The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority

Christian Research Institute ^ | Unknown | Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie

[Quester]

Considering that our Mass is divided into equal parts Word and Eucharist, I would hope they work together to influence the churchgoer.

My question is really directed to one's entire christian experience, ... as opposed to just considering the Mass.

I don't see why you would oppose the two, as if they are competing. If that is what you are getting at.

It was just a question, Dave.

Jokus and I have been discussing methodologies.

[SoothingDave]

It was just a question, Dave. Jokus and I have been discussing methodologies.

Then I'll un-insert myself. Take care.

SD

[annalex]

Our discussion went over dozens of posts, starting with this post of yours:

John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism: 169

The exchange focused on the Homilies of Chrysostom at

post 254

The discussion of the homily on Matthews starts here

post 257

I respond to the arguments about Peter not being the only one described as "chief" by Chrysostom, and that Firmilian's letters do not show a lack of papal authority here:

post 276

, and the discussion then goes on for a few posts more.

Generally, I would agree that Chrysostom held the view on the papacy that is close to the view held by the Orthodox today, as primacy, rather than supremacy, of the Bishop of Rome. The strong papacy we know today developed in the conditions specific to the challenges in the West: the division with the East, the investiture controversy and the scandal of the Reformation. I think that the papacy is likely to change back to the more consiliar model sometime this century with the likely reunion with the East; it is in fact the approach Rome takes toward the Catholic Churches of the East today. Our children will see.

[jo kus]

Jokus and I have been discussing methodologies.

I think EVERYONE has traditions and manners of doing things. Even the newest of Evangelist communities do things a set way - tradition. Liturgy is considered learned Christianity in public worship. It can be considered tradition and if we adhere to the ancient saying "Lex orendi, lex credendi" (how we pray is how we believe), then it really is quite influential in setting up our paradigms, our lenses for reading the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition. So the Mass is instrumental in what and how we believe. It is part of our faith, the practice of it - and this is part of the definition of Tradition.

But I do think that an observant person listening in at the Mass will find that there is much discussed from Scriptures. I think a person would be hard pressed to say that we concentrate on "traditions" to the exclusion of or setting Scripture up as secondary. Even the second half of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Eucharist, is all taken from Scriptures. If a person actually listened to what was going on and following in the Missal, (without the polemic "Jack Chick" comments going through their minds) they would be amazed, I think...

Regards

[magisterium]

Amen!! Speaking for myself, I have no problem responding to honest inquiry, even if it's about the same subject, several times, by the same questioner. I DO, however, find it annoying when it's obvious that the person understands an argument, but refuses to incorporate previous discussions into his understanding, and then asks ALL OVER AGAIN, the same ol' thing, as if he never heard the argument before. That seems to go on here a lot. We need a numbering code at the front-end of the forum, so we can all save time! You know, I say "28!" and you reply "43!" That sort of thing.

[Gamecock]

***The Pope was acting as a private person. ***


Didn't Clinton use that defense when questioned about Monica?

[SoothingDave]

Didn't Clinton use that defense when questioned about Monica?

No, I believe Clinton was seated in his official chair at the time.

SD

[Gamecock]

But the Pope had his uniform on.

[SoothingDave]

The Pope can be naked or clothed as he desires. It's the chair that's the important part of ex cathedra.

SD

[Gamecock]

Cover for him all you want. Your catechism sure validates his behavior.

[SoothingDave]

I'm not covering for anybody, I'm making light of your obviously stupid analogy between the Pope and Clinton. These are the jokes, man.

SD

[HarleyD]

No man is an island, and we weren't intended to be so.

Protestants never claim otherwise. There is hardly a post that goes by that some Protestant doesn’t talk about Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Wesley, and even a church father or Council. We simply do not believe these things to be written by God nor do they hold the same level of inspiration.

Huzzah! Are you under the impression that no one has ever studied the subject and come to the conclusion that the Catholic position is correct? We're not all unwashed masses repeating the magic words we don't understand.

I was being snippy to your insinuations that I came to the Reformed belief based upon some kind of influence of others. That’s a two way street my friend. Don't YOU think someone could objectively study the matter and come to the Reformed conclusion?

Besides, the issue isn't Protestant versus Catholic. I would suggest there isn’t really a dime’s worth of difference between Catholicism and today’s Protestants. They’re both synergistic beliefs and both in error. The monergistic view is the correct translation of the Bible and of the early church fathers. Unless you understand the monergistic view things remain “mystical” words like “predestination”, “election”, “I have chosen you”, or “Man’s steps are ordained”. If one were to look OBJECTIVELY at the scriptures, they would quit telling me, “Duh, I don’t know what it means but I know it can’t say what you’re saying.”

”And you, of all men, are truly objective? Why do I find that hard to believe? Everyone has his own biases. …Do you think God is without mystery?

