BUT, this is going to get beyond my capacity really fast, so I am going to ATTEMPT to be concise as can be. ADD and reading issues don't go with my academic desires. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)
Your first points highlight agreement with the lack of Scriptural support for ( as distinct from scriptural incompatability with ) the Marian Dogma.
we are dealing here with basic RC and Prot. differences, which the above entities have no interest in reconciling, and as Trent further evidenced, such cannot be allowed, no matter how weighty and warranted the evidence might be, due to what the doctrine of infallibility requires.
Yes, there is a fundamental difference in ecclesiology.
1. How is a person to know for sure that the RCC is infallible? "by a gift from God." "by the study of Church history."
The first would be a given, but even that presumes some basis for assent,
I think it is the most important, not logically trivial. That is, I am aware of the self-reference in our ecclesiology. Unless you said something I missed (VERY possible) I would suggest that the same kind of self-reference characterizes SS.
Scripture is quoted to support the perpetuated Petrine papacy, etc., but contrary Scriptural evidence is rejected on the basis of the basis of private interpretations being disallowed, while Mariology on steroids, by Biblical standards, abounds.
Barring the Marian part (which I mostly concede), I think that's a little unfair. The "Scripture interprets Scripture" argument is used by your side to certify whichever view is being examined. If one is to make a coherent theology from the Bible there are going to be some texts which get more oomph than others. I don't see that as being avoidable.
As a general hedge, I would ask: Are we now saying that the decision of Acts 15 was unanimously upheld? I don't think so. Judaizers were a problem afterwards, were they not? And it is not a bad thing, is it, that the Catholic ecclesiology is self-consistent? Is self-contradiction a good thing?
... based upon an erroneous idea of what constitutes the authenticity of a church or Christian, which is not formal organic ecclesiastical lineage, but effectual faith which Peter confessed, and by extension, Christ Himself, and by which the church exists and overcomes.
Slipping from description to argumentation is confusing. I would substitute "disputed" for erroneous, for the sake of clarity. We know on which side the other stands. ;-)
Further, I think we may have a difference over the works-theology of ex opere operans and ex opere operato> If anything metastasized it is our rejeciton of Donatism and our radical dependence of God, rather than the virtues of this or that pope.
God can indeed raise up children of the covenant from stones, and some of those children, in holy orders or not, may have heads full of rocks even after their raising up.
As Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal Yves Congar [Dominican and considered by many to be wildly liberal] stated .../i>
Again, unanimity or consensus is a standard that I think hasn't been met since Acts 15.
Cardinal Manning (1808-1892), who was a supreme proponent of Roman ecclesiastical power, stated that Rome's doctrines were as pure as the light, and like Jesus, were the same yesterday, today and forever, yet they in no way were dependent upon historical continuity, “But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy...
It really irritates me when people do the 'same yesterday, today, and clear into next weekend' thing. I know what they mean, but the development of doctrine makes the claim needlessly obscure and confusing.
I'm guessing, I don't know, that the "history ... treason" thing (the guy needed some lessons in outreach, IMHO) means only that the conjectures about a certain ecclesiastical purity in the apostolic and sub-apostolic age contradicts our notion that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church and protected her from [critical] error from Pentecost (or Easter -- or the Annunciation) to now and will to the end of the age.
And I think Luther, despite his faults, served in that unction and function.
I think Luther, like many of his time, were the inevitable fruit of a Nominalist view of the will and other errors not directly associated with ecclesiology. Nevertheless, if Luther had not renounced the Church, he would have been an awesome prophet. It took us too many centuries, but the clear and partially deserved accusations of the reformers have, "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," done us great good, on the positive side, and on the negative side, union with the "Eastern Church" and with our Protestant brothers would do the Church a world of good. When I'm not arguing with you all, I am grieving that we are not 100% on the same team.
I say again that Dominic and Francis showed other ways to do reform which were just as critical of the luxury and venality of some of the bozos as anything Luther did. Nothing like walking miles barefoot and begging one's supper (and laughing when the supper is not forthcoming) to witness to faith. Some say it beats swords.
As to interpreting correctly: This illustrates (to moi) the Protestant failure to deal correctly with 1 Cor 12 and other passages about diversity of gifts. Not every Catholic is going to be looking into these comparatively recondite matters. I make it through my spiritual day (if I don't log on to FR) only sometimes dealing with theology. There's talking about God and there's living in and with God. You don't need to be a theologian to do the latter. Blessed Margaret of Castello again. She is as much my hero as Aquinas is, and more so in some respects.
