A question for all Protestants

[SyroMalankara]

The concept that was to be called the Trinity is in the Bible.

The nature of Christ is in the Gospel.

The concept of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is in the Gospel.

Mary being sinless and a perpetual virgin is in the Bible.

Purification after death is in the Bible.

The absolute truth that we need for our salvation is in the Church. The Gospels are part of Church teaching, a part of Holy Scripture, part of a whole teaching not found only in the written text but in the life of the living, breathing Church.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Actually it is saying that the pope is no more infallible than I am. that THE church is not the only church, and that a church that challenges the people to read and understand Gods word and discuse freely the differences is more likely to weed out errors than a church that claims infallibility and limits its membership to those who profess to agree on every doctrine. I do question my own church teachings, my paster is pretrib and I am post trib.

The Pope is more infallible because God said so.

The Catholic Church was not against people reading the people because they wanted all the power. If you look at the history, printing bibles for the masses was near impossible before the printing press and even if people has a bible, most were illiterate. It is nice to think of Martin Luther as the hero that stood up against the Big Bad Church so that everyone might have a bible, but that is not the reality.

Look at the state Christianity is in today. We have so many denominations that we don’t exactly how many anymore. When each man is left to interpret the scriptures, everyone disagrees, especially when translation and history are factored in. Or do you think reading an English translation will in any way convey what the Apostles were writing about? Do the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, have any meaning to you? They did to the Jews. Knowing this makes Matt 16 so much more powerful. Not know this, a person can spin it anyway they want.

Instead of weeding out errors, there are more errors being spread in the name of Christ. Which is why Christ founded One Church, not many. It is with One Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that man has any chance of not twisting the words of Christ.

And your comment of your pastor being pretrib and you are posttrib shows how different interpretations of scripture can lead to different beliefs. As for Catholics, we are supposed to believe neither. Their will be an age of Peace (but probably not for 1000 years) which then leads to the Anti-Christ who will reign for 3 and a half years. After he is destroyed, their will be a short time for the surviving people to accept Christ. Then Jesus will come in glory to judge the living and the dead. This is the end of the world and time. The Four Last things for all mankind, Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Bible comes from God – 2 Timothy 3:16a “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (ESV).

Where does it say that all Scripture is written? or that all that is breathed out by God is limited to Scripture?

Granted, the proto-Orthodox/Proto-Catholic church group did decide a New Testament canon that most of the church has adopted. However, what is “breathed out by God” would be that way regardless of if someone recognized it or not.

Right, the Holy Spirit, the “breathe of God” is in the Church today - God did not breath out written Scripture alone and leave.

Now you are really in left field. The King James Version was
a) a translation of the Bible, and
b) not made by King James himself, but by a committee of scholars that did not include him.
Before you go off like this again, try a bit of research.

Why accept it as authentic? and Why does your King James version of today look nothing like the original - in fact the original looks more like the Catholic/Orthodox Bible!

 

[Darron_Steele]

There was no Bishop of Rome at this time. Scholars believe that the Roman church was led by elders still. But I know I cannot convince you of that
But, the fact remains, all the other letters, I believe if I remember correctly mention the bishops but not this one.
And Ignatius also tells the Ephesians he does not issue orders in chapter three of his epistle to them so if that is what is important to you …you might want to hang your hat on the second most important thing when it comes to this particular letter

Can you cite your source for this?

I have the following

(1) St Peter c. 64 or 67
(2) St Linus 67-76
(3) St Anacletus 76-88
(4) St Clement I 88-97
(5) St Evaristus 97-105
(6) St Alexander I 105-115

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (c. A.D. 106)

So it looks like St Alexander was the Bishop (or Pope) of the Church in Rome…

Argument by assumption proves nothing.

What is being disputed is that there was a monarchial bishop in Rome. Assuming your premise to `prove’ your premise is no proof.

Using `proof by assumption’ in my formal studies was penalized with markdowns because it is not a valid method.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Even if it could be shown that the various Protestant denominations are outside the will of Jesus Christ, it would not automatically follow that the bishop of Rome deserves the claims he makes of himself.

The Bible says otherwise, Matt 16

The Bible comes from God – 2 Timothy 3:16a “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (ESV).

Well, all scripture comes from Tradition, as the first Words of God were spoken by the Apostles. When they went out and Preached the Gospel; they did this by Word and not by Scripture. Then some letters were written for practicality sake, but there were not written with the intent of being included in a New Testament.

Granted, the proto-Orthodox/Proto-Catholic church group did decide a New Testament canon that most of the church has adopted. However, what is “breathed out by God” would be that way regardless of if someone recognized it or not.Now you are really in left field.

That would be true. Which also makes what Jesus said all the more important. Matt 16 again comes to mind.

