RC-like quotes also – the point is though, that the ECFs were not 100% Catholic as you would like to proclaim. As I said before, I am not going to get in an ECF quote war with you because it is meaningless and will get us nowhere.

I would never try to prove to you that the ECFs were inerrant. The bible is the only writing that has that protection.

So you are admitting that your traditions are fallible???

Your statement reminds me of Arch Bishop Fulton Sheen's comment:

No John, I am opposed to what you yourself say even though I still hold that you yourself do not understand your Church. Your love of scripture still gives me hope for you.

Carrie said...

Namely it was either that of the Judaizers or the Gnostics.

So, the judaizers and gnostics were not Christians in your opinion?

jswranch said...

Carrie,
Please excuse my slowness. I will get to your comments as soon as I can. In the mean time, please give me any tips you can on how to keep a 2.5 year old boy from emptying the contents of a tube of toothpaste all over the sink, I would greatly appreciate it.

-First, can you provide me with the ordination information or seminary name where Patty Bonds and Mrs Tim Staples were ordained/graduated?
Mrs. Tim Staples attended Jimmy Swaggart U.

Patty Bonds... well I got confused with her family. Her dad is a pastor and her brother is a theologian. She played the organ, led counciling and discipleship ministries, and learned from a PHD student but did not formally attend school.

To make up for my error I will pay you a Zacchaeus pennance: I will repay you more than the one that I missed.
Here are 7 additional individuals with their credentials:
Don Newville- Senior Pastor of an AG church in Uganda
David Reynolds- First raised Conservative Baptist (CBA). Attended Toccoa Falls College where he majored in biblical studdies.
Karl Kohlhase- Raised Lutheran, attended a Lutheran College and a Conservative Baptist Seminary.
Michael Cumbie- Pentacostal Pastor
Fr. Grey Bean- Baptist seminary and Baptist Pastor
Al Kimmel- ECUSA pastor
Robert Koons- Lutheran Professor, degree in theology from Oxford U.
If you want to check up on these, most of them are on: http://www.chnetwork.org/converts.htm

-but if you can’t prove these two then I won’t be able to trust your integrity anyway.
A bit harsh for a simple error don't you think? Did I not replace my one with 7?

-That is a man-made reason for a man-based decision so I can’t entirely disagree for the few people that fall in that category.
You claim man-made reason for man-based decision, but I claim God's grace to coming to the truth. You say man-made reason, but you do not read these conversion stories for yourself. Read two and tell me where they went wrong in their human logic.

-All the former-RCs I know had a conversion by God whom they met through the gospel message and their bibles.
I believe you. You are correct here. The people God put in place to teach these Catholics a saving faith and how to live with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ didn't do their jobs even though the Catholic Church tasked them with the job. There still remains millions of Catholics in this country who need evangelization. They were told some nuggets of the faith as a child (first communion, confirmation) but were not given the information on how to develop the faith God desires for them. There has been a wave of "Jesus loves us, so now lets go make a banner." A number of Catholics I know who have spent 18 years in 'Catholic schools' because their parents spent thousands and all they leared was that Jesus loved them. Sometimes they were told, but were not paying attention. This happens in most all denominations. The fact that one learns of the relationship Christ wishes to have with them outside of the Catholic Church is no reason to toss 7 books out of the bible or start believing that Jesus' words, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is true drink indeed," mean that His flesh isn't real food and that his blood isn't real drink.

-Only God can unblind the blinded.
Amen! preach it sister, just as the bible, the ECFs, the CCC and Trent teach. We condemned Pelagius a long time ago.

-John: They didn't use the term "Catholic" obviously, but these men [the apostles] did follow God's word as written through their own hands..

Carrie: That’s right, which means they are not Catholic.
How is it that their lack of the use of the word 'Catholic' in the bible makes them non-Catholic? Actually, they did use the term according to St. Ignatius, who knew them.

-If we had been alive to hear it from the horse’s mouth, then maybe but we still know the apostles were not inerrant outside of their scriptural writings as portrayed by Peter's antioch stumble.
Not to start a Gal 2 discussion again, but what did Peter say that was untrue? What did he teach falsly? What I see in Gal 2 is cowardice and a church leader cowing to the public pressure of this flock. There is a difference between teaching false doctrine and failure to live truth. I can tell you what it means to live the beattitudes, but you will not see them perfectly lived by my example. Does this mean I am lying to you?
Again, see verses like 2 Thess 2:15. If you do not hold to those oral teachings, you are being disobediant to the Word of God. As a matter of fact, 2 Thess 3:6 tells us to kick people out of the church who do not hold to the traditions of the apostles. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are only holding to their written word and are rejecting their traditions.

-But the only “word of God” that we have access to today is the written word.
I disagree strongly. While the writtings of the ECF's are not close to being equal to the bible, they were taught what the first intent of the apostles were from... the apostles. For example, there is a debate even within Protestantism over the meaning John 3:5. All of the ECF's agree John 3:5 is referring to baptism. On the issue of what Jesus means by 'This is my body,' the ECFs agree that it is his body. Go check out a book like "Four Witnesses."

