I think this is a case when a caricature is defeated by pointing to the photograph. Well, yes, the President does not really have ears and nose that long. But is the caricature pointing to a truth? Your hair-splitting "not infallibility but confidence" shows that the caricature is truthful as far as caricatures go.
One of my problems is that many of the arguments from some of you all are only against the caricatures. (See further below.) :)
If I am hair-splitting, then you appear to be saying that confidence may not be had without infallibility. I disagree. In my view, infallibility is only at a divine level. I do not claim any burning-bush experiences, and I do not claim a monopolistic Bat-Phone hot-line to God. I don't even claim that when I take a vote among my buddies that I somehow have these things. Instead of all that, I simply claim confidence. The point is that I do not claim what you claim for your hierarchs AT ALL. The Holy Spirit DOES lead me individually, but in no way does that mean I have all truth today, yesterday, or tomorrow. Your Church, OTOH, does claim that for all time. MASSIVE difference.
We say the Spirit leads us in sanctification, a lifelong process. For you, there is no sanctification of the Church, it is always, and for all time, perfect and infallible. This is not hair-splitting, these are opposite views.
The serious issue is indeed not that you have a multiplicity of leaders who claim succession of Peter, singularly represent the Church, and have primacy over bishops (the functional description of papacy), but, like Kolokotronis said, that you have multiplicity of doctrinally autonomous churches. A Catholic sums it up as each one is a pope. An Orthodox would sum it up as each one is a church. These are all idiomatic expression of the truth that you would not deny: that in Protestantism the lines of authority do not converge at the top.
I do not deny your last clause. But here, you are attacking a caricature. Therefore, your idiomatic expressions are NOT OF the truth. You are lumping in all Protestants together in order to defeat all of them together. It would be identical to my declaring that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are BOTH definitionally wrong because you are not in communion with each other. I doubt you would see that as a fair argument. As I have said so many times, I do not speak for all Protestants, NOR do I think I should have to, in order to defend the beliefs I do have.
BTW, I do not think the Orthodox would say that each Protestant is his own church. They deny that we even worship in a church (small "c"). If anything, I think they would have to say that each Protestant is his own "assembly". :)
Your claim that they converge at the scripture is a slogan. They do not. Several foundational points of Protestantism are not scripture. Sola scriptura and sola fide, for example, are a peculiar, strained interpretation of some passages, and completely bizarre inversion of the plain text of some other passages. On your fundamentals you converge in the interpretation of the scripture, and you choose the least natural interpretation of it.
Even among Reformers, NONE here claim that all interpretations among us lead to the same conclusion, even though all are directed toward scripture. Of course the vast majority of our interpretations DO lead to the same interpretation, but we are not infallible. This does not defeat Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is our base, just as the Church's interpretations are your base. You can't tell me that you aren't still learning about your own Church's pronouncements of truth, along with the writings of the Fathers. The same idea applies to us. We are still learning too, as the Holy Spirit leads us.
I find it highly ironic that you would be complaining about the plain text of scripture. You cannot seriously look me in the eye and say that you favor it more than we do. It isn't even close. To us, plain meaning is foundational, and interpretation is done when necessary. For you, Tradition is foundational, and interpretation is done ALL the time as a necessity.
Remember my hypothetical challenge from several months ago. I proposed putting 100 spiritually-neutral, but intelligent people in a room with a Bible. They had to read it cover to cover and then answer a series of fair questions to discern what their respective understandings of "faith" were. I boldly proclaimed that the weight of the evidence would clearly show a leaning MUCH MUCH more toward Reformed theology than Apostolic. I stand by that today. The reason is that ALL we use is the Bible. We don't have to make it match Tradition or anything else. If your faith was really close to the plain meaning of scripture, then you wouldn't need Tradition to interpret it to the degree it does.
In fact, a few knowledgeable Catholics have admitted to me on these threads that without the Roman Catholic "lens" (Tradition) on scripture, that the Bible could even be a dangerous book to read. We would say no similar thing, for while teaching would normally be required to reach the same beliefs I have, a "blind" reading of the plain text will bring the average person a great distance closer to Reformed beliefs than Catholic ones.
On everything else you simply do not converge at all: some believe in free will, others don't, some are "arminian" others "calvinist"; some adopt modern sexual ethics and others don't; some have rudimental sacramentality of praxis, others don't; your eschatological views -- all based on the same supposedly perspicuous scripture -- cannot be more diverse.