 

[Darron_Steele]

Where does it say that all Scripture is written? or that all that is breathed out by God is limited to Scripture?

You are dodging.

My point is not that only the Scriptures are “breathed out by God” although I certainly believe that.

You claimed that the Scriptures originated with the Catholic church:

…Where did their Bibles come from if not the Catholic Church? …

I showed you that your reasoning is contrary to the Scriptures.

As for your point about the King James Version, you do not know what you are talking about. The King James Version was not a new Bible written by King James.

If you are going to get into this stuff, you need to take the time to learn what you are talking about.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Argument by assumption proves nothing.

What is being disputed is that there was a monarchial bishop in Rome. Assuming your premise to `prove’ your premise is no proof.

Using `proof by assumption’ in my formal studies was penalized with markdowns because it is not a valid method.

I have cited historical evidence. To call it assumption is disingenuous.

Also, I asked for proof as well. Do you have proof that a “monarchial bishop in Rome” is true?

 

[Darron_Steele]

I have cited historical evidence. To call it assumption is disingenuous.

Also, I asked for proof as well. Do you have proof that a “monarchial bishop in Rome” is true?

Uh, there must be some mistake.

It is YOUR premise that there was a monarchial bishop in Rome – not mine.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Uh, there must be some mistake.

It is YOUR premise that there was a monarchial bishop in Rome – not mine.

I read your post too fast, sorry

When you talk to me you need to use smaller words

I have evidence of which Bishops (Popes) I say were the leaders of the Church of Rome. Is their evidence to suggest that there was indeed no Bishop in Rome at the time of St Ignatius’ letter to the Romans?

Is that better?

 

[Darron_Steele]

I read your post too fast, sorry

When you talk to me you need to use smaller words

I have evidence of which Bishops (Popes) I say were the leaders of the Church of Rome. Is their evidence to suggest that there was indeed no Bishop in Rome at the time of St Ignatius’ letter to the Romans?

Is that better?

It has already been pointed out.

First, there was the New Testament, which referred to a plurality of presbyters running congregations.

Second, the letter from the congregation at Rome to the congregation at Corinth in the late first century reproves the Corinthian congregation for allowing its plurality of presbyters to be deposed – by what it says were instigations of “one” or “two” people.

Third there is what has already been pointed out: Ignatius’s only letter to a western congregation was to Rome. While to eastern congregations he makes reference to the existence of a monarchial bishop, he makes no reference to a monarchial bishop at Rome. A good explanation: the congregation at Rome did not have one, but was still run by a plurality of presbyters.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

I h

I strongly believe that our Protestant friends can be helped more by our admitting that the Scriptures alone permit their beliefs. But I know I am preaching an uphill battle on that one with most of my Catholic friends. I just mention this idea for everyone’s consideration. I am sure I will not prevent the usual trend toward both sides claiming the Scriptures alone explicitly teach what they believe.

God bless

Rory

Ill join you here somewhere in the middle but we might be lonely.

 

[GratefulFred]

As for your point about the King James Version, you do not know what you are talking about. The King James Version was not a new Bible written by King James.

If you are going to get into this stuff, you need to take the time to learn what you are talking about.

Perhaps you could enlighten us who do not know as you do about the KJB. I do know that King James personally did not write a bible but the revised translation was issued in his name. Did he disavow the use of his authority? If not why not?

Was it simply a power struggle of who gets to decide? Was it “We think Rome is wrong, so we’ll go our own way?” Was Henry VIII right to put himself in charge of the Church in England given “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and unto God what is God’s”? Is wanting a divorce more important than than following Christ? Is the temporal aspect of marriage more important than the spiritual aspect? There were those who followed Christ until something came up they could not understand or accept and they went their own way.

There is a difference between Microsoft and Apple. Apple does not have the authority to speak for Microsoft. And vice versa. So the KJB can deal with the same subject with different key points, but it lacks the authority from Christ given to the Church.

More importantly, to me at least, how do Protestants defend its many denominations if there is only ONE church Christ established? I maintain that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Christ while the many protestant churches have significantly less than the fullness in order to suit their own desires, but not Christ’s desire.

If the Catholic Church, with its line of succession, is not the closest to Christ, how can one decide which protestant church is closest to Christ when these churches do not have a line of succession back to Christ?

So far on this post it seems those who reject the auhtority of Catholic Church do so with negative arguments and not with positive arguments about how their denomination is indeed closer to the fullness of Christ. Between protest and positive, I choose positive.

 

[Darron_Steele]

Perhaps you could enlighten us who do not know as you do about the KJB. I do know that King James personally did not write a bible but the revised translation was issued in his name. …

Great: you clearly know something about it.

Just about any level of knowledge about the KJV is enough to know better than one claim that was made about the KJV. What you said indicates that you know that the claim made was inaccurate.

