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).
But the Church does not teach its truth dogmatically,
= = =
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh,
I think there are countless poor souls who were on the Inquisition racks who would disagree.
Conceit? :) We say the Spirit loves us and helps us, and that is conceit? You say that the Spirit only helps your hierarchy, and that isn't conceit? Well, I suppose that we will continue to think of the Spirit as being a loving and very personal God, and you will continue to think of Him as being ........... something else. :)
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.
Then how does the Church teach its truth? I'm not sure what you're saying here.
There is a score of other personal opinions that I am confident about, theological and otherwise. ... They are separate from what is infallibly taught by the Church. ...... But I 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".
Well of course, that is our system. We don't have a pope. Again, you are requiring a pope. Why do you do that? :) The only way an admission would be due from a Protestant is if we agreed that the pope has the only say. Of course we do not, so there is no issue of "admission". For interpretation, our confidence is not in God through a pope, it is in God through His own word. We can honestly disagree on which is correct, but you can't say we are not allowed to have confidence because we don't have a pope.
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.
If your Church was fully sanctified at Pentecost then why would you give one pope the power to overrule her? (Further comments at the end of the next post)
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.
No, this beginning would be like my saying that Catholics and Muslims disagree ideologically, therefore, both are wrong since they both claim to believe in God. I do not claim any allegiance to all Protestants. It is a non-starter to say that Sola Scriptura is wrong because some groups calling themselves Protestants claim wacko views based on Sola Scriptura. The doctrine, as formally identified by the original Reformers, is most faithfully practiced by the Reformers of today. Other Protestants practice it to lesser degrees.
In contrast to that, we do not have ideological disagreements with the Orthodox: we understand the Tradition, including the scripture, identically, and vary where there is legitimate room for disagreement inside the same Tradition.
Really? You and the Orthodox understand the scripture and Tradition identically? Your differences are basically "small potatoes" within Tradition? My wild guess is that you might find some "legitimate room for disagreement" FROM the Orthodox on that view.
FK: "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."
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.
There are too many examples to list. Your literal reading of "all have sinned" is "all have not sinned". Your literal reading of "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" is "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have temporary life until he commits the next sin". Your literal reading of " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, ..." is "For it is by grace you have been partially and temporarily saved, partially through faith — and this definitely partially from yourselves, it is somewhat the gift of God— absolutely by works, with God's help."
The point is that for every example you can come up with, we can come up with A LOT more. Don't forget, we say the Bible speaks for itself. You say the Bible is indecipherable without the Church's interpretation. I agree with you. There is NO WAY the literal taking of the Bible comes anywhere close to Roman Catholic theology. Except in very limited circumstances, you have no case to make that Roman Catholicism has any regard for the literal words of scripture. Why else would your hierarchy have sheltered your laity away from those words for so many hundreds of years? If your hierarchy simply reflected those literal words, there would be nothing to be afraid of. Yet, their actions betray the opposite truth.
(Continued on next post....)
[The following is on FK's proposed experiment to put 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 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.
You're blaming Luther and the Reformers for the cultural crisis we see in America today? :) OK, I suppose that statement just speaks for itself. LOL! Specks and planks, Alex.
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 irresistibility of grace and the role of good works, and on the role of the Church.
Where are you getting this idea that Reformed theology somehow especially caters to a 21c mentality? It obviously catered pretty well to a 16c mentality since it spread so far and so quickly. To a great extent, the Reformers of today believe in exactly the same things as the original Reformers. Our theology has not molded itself for a contemporary audience.
On the results of the hypothetical test, we will just have to agree to disagree. All of the following is based on the premise of a single reading of the Bible by a disinterested, intelligent person. No life-long study is part of the experiment. There is no way in the world the Bible could objectively be read to provide for its equal (in authority) in the form of Tradition. No way. Irresistibility of grace might be a wash, objectively. The role of good works might also be a wash, but for different reasons. All say a saved Christian does and must do good works. I think the reader would probably stop there. And on the role of the Church, the last thing in the universe the reader would ever come up with is the current, or even historical, RCC. It's not even close. The benevolent dictatorship that is the RCC is found no where in scripture. Church melding with state is not found in scripture. No, the reader would have no chance of coming up with how the RCC has defined itself.
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.
What do you have, a couple of verses even arguably supporting this view? You would put that up AGAINST what Christ Himself taught, and the thousands of other examples of prayer given to God alone? You can't be serious. :) No one would conclude that attempting to communicate with the physically deceased is Christian behavior based on the totality of scripture.
They will not know whether to baptize babies.
Despite my bias, I still think the weight of example leans toward a believer's baptism. However, I have room for compromise here.
They will not form a solid trinitarian theology.
Depending on what you mean by "solid", I would disagree. I think the principles of the trinity are laid out very well in scripture. They are each spoken of in divine senses, and brought together as persons in the commandment on baptism.
They will be prone to various christological errors. One thing they will not be: they will not be Protestant at the four solas core.
Barring that any of them were memory wizards, yes, they would be prone to errors. That's why teachers are useful to connect different passages of scripture together. That is what Sola Scriptura does. Had I qualified for the experiment, I would not have wound up with all the beliefs I hold now. I do not have the capacity to remember and connect all the ideas in scripture together based on one reading. However, I do maintain that one reading would have left me much closer to Reformed theology than to Catholicism.
But of course, it is not really possible not to inject 21c into that experiment. This is why the entire idea is false: ...
Who cares about 21c.? Why is that such a big deal? I'll take 100 intelligent, disinterested, and unbiased persons from any time since the original Canon and say the results would be the same.
... the only way 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.
What??? :) That is objective? Is there a new on-line dictionary I am unfamiliar with? :) BTW, how do you figure that anyone reading through the Fathers would wind up "all Catholic" or "all Orthodox"? That's a pretty big difference on some very important things. Since our hypothetical reader is starting from a "blank slate" what about him do you think would lead him into one camp or the other?
----------
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"?
How about the nature of grace? You also disagree on original sin. As far as I know, Calvinists and Arminians disagree on basically one very big thing. Otherwise, we apologize side by side on almost everything else. When I made my comment, it occurred to me that that one big thing "might" be comparable is size of scope to all of the differences you have with the Orthodox put together. You can't tell me those differences are insignificant because you are in schism, and have been for a millennium.
His infallibility simply means that if the entire college of bishops goes in apostasy, the Pope can correct them alone, and the Holy Spirit guides him: ...
How could the whole Church hierarchy (save the Pope) go apostate if the Church was sanctified (completely) at Pentecost? It would seem impossible, wouldn't it? Therefore, that would seem to eliminate the concept of papal infallibility, and even the need for a Pope.