Here again, you are lumping in all Protestants into the same pot. I do not condone nor endorse any Protestants with "modern sexual ethics". I do not speak for them.
I do not know enough about "rudimental sacramentality of praxis" among Protestants to really comment on it at length. Infant Baptism doesn't bother me so much, but a church with priests literally forgiving sins would. :)
On eschatology, I have asked a number of times for the official RC view of it, and I have never gotten a clear answer. That tells me that you guys are all over the map about it just like we are. :) So, unless I can be corrected, I don't think it's fair to criticize even general Protestantism for not being unified on this issue.
However, after all of the above, you do raise a very legitimate issue on Arminianism vs. Calvinism. There can be no denying that this is a large issue for us. I lament it, but it is nonetheless THERE. I haven't thought through all the details yet to know if it is a fairly accurate comparison, but what comes to my mind is Roman Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy. I thought of this from observing how the two pairs argue with and against each other. I'm leery of opening up this train of thought, but the similarities I noticed were pretty interesting to me. Perhaps it is best to just see what happens. :)
Also appeals to authority -- even Protestant authority -- do not work with you, because the authority stops at the individual sovereignly interpreting the scripture under the leadership, he claims, of the Holy Ghost. This is a level of conceit no pope of Rome would claim. By this measure you are not all popes, you are all Holy Ghosts.
Well, I will agree that there is no Protestant authority in the form of an only human man, living or dead. That's obvious. However, I disagree that for us the authority stops at the individual. We say the authority stops at scripture. Now, if the attitude of people like me was that we interpret scripture, as led, and that was the end of it, then you would have a point. But we don't. I have always maintained my willingness to reevaluate any of my views if someone could show me a better scriptural understanding than the one I had. Please believe me that this is not some irrelevant platitude, it has actually happened to me, right here on FR. I flipped like a pancake once I was shown a higher truth supported by more relevant scripture. That's why I don't think the buck stops with us as individuals, and I don't think "conceit" is an accurate word to use here to describe our outlook.
BTW, you said that the pope would never claim the conceit of the following: "the authority stops at the individual sovereignly interpreting the scripture under the leadership, he claims, of the Holy Ghost." To be frank, if someone had asked me to describe the Catholic position of the pope's authority, I could have easily used words like this. How would you correct them in the case of ex Cathedra?
The reason is that ALL we use is the Bible. We don't have to make it match Tradition or anything else. If your faith was really close to the plain meaning of scripture, then you wouldn't need Tradition to interpret it to the degree it does.
= = =
I strongly agree.
Please keep up your excellent work.
The "each one is a pope" is a valid caricature because it exposes the conceit thaty you do not deny, that each one can claim guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are not arguing against a caricature, we have a caricature because you have a real problem and we satirize it.
you appear to be saying that confidence may not be had without infallibility
The two are not the same. As a Catholic there are things I say with confidence but they are my personal opinion. For example, someone asked me if I believed in certain personal revelations, e.g. at Fatima, and I said that I do. This is my personal opinion in which I am confident. But the Church does not teach its truth dogmatically, -- like in any approved private revelation I am free to believe or disbelieve the revelations at Fatima. There is a score of other personal opinions that I am confident about, theological and otherwise. There are some I am not so confident about. They are separate from what is infallibly taught by the Church. When I speak I make it clear: This is something I am not sure about, this is something I am confident personally, and this is the teaching of the Church. ButI am yet to see a Protestant admit that his views on Sola Scriptura, or on Sola Fide are personal opinions that he feels confident about. They always say "I know it from the scripture". Then I say, "Where is it in the scripture? Here the opposite is said in the scripture". At this point some loosely connected to the issue verses are cited, or more opinions are offered, or the topic is changed. I've been doing it for thousands of posts now: I can do it as fast as I type. Your claim of interpreting the scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit is false: you cannot sustain a scriptural debate on these core issues. Hence the satire.
We say the Spirit leads us in sanctification, a lifelong process
This is the Catholic teaching: lifelong process of sanctification in the individual. The Church, however, received the deposit of Faith from Christ. It was sanctified at that moment, at Pentecost; look it up in Acts.