And there’s that word again. God has some mysteries but not nearly what people want to make them out to be. The only reason there are so many "mysteries" of God is because everyone has a warped perspective of Him. They just DON’T want to give up their idea that man is free to do what he darn well pleases and no one, not even God, will tell him otherwise. What nonsense and dribble this is yet this is what people are telling me every day. And if corrected all a get is, “It’s a mystery.” Rubbish. Man’s steps are ordained by God. If you cannot understand that you are simply not being true to yourself, the scriptures and God.

If so, explain to me the Trinity fully.

God is three. God is one. The end.

What was the question again?

You can look it up just as much as I can if you were truly interested in answering the question. I’ve seen people play these games before.

[pegleg]

I would suggest there isn’t really a dime’s worth of difference between Catholicism and today’s Protestants.

I would suggest you’re not paying attention.

They’re both synergistic beliefs and both in error

And I suppose you are the infallible interpreter ordained by God to keep everybody straight?

The monergistic view is the correct translation of the Bible and of the early church fathers.

You’re getting close here. The bible tells us where we can find the truth. Maybe you can give us the proper translation of 1 Timothy 3:15

Unless you understand the monergistic view things remain “mystical” words like “predestination”, “election”, “I have chosen you”, or “Man’s steps are ordained”. If one were to look OBJECTIVELY at the scriptures, they would quit telling me, “Duh, I don’t know what it means but I know it can’t say what you’re saying.”

I would suggest you get over yourself.

[SoothingDave]

If so, explain to me the Trinity fully.

God is three. God is one. The end.

This is trite. Maybe you should stop praising your own expertise and actually contemplate what you just said. Just accepting the self-contradicting phrase "God is three. God is one" without stopping to ponder how this can be so, is the exact mindless regurgitation of dogma you believe Catholics are programmed to spout.

Damn ironic. Stop and think Harley. It's not all simple answers.

SD

[HarleyD]

"...get over yourself..."

"...Maybe you should stop praising your own expertise..."

If you can't argue with the message, then discredit the messager. I'm sure no Catholic would complain about Steve Hahn testimony. It certainly has been posted enough.

The answers ARE simplier than most care to admit. Clue: There is nothing that you have that has not been given to you by God.

[Mr. Lucky]

I think we can all agree that the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church is the perfect compromise between the Catholic and the Protestant points of view.

[HarleyD]

With all due respects to our Lutheran brethren, I think the Missouri Synod isn't a compromise at all. As much as it condemns synergism and man's "cooperation" in any form, it nevertheless argues against monergism and, in particularly, universal atonement and irresistible grace.

The statement that bothers me the most of the Missouri Synod is this:

14. As to the question why not all men are converted and saved, seeing that God's grace is universal and all men are equally and utterly corrupt, we confess that we cannot answer it. From Scripture we know only this: A man owes his conversion and salvation, not to any lesser guilt or better conduct on his part, but solely to the grace of God. But any man's non-conversion is due to himself alone; it is the result of his obstinate resistance against the converting operation of the Holy Ghost. Hos. 13:9.

This is the exact same problem that SD has and the root of the cause. No synergist can say WHY someone is saved and someone else is past by. The Missouri Synod admits that they have "no answers" to the "mystery" except they know that Calvin can't be right. That's why I state there is not more that a dime's worth of difference between some Protestants and Catholics. I'd like to know if the Missouri Synod can't explain it how do they know Calvin was wrong? Please also note that man’s salvation is due to God’s grace but man’s non-conversion is due to “himself”. That of course begs the question doesn’t man REALLY do something.

To a monergistic person the answer is simple contrary to what some keeps telling me is impossible to understand; God saves some, He does not save others. To simply reject an argument (one that is the ONLY plausible argument) as the Missouri Synod does and not have any alternative is not logical. While the Missouri Synod seemingly denounces synergism, it is nonetheless synergistic.

This isn't a shade of gray issue but a black and white. Either salvation is synergistic that man does something (if nothing else reject) or salvation is monergistic that God does it all.

[Mr. Lucky]

With all due respect, it was a joke.

Doesn't every Christian think that his particular faith is the truly correct one?

[SoothingDave]

The answers ARE simplier than most care to admit.

Explain to me how one is three and three are one. If it is so "simple."

I am not attacking your personally, I am dumbfounded how you can sit there with a straight face and tell me there is nothing mysterious about God. Maybe your intepretation of Scripture is simple and without nuance, but that is not the same thing as saying concepts like the Trinity or the Incarnation are simple and unworthy of any deeper contemplation.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I think we can all agree that the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church is the perfect compromise between the Catholic and the Protestant points of view.

Forget it, I'm not "crossing the Mississippi." ;-)

SD