How Can Protestants Be Sure?

[mikeledes]

Was not the early church riddled with error, even while it had the Apostles? Paul apprently knew it was going to get worse. Did he point to Peter, ever, as the antidote?

Yes, Kaycee, there were heretics in the early Church, and they were clearly identifiable. The Church Fathers pointed to the apostolic succession of the Church of Rome and other churches to confirm the faithful transmission of the orthodox faith. There was the true Church and there were the false churches (Gnostics, Sabellians, Montanists, etc.).

God Bless,
Michael

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

Furthermore Sola, What church are you a member of?

Presbyterian Church in America(PCA)

If you are such a fan of the Early Church, why doesn’t your Church have deacons, priests, and bishops?

I love and respect the church fathers, but I love and respect the Word of God even more. The Scriptures know of only two offices, Elders( also called Pastors, Bishops) and Deacons.

This sort of stuff is straight out of the Bible, I would think you would have caught that considering you’re so concerned with Sacred Scripture.

Show me where the New Covenant speak of the office of a priest, besides the Christ and priesthood of all believers.

 

[kaycee]

Yes, Kaycee, there were heretics in the early Church, and they were clearly identifiable. The Church Fathers pointed to the apostolic succession of the Church of Rome and other churches to confirm the faithful transmission of the orthodox faith. There was the true Church and there were the false churches (Gnostics, Sabellians, Montanists, etc.).

God Bless,
Michael

Not my point at all. I asked did Paul ever point to Peter or a “proto-magisterium” as the antidote to heresy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course not, doctrine does matter. My point is even though Christ is building his church the verse does not say anything about each local church having to be under one single organizational head. That is why I pointed you to the book of Revelations. They are all part of God’s church, but each is their own local representation of the universal church.

Excellent thoughts.

Now, would you say that contradictory and conflicting doctrines are acceptable in the Church that Christ is building?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You missed the point. The Church universal is already in perfect unity! The earthly organizations are meaningless in eternity. Is the Church perfect while on earth? offcourse not.

Oh, okay. You’ve suggesting that the Universal Church is one in which conflicting and contradictory doctrines are acceptable.

Is that correct?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Presbyterian Church in America(PCA)

I love and respect the church fathers, but I love and respect the Word of God even more. The Scriptures know of only two offices, Elders( also called Pastors, Bishops) and Deacons.

Show me where the New Covenant speak of the office of a priest, besides the Christ and priesthood of all believers.

Excuse me, but where did the word “presbyterian” come from?

What is a “presbyter”?

What is the origin of the word “priest”?

Thanks in advance.

Personal Post #1,000! :clapping:
“You like me…you really, really like me!”:tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not my point at all. I asked did Paul ever point to Peter or a “proto-magisterium” as the antidote to heresy.

Acts 15:1-2
Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

You see, Kaycee, it really is reasonable to be Catholic. Paul was.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Excuse me, but where did the word “presbyterian” come from?

Presbyter

What is a “presbyter”?

Elder

What is the origin of the word “priest”?

One will notice you didn’t answer the question. Where in the NT is the office of priest mentioned except for Jesus Christ and the priesthood of all believers? In the NT presbyterus is always translated Elder. It wasn’t until later in history and especially translating from Latin that the translation of priest started to be used.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Excellent thoughts.

Now, would you say that contradictory and conflicting doctrines are acceptable in the Church that Christ is building?

Yes, to a certain degree, because we are not infallible and perfect. You should be able to understand this, because you have contradictory and conflicting doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church( ok, here comes the special pleading ).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Presbyter

Elder

One will notice you didn’t answer the question. Where in the NT is the office of priest mentioned except for Jesus Christ and the priesthood of all believers? In the NT presbyterus is always translated Elder. It wasn’t until later in history and especially translating from Latin that the translation of priest started to be used.

Let’s be a little more precise, shall we?

priest etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester “priest,” from L.L. presbyter “presbyter, elder,” from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a transl. of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos. Priesthood is O.E. preosthad. Priestcraft originally was “the business of being a priest” (1483); after rise of Protestantism and the Enlightenment, it acquired a pejorative sense of “arts of ambitious priests for temporal power and social control” (1681).

Presbyterian etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif 1640, as name of Scottish church governed by elders (as opposed to bishops), from presbyter “an elder in a church” (1597), from L.L. presbyter “an elder,” from Gk. presbyteros “an elder,” also an adj. meaning “older,” comparative of presbys “old,” possibly originally “one who leads the cattle,” from *pres- “before” + root of bous “cow.” Presbytery “a part of a church reserved for the clergy” is recorded from 1412. Meaning “body of elders in the Presbyterian system” is recorded from 1578.

