Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Not a problem. Do not get me wrong, I did enjoy it and it is good to discuss our differences.

God Bless you. BTW: What specific Protestant faith do you belong to?

Nicea,

I am part of the newfrontiers family of churches. Essentially I'm reformed (hence my affinity for Calvin!) and charismatic (meaning I hold that spiritual gifts, such as those in 1 Cor 12, still exist today). Not entirley unlike what you may hear from John Piper.

Kind regards

Lincs.

[GaryTaylor]

Now that the page we are on seems to clarify some other issues to a degree. Wouldn't you agree? We are still confronted with a dilemma. The conclusion which we can all agree is "good" Christians exist in many different areas thus church's.

There are souls on fire for the Lord in many areas. Yet there is still a residing issue which is Biblical.

"I pray that they are "one" as You and I are one"

"A Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand"

While "Orthodoxy" requires all to be in communion as one. John Calvin also presents a model of "the church" in which reside the elect or predestined. Thus it would seem to me a somewhat similiar parallel.

So Linc, why can't these Souls on Fire for the Lord speaking in tongues etc continue on there path say in the Anglican, Baptist, Assembly of God, Mainline Protestant etc and obtain eternal salvation? How does this theory coincide with John Calvins as to Salvation Outside the John Calvin congregation? If we are assume which I believe we can, many souls out here are indeed on fire with the Lord, they why do they need be in Calvinism? Are they doomed otherwise by definition of Elect and Prestination?

Follow my thinking?

BTW my intention much earlier with the anti-calvinist post was to place correct understanding on these Souls, which seems to be confirmed in my mind from our conversation here and elsewhere.

In other words I don't view Calvinists as souls who walk around in derisive pride thinking the are the "elect". They have a love of the Lord. They believe what they believe and are in many case's on fire with Jesus Christ. Thus my point is how to reconcile Biblical reality in Christ words above.

This one church, which we must admit at some point must exist, can we not conclude even as John Calvin would agree being a reformer, this one church existed in communion for 1200 years. Even if we are read his rebuttal to Trent we see in his words the acknowledgement of the Church. Be it he believed it was wrong in areas, yet to what degree can we conclude he was right? Can we also not conclude John Calvin has made errors?

So then what makes Calvimism different and correct if we remove "Orthodoxy" from the equation?

[Lincoln7]

Hi Gary,
Thanks for your post.

While "Orthodoxy" requires all to be in communion as one. John Calvin also presents a model of "the church" in which reside the elect or predestined. Thus it would seem to me a somewhat similiar parallel.

Most people I know draw a distinction between the church 'invisible' (known only to God, his elect) and the church 'visible' (the local congregations of believers we see) - http://www.rbvincent.com/BibleStudies/churchvisible.htm

So Linc, why can't these Souls on Fire for the Lord speaking in tongues etc continue on there path say in the Anglican, Baptist, Assembly of God, Mainline Protestant etc and obtain eternal salvation? How does this theory coincide with John Calvins as to Salvation Outside the John Calvin congregation? If we are assume which I believe we can, many souls out here are indeed on fire with the Lord, they why do they need be in Calvinism? Are they doomed otherwise by definition of Elect and Prestination?

They can! I'm not someone who limits salvation to ony those who know very detail and adhere to all of Calvins theology, because I don't hold to all of it myself! So no, being a Calvinist is not an essential. I am one indeed, but I don't dare to limit salvation to just other Calvinists. I know many beloved brothers and sisters who don't share my views, but they are indeed just that; my brothers and sisters in the Lord

This one church, which we must admit at some point must exist, can we not conclude even as John Calvin would agree being a reformer, this one church existed in communion for 1200 years. Even if we are read his rebuttal to Trent we see in his words the acknowledgement of the Church. Be it he believed it was wrong in areas, yet to what degree can we conclude he was right? Can we also not conclude John Calvin has made errors?

So then what makes Calvimism different and correct if we remove "Orthodoxy" from the equation?

We do indeed agree. I think it's correct as I think it expounds Accuratley what is taught in scripture. We have come full circle on our authority discussion!

Kind regards

Lincs.

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hi James,


From the JDDJ, I don't subscribe to it, I think it leaves far to much ambiguity on things to have resolved the issues that at present exist. Salvation is by Grace alone indeed. But what does the JDDJ mean by Grace? "in faith" What does it understand by this? Imputation, infusion? I understand the aim of the document is to foster renewed attempts at unification, but I think it doesn't really provide a clear position.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Lincs,

I'm glad we agree on grace alone. JDDJ did leave much dialogue left to be done. It was instrumental in highlighting the commonalities and differences.

Lins - I can tell you are well educated, inspired, and passionate about your topics. I pray that we all have greater unity of these theological principals in the coming generation.

I must not forget, this is God's church and he creates Christian Unity. Our job is to bring the unity that exist in God to a better historical expression.

I'll continue to keep my heart open to Protestant theology and pray that God always leads me to truth.