You are lumping in all Protestants together in order to defeat all of them together
You admit the main statement, that your lines of authority do not converge at the top, even ideologically, right? So I will be brief. All protestants claim the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit and Scripture Alone. On that premise they are united, and I defeat them on that premise, together, because the scripture teaches the opposite. In contrast to that, we do not have ideological disagreements with the Orthodox: we understand the Tradition, including the scirpture, identically, and vary where there is legitimate room for disagreement inside the same Tradition.
This does not defeat Sola Scriptura.
Sure it does. It shows that two people read the same scripture and arrive at different conclusions, but only one of them can be right. Hence the basic of deciding who is right lies outside of the Holy Scripture.
find it highly ironic that you would be complaining about the plain text of scripture. You cannot seriously look me in the eye and say that you favor it more than we do.
Absolutely I can. When things are in the scripture they are in the scripture. If the scripture said "you are not saved by faith alone" then that is what it is, sola fide is wrong, 'cuz the Bible tells me so. Now, there are things that are not in the scripture. For example, veneration of saints is not directly in plain text in the scripture. Then we can argue tradition, etc. But we read the scripture literally. You don't -- you spin it.
proposed putting 100 spiritually-neutral, but intelligent people in a room with a Bible. They had to read it cover to cover and then answer a series of fair questions to discern what their respective understandings of "faith" were. I boldly proclaimed that the weight of the evidence would clearly show a leaning MUCH MUCH more toward Reformed theology than Apostolic.
First, think of what you just said: The Apostles and men close to them wrote the thing! If the 100 men get something not apostolic from the scripture, well, then they are all wrong. I would say that you may be correct, by the way: the Reformed theology is far better suited for the modern man. This is why modernity is in such crisis, thanks, chiefly, to Luther.
I am predicting something a bit different. If your 100 men read the Bible for what is written, ignore all traditional or historical knowledge, but somehow avoid projecting their 21c mentality into what they read, they will be with the Catholics/Orthodox on the role of scripture, on the resistibility of grace and the role of good works, and on the role of the Church. This is because these things are there in plain text (references available on request, as you know), or in the case of sole scripture absent from the text. They will not be either Orthodox or Catholic necessarily, because they will learn nothing about the liturgical praxis. They will not know about the lives of the saints, but they will conclude that praying to the Apostles, Mary, and St. Stephen (the saints mentioned in the scripture) for intercession is a good idea. They will not know whether to baptise babies. They will not form a solid trinitarian theology. They will be prone to various christological errors. One thing they will not be: they will not be Protestant at the four solas core.
But of course, it is not really opossible not to inject 21c into that experiment. This is why the entire idea is false: the only wat to objectively read the scripture is to read it in the company of the Church Fathers and through their eyes. If one were to do that, he will be 100% Orthodox or Catholic.
I do not condone nor endorse any Protestants with "modern sexual ethics".
:)) Who made you pope? :)) I am sure you do not condone them, but they read the same scripture under the same pretense of the Holy Spirit leading them.
I have never gotten a clear answer
Because the scripture does not give one regarding the end times. The pre- and post-millenial controversy among the Protestants is about some fantasies running wild. Earlier on this thread Kawaii gave an excellent reference to what the Orthodox teach about eschatology, and we agree. The short of it is that the Tribulation is now and has been happening for 2 millenia already. By the way, there is a connectin between the Catholic Mass and the Apocalypse, see The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth by Scott Hahn.
Arminianism vs. Calvinism. [...] what comes to my mind is Roman Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy.
There is nothing that separates Catholics and Orthodox about fundamentals of the faith anywhere near the degree of separation between Calvinists and the Arminians. Which difference specifically do you think exists that "comes to mind"?
you said that the pope would never claim the conceit of the following: "the authority stops at the individual sovereignly interpreting the scripture under the leadership, he claims, of the Holy Ghost." To be frank, if someone had asked me to describe the Catholic position of the pope's authority, I could have easily used words like this. How would you correct them in the case of ex Cathedra?
The Pope will not and cannot claim leadership of the Holy Spirit on his individual level. He cannot alter the established dogmas of the Church, ex cathedra or otherwise. All he does is refine the deposit of faith "once delivered to the saints" and apply it to the pastoral needs that he sees. His infallibility simply means that if the entire college of bishops goes in apostacy, the Pope can correct them alone, and the Holy Spirit guides him: "I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren", (Luke 22:32).