-That was the same issue during Jesus’ ministry and why in his conversations (especially with the Pharisees) he held them accountable to the scriptures, not to traditions.
Very good point. However, read the scriptures more carefully. Jesus did not condemn traditions, he condemned their traditions, tradtions that they came up with themselves. They invented the 'Korban,' a teaching that they could give all their belongings to the temple, the temple gave it back to them, and then they were free to not support their parents. We support traditions started by God through Jesus or the 12 Apostles, but reject traditions outside of that as truth. Those are simply customs. Customs that are contrary to the Word of God need to be weeded out.

-John: The church came before the bible. The church wrote the bible, then the church decided which books belong based on tradition.

Carrie: I always shudder when I hear these things said by a Catholic. You really should watch yourself John because these are foolish statements at best, blasphemous at worst.
If these statements are not true, prove me wrong. This is a historical fact that can be difficult for you to grasp without overturning most all your anti-Catholicism. The Chuch was founded in 33 AD. While the apostles and disciples were spreading the faith throughout the world, they began to write. The Church finished writting the bible in about 100 AD, and the Church finally decided which books belonged in about 397AD. These canonists (Catholic Bishops) decided to keep Hebrews in the canon based on tradition alone... it theologically fit with what the they had been taught the faith was (ie tradition saying what the truth is), and that Hebrews had just always been included in the canon was a good enough reason to keep it there.
Learning that God did not establish a book and that the bible did not fall from the sky is one of the first steps out of Protestantism for some people.
I would really enjoy discussing a post by you on where and how the bible came to be.


John: Not for me they do not.

Carrie: Then stop talking about the ECFs and the historical claims and stick with scripture.
Without the ECFs and historical claims, there is not scripture. But, for the sake of discussion, I can stop bringing them up, unless you want to attempt to claim one believes as you believe. I trust the guys who knew the apostles, you trust guys who came 1400 years later and teach something different.

-Catholics are modern day Judaizers.
Yet, I profess Protestants are modern day Judaizers, as they do not submit to the authority of the council rulings. Protestants, like the Judaizers, do not listen to those God gave the power that whatever they 'bind on earth is bound in heaven, and what is losed on earth is losed in heaven.'

-Exchange circumcision for sacraments
Well, yes. Baptism is the new circumcision. See Col 2:11-12, Gal3:27, Tit3:5. It is the the bloodless, New Covenant way in which we enter into his saving grace.

-...the ECFs were not 100% Catholic as you would like to proclaim.
Prove it.

John: I would never try to prove to you that the ECFs were inerrant. The bible is the only writing that has that protection.

Carrie: So you are admitting that your traditions are fallible???
Nope. Sacred tradition is infallible, commentators on it are not. You really need to read DV. Everyone is infallible when they say something true.

...I still hold that you yourself do not understand your Church.
:) How shall we settle this? A catechism test to see who understands Catholicism better?

Your love of scripture still gives me hope for you.
Don't forget that it was reading scritpure for myself was one of my stepts out of Protestantism. It was only after I read the entire bible for myself that I became Catholic.

So, the judaizers and gnostics were not Christians in your opinion?
Some were, some were not. They were like Protestants: as soon as they broke away, they branched into so many varying beliefs that one cannot hardly characterize them all at once. The Judaizers stayed Christians for a while until they became Gnostic also. Only some of the Gnostics would be Christians.

Carrie said...

How is it that their lack of the use of the word 'Catholic' in the bible makes them non-Catholic?

No, the fact that they followed the written word of God makes them not Catholic. Paul, who condemned the judaizers for adding a work to salvation, would also call the Catholic message “another gospel”

I just wanted to clarify on that one.

Other than that…ugh.

I could comment back on the rest of your statements but we will just continue going in circles.

I don’t even know what else to say. Should we limit our discussion to a particular topic? Or just quit?

I think I would be up for either a debate on Sola Scriptura or a walk through Galatians. Or maybe not.

Ellen said...

Carrie, I believe that the apostles were "cstholic" (lower case "c"). They were not of Rome. It was Rome that insisted on being the most powerful on this earth and took on the label "Catholic" for herself (regardless of the Greek church that she split with).

3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

The apostles were not following Rome, they were truly catholic (not Catholic), following Christ.

Carrie said...

Carrie, I believe that the apostles were "cstholic" (lower case "c"). They were not of Rome.

Yep, catholic with a small "c". I should have been clear about using the "C".

Unfortunately there is just so many things to rebut in John's comment that I can only pick out the bigger points (or the ones that interest me more).

I am thinking of a post of RC Fallacies - all those little one-liners that I see on different blogs and forums. Like "Luther threw out 7 books of the Bible" or "the Catholic Church gave you your bible".

Ellen said...

Yep, catholic with a small "c". I should have been clear about using the "C".

It's the main reason I use the more technical and descriptive term of "Roman Catholic", rather than simply "catholic". Rome highjacked the term.

jswranch said...

Carrie and Ellen,

It's the main reason I use the more technical and descriptive term of "Roman Catholic", rather than simply "catholic". Rome highjacked the term.


Carrie, I believe that the apostles were "cstholic" (lower case "c"). They were not of Rome. It was Rome that insisted on being the most powerful on this earth and took on the label "Catholic" for herself (regardless of the Greek church that she split with).



This reminds me of a quote from Augustine:


"And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

You accept the term 'c'atholic for yourselves, but does the sign on the front of the church you attend say catholic? If not, I encourage you to read Augustine again.