Fundamentalists and Catholics Whose Bible is it, anyway?

http://www.christlife.org/library/articles/C_understand2.html ^ | Peter Kreeft

[NYer]

** Therefore, since that same Most Holy Spirit works in me today, I can be trusted to interpret those scriptures! ** - me

But isn't the Holy Spirit working in millions of others? Why the disparity in interpretation? Does it not stand to reason that if the Holy Spirit (God!) is the driving force behind your inspiration and everyone elses, that you should all arrive at the same understanding?

[SoliDeoGloria]

** Just because they say so doesn't make it so. **

Exactly my point. What makes you think this doesn't apply to you? What makes you think that you can simply say the "Church is headed by Pope John Paul II" and therefore it must be so?

** Anyone else claiming the title is a quack **

Do you not understand logical fallacies? Do you really want to use Ad Hominem argumentation? Doesn't that simply reduce your argument to the level of truecatholic.org, which attests its own authority by impugning the character of JP2?

If this is type of reasoning you wish to use, then please do not impugn others for using it as well.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** Why the disparity in interpretation? **

Excellent question. See my Post #133 as this is addressed directly.

[SoliDeoGloria]

I apologize... I didn't see that you were responding to that post. Let me look at your logic:

** Does it not stand to reason that if the Holy Spirit (God!) is the driving force behind your inspiration and everyone elses, that you should all arrive at the same understanding? **

And how is this not applicable to the Roman Catholic Church? Do you not have the Holy Spirit inspiring you through the Church? Shouldn't ALL Catholics "arrive at the same understanding"?

[NYer]

They also trace their Papal lineage from Peter all the way to Pope Pius XIII.

This is the historical process for electing a pope.

Papal Conclave

[SoliDeoGloria]

** you should all arrive at the same understanding **

There is only one reasonable explanation that solves this quandary for both the Roman and protestant churches: God is allowing Christians to sin in their misbelief.

Do you disagree? Follow the logic:

1. Everything God does, He succeeds at perfectly.
2. God is actively making every Christian believe only the truth.
3. Therefore every Christian only believes the truth.

Am I wrong? Isn't this the logic you are basing your supposition upon: "the Holy Spirit (God!) is the driving force".

If you reject #3, then you must either reject #1 or #2. My guess is, you will also reject #2.

Therefore, as I stated above, God is allowing us to sin in our "misbelief". Or more directly towards the subject, the Holy Spirit is allowing our sin to get in the way of our interpreting the Scriptures.

If you want to know why...well, "Soli Deo Gloria" isn't simply a catchy phrase!

[Gamecock]

Soli,

Perhaps you have heard of Pope Peil, the first Calvinist Pope?

[NYer]

You still haven't presented a logical argument detailing how your church is the one "that has existed for nearly 2,000 years". How does one go about proving historicity in a manner that can not be equally applicable to the "truecatholic.org" Church? I'm looking forward to your response...

As mentioned in my post #131, "only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history." Can you prove otherwise? I look forward to your response ..

[Questioneer]

>>Nothing murky about it. Christ left a visible Church with marks to identify it. It comes down to accepting His church or rejecting it. <<

Hmmm...how about a definition of the word "church"? Just what do you mean by using that word in the context of "The church says...", "The church teaches..."?

Just curious, but serious.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** You still haven't presented a logical argument detailing how your church is the ONE "that has existed for nearly 2,000 years". How does one go about proving historicity in a manner that can not be equally applicable to the "truecatholic.org" Church? ** - me

Your response:

** The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history. **

Well, I see we are getting nowhere, so I'll drop it.

[SoliDeoGloria]

I won't, however, drop the thrust of my argument in Post #105.

Does any Roman Catholic have infallible proof that Jesus wrote in the sand as recorded in John 8:1-11? Can any Roman Catholic state "the Church's" official position concerning the canonicity of this passage?

If not, then the Roman Catholic Church is in exactly the same position as the protestant church: You do not have an infallible declaration as to what is and what is not scripture.

[SoliDeoGloria]

Moreover, Catholics themselves clearly testify that the Roman Catholic Church erred in "preserving" Sacred Scripture. (again see post #105)

As such, the Roman Catholic Church can neither be said to be without error (inerrant) or incapable of error (infallible).

[SoliDeoGloria]

Which leads me back to my former conclusion in Post #147:

God is allowing Christians to sin in their misbelief.

BTW, I'm sorry this spanned 3 posts... I ought to reflect PRIOR to pressing the "Post" button.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** What makes you think that you can simply say the "Church is headed by Pope John Paul II" and therefore it must be so? ** - me

** What makes you think you can simply say the U.S. is headed by GW Bush and therefore it must be so? ** - sandyeggo

I'm not the one saying that the U.S. is the only Christian nation because it is headed by George W Bush.

The argument presented so far is that the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true Church because of the apostolic succession of Popes. Please don't confuse the argument by assuming that your "Roman Catholic Church" is the one true church, and then merely stating that the Pope is indeed the leader of it. The logical progression presented has the church proven from it's leader. My challenge to you was to prove the Popery (word?) of JP2 using an argument that can't equally apply to Pope Pius XIII. I have since dropped that argument since no one seems willing to acknowledge the difficulty.

The best argument presented so far came from NYer who posted concerning the "Papal Conclave". Question: Is this an absolute requirement for all Popes? Have all popes always and ever been elected in such a way? Can a Pope be elected in another way? Even the article linked admits that it has only been used in less than half the life of the church.

But I digress... I really am dropping this. You can have the last word.

[HarleyD]

Wow! I'm exhausted! :O)

[Titanites]

You said: "Therefore, since that same Most Holy Spirit works in me today, I can be trusted to interpret those scriptures!"

Then you said: "Such would be the logical conclusion if I thought I could interpret scripture infallibly. Protestants have never denied their sin and it's effect on their ability to interpret. We fully recognize our ability to not heed the Holy Spirit but to "go our own way"."

OK. So which is it; can you be trusted or not? Sounds to me from your second statment that your interpretations can't be trusted.

[SoliDeoGloria]

** OK. So which is it; can you be trusted or not? Sounds to me from your second statment that your interpretations can't be trusted. **

I am not, nor can I be trusted as an infallible authority on par with scripture. As a result, scripture must always be held as an authority over me.

My point was that the "Roman Catholic Church" fails in the same regard. One simply cannot use "Canonicity" as an argument for "Infallibility" or "Authority". No one can consistently, logically state that if the Church canonized scripture, then it must be both Infallible and contain an Authority that is the same as Scripture. As a result, the Roman Catholic Church cannot be "Trusted" as well. It, like me and the rest of creation, falls under the authority of Scripture.

The truth, if you are honest to admit it, is that the ultimate authority of the Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition can be nothing but a presupposition.

Note: I will gladly declare my presupposition: The Bible is my sole ultimate authority as God's special, infallible self revelation.