She’ll reverse one of her teachings* on faith or morals.
Many Protestants want to disprove the Catholic Church, so they seek out contradictions in history of the (allegedly) infallible Magisterium of the Church. Books have been written about certain (alleged) contradictions, but unless one is already disposed against Catholicism, these “finds” are not very convincing, especially given the Catholic responses to them.
Papal infallibility never looked so good
No, the way to know will be watching for the Catholic Church to follow all Protestant Communities in reversing teachings on contraception, sterilization, abortion**, euthanasia, same-sex marriage and ordination (or even as some have on the Trinity itself and on justification).
If God is not protecting the Catholic Church from error, then she, like Protestant churches, cannot stand against the cultural tide for much longer. And if she reverses one of these teachings, you will know she is not protected from error.
In the meantime, since “you may be waiting awhile” before this event occurs, join the Catholic Church on the strong evidence that God is protecting her teachings found in the fact that she has not reversed any of these de fide doctrines while Protestantism has caved on every one of them.
* for those who care about technical details, I refer specifically to de fide credenda or de fide tenenda doctrines (i.e. “big ones” like abortion, the Trinity, etc.)
** I was surprised while researching my book that even the Southern Baptist Convention (my old Protestant denomination) had reversed its teaching on abortion for some time.
We already CAN know it is false, seeing it is another thing. I would think ushering sincere non believers into the Kingdom at Vatican II would have been proof enough that the RCC is off the rails- not only Biblically (Jesus is THE way…no other name in heaven…etc), but historically to its own teachings.
If they can do this, then why would they not cave in to social pressures in other ways? For instance, in a Roman Catholic pre-marriage course, the priest who was over-seeing it literally advocated the use of birth-control. ONLY when he was challenged about the churches official teachings did he get red faced and clear his throat and explain it away. If he was not challenged, his teaching was going to stand- he wasn’t going to reverse that on his own! As more and more of the ‘shepherds’ in the RCC rise up the food chain, they will carry their liberal social ideals with them, and you will see change in the Churches position too.
If they can ‘sell out’ the unique exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only way, they will sell out on contraception too.
God bless,
Garret
The Church teaches that people of good will can be saved by God’s extra-ordinary mercy, even if they do not necessarily know who Christ is or the truth about him. It’s not caving in; it’s not denying that Christ is the only way; it’s simply recognizing that, even in this day and age, there are people who do not have access in their life to the truth (dictatorial Islamic regimes which control entire countries, for instance). And God, who is rich in mercy, takes a person’s possibilities in life into account.
As for that priest, Arius was a deacon in the Catholic Church in Alexandria and taught that Christ was a demi-god; so did lots of bishops who went over to his heresy. The Church spoke at Nicaea and guess what, Arius kept spreading his heretical beliefs, as did many bishops; it took centuries for Arianism to be completely overcome. This doesn’t disproves the Catholic Church’s authority. (Nor does the heresy and rebellion of Novatus, Montanus, Sabellius, the Monophysites, the Monothelites, the Cathars, the Waldensians…or even of Luther and Zwingli, both Catholic priests.)
As more and more of the ’shepherds’ in the RCC rise up the food chain, they will carry their liberal social ideals with them, and you will see change in the Churches position too.
Heterodox (“liberal”) Catholics have been waiting for just this for a long time now; they were sure that their day had come with the death of Pope John Paul II, but they had another thing coming. I made a video about it…
they will sell out on contraception too.
All the Protestant churches sold-out on contraception long ago. Let’s see if the Catholic Church does, too. I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
Benedict won’t live (here) forever. It is appropriate for you to have hope that a ‘progressive’ pope will not arise.
Again- two observations-For the RCC according to you, to have heresies arise within her- this presents mere discomfort and hand-waving away the problem- God is good, just look where we are now. You might say ‘so what about evil pope so and so who misled his trusting doe-eyed admirers, we know better now!’ But to you- within Protestantism, such heresies and problems disprove Protestantism. There is a disconnect in logic there, and no, the ‘bridge’ you use to cross that disconnect- big C Church and her list o’ popes going back to Peter- isn’t going to save your paradigm- its merely a case of the pot calling the kettle black and denying it’s current blackness and calling it a beautiful shiny newness. If there was and is controversy and heretical ideas IN you, perhaps there will be the same OUT of you. We point to different authorities- apparently both authorities need to be obeyed in order to work- imagine that! Imagine also that stubborn people within the Church fight for their side in spite of both Biblical and Papal authorities.