My advice to any brother in Christ is to spend an hour in front of the Blessed Sacrament, with an open-mind and heart, praying that God reveal himself to you in the Holy Eucharist. For it is in the Holy Eucharist thatis the source and summit.

When I spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, I can feel my soul is experiencing something deeper than I can explain.

God Bless,

James

[anthony022071]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hence the inspired scriptures.

The scriptures are called inerrant. Infallibility refers to the immunity of persons from the liability of teaching error.

The scriptures are not enough to sustain the Church in true doctrine and unity,because they are words on paper,not persons with authority in the Church who can rightly interpret and uphold and guard the true doctrines and refute errors. Scripture cannot safeguard itself from misinterpretation nor guard Christians from being misled. Nor does the Spirit ensure that everyone who reads the Bible in faith will not be misled. That ought to be obvious from the many people who have faith in Jesus and read the Bible yet hold false ideas about Jesus and truth and morality and how God created living species and how the earth is sustained.

As I said:
False doctrines would spread unchecked through human error and at the instigation of the devil,and the Church would be subverted. You will likely admit that the Holy Spirit sustains the true doctrines in the world. In the Catholic Church,this is done through the agency of the teaching office of Peter,just as with the ancient Hebrews it was done through the agency of prophets. As you said,God uses fallible men to achieve his purposes. But if God uses men to teach with his authority true doctrines to the whole Church,then they are not fallible in that capacity,because God sustains them in truth,and he would not allow for them to fail to carry out the purpose for which he uses them.

[Lincoln7]

Hi Anthony,

The scriptures are called inerrant. Infallibility refers to the immunity of persons from the liability of teaching error.

Naturally we disagree.

The scriptures are not enough to sustain the Church in true doctrine and unity,because they are words on paper,not persons with authority in the Church who can rightly interpret and uphold and guard the true doctrines and refute errors.

Oh but how much more they are!

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalm 119:105)

"But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Matt 22:29) The Lord seemed to think we could know the scripture and discern essential truths...

Yes it is the job of ministers of the gospel to guard the truths the scriptures contain. But on the idea you present of the need for this church authority to be infallible, which I do of course debate, how often does it do this? Very infrequently... :http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-c...edByChurch.doc
Your post seems to set the church in a position of authority over the inspired words of God.

Scripture cannot safeguard itself from misinterpretation nor guard Christians from being misled. Nor does the Spirit ensure that everyone who reads the Bible in faith will not be misled. That ought to be obvious from the many people who have faith in Jesus and read the Bible yet hold false ideas about Jesus and truth and morality and how God created living species and how the earth is sustained.

If you accept it can be misrepresented, which I do as well, you affirm it does have a clear meaning we can discern, in order to spot misrepresentation.

To end with a quote from the Westminister Confession -

9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.y
(y) Acts 15:15; John 5:46; 2 Pet 1:20-21

Kind regards Anthony

Lincs

[anthony022071]

Originally Posted by JaKael02

Lincs,

I'm glad we agree on grace alone.

"Grace alone" in protestant theology carries with it the idea that we are saved by faith alone and our good works do not merit salvation. Grace is defined in protestant theology merely as "unmerited favor",not as spiritual help from the which enables us to obey the commandments.

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by anthony022071

"Grace alone" in protestant theology carries with it the idea that we are saved by faith alone and our good works do not merit salvation. Grace is defined in protestant theology merely as "unmerited favor",not as spiritual help from the which enables us to obey the commandments.

Anthony -

The "grace alone" was pulled from the Joint Declaration of Doctrine on Justification. Within that document, the Lutherns and Catholics were able to agree upon Grace alone and it not equating to faith alone.

I agree that good works do not merit our salvation. Good works complete our faith. Faith that manifests itself in obedience, love, and good works.

Lincs -
What type of Protestant are you? Has this discussion given you any degree of a better understanding or respect for Catholicisms position?

In my opinion, the more I learn about Protestant theology, the more i respect and draw closer to my breathern.

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Yes it is the job of ministers of the gospel to guard the truths the scriptures contain. But on the idea you present of the need for this church authority to be infallible, which I do of course debate, how often does it do this? Very infrequently... :http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-c...edByChurch.doc
Your post seems to set the church in a position of authority over the inspired words of God.

Kind regards Anthony

Lincs

Lincs -

I can not accept it is the job of any minister to guard the truths of scripture. Simply because too often they disagree. Too often moral teachings are in conflict. (Contraception, Abortion, SS Marriage, No-fault divorce) This is more than misrepresentation or misintrepreting scripture.

The Church does speak infallibly infrequently. But speaks with one voice daily. The Church is constantly sheparding the flock through history. This is a blessing to have.

Church's authority is not "over" inspired word. It springs from the same source - Christ.

I used no solid theological sources here. Just my opinions and 'gut' feelings. Makes for a weak argument in a theological discussion... i know.

Regards,

James

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by anthony022071

"Grace alone" in protestant theology carries with it the idea that we are saved by faith alone and our good works do not merit salvation. Grace is defined in protestant theology merely as "unmerited favor",not as spiritual help from the which enables us to obey the commandments.