Those who hold to SS cannot do so, as if they were little popes, but must Biblically substantiate their doctrine, and be subject to sound examination on that basis. Adherents of SS (which does not include cults)
Why is the exclusion of cults not an artificial distinction? The Jehovah's Witnesses make imposing arguments to support their Arianism. By what standard is one group called a cult and another not? Also, what is a "basic salvific truth?" Isn't that itself a matter of debate? To observe the Arminian/Calvinist tussle here, one would conclude that the Calvinists are accusing the Arminians of something right next door to the Sin against the Holy Ghost.
The disagreements of the Catholic in the street to me indicate how we hope to preach and teach the Gospel and to provide other spiritual helps, but leave the "increase" to God. A Buddhist saying is "If you hold a lotus to a rock long enough, who knows, it might take root." Similarly, if we pray, preach, teach, celebrate the sacraments, who knows, one day somebody might be touched. It makes no theological or ecclesiological difference to me that Mrs. Concetta McGillicuddy uses artificial contraception. Straight is the way and narrow the gate; people wander and bump into the gate posts all the time. That's no reflection on the way.
Roman Catholic theologians debate the level of authority of this teaching.
Oh goodness! Of course they do. It's their job. But there's no question what the teaching is and where the average Catholic's duty lies.
But i think that if Rome still had her unBiblical civil powers, and liberals did not have so much sway in V2, then this would have a decidedly harsher understanding, as sedevacantists contend.
When Rome is falling apart and the Barbarians are at the gates and the eastern Emperor says, "I can't find anybody to run the joint, would you please take charge?" the Pope should have said, "Alaric, Schmalaric, it's not my job."
The very Biblical (in their view) Puritans had no trouble with the idea of hegemony in Massachusetts, to the distress of the Baptists. How did Calvin end up in a position where he could see to the execution of an Arminian (I THINK I have my facts right there, but I won't go to the mat.) It seems to me a little picky to get on our case for exercising civil power when nobody knew the difference between civil and ecclesiastical power or that they could be separated. It took a while to 'get' some things. It still takes a while.
If i not assumed that you would not contest the obvious, that “one of God's Divine attributes “is the ability to hear and answer infinite numbers of prayers”, Forgive me, after the tenth or so time that I go into the relationship between eternity and time and after I have already said in this exchange that the Holy Spirit clearly (I'm tempted to say "obviously") provides the unity of the Body of Christ and therefore must logically mediate communication with the saints, I tend to assume the point has been made.
That the departed can hear is speculation,
There is one body. In what other body do the members not communicate? I stub my toe, my adrenal medullae secrete adrenaline, superficial blood vessels around my body contract.
heavenly objects of intercession,
Objects of requests for intercession. GOD is the object of intercession. (Vocabulary/usage issue).
I'm going to leave the "billions of prayers" thing for somebody else. It hinges on the idea popular among some protestants that God and especially the Holy Spirit, are subject to time rather than lords over it.
I THINK the rest amounts to if we're wrong, we're REALLY wrong. True. But if we're right ...
Thank you for your kind words about my alleged honesty. If there is any in this cess-pool, it's God's gift. Let us praise Him as I praise Him for you and for your excellent posts. As to convicting of sin, would our pastor saying last week, "The ONLY THING any of us can take credit for is SIN," be enough?
blah blah blah. I wonder if this will fit in one post.
Scripture is quoted to support the perpetuated Petrine papacy, etc., but contrary Scriptural evidence is rejected on the basis of the basis of private interpretations being disallowed, while Mariology on steroids, by Biblical standards, abounds.
Barring the Marian part (which I mostly concede), I think that's a little unfair.
What i was referring to is the argumentation used to justify the infallibility of Rome. To reiterate, searching Scripture is rejected as a means of private persons assuredly knowing truth, as violating 2Pet. 1:20. Thus searching the Scriptures and history in order to have the confidence needed to assent to the claims of Rome must be rejected, as they depend on fallible private human interpretation. Therefore a prior assent to Rome being the authoritative infallible interpreter is required. Rome's claim to be such assumes a prior assumption of infallibly, and by which she rejects any evidence to the contrary. God however, is seen appealing to human reasoning (Is. 42-47; 2Cor. 4:2) in bringing souls to believe His word, with that faith resulting in manifest evidence which corresponds to His claims, that it was warranted, and which warrants more trust in Him. As we trust and obey the Bible we continually see this manifestation.
If one is to make a coherent theology from the Bible there are going to be some texts which get more oomph than others. I don't see that as being avoidable.