Secondly, regarding pigs flying and this- The Church teaches that people of good will can be saved by God’s extra-ordinary mercy, even if they do not necessarily know who Christ is or the truth about him. What of the Popes that did not teach that, were they misleading the people? Somehow Christ can’t get His truth to his sheep, some tyrant blocks His will? This is a small c christ you are describing.
Gods extra-ordinary mercy is known by such things as missionaries who bring the Gospel, both above ground and ‘underground’. You cannot escape the fact that God COULD destroy evil regimes were he to will it, but He works in other ways (with obvious exceptions). This reflects the truth that if God wills that a person hears and responds (whether positively or negatively) to the Gospel, those persons will in fact hear it somehow. If not, you were not meant to hear it, because you in fact did not. This is not fatalistic. We are not judged BY whether we hear and respond, but judged for our sins. God is showing undeserved and unmerited mercy to those who are His sheep.
Contrary to this is the human response of throwing our hands into the air and saying ‘since it’s in His hands it’s in His hands, and nice people who didn’t know will go to heaven because that’s just a nice thing for God to do’. That is not based on a Biblical view of man, but man’s view of man, and being nice and loving. By God’s mercy are we drawn out of our state of sin and given His light- not all will receive His light, many will remain in darkness. This position that you are espousing is contrary to that idea- darkness can overtake a person their whole life, and they emerge- saved- because they would have had they known. They didn’t have the saving light Devin, they had only natural revelation that does not save. Salvation comes by FAITH, and faith by hearing the Word of Christ (Romans 10).
God bless,
Garret
Garret,
I’m trying to understand your disagreements with Devin. Forgive my ignorance in what I may say for I am just a benchwarmer
. What I have gotten from your discussions is that you feel that Devin is not giving any credit to the coalescing of the various Protestant denominations around what is the truth So I would gather that you would see the move by various Lutheran churches to move away from “liberal” ideas as a good thing (the presumption is that they are staying true to what is evident in the Bible). I’m sure the same can be said of other denominations such as the Episcopalians and the like. Devin sees splintering while you see strengthening. My question though is even if each Protestant denomination achieves their ideal truth, how do the Pentecostals and Methodists agree what is true? And how would the non-denominational churches agree with Baptists? That’s the part I don’t get.
It would seem that even though the priest you cited was teaching incorrectly, the Catholic teaching on contraception was still known and established (that’s why became red faced). I suppose you are correct that so called “liberal” minded individuals could infiltrate the Church and cause the same problems that are happening in Protestant churches. I would say that was one reason the recent priest abuse scandal occurred. So let’s say that a few popes from now, the teaching on contraception is changed to match secular demands. I would guess you would say the Church has been proven false (although I gathered that’s your feeling now). What Protestant denomination is vindicated?
Finally, did I understand correctly that your position is that those who do not accept Christ are doomed to hell? Maybe that’s a overreach since I think I also read that if God wanted you (as an Amazon tribesman) to be saved, he would send Christian missionaries to lead to you salvation. Why is it any less plausible to believe that if God wanted you to be saved, he’d just cut the middle men out and take care of it himself on his own terms.
Hi dmart!
Thanks for your comments and interest!
My question though is even if each Protestant denomination achieves their ideal truth, how do the Pentecostals and Methodists agree what is true? And how would the non-denominational churches agree with Baptists? That’s the part I don’t get.
There is no question on the core truths of small o orthodox Christianity. That God is one being in three persons, the role that Jesus plays as Lord, Baptism, Lords supper, good works done in a changed life,etc. According to the Bible, one must be baptized, and is to participate in gathering and the ‘Lords supper’. Baptism of babies versus baptism of believing adults might never be resolved for all I know- though not too many believe in Baptismal regeneration. If you are Biblical you baptize, how you practice baptism is another issue. The question is- what are the core truths of the faith, and where is liberty in practice. Just like in Roman Catholicism, people are going to have different ideas on free-will and how that plays out, and that freedom is accepted. I am not aware of denominations that are attempting to unify with others, though I might be ignorant there. I hope this helps explain a little bit.
I suppose you are correct that so called “liberal” minded individuals could infiltrate the Church and cause the same problems that are happening in Protestant churches.
They have been there for years and years already. As Devin referred to them in #2- Heterodox Catholics. Go to Randys site Purify Your Bride here-
http://purifyyourbride.stblogs.com/2010/02/12/newman-and-the-early-papacy/comment-page-1/#comment-4641
and look at the dialog between Randy, Roman Catholic and John, Protestant in the comments about this and similar issues.
Finally, did I understand correctly that your position is that those who do not accept Christ are doomed to hell?
