I would like to ask a Serious Question to a Protestant about the Reformation

[Isaiah45_9]

Not at all. The creeds are inerrant because they agree with scripture, not because some men, however prestigious declared them to be. The only infallible authority is scripture.

Hebrews 3:4 (For every house is built by some one, but the builder of all things is God.)

Are you familiar with the Law of Causality?

“Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.”

You say the only infallible authority is scripture. We know by scriptures that all scriptures are breathed out by God. By the very same scriptures, we know that God also breathed on the Apostles.

What we are missing is a cause of Scriptures to give us what is to be considered scriptures. That means that there must be a Divine Revelation from God to let us know what is Scriptures without error. Since you claim infallibility, which I think you mean inerrant. Inanimate things are incapable of being infallible, which means: not capable of being wrong or making mistakes.

So I have to assume you mean that Scriptures have been infallibly declared by a Divine Revelation?

Who has declared what is scriptures? Infallibly. And how?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I don’t know! But I does not seem like a justifiable reason to continue rejecting what the council was declaring and to further change its declarations.

So why ask me?

Peace!!!

I don’t know! But I does not seem like a justifiable reason to continue rejecting what the council was declaring and to further change its declarations.

The RC didn’t even completely follow the council. Many RC bibles created in the Middle Ages had books not considered canonical by the council. In fact Luther’s translation had 74 books in it, he just went with the prevailing view of the vulgate of the day.

So why ask me?

I wanted to know if you agreed with that assessment.

 

[SteveVH]

The CC is itself a union of churches. But it itself is in union with no other church.

How can a Church be a union of churches yet not be in union with other churches?

 

[Sunflake9]

The only infallible authority is scripture.

Not true! Before there was scripture i.e. The Bible, there was sacred tradition, which was all they had for generations. This was the case for 400 years. Jesus didn’t leave us a book, he left his church. The Bible alone is only half of the truth. There has always been way more to his church than sola scriptura. I can guarantee you that Jesus didn’t want us spread across 41,000 denominations (according to Wikipedia) if you think this is what he wanted your sadly mistaken. All denominations have some truth in them, this is why to we are all part of the body of Christ.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Not true! Before there was scripture i.e. The Bible, there was sacred tradition, which was all they had for generations. This was the case for 400 years. Jesus didn’t leave us a book, he left his church. All denominations have some truth in them, this is why to we are all part of the body of Christ.

Which sacred tradition? RC sacred tradition, EO sacred tradition, OO sacred tradition? How should I decide who has the correct sacred tradition?

The Bible alone is only half of the truth. There has always been way more to his church than sola scriptura. I can guarantee you that Jesus didn’t want us spread across 41,000 denominations (according to Wikipedia) if you think this is what he wanted your sadly mistaken.

And the RC makes 41,001. That’s a ridiculously infated number.

All denominations have some truth in them, this is why to we are all part of the body of Christ.

Yep I agree.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If I’m confused about the definition, then so is my dictionary. My dictionary defines infallible as “absolutely trustworthy or true.” Isn’t a person absolutely trustworthy when he says 2 + 2 = 4?

Right, I would ditch your dictionary then. Just do a simple Google search or check the OED for a definition of “infallible.” The point of infallibility is the capacity for error, not whether someone is making an erroneous statement at any given point in time–thus the “-able” suffix. The problem in your logic is that you assume that just because someone says “2+2=4” (a trustworthy statement) that the person is trustworthy. My guess is that if you step back and think about this for a second you’ll see why this assumption is a problem. Just because someone utters a correct statement doesn’t mean the person removes his/her capacity for making errors simultaneously or at some point in the future–not even momentarily. The person are still “-able” to make errors even if he/she isn’t doing so at that very moment

If yes, then he is infallible at the moment he is making that statement because he is absolutely trustworthy when he is making it. If no, you cannot trust that 2 + 2 = 4.

See above. You can trust 2+2=4 because it’s easily provable independent of the person making the statement. A statement may or may not be infallible–the person making the statement, definitely always fallible. But as other posters have pointed out, we generally judge declarative statements as either “correct” or “incorrect,” not “fallible” or “infallible”. Words in and of themselves are not capable of making errors, it’s people that do or don’t make errors with words, utter erroneous statements or misunderstand words.

A significant exception would be mathematical statements or descriptions of the world that are necessarily true (e.g., the sum of the angles of a triangle = 180 degrees, laws of nature, etc.) which are generally considered in a category by themselves and are infallible in the sense that they will always be true by definition, assuming one understands the mathematical system–they are not subject to opinion or interpretation. They are always provable and not dependent on the character or trustworthiness of the person making the assertion.

There is no capacity for error when the statement coming out of a person’s mouth is 2 + 2 = 4. The statement is always true, and the person making it is infallible, that is, absolutely trustworthy, in making it.

Just because a person utters a correct statement does not magically remove his/her capacity for error. You could say that the statement is absolutely trustworthy in the special circumstances noted above.

I’m certainly not claiming that people are infallible at all times and under all circumstances. I never claimed they are incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. Only God is that. But people can also be right!

