Respond To A Calvinist

[TheUbiquitous]

In a discussion with a Protestant of Calvinist bent, he said this:

[indent=1]The laying on of hands can impart Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17 (NIV), "Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."), but I don't know of a Scripture that could be taken to mean that the laying on of hands grants an ability to interpret Scripture that does not allow for error to be taught. Also, how is that lineage traced?[/indent]

[indent=1]I would agree that there should be some sort of governing body (perhaps like the Magesterium)--though I think of it on a smaller scale with each individual Church.[/indent]

[indent=1]If the Pope is a bishop, though, then why isn't it a council of Popes then just *the* Pope? That doesn't seem to make sense to me since all of the commands related to authority in the Church are in the plural, not the singular (elder*s*, deacon*s*). Also, Peter was an Apostle as part of the group of 12 apostles, so that would lend further credit to the idea that all power should not be vested in a single person.[/indent]

[indent=1]I would argue that Jesus did leave a book. The men He left behind were more than just men, they were eyewitnesses who could record the events that took place while Jesus walked the earth. I do agree with you, though, I wish the Protestant movement had less division among it (in terms of denominations) than the Catholic Church which I think of as being very uniform.[/indent]

[indent=1]Last thing I would mention is that we both agree, I think, that some Scriptural interpretive ability is given to each Christian (since this would be the only way to ferret out false teachers).[/indent]


I already addressed that "Pope" refers to "bishop of an Apostolic See," that the Vatican recognizes that there's at least one other Pope --- in Alexandria, if not others --- while retaining the authority of Peter, so other than that, how should I respond?

Edited August 28, 2012 by TheUbiquitous

[havok579257]

to calvinist:

when did you religion start? oh the 1500's. when did Jesus die? oh 33 ad. when did the catholic church start? 33 ad. oh don't believe that? we have something that is dated just after 100 ad which mentions the catholic church and philosiphers mention that for the catholic church to be used the way it is in the document it would have to be common knowledge which means something like 30-40 years to get common knowledge.

so please explain to me why your church which started close to 1500 years after Jesus died is the right church? explain to me how the chirstian church was wrong for 1500 years but suddenly became right because of calvin? explain to me why Jesus would arrive 1500 years before the so called real church casme into exsitence? tell me who put the bible together?

[TheUbiquitous]

Not sure that addresses the person, or his claims.

[havok579257]

[quote name='TheUbiquitous' timestamp='1346175063' post='2475339']
Not sure that addresses the person, or his claims.
[/quote]

anyone who claims there religion is the right one yet that religion started 1500 years after Jesus died really has no leg to stand on. debates should start with that before delving into anything else. how can they justify their religion when it started some 1500 years after Jesus and calim they are right and the catholic church is wrong.

[sixpence]

you know... I know they are rare on phatmass, but that person sounds like they are genuinely interested in civil dialogue. maybe trying to adopt a more friendly tone might be helpful :D!

[TheUbiquitous]

I have reached my quota of props for today, madam. Expect some tomorrow!

For reference, here's what I said before his reply:


[indent=1]What would be the criterion [for determining if you can act in an infallible magisterium]? Well, are you a successor to the apostles, who had the laying on of hands by genuine successors to the apostles? All over the New Testament do Paul and others remind those to whom their letters are addressed of the authority of the letter writer. Indeed, that Paul is even writing a letter seems to emphasize the importance of his living authority. [/indent]

[indent=1]In any case, what is the unique Christian innovation but the crispness of authority? (cf. http://tinyurl.com/9q9526g) All other faiths have gurus, often acting against each other within the same paradigm; why should the Body of Christ have the same model?[/indent]


[indent=1]Scattered points:[/indent]

[indent=1]1. The Pope is a bishop, just as Peter was an Apostle. Yet Peter always gets listed first --- "Peter and the Apostles" gets cited very frequently in Acts and, if I am not mistaken, elsewhere. Just so, the Pope has a unique authority over his fellow successors to the apostles. [/indent]

[indent=1]2. The Ordinary Magesterium does NOT constitute a centralization in scriptural exegesis. Rather, it constitutes a referee authority (cf. http://tinyurl.com/6a3jzhz) which, given how God operates in this world, is a necessary authority for a visible, living office. [/indent]

[indent=1]3. The Catholic model mirrors better the Church before the New Testament was written and collated. Jesus left men --- not a book. The Bible is so fruitful because it grew out of genuine apostolic authority. It constitutes a portion of the deposit of faith (if not the whole deposit, cf. John 21). [/indent]

[indent=1]Thanks, by the way, for being so amicable.[/indent]

So ... it's pretty amicable so far. I don't want to ruin that.

Edited August 28, 2012 by TheUbiquitous

[Groo the Wanderer]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/links/category/3-peter-and-the-papacy/"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/links/category/3-peter-and-the-papacy/[/url]

80+ articles on Peter, primacy, and the papacy