I never label it as "merely" unmerited favour, for it cost the Lord everything to die for us.

But indeed, I stand with the scriptures and the reformers; man cannot merit eternal life. For salvation is by Gods grace alone, unmerited favour that comes based on nothing in the recipient, on no works they can do "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." (Rom 11:6). If Grace is given on the basis of works, then it is no longer grace! There is a distinction between justification before God, and sanctification. One is justified by faith alone as a gift of grace; "and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:24). Sanctification, being made more like Christ, will happen to those justified. They are separate, but will both be present.

"4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" - (Rom 3:4-5)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." - (Eph 2:8-10) This is not your own doing... Not by works, so that none may boast. But by grace alone, through faith alone. We then perform good works, we daily put off the old nature and put on the new, as Paul says; these works were prepared that we should walk in them..

Just as Paul says in Gal 2:20: "I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." We now live for him, every day. The good works we do are not the basis of our forgiveness by God, which is by his grace alone, they are our response to the wonderful and abundant love Christ has shown to us.

Kind regards

Lincs.

[Lincoln7]

Originally Posted by JaKael02

Lincs -
What type of Protestant are you? Has this discussion given you any degree of a better understanding or respect for Catholicisms position?

In my opinion, the more I learn about Protestant theology, the more i respect and draw closer to my breathern.

Hi James,

I am reformed and charismatic. Indeed the discussion here has helped me understand the Catholic position more. But I don't accept it. Thank you for your kind words though

I can not accept it is the job of any minister to guard the truths of scripture. Simply because too often they disagree. Too often moral teachings are in conflict. (Contraception, Abortion, SS Marriage, No-fault divorce) This is more than misrepresentation or misintrepreting scripture.

By guarding it I mean that my elders for example, are to preach the pure gospel, administer the sacraments and excercise discipline in the church. They are thus guarding the truth and keeping safe their congregation. If you get what I mean by that, I can be a tad confusing at times!

The Church does speak infallibly infrequently. But speaks with one voice daily. The Church is constantly sheparding the flock through history. This is a blessing to have.

Indeed it has, I don't hold to some position that there was no church from 100 to 1517.. But that by 1517, the essential gospel needed to be clarified. So yes, the universal church is a wonderful blessing to be a part of.

Church's authority is not "over" inspired word.

I often perceive it functions that way, as scripture is only viewed as authroritative if the church says it is.

Westminister - 4. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.i
(i) 2 Pet 1:19-20; 2 Tim 3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess 2:13; Rev 1:1-2

Kind regards friend

Lincs

[anthony022071]

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hi Anthony,

Naturally we disagree.

But it is a fact that the word inerrant is appliesd to scripture is called innerrant,whereas the word infallible is applied to persons and to the Church.

Oh but how much more they are!

"Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." (Psalm 119:105)

"But Jesus answered them, "You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Matt 22:29) The Lord seemed to think we could know the scripture and discern essential truths...

This is not proof that scripture can safeguard people from error. It is true that we can discern essential truths from scripture,but people also discern wrongly from scripture.
I'm sure you would agree that the Gnostics,Doceists,Arians,Nestorians,Pela gians and Monophysities discerned wrongly from scripture,despite their faith,and that Shelby Spong and Bob Bell and liberal,modernist theologians do. And Catholics. The saducees and many of the scholars of the law certainly did.

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by JaKael02

Lincs -

I can not accept it is the job of any minister to guard the truths of scripture. Simply because too often they disagree. Too often moral teachings are in conflict. (Contraception, Abortion, SS Marriage, No-fault divorce) This is more than misrepresentation or misintrepreting scripture.

The Church does speak infallibly infrequently. But speaks with one voice daily. The Church is constantly sheparding the flock through history. This is a blessing to have.

Church's authority is not "over" inspired word. It springs from the same source - Christ.

I used no solid theological sources here. Just my opinions and 'gut' feelings. Makes for a weak argument in a theological discussion... i know.

Regards,

James

Actually Pope Benedict has spoken on this several times recently, the church is Jesus Christ. Thus the Mystical Body of Christ.

[GaryTaylor]

Originally Posted by anthony022071

But it is a fact that the word inerrant is appliesd to scripture is called innerrant,whereas the word infallible is applied to persons and to the Church.



This is not proof that scripture can safeguard people from error. It is true that we can discern essential truths from scripture,but people also discern wrongly from scripture.
I'm sure you would agree that the Gnostics,Doceists,Arians,Nestorians,Pela gians and Monophysities discerned wrongly from scripture,despite their faith,and that Shelby Spong and Bob Bell and liberal,modernist theologians do. And Catholics. The saducees and many of the scholars of the law certainly did.

"All have sinned". Actually no child under the age of consciousness has sinned, let alone Jesus and Mary.

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by GaryTaylor

Actually Pope Benedict has spoken on this several times recently, the church is Jesus Christ. Thus the Mystical Body of Christ.

I don't get it. Did I say something incorrect? If so, please correct me because I didn't mean to.

Thank you,

James