As long as people are capable of error, by definition they cannot be infallible. People often make correct statements but they still maintain the capacity for error.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

And what about the discussion to choose the books of the New Testament? There were a lot of discussions to choose the Canon of the new testament. There must be someone, somehow who put an end to the discussion choosing the elected books?

To which discussions are you referring?

Since there are many differing biblical canons (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon scroll down), it seems that Christians have never really stopped having this discussion. Or maybe you could say that it was decided that each church is free to do what they want.

 

[Sunflake9]

Which sacred tradition? RC sacred tradition, EO sacred tradition, OO sacred tradition? How should I decide who has the correct sacred tradition?
And the RC makes 41,001. That’s a ridiculously infated number.]

Just a quick look on Google shows 33,000 to 41,000 denominations. Man had made a total mess of things! As far a Sacred tradition there was only one in the beginning (as it is with everything) and that was the RCC. I’ve looked and everything splinters off of the RCC. I’m sorry if you can’t wrap your head around this fact but it doesn’t make it any less true. There was only one in the beginning and man fragmented it to the point it is today. I would recommend reading “The Fathers Know Best” by Jimmy Akin. If you take the time to honestly read it you will see that early church fathers were Catholic.
According to Tim Staples,

According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?

For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable. The proof is in the puddin’!

I’m completely comfortable knowing that the CC is the church Jesus left us. You can bring up the EO and the OO but that changes nothing.

 

[adf417]

That’s silly. One cannot be a Christian and disbelieve in Christ’s divinity, since the scriptures clearly teach it.

Then you will have to explain why all the effort for Nicaea. I know one cannot be Christian without believing in the divinity. But simply because of the need (not the outcome) of Nicaea there were those who did think you could be Christian without believing in the divinity. Otherwise there was a lot of round-tabling for nothing in 325.

One CAN be a Christian and have different opinions on the canon, and they did. Christians from Jerome to Cajetan help to varying views of the canon.

Agreed but not to varying degrees of truth.

The RC didn’t even completely follow the council. Many RC bibles created in the Middle Ages had books not considered canonical by the council. In fact Luther’s translation had 74 books in it, he just went with the prevailing view of the vulgate of the day.

Many Catholics don’t follow all of Trent’s promulgations either, that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t an agreed upon position on the given subject. Showing how men do not follow what the church teaches does not equal “there was no official teaching”. That would be like saying, apparently there is no official teaching on abortion because many Catholics are having abortions.

Here’s what baffles me about what you, JonNC, and others continue to use as justifiable means for your canon.

The argument generally goes something like this:

1. NC- there has never been an agreed upon canon.
2. CC- sure there was since Carthage.
3. NC- but Carthage was not an ecumenical council.
4. CC- that is why the finding were sent to the pope for final approval.
5. NC- we don’t acknowledge the pope as having the authority
6. CC- OK but that doesn’t nullify the findings of Carthage.
7. NC- If Carthage was supposed to be binding on the flock why does the EC and OO have different canons?
8. CC- It wasn’t made “binding” until Trent.
9. NC- so Luther (before Trent) was in his right to have more (or less however you view his canon)
10. CC- sure, but don’t consider it equal w/ what mother church has already established as her canon.
11. NC- back to point #1, “mother church” has never agreed upon a canon.
12. CC-well sure it did. Originally at Carthage, which you don’t agree was an ecumenical council, and ratified at Trent, which you don’t hold as ecumenical either.

Summary: Your original assertion “the church has never had an agreed upon canon” strongly implies the need for one and that the church could actually have one or could have had one in the past.

So I ask, if Carthage, Hippo, 1100 years of a 73 book canon, the effort by Trent to officially promulgate what had already been established, were not the efforts of “the church” to do exactly what you state in point #1 above, then when is “your church”, “the church”, “a church” going to put an end to this argument and establish a once and for all canon? We say it has been done and reiterated many times. Anybody else want to give it a try?

Peace!!!

 

[House_Harkonnen]

House Harkonnen;12292552:

Which sacred tradition? RC sacred tradition, EO sacred tradition, OO sacred tradition? How should I decide who has the correct sacred tradition?
And the RC makes 41,001. That’s a ridiculously infated number.]

Just a quick look on Google shows 33,000 to 41,000 denominations. Man had made a total mess of things! As far a Sacred tradition there was only one in the beginning (as it is with everything) and that was the RCC. I’ve looked and everything splinters off of the RCC. I’m sorry if you can’t wrap your head around this fact but it doesn’t make it any less true. There was only one in the beginning and man fragmented it to the point it is today. I would recommend reading “The Fathers Know Best” by Jimmy Akin. If you take the time to honestly read it you will see that early church fathers were Catholic.
According to Tim Staples,

According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?

For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable. The proof is in the puddin’!

I’m completely comfortable knowing that the CC is the church Jesus left us. You can bring up the EO and the OO but that changes nothing.

Just a quick look on Google shows 33,000 to 41,000 denominations.