For sure. But the more critical ones as who/what God and man basically are, the need and means of salvation, etc., which a soul needs to be saved by, have rather abundant evidence, and not i the same category as either prayer to saints or if musical instruments should be in churches (not that';s a real issue to divide over).
And in this realm,
Those who hold to SS cannot do so, as if they were little popes, but must Biblically substantiate their doctrine, and be subject to sound examination on that basis. Adherents of SS (which does not include cults)
Why is the exclusion of cults not an artificial distinction? The Jehovah's Witnesses make imposing arguments to support their Arianism. By what standard is one group called a cult and another not?
Cults do not hold to SS, and if they did we could convince them far more easier of their error. Rather they too appeal to an ultimate infallible magisterial authority. Thus WTS org. mind control, and reliance upon “Reasoning [away] with the Scriptures”, or the the Living Prophet and the BoM, D+C, etc. hold more allegiance than Scripture.
Also, what is a "basic salvific truth?"
Basic salvific truth is the essential truth one needs to be regenerated, which is just as much dependance upon the type of heart receiving it as the knowledge it acts upon. That there is a God/Creator who is holy (Dt. 32:4) and just (Ex. 34:6,7) and rewards true seekers, (Acts 10:34,35; Heb. 11:6) and that men are sinners, (Rm. 3:23) and facing judgment. (Acts 10:42) But that God offers mercy and forgiveness through Jesus Christ His Son who died for us and rose again. (Acts 10:38-43)
The material creation basically testifies to God's existence and power and wisdom, (Rm. 1) and innate knowledge provides essential moral values corresponding in essence to the Law, with the the latter doing so more precisely and comprehensively. (Rm. 2-3) Thus it is “proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin”. (Rm. 3:9). The gospel provides the truth which souls are to trust in for salvation, but the preaching of it is to work to bring souls to be convicted of their need for salvation, as Peter did in Acts 2, convicting men of sin, and of righteousness and to judgment, resulting in a “sinners prayer” in body language, (Acts 2:28) confessing faith in the crucified and risen LORD Jesus. The above truths are implicit in the apostolic messages, and manifest depending on the light the audience has. To the Jews Scripture was much invoked, (Acts 2,13) while to the barbarians, the light of nature (Acts 14,17). What was not preached was that of becoming a member of church in order to be born gain, thus even in the desert regeneration took place (Acts 8:26-39), but being part of the assembly was the result. (Acts 4:42-47)
Isn't that itself a matter of debate? To observe the Arminian/Calvinist tussle here, one would conclude that the Calvinists are accusing the Arminians of something right next door to the Sin against the Holy Ghost.
Not really, as understood as above, and thus the apostles creed covers essentials. Under essential B however, would be the need for fellowship, and its interdependence and offices including pastoral authority, and obedience to Biblically warranted truth.
Are we now saying that the decision of Acts 15 was unanimously upheld? I don't think so. Judaizers were a problem afterwards, were they not?
They were a problem, but at the time, after debating, and hearing Peter's appeal to Scripture in justification of what was occurring, and hearing of the evident supernatural attestation, James provided the definitive sentence as to what to do, and “then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church to send chosen men of their own company” with that message. But this did not settle the issue of whether Jews should observe all the Law, and later the Judaizers almost murdered Paul after his following the well-meaning attempt by James to mend controversy. (Acts 21) Law and grace don't mix.
And it is not a bad thing, is it, that the Catholic ecclesiology is self-consistent? Is self-contradiction a good thing?
No necessarily as to the former, as consistency itself does not constitute truth. But as covered before, her doctrines do not enjoy unanimous consent of the fathers, some far less than others. But even if they did, that also would not be the basis for truth. It is not written that “all church teaching is inspired by God” or “all church tradition,” even though Scripture was and is Tradition. But as that tangible class of revelation alone is affirmed to be the source that is wholly inspired of God, when one holds a writing to be Scripture, then he should agree to be subject to it, and his teachings substantiated by it, and not autocratically.
some of those children, in holy orders or not, may have heads full of rocks even after their raising up.
And I am one of those donkeys upon whom no man ever rode before.
I'm guessing, [Manning] means only that the conjectures about a certain ecclesiastical purity in the apostolic and sub-apostolic age contradicts our notion that the Holy Spirit has guided the Church and protected her from [critical] error from Pentecost (or Easter -- or the Annunciation) to now and will to the end of the age.