You want verses? Okay.“Let the presbyteros (elders/priests) who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” (1 Timothy 5:17)
"So I exhort the presbyteros among you, as a fellow presbyteros and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:1-3)
Would you like the Strong’s reference numbers, too?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, to a certain degree, because we are not infallible and perfect. You should be able to understand this, because you have contradictory and conflicting doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church( ok, here comes the special pleading ).

Contradictory and conflicting doctrines are acceptable?

Can this really be the will of God for His church? No! Jesus desires and prayed for unity within the Church, and not a false purely “spiritual” unity but one that was very real. First, He prayed for unity among his own disciples:

“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.” (John 17:11)

Jesus prayed that the Apostles might have the depth of unity that He shares with the Father. Was He praying for unity among his Apostles only? No! He prayed for all who would hear and believe these Apostles:

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:20-23)

How could the world know with certainty that Jesus was sent, if they cannot see an “invisible” church? The church must be visible. Can the world look at the state of Christianity today and see one unified church? Do they say, “Yep, those Christians are certainly unified, that is plain to see. By looking at them, we can believe that Jesus was sent by God”? Not at all! The world cannot see an “invisible” unity of all true believers because what it sees instead is 25,000+ denominations bickering and fighting amongst themselves over doctrinal differences.

Jesus is saying that the unity of a single, visible church would be proof that He really was sent into the world by the Father. The unity of the church is supposed to be a witness to this fact. In order for the world to know the truth, it must be able to see a visible, unified church.

Just as Jesus and the Father are perfectly united, so God desires for the Apostles and those who come to believe in Jesus through them to be united. The reason for this unity is clear: to let the world know that you sent me”. Without this unity, the witness of the Christian Church to the world is weakened and as a result, the souls who fail to recognize the truth may be lost. Thus, the world must be able to see the unity of a visible, authoritative Church and hear the truth it proclaims.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So you are clearly saying that Tradition is also God Breathed revelation ! correct?

Tradition is not, & cannot be, “God-breathed revelation” - to say it is, goes far beyond the previous teaching of the Church, & in fact denies it. Revelation is finished, over, completed, concluded, ended - it has been for 1900 years; no more is to be expected. Private revelations lack the universal authority of the Bible, useful as they may be for piety. They (like the Fathers) are in any case not free of errors.​

That has always been the teaching until now, at least in principle: so why the change ? The notion that Tradition is “God-breathed revelation” is pure invention - & a modern invention at that; it’s a perfect example of making up teaching as one goes along.

If it is true - why is it not found in any Catholic catechism ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But what is the Church if it is not infallible?
Just another fallible group of people. And that doesn’t help any.
The Catholic Church is the “pillar and ground of truth”, and has Christs’ promise that he will be with us until the end, and that when we speak it is not us, by the Holy Spirit speak.

How can you be so ardently anti-Catholic yet proclaim the Scriptures were made for the Church, and then turn right around and profess Sola Scriptura?
You are one big hypocrisy and contradiction my friend.

1. The Church does not need to be infallible, to be the Church. To be the Church, it does need to be chosen and called by God, according to His good pleasure. So the Church is strong in God, not in any qualities of its own. Human feebleness & fallibility do not stop God working through His Church at all - what they do stop, right at its source, is any human boasting in our own excellence, rightness, wisdom, knowledge. God chose Israel not because it was great, but because it was nothing at all: because it was completely inconsiderable. The Bible makes this very clear. All glory is to God alone - not to man at all; our weakness, ensues that we cannot take the credit for His works. This is a wonderful protection against boasting of God’s Mercy as though it were somehow to our glory, & not His.​

1. Infallibility is in itself of no religious importance, & no Christian importance. If Congress were infallible, it would not be the Church. It would not acquire the mission of the Church, or the origin of the Church, or the character of the Church, by being infallible - it would still be Congress.

Congress can’t forgive sins, or save us from the wrath of God, or preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God, or mediate between us and the Father - Jesus Christ can & did & does. These are important for the Church. If infallibility is so vastly important, why is not one word said about it in the NT ? A lot is said about Christ, & a lot about the Church - nothing, about that. So it looks very much as if it might be nothing more than a “cleverly devised myth” - especially as it seems to glorify man, & not God. No - the praise is His, & His alone ##

 

[Libertas]

Sola you going to respond to my 3 page long post or what?

 

[SolaScriptura]

1. The Church does not need to be infallible, to be the Church. To be the Church, it does need to be chosen and called by God, according to His good pleasure. So the Church is strong in God, not in any qualities of its own. Human feebleness & fallibility do not stop God working through His Church at all - what they do stop, right at its source, is any human boasting in our own excellence, rightness, wisdom, knowledge. God chose Israel not because it was great, but because it was nothing at all: because it was completely inconsiderable. The Bible makes this very clear. All glory is to God alone - not to man at all; our weakness, ensues that we cannot take the credit for His works. This is a wonderful protection against boasting of God’s Mercy as though it were somehow to our glory, & not His.​

1. Infallibility is in itself of no religious importance, & no Christian importance. If Congress were infallible, it would not be the Church. It would not acquire the mission of the Church, or the origin of the Church, or the character of the Church, by being infallible - it would still be Congress.