That is the position of traditional (small o) orthodox Christianity. Without Jesus, you will die in your sins (John 8:23,24). You die once and then comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27). Look at Jesus’ dialog with the non believing Jews in John Chapter 8. Read Chapter 14 of the same book, John. Read Peters sermon in Acts of the Apostles Chapter 4- by no other name are you saved!
Why is it any less plausible to believe that if God wanted you to be saved, he’d just cut the middle men out and take care of it himself on his own terms.
These are His own terms! Please watch the friend of Francis Beckwith, Greg Koukl answer this question in a short video. He has also written about this in an article on the same website STR.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7524
Thanks,
God bless,
Garret
Good to see gmart chiming in and Garret responding.
Garret,
In the 1960s and 70s, the sexual revolution was in full swing. The Protestant churches had all embraced contraception, and expectations were high that soon the Catholic Church would accept what “was obviously a good thing.”
And then Pope Paul VI released the encyclical Humanae Vitae, but instead of finding the endorsement of the practice, a definitive rejection of contraception instead was found. The unstoppable force hit the immovable wall, and the force lost. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
The Church should have folded like a bad hand of cards in those decades, or at least then in the 80s and 90s, when “everyone” accepted contraception as a given. But she didn’t.
I recall when I as a Protestant investigating the Catholic Church brought up the fact that the Church said contraception was immoral. I gave the reasons, too, for they were becoming convincing to me. My good Southern Baptist brothers were dumbfounded. How could I be saying that contraception was wrong? Two of them are in ministry to this day in the SBC, one a head pastor of, you guessed it, a Reformed Baptist church.
Are Catholics more faithful than Protestants? No. Are the popes stronger and more clever and more holy by their own merits than Protestant leaders? No. Is the Catholic Church made up of holier or more faithful people? No. Sometimes just the opposite is the case.
Instead, the only explanation is that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. It is God himself who guards her, and not man. If God were not protecting her, she would have fallen into the error of endorsing contraception, but she didn’t and hasn’t and won’t.
So we don’t look to the people in Protestantism, heterodox or orthodox, nor do we look to the individual persons in Catholicism, heterodox or orthodox; instead, we look to the teachings of the Church and of the Protestant Ecclesial Communities.
This reflects the truth that if God wills that a person hears and responds (whether positively or negatively) to the Gospel, those persons will in fact hear it somehow. If not, you were not meant to hear it, because you in fact did not. This is not fatalistic. We are not judged BY whether we hear and respond, but judged for our sins. God is showing undeserved and unmerited mercy to those who are His sheep.
The “Reformed” part of your “Reformed Baptist” faith is coming out now. Ah, the cold logic of Calvinism, which misunderstands the mystery of God’s omniscience and man’s free will.
If you are really convicted of the truth of these Calvinist ideas, you should be on a plane right now to Saudi Arabia, where no Christian church is allowed to be built, risking your life to bring the gospel to Muslims, who by your logic will perish in their sins with no chance for mercy unless a Christian gets to them to share the truth with them of Jesus. Have you left yet?
Hi Devin,
Re: Contraception. I understand whole heartedly the concept. Children are a blessing of God, and if you are having sex, you are to be married for one, and two, not shy away from the possibility of God’s blessing in your lives.
To your charge that this subject is proof of Holy Spirits guidance, of course I am convinced otherwise. The concept of justification is perverted by the necessity afterwords of real merit after the initial grace to then get more grace and actually be (hopefully) saved through that process CCC 2009-2010. That is thoroughly unbiblical, as are indulgences. Your Church is not led by the Holy Spirit, it can’t be, it is not Apostolic in theology. Those who are justified are saved. You do not have the Good news, you have a system. The Gospel is something else altogether, and that something, the RCC doesn’t have.
If you are really convicted of the truth of these Calvinist ideas, you should be on a plane right now to Saudi Arabia, where no Christian church is allowed to be built, risking your life to bring the gospel to Muslims, who by your logic will perish in their sins with no chance for mercy unless a Christian gets to them to share the truth with them of Jesus. Have you left yet?
Evangelizing in Saudi Arabia, and converting a Muslim can result in jail, expulsion, lashing, torture or execution. Neverthless people are doing it. We should all keep up to date on the persecution of Christians around the world-
http://www.persecution.com/
It is actually the other way around in your portrayal. Theological Armenians are the ones who pile on the guilt trips about how you are responsible to every person you know for their souls- as though you can convince them from a state of prevenient grace into faith. Calvinism tends towards the Biblical idea that you can’t see the kingdom unless born from above (John 3) and His sheep hear His voice in John 10 and in John 6 unless they are literally dragged (drawn) to Christ by the Father, they won’t respond positively, being dead in sin. If you won’t respond to Christ unless the Father draws you, then obviously, you are not directly personally responsible for the souls of your evangelical efforts, but you do them none the less. We don’t know His sheep, they don’t come with tags on their ears or brands on their bodies.