Contextually, what he is doing is insisting that the Prots have no legitimate basis for asserting historical antiquity for their doctrines (and for challenging Rome's), as Rome alone has the crystal ball into what they really meant. “I say in truth that the church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness,” and he likens it to the spirit of a man which knows itself. “The Divine evidence of what was primitive is the witness and the voice of the church at this hour.” If it does say so itself. On that basis, it can unquestionably assert any interpretation of Scripture or of the fathers or history, and so “the Catholic doctrines are always primitive...to be received by faith.”
if Luther had not renounced the Church, he would have been an awesome prophet.
But seriously, did he really have much of a choice but to leave? What happened to Savonarola?
the clear and partially deserved accusations of the reformers have, "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," done us great good, on the positive side,
You are remarkably candid and insightful, and i have stated the same. But i also look at the tremendous fruit of the Reformation, especially in the 1700]s to 1900]s, without which there would be no Matthew Henry, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerds, Fanny Crosby Dwight L. Moody and multitudes multitudes more, and the fruit of the Awakenings (and its effects upon America) and the countless souls that entered the Kingdom, to the glory of God. Yet relative few young Evangelicals today even know of them. But i also see the negative and unnecessary things, and Protestantism benefited by the early councils work in substantiation of basic creedal doctrines.
union with the "Eastern Church" and with our Protestant brothers would do the Church a world of good. When I'm not arguing with you all, I am grieving that we are not 100% on the same team.
Indeed. My allegiance is to the Scriptures above any particular denomination, and i find we can work well together to varying degrees as long as we are truly born again and seek to live in surrender to Christ and His word, and have a burden to be holy and for the lost, and help the saints. The real deleterious divisions are not the really result of differences in difficult doctrines such as the basis for election, and attempts to sincerely find what is most Biblically warranted, but are due to not going to the cross enough to die. For of the flesh cometh such strife, sedition, heresies. (Gal. 5:20) But arguments as the former can be occasions for the exercise of the latter.
Nothing like walking miles barefoot and begging one's supper (and laughing when the supper is not forthcoming) to witness to faith. Some say it beats swords.
It was a contrast, and more in line with humble Peter, and i think he is better than me in laughing when cold and hungry, but God does not want His seed begging, (Ps. 37:25) especially from the lost, (3Jn. 1:3-5) as we will know God's gracious faithfulness as we live by faith, with patience, in seeking to consistently obey Mt. 6:33.
But i think that if Rome still had her unBiblical civil powers, and liberals did not have so much sway in V2, then this would have a decidedly harsher understanding, as sedevacantists contend.
When Rome is falling apart and the Barbarians are at the gates and the eastern Emperor says, "I can't find anybody to run the joint, would you please take charge?" the Pope should have said, "Alaric, Schmalaric, it's not my job."
Well, i am sure you know the history here better than i, the situation at the time seemed to demand it, but this went on for centuries, and today the Christian faith still suffers from the association with its extremes. And i think the Puritans were wrong in creating such a theocracy as they did, that would rule over those without, as Roger Williams contended. Practical separation between the two realms is is difficult, but basically compelling church adherence, and having the unfaithful face the rack (even if the secular court were worse) is certainly out of bounds. It is true that all government enforces some belief system, and we were blessed in that being more the general Christian faith here in times past, rather than the ever-morphing morality of State-sponsored secularism seen today. But in a democracy the people choose, and such is only fit for a “religious and moral people” with the then present one being in mind. This issue also could sustain its own thread.
It took a while to 'get' some things.
It does, but this is something that never should have been lost. The early church did quite well while being politically incorrect, but it was not ordained or designed to rule over the non-elect and use the sword of the State, or use it to enforce theological allegiance to it.
There is one body. In what other body do the members not communicate?
The issue is that of the way in which God operates in the two different realms. To remove any distinctions, people on earth would not need to use physical instrumentation to communicate with each other, but as in prayer, they could so so by wholly spiritual means. While believers can have a word of knowledge, that is not prayer.
the "billions of prayers" thing...some protestants that God and especially the Holy Spirit, are subject to time rather than lords over it
No, they are not, as this is an attribute of Deity, and hearing everyone's prayers, like omniscience, is not seen as communicable. But again, amongst all the examples or instructions the Bible provides on prayer, there simply is no substantiation for praying to anyone else in heaven but God, or any real warrant, as Christ alone is exalted as our wholly qualified and accessible intercessor, with direct connections to God.
As to convicting of sin, would our pastor saying last week, "The ONLY THING any of us can take credit for is SIN," be enough?
Yes, and amen. And the only One in the whole universe who needs nothing (Acts 17:25) and never needs to change, is the Almighty. And even His call to love Him supremely is unselfish, regardless of what atheistic “brites” rant, as that is only what is right, and to our benefit. May i only want to glorify Him. Amen