Congress can’t forgive sins, or save us from the wrath of God, or preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God, or mediate between us and the Father - Jesus Christ can & did & does. These are important for the Church. If infallibility is so vastly important, why is not one word said about it in the NT ? A lot is said about Christ, & a lot about the Church - nothing, about that. So it looks very much as if it might be nothing more than a “cleverly devised myth” - especially as it seems to glorify man, & not God. No - the praise is His, & His alone ##

Great Gost Gottle of Geer!!

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

Yes, to a certain degree, because we are not infallible and perfect. You should be able to understand this, because you have contradictory and conflicting doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church( ok, here comes the special pleading ).

Contradictory and conflicting doctrines are acceptable?

Can this really be the will of God for His church?

OK, no special pleading, but he decided to use the bait-n-switch the tactic. There is a difference between contradiction being acceptable and it being the will of God. The will of God is perfection, but God knows this is impossible for fallen human which is why Jesus Christ came. Notice nothing was said about the contradiction and conflicting doctrines in the Catholic Church instead Randy goes on now to talk about a different topic, that is unity, and physical unity at that. Sometimes these discussions are like trying to nail jello to a wall.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Let’s be a little more precise, shall we?

Yeah, that is perfect, because it will reveal your error.

priest etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester “priest,” from L.L. presbyter “presbyter, elder,” from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a transl. of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos. Priesthood is O.E. preosthad. Priestcraft originally was “the business of being a priest” (1483); after rise of Protestantism and the Enlightenment, it acquired a pejorative sense of “arts of ambitious priests for temporal power and social control” (1681).

Presbyterian etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif 1640, as name of Scottish church governed by elders (as opposed to bishops), from presbyter “an elder in a church” (1597), from L.L. presbyter “an elder,” from Gk. presbyteros “an elder,” also an adj. meaning “older,” comparative of presbys “old,” possibly originally “one who leads the cattle,” from *pres- “before” + root of bous “cow.” Presbytery “a part of a church reserved for the clergy” is recorded from 1412. Meaning “body of elders in the Presbyterian system” is recorded from 1578.

You are using an etymology dictionary, duh!! I stated in the previous post that Catholicism eventually started to use the word Priest as a translation for presbyteros and this was especially true when translating from latin. However, the Greek word presbyteros is translated as elder, not priest. There is a different greek word for priest, which is archiereus or hiereus…

You want verses? Okay.“Let the presbyteros (elders/priests) who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.” (1 Timothy 5:17)
"So I exhort the presbyteros among you, as a fellow presbyteros and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.” (1 Peter 5:1-3)

I didn’t ask you whee “presbyteros” is used, because that is the word under discussion. The point is the correct translation of presbyteros in New Testament Greek is Elder, not Priest. Catholic translation leave the word as presbyteros, because they know it is invalid to use priest, but they don’t want to use the word Elder.

Would you like the Strong’s reference numbers, too?

Great bluff. Yes, not only provide the Strong’s reference number, but also the definition. Believe me it will only hurt your case. So by all means, please do.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sola you going to respond to my 3 page long post or what?

Since you are the person who “knows what you are talking about” I will respond to later.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Stop dancing around the bush, your answer is so vague it’s depressing.
What the hell is “God’s Church”, and how can your definition of it never failing being true when there are 30,000+ Protestant denominations? Sure as hell looks to me like you guys failed somewhere down the line. Oh yea, about 1521.
Please do define for me “God’s Church”, and “God’s people”.
You are sounding more like a “Papist” than you even realize.

Libertas,

I read through your 3 page post and it would be a waste of time to respond to such fallacious rambling. You cut-n-paste gobs of stuff and want me to spend hours refuting it. No thanks. Pick a single point and make a concise argument and I will deal with it.

In reference to God’s church. God’s church has both a physical and a invisible aspect to it. A physical manifestation is a local body of believers that gather together for worship and hold to the essentials of the faith. The preach the true Gospel and administer the sacraments. The invisible church is all those that God has called out from the world. Every member of the physical church is not necessarily a member of the invisible church. The invisible church consist of the elect.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. The Church does not need to be infallible, to be the Church.​

To the contrary, the responsibility of the Church is to baptize, to preach, to make disciples of all nations, etc.

The Church must be able to speak with authority concerning the doctrines that concern faith and morals, to settle disputes, etc.

If the Church cannot teach without error, then people cannot know with certainty what is and is not true.

Before long, the ONE faith has fragmented into “every man is his own magisterium.”