Did they cite the Barrett study? If so, they used poor methodology. That number is thrown around so much by apologists. If you research how they came to that number you would see why I find it not very convincing at all.

As far a Sacred tradition there was only one in the beginning (as it is with everything) and that was the RCC. I’ve looked and everything splinters off of the RCC. I’m sorry if you can’t wrap your head around this fact but it doesn’t make it any less true.

So the EOs and OOs who claim their sacred tradition is the true one are simply mistaken? The eastern chrurches are older than the Roman church. The Roman church was the splinter from them.

I would recommend reading “The Fathers Know Best” by Jimmy Akin. If you take the time to honestly read it you will see that early church fathers were Catholic.

I disagree. I have read the fathers and I don’t think they were Catholic at all. In fact the farther back you go, the less Catholic everything looks.

According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline. But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?

No. Not telling at all since the 33k number is false.

For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in Jn. 10:16, this is what he had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable and unbiblical, but it is unworkable.

Not at all, in the past years, many Protestant denominations have entered full unity with each other. The Protestant fractured are many, but relatively easily repaired. The Catholic fractures are few but massive and long lasting. We was the last time your denomination entered full union with another church? If unity is what you’re interested in, protesantism is where you should be.

 

[adf417]

Not at all, in the past years, many Protestant denominations have entered full unity with each other. The Protestant fractured are many, but relatively easily repaired. The Catholic fractures are few but massive and long lasting. We was the last time your denomination entered full union with another church? If unity is what you’re interested in, protesantism is where you should be.

Well House, I have to hand it to you. It is hard to argue with this kind of logic. I’m not even sure what kind it is but here you go… the award for what ever kind of logic smoke you are blowing.

Peace!!!

 

[guanophore]

The ‘true church’ consists of believers in Christ as our saviour. It has nothing to do with any particular ‘denomination’ of any ‘physical church’. This is what is meant by the word, ‘Christian’ [followers of Christ and His teachings…HIS SHEEP].

The book of Revelation identifies various ‘churches/beliefs’, and how God evaluates them ‘hot’ or ‘cold’, or ‘fence-straddlers’]

Certainly the Apostles did teach that those who are sheep of Christ are not lukewarm, and that those who believe in Him follow His commandments.

But the Church founded by Christ is also One in doctrine(faith), visible, so that one can go to it to settle disputes, and authorative (sent as Christ was sent).

 

[guanophore]

That’s not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that since there has never been any agreed upon canon at any point in church history, claiming that one group “insults God” is both offensive and untrue.

There is never a pronouncement until there is a dispute. The 27 books of the OT, bound together with the Septuagint, has always been accepted by the church. When there were local disputes, local pronouncements were made.

catholicapologetics.org/ap031100.htm

I don’t know if the Council of Florence was really ecumenical (it did not include the Eastern Church) but it was 100 years before the reformation, as were all the other local councils that affirmed the same canon.

 

[Tomyris]

But the Church founded by Christ is also One in doctrine(faith),…

Reunite with the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) and then this will be more credible.

The unity He has in mind may be different from what your denomination insists is unity.

Look at Luke 9:49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

Jesus rebuked their control issues, a warning against a future insistence that everyone submit to these guys,.

Look at John 21:21ff "When Peter saw John, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”
Peter was acting like he had pastoral authority over John. Jesus rebuked him for presumption and being a nosey-parker.

And in Matthew 16:17 Jesus blessed Peter, there is the build my church and the keys, and in v 23 "Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Did Jesus build his church on Satan? No. Did he build it on Simon? No. He built in on Himself and on the confession of faith that He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

 

[SteveVH]

Reunite with the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) and then this will be more credible.

The unity He has in mind may be different from what your denomination insists is unity.

If this would do it for you, are you then willing to accept the doctrines, beliefs and practices to which the Catholic and Orthodox do agree?

 

[devonsams]

You forgot to mention the Christians by bible alone, which don’t belong to any denomination and yet are against of many.

Each one is its own church, so the number is even bigger.

 

[Tomyris]

If this would do it for you,

Frankly, I don’t know what my reaction would be if reunification occurred.

are you then willing to accept the doctrines, beliefs and practices to which the Catholic and Orthodox do agree?

I honestly don’t know. Perhaps as part of the reunification they would agree to what I believe.

 

[JonNC]

If this would do it for you, are you then willing to accept the doctrines, beliefs and practices to which the Catholic and Orthodox do agree?

I would.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

Frankly, I don’t know what my reaction would be if reunification occurred.

I honestly don’t know. Perhaps as part of the reunification they would agree to what I believe.

I would.

Jon

It would be hard not to. Something to very, very seriously consider.

 

[SteveVH]

Frankly, I don’t know what my reaction would be if reunification occurred.

I honestly don’t know. Perhaps as part of the reunification they would agree to what I believe.

Then I don’t understand why you think this would change anything. This charge is leveled quite often by Christians who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, for reasons that are inexplicable to me. Join one or the other if you think the answer to truth lies somewhere between the two. Relative to the Protestant world they are nearly identical in their doctrines and liturgies, and quite distant from our Presbyterian brothers and sisters.