You do not have to be an expert to know that King James did not write a new Bible. You just have to know a little bit about the history of the KJV.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

On a side note, and not an area I think I have ever discussed. Faith and Morals is anachronistic. If it is not, I would like to hear why.

Yeah me to! good word by the way, I had to Google it.

 

[GratefulFred]

You just have to know a little bit about the history of the KJV.

Care to share a bit of history you know, especially that which may answer some of the questions I posed?

 

[SyroMalankara]

You are dodging.

My point is not that only the Scriptures are “breathed out by God” although I certainly believe that.

You claimed that the Scriptures originated with the Catholic church: I showed you that your reasoning is contrary to the Scriptures.

Actually I did not claim this. My claim is that the same “breathe” that produces the Church, produces Sacred Tradition which produced written Scripture.
(My claim in fact is that both the Scripture and the Church have the same origin, although Scripture is two steps from the origin whereas the Church is one step.)

If you are going to get into this stuff, you need to take the time to learn what you are talking about.

Stop with the “I know everything, you morons know nothing” attitude and post as if you are speaking to real people. You are no more educated than the rest of us idiots - perhaps less so, since ‘to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.’ (now who said that??)

 

[Darron_Steele]

…

Stop with the “I know everything, you morons know nothing” attitude and post as if you are speaking to real people.

A person claimed that King James wrote a Bible, and took a nasty tone with non-Catholics on that assumption. You take anybody who knows one whit about the origins of the KJV, and they will tell you that the assumption was flat wrong.

If a person is going to take a nasty, confrontational tone on the basis of a premise, that premise ought to be right. Again, you take anyone who knows one whit about the origins of the KJV – not an expert, mind you, but just someone who knows one whit – and they will tell you the premise was flat wrong.

King James commissioned a group of translators to work at two English universities. They translated Bible texts already in extant.

I am not claiming expertise. I am simply indicating that if this person knew anything about the subject about which s/he made a confident assertion, s/he would not have made it. Knowing something about something is not expertise.

You are no more educated than the rest of us idiots - perhaps less so, since ‘to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.’ (now who said that??)

Let me set you straight on something:
I have a GRADUATE degree in MATHEMATICS.

Those are not easy to come by.

The odds of you and that person having that are fairly small. Chances are I am better educated than you two.

As for downplaying my intellectual competence, I teach advanced mathematics courses at a college.

When a person makes a blunder on a historical fact, and it is shown, the intelligent person accepts that a mistake was made. If the point is not conceded, the matter is at least dropped.

You have not done so, instead getting hostile with the person who `dared’ to point it out. If you actually want to argue that a historical blunder was not made, maybe you are what you called yourselves. I gave you more credit than that.

 

[chessmane4e5]

It has already been pointed out.

First, there was the New Testament, which referred to a plurality of presbyters running congregations.

Sorry, but where in the New Testament does it say this?

Second, the letter from the congregation at Rome to the congregation at Corinth in the late first century reproves the Corinthian congregation for allowing its plurality of presbyters to be deposed – by what it says were instigations of “one” or “two” people.

I have read though the letter and do not see any evidence that is was being led by a plurality. I see Clement use the word “presbyters” which is plural, but it is being used in a historical context, like if I referred to my fathers (father, grandfather, great-grandfather etc). This is evident because Clement is talking about Apostolic succession. I suppose it would be possible for 2 Apostles to preside over one Church, but the Apostolic succession would be more important in this discussion than proving how many Apostles were leading the Church in Corrinth.

Third there is what has already been pointed out: Ignatius’s only letter to a western congregation was to Rome. While to eastern congregations he makes reference to the existence of a monarchial bishop, he makes no reference to a monarchial bishop at Rome. A good explanation: the congregation at Rome did not have one, but was still run by a plurality of presbyters.

Or a good explanation is the same explanation given as to why Paul does not refer to Peter in his letter to the Romans. To protect the leader in Rome.

Given that you want to claim their were a plurality of leaders in other Churches, why would we suddenly find no leader in Rome? Given that just a few years prior we know that Clement was Bishop (Pope) of the Roman Church.

 

[Darron_Steele]

… Given that just a few years prior we know that Clement was Bishop (Pope) of the Roman Church.

Again, you are assuming what has to be proven.

There is no evidence that there was a monarchial bishop in Rome in Clement’s time. He might have been the `first among equals’ of the presbyters.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Again, you are assuming what has to be proven.

There is no evidence that there was a monarchial bishop in Rome in Clement’s time. He might have been the `first among equals’ of the presbyters.

Can you cite any one else claiming to be the leader of the Roman Church, who wrote letters to other Churches?

Can you name any of the other presbyters you say exist?

Why would Rome have been the only Church to not be led by a Bishop (the Pope)?