Yet another proof that the Roman Catholic Church does not have the Holy Spirit- the worldly idea that the message of Christ is not needed for the souls to receive faith, the faith that saves. The great commission was just this- to get the saving message out into the world.
Romans 10:13-17
for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?” Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Given the last sentence, and other such black and white, and yes, uncomfortable statements of Christ and His Apostles, your message of death, that “even if they do not necessarily know who Christ is or the truth about him” they can be” saved” is Satan’s victory over a body of believers. Better a hundred billion condoms than Satan’s lie that one can go through life not hearing and positively responding to the Gospel. Priorities, Devin.
In Christ,
Garret
Garret,
I’ll cherry pick and just respond to one of the latter points you made.
Regarding salvation: Romans 10:9, “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Let’s not dither around here: This verse unequivocally states that you must confess with your mouth that “Jesus is Lord,” and guess what, mute people _cannot speak_ and thus cannot confess with their mouth. By using your interpretive rigidity, mute people are going to Hell. “Sorry, that’s what the Bible says.”
Obviously, you would disagree because, why would God damn someone just because they cannot speak? You would call upon other verses which would seem to support a more “lenient” notion that someone could get around this verse by “just believing,” etc. Well, if you want to ignore Bible verses that are “clear and unequivocal,” that’s fine with me, but then you cannot get mad at me if I do the same.
Question for you: The time is 35 AD. Christ died, rose, and ascended just a few years prior. The gospel has begun to be preached to the world, but it hasn’t got to the ends of the earth yet. Do you think anyone living in southern Africa or (what we now call) Asia, who had not heard the gospel, were saved during those decades/centuries?
(Realize that it was of course, the Catholic missionaries during the time of the Reformation who brought the gospel for the first time to many parts of Asia. The Protestants for centuries interpreted the Great Commission passage in Matthew 28 as being only intended for the Apostles and those closely after them; they considered it accomplished and so Protestants didn’t go on missionary journeys for a long, long time.)
What about the Native Americans? They didn’t hear the gospel until the Americas were discovered. Were any Native Americans prior to 1492 saved?
Hi Devin
Re: #8
Your out of place wooden literal interpretation you try to foist on me shows that you’re highly interested in being divisive for the sake of being divisive, it is not helping the discussion at all. I am trying to be sincere, and to show the love and care of a concerned Christian to these issues.
Who in their right mind thinks that a person who cannot speak does not qualify for Romans 10:9, especially when the key is not a speaking, but understanding that Jesus is LORD, and believing in the heart that He was raised? You are not dealing with the issue at hand, and that issue is the clear transmission of the faith comes through hearing the Word- special revelation, beyond natural revelation. I know you understand the point but you insist that your bishops aren’t wrong- they are, read the text of the Scriptures. Muslims do not worship our God, they say Jesus is not LORD. They reject the resurrection.
Obviously, you would disagree because, why would God damn someone just because they cannot speak? You would call upon other verses which would seem to support a more “lenient” notion that someone could get around this verse by “just believing,” etc. Well, if you want to ignore Bible verses that are “clear and unequivocal,” that’s fine with me, but then you cannot get mad at me if I do the same.
Look at what you are resorting to Devin, read yourself. You know that you are unjustified, that an absurd woodenly literal ‘speaking’ is NOT what the text plainly means, BUT then you use that as a leverage against the concept of clear interpretation. The only reason you can make the ‘argument’ at all is because your ‘interpretation’ is clearly absurd in the first place, thereby demonstrating MY point, that you can understand the passage. Not all interpretations are equally valid- words and phrases in context have actual meaning.
Do you think anyone living in southern Africa or (what we now call) Asia, who had not heard the gospel, were saved during those decades/centuries?
What about the Native Americans? They didn’t hear the gospel until the Americas were discovered. Were any Native Americans prior to 1492 saved?
Wow. How many popes would have answered your question wrong Devin, any of them? How about councils?
The Council of Florence, the 17th Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church, said the following:
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock;
WOW all those poor Indians and Chinese! Seriously, I’m sure an apologist of your ilk has the answers you need, you just want to see me squirm.
God bless Devin!
Garret
Garret,
Alright, we’re definitely getting less productive, so I’ll make this my last comment; feel free to have the last word.
