The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

antiskeptic wrote: »

A physical church exists in both our 'systems'. The question now is whether scripture lets us conclude:

a) The physical church as local gatherings of believers with local management for the purposes of smooth, godly running.

b) The physical Roman Catholic church as a monolithic, centralised control structure for the whole of Christianity

Rather than get into the "line traced back", I'd ask whether the line connects to anything concrete at the start. You'll agree that a solid unbroken line unconnected at the start is solid and useless. And so I'll repeat the question posed to ISAW above for you to answer.

"how does one decide that a tradition is a sacred thing (i.e. people were correct in their looking up to the bishop in Rome) or whether it is something misguidingly erected and built upon by men - even if at times inarguably godly men.

I'm thinking of lots being cast by the apostles (in Acts) to see who would replace Judas. Whereas God appears to have had other ideas when it came to restoring the number of foundational apostles to twelve."

The above repeats the basic problem from which other problems flow. If you can resolve the above issue then you've resolved the rest to a good degree.

smurfhousing wrote: »

Question for Anti-skeptic:

If you rob a bank, kill the security guard, run out the door, get hit by a bus, and die, do you get to go to heaven? Bear in mind you did not get the opportunity to repent of your sins, do you still get to go to heaven? Bear in mind that you are a committed Christian, both before, during, and after the bank robbery.

PDN wrote: »

Robbing a bank and killing someone is not a mistake - it is grevious sin. More importantly, it is the kind of sin that would provide concrete evidence that someone was not a Christian.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Recalling that I am questioning the means whereby you draw your conclusions about the nature of the physical church (at the point of coming into being).

You cite 'personal reasoning' here and focus that reasoning on what scripture appears to you to say. Isn't this the essence of what the sola scriptura view does too - with you having stated yourself as seeing problems in that approach?

I'd note that a centralised Catholic-style church isn't required in order that the word of God be spread.

I understand this is what you believe. My question enquires into the basis whereby you hold as you do. You say, for instance, that the line connects to Jesus and I'm asking you how you conclude the line actually attaches to him. You appear to be relying on what you consider to 'make sense to you'. Comsider what you say here..

I'm glad to see that you aren't relying on the kind of circular argumentation that many of your denominational brethern seem to rely on: "Christ established the Roman Church as his representitive on earth - because the Roman Church he established says so".

Which means we can look at your reasoning itself. Am I correct in suggesting that the basis of your position is "what I think would be the way God would do things. What it is that makes sense to me".

If so, would you accept that this is a very subjective thing and that you sail in the same boat as others who have subjective views as to what makes sense to them - including the view that holds God dealing directly with individuals through his Word.

Do you appreciate the problem posed? There are various references to the church of Christ being built on a foundation of the apostles. 12 apostles to be precise.

Eph: 2:20 "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

Rev 21:24 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"

Paul was an apostle. Which suggests that the 11 remaining disciples in Acts + Paul make up the 12 apostles. Which suggests that Peter's decision to act was Peter's idea - not God's. Indeed, scripture doesn't mention either God's involvement in the lot casting or God's imprimateur being placed on the result of the lot-casting process.

What grounds have you for supposing Matthias an apostle. And how would you deal with the existance of 13 apostles when there appears to have only ever been 12?

Do you see the significance of Act's lot-casting? Assuming you now agree that Peter was acting on own authority and not God's, you have a situation where godly men (a key disciple no less) acting in ways that have nothing to do with God's intent. Which supports the idea that traditions can be set up which have nothing to do with God.

Which begs the original conundrum/question: how do you know whether an 'ancient tradition' is a godly one or a man-made one?

I know we're not focusing on scripture much but the following is interesting in the context of this discussion. Consider the Psalm verses Peter quotes prior to casting lots.




'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it' ... yet lot's were cast in order to fill the deserted place??


'May another take his place of leadership.' Paul was chosen to be an apostle just as every other apostle was chosen, not by Peter, not by lot .. but by Christ directly.