Ask A Protestant

[7_Sorrows]

Although I don’t like to limit myself to a denomination, I would say that I align closest to Southern Baptist Theology and those beliefs are explained in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

@grantklentzman1

Thank you for your reply. I have 2 close friends who are Baptist. They do not accept very well that I am Catholic (I converted 12 years ago from the Episcopal
church). They are both very judgmental and not very compassionate or
empathetic regarding people who have committed sins in their lives. I have
found this very confusing. They seem to be gleeful that someone has fallen into sin and are eager to blame them and judge them. I find it unhealthy and try to
overlook that in our friendships, but sometimes it is hard. It seems a “cold” demeanor for a Christian to have.
Could you explain what it is in Baptist theology that makes them so judgmental
and self-righteous? I love my friends and have known them for over 40 years.
But I didn’t notice these characteristics until I became Catholic. I was a non-practicing Christian for many years before becoming Catholic.

 

[CatholicLeanne]

As a Protestant, I assume you believe in sola scriptura? If so, how do you reconcile that when the doctrine of sola scriptura is not in the Bible? Also, where do you believe the canon of the Bible came from? Catholics would say that because the Church authoritatively pronounced which books were going to be part of the biblical canon, the Church has teaching authority. I’ve just never heard a Protestant explain their belief on this. Thanks

 

[Krisdun]

Not everyone is good at spontaneously making up their own prayers…
Also why change the Our Father - a prayer taught to us by Jesus himself?

 

[Maximian]

Im willing to take your request at face value.

So here is the question that I believe is most difficult for almost any Protestant denomination to answer, and it concerns the principle of sola Scriptura:

If you believe that the Bible is the only source of doctrine, then you have to say why you think the Bible consists of the books that it does. The Biblical canon was established over time by the Catholic Church. You must therefore rely on Catholic authority for the very foundation of your doctrine. And if you do that, you cannot reject Catholic authority on other matters without being inconsistent.

Now, of course we know that Luther rejected some books of the Catholic canon, but what was his authority for doing that?

So in a nutshell the question is: where do you see the authority to adopt a particular set of documents as the source of revelation?

 

[Maximian]

I don’t know about “taught” but it’s a very prevalent attitude even among Catholics.

By the way, if you are a traditionalist you quickly realise that the grace and spiritual value of the Mass does not even depend on understanding the meaning of prayers provided you know that the intentions of the priest are correct.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We do believe in free will from what I’ve understood over my years of being a Baptist.

I see. So you believe we can’t use free will to deny God once we once believe in Him sincerely? Fallen away Christians never really believed in Him? Is that correct?

Thank you for your time and for being with us there.

 

[JonNC]

I’ll wait to hear the OP’s answer, but your question includes a premise not found in the traditional understanding of the principle of sola scriptura.

 

[Minks]

Im willing to take your request at face value.

So here is the question that I believe is most difficult for almost any Protestant denomination to answer, and it concerns the principle of sola Scriptura:

If you believe that the Bible is the only source of doctrine, then you have to say why you think the Bible consists of the books that it does. The Biblical canon was established over time by the Catholic Church. You must therefore rely on Catholic authority for the very foundation of your doctrine. And if you do that, you cannot reject Catholic authority on other matters without being inconsistent.

Now, of course we know that Luther rejected some books of the Catholic canon, but what was his authority for doing that?

So in a nutshell the question is: where do you see the authority to adopt a particular set of documents as the source of revelation?

Which books did Luther reject?

 

[grantklentzman1]

I would love to answer that question, but I haven’t done enough research on that topic and so I’m not the best person to ask. What are your thoughts regarding that?

 

[grantklentzman1]

My intent is not to do that. However, if someone does come to believe or get a better understanding of the Protestant perspective, I wouldn’t be super upset. It would probably be the same as you hypothetically converting me to Roman Catholicism. It wouldn’t be your intent on this platform, but you probably wouldn’t be upset if it happened.

 

[Maximian]

Tobit, Judith , Baruch, Sirach, both Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon.

In the NT he also considered the rejection of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, thereby showing that he felt he had the authority to do so, even if he did not take that step.

He also changed what St Paul wrote when it suited him, for example adding the word “alone” After “faith” to the sentence “For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law”

( If you know German it’s the word “allein” in “So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben”)

 

[Minks]

Please provide the source stating that these books were eliminated by Luther.

 

[JonNC]

Please provide the source stating that these books were eliminated by Luther.

Luther held the opinion that they were not of the same level as the rest of the OT held as canon in the west. He did, however, include them in his translation, and he wrote commentaries on them.

 

[JonNC]

Tobit, Judith , Baruch, Sirach, both Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon.

If one reads his commentaries, the term rejected would not apply here…

In the NT he also considered the rejection of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation,

… or here.

thereby showing that he felt he had the authority to do so, even if he did not take that step.

Actually, he didn’t. Other than a few sarcastic comments during his open letter on translating, he never claims authority, only opinion, which he says more than once is not binding on others.

He also changed what St Paul wrote when it suited him, for example adding the word “alone” After “faith” to the sentence “For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law”

Again, from his open letter on translating, he explains the linguistic reason for his translation of Romans 3:12. One can disagree with his reasoning, but that isn’t what you’ve done here. Please provide a source where he claims his reason was for his own purposes.

 

[GladTidings]

commentaries

I’ve seen the word, innovation used before when referring to the apocrypha. Do you think that is an accurate word to use?

For example, in this sentence; …“because of the innovation of Martin Luther, some non-Catholics very seldom consider reading books within the apocrypha.”

He chose to go with the books the Jews accept. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

commentaries

I’ve seen the word, innovation used before when referring to the apocrypha. Do you think that is an accurate word to use?

For example, in this sentence; …“because of the innovation of Martin Luther, some non-Catholics very seldom consider reading books within the apocrypha.”

He chose to go with the books the Jews accept. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I don’t think his view was innovative or novel. However, it was clearly a minority view within the Church.
The fact that many choose, sadly, not to read them is, I believe, more a result of English Bible publishers choosing to exclude them. Luther advocated for the laity to know them, one reason why they are in his translation.
OTOH, I reject the notion that the Catholic Church “added” them.

 

[Maximian]

Google a copy of Luther’s translation of the Bible, which is the standard Bible still used by Lutherans today, and check the contents.

 

[Maximian]

His purpose was to support his own doctrine of justification by faith alone. Since the Epistle of James conflicts with that doctrine too, he proposed to omit James too.

Maccabees he left out because it supports the doctrine of purgatory which he had decided doesn’t exist.

 

[Maximian]

Not quite. He used the Hebrew version of the Bible instead of the Greek version (which is a Jewish translation into Greek. Jesus quoted from both the Hebrew and the Greek.

In the case of Tobit, he assumed it was written after Jesus’ time, which the Dead Sea Scrolls have disproved. This is an example of the problems caused when you depart from the authority of the Church and become your own authority to decide what is in the Bible.

 

[upant]

do you believe in the Trinity? it is not found explicitly in the bible and some say it was defined in a council around 300.