You claim that my interpretation is “wooden literal” and denies the “plain” meaning of it, but the interpretation I put forth is the plain meaning. You may disagree with it, which is fine, and I don’t agree with it either, but it demonstrates how important interpretation is.
In this comment series and on the one about bias and Tradition, you’ve not really responded to some of my points. I will reiterate just one of them. Today I was doing my Bible reading (through 1 Corinthians) and read in 1 Corinthians 14:
“As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
We see in multiple places the admonition for women to be silent. You explained it away as a cultural norm. Perhaps you would call my interpretation here “wooden literal” as well? Your problem is that that is just what same-sex proponents call _your_ interpretation of those verses in the Bible which seem to condemn homosexual behavior.
What you have to resort to is a bald-faced assertion that _your_ interpretation of all of these verses in the correct one while those interpretations of others are wrong (on women being silent, on same-sex, on women covering their heads, on women having authority over men in the church, etc.).
You claim that interpretations counter to your own are false, are “wooden literal,” and so on, but I can claim the same of yours; what authority do you have to claim yours are the correct interpretations? None.
Because what you believe is that “the Bible” is the highest authority, yet as I have demonstrated here and in the other post, the Bible must be interpreted, and the plain meaning is not always the true meaning, and it is very easy to get conflicting interpretations of it depending upon one’s own particular Christian tradition and lens and one’s own personal prejudices. So, the reality is that the highest authority for you is someone’s _interpretation_ of the Bible.
God bless,
Devin
Thanks Devin
First to address up front a false notion, and then a misunderstanding of what I was saying.
what authority do you have to claim yours are the correct interpretations? None.
This assumes that language can not work unless all dispute is settled by an ‘ultimate authority’. This militates against logic and everyday experience, direct admonitions in Scripture to search the Scriptures, and unsettled various opinions on Scripture passages that remain unresolved by the RCC. Some passages can and do have various interpretations that are possibilities, as Roman apologists conceed. There is no need to settle everything, some things are a ‘mystery’. But outside the walls of the Vatican, if everything is not figured out and settled, one is somehow missing something that they can have access to inside the walls of the Vatican. This is simply not true, and it need not be true.
As to the misunderstanding
1 Corinthians 14 means exactly what Paul intends it to mean for the people he wrote it to. One of the ideas of hermanuetics is to figure out what he did mean for his hearing audience, and to THEN determine what it means for us in application. For one, the gift of tongues went somewhere, I don’t know where, but the period of speaking in tongues WITH its needed interpretation has gone. Paul writes of the real reason for the speaking of tongues in Chapter 14, and that is, for a sign. He was denouncing free-for-all services that were chaotic, and sought to bring them into a sense of order. Part of that order is not permitting women to speak in the church. If anyone had a problem with this, he says look to his own writings as commandments of the Lord.
My question is simple. Did Paul literally mean that women cannot speak inside of the church building, or did it refer to the service? Well, he was writing about the service. If any group feels that women should not speak inside of the building and apply that, that would be their liberty to do so, but I can’t imagine that is what Paul was writing about. I further denounce the concept that salvation of ones eternal soul hinges on that idea in any sense.
Your objection was about hair covering earlier chapter 11, and how it shames the woman etc. If you have a John MacArthur study bible, see his answer, I think it is absolutely reasonable. Again, is this a core truth of the faith or is their liberty in actual application. Can you not cover your hair as a woman and still honor God? Yes, it would seem so.
Regarding practicing homosexuality and the Bible. Can a man lie with a man as he lies with a woman and still honor God? No, it is abominable. It is also clearly, vividly described in Romans chapter one, so it is not hinging on a interpretation of a word. Is their a quality to this act that is cultural? No, the act is descriptive of an inappropriate sex act, not equal in quality to a dress code. Any attempt by a Roman Catholic to draw a comparison there should cause ones cheeks to flush with shame. It militates against logic to do so, and it is presented as an ad hoc attempt to undermine confidence in applying logical reasoning to Scripture and coming away confident in interpretation. You are changing your consistent beliefs to argue against similar beliefs for the purpose of undermining those opposing beliefs. In otherwords, as long as Scripture suits your purpose, you use it in the same way that you say that I cannot. You don’t need to refer to an infallible authority figure to define it, you use reason and the principles you believe to be true. You cannot therefore fault the method, which between us is the same, so the only option is to see whose interpretations are justified by the text. Language and reason allow for this to be the case, as the nature of language can be seen as the attempt to communicate a particular idea, which idea is defined by the authors intent. Therefore exegesis is a valid approach, for example.
God bless,
Garret