If Protestantism Is True

[Chafer_DTS]

Chafer,

This thread is “If Protestanism is True”

Are you saying that you accept that the Book of Revelation is Scripture based on the Authority of the OHCAC? If so welcome home.

If not then agreement yes, however why is it you accept this book of Revelation as Scripture?

The oldest existing Bible can be found here…Codex Sinaticus

codexsinaiticus.org/en/

Content is as as follows

The place it was found is here…does not look like any Church that suggests Protestant thought.
sinaimonastery.com/en/index.php?lid=8

The Jerusalem from above is my home .

 

[CopticChristian]

The Jerusalem from above is my home .

Chafer,

In your home how can you know that the Bible is true and that the book of Revelation is Scripture. You agree that it is. You either accept or deny that the OHCAC has authority to declare it to be Scripture or not. I don’t understand why you are dodging this question?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Chafer,

In your home how can you know that the Bible is true and that the book of Revelation is Scripture. You agree that it is. You either accept or deny that the OHCAC has authority to declare it to be Scripture or not. I don’t understand why you are dodging this question?

I was under the impression that you and I agreed with the New Testament Canon listing. It was my understanding and personal instruction that traditional Roman Catholicism held that Scripture is inspired. Are you contending that Protestants are in error in their New Testament Canon listing even though it is the same as Roman Catholicism ? After all the title of the thread says " If Protestantism is true " as you said. I only discuss issues regarding the inspiration from Scripture with atheist and agnostics who attack the quality and nature of Scripture. I know it is Scripture from it’s internal and external evidence. Since you are a professing Roman Catholic who agrees that it already is Scripture why are you asking me something that we agree with ? The church is only a wittness and keeper of Scripture. The church itself is not infallible in what it declares. For your position it requires proof of the claimed authority of Roman Catholicism . You by your question are failing to first prove what you already assert. Thus a circular argument. You must prove the authority of the Roman See first before making out your questions about issues relating to the Canon. How do we know for certain that the authority of the Roman See is true ? Without proving this first no one will take your question in a serious manner. I also think it is bad taste in demanding and asking fellow professing believers to prove that Revelation is inspired Scripture when it is already agreed that it is. Hope you see what I am saying. I consider your question as logically invalid and is why I feel no need to answer it since it has already unproven presupositions.

 

[CopticChristian]

I was under the impression that you and I agreed with the New Testament Canon listing. It was my understanding and personal instruction that traditional Roman Catholicism held that Scripture is inspired. Are you contending that Protestants are in error in their New Testament Canon listing even though it is the same as Roman Catholicism ? After all the title of the thread says " If Protestantism is true " as you said. I only discuss issues regarding the inspiration from Scripture with atheist and agnostics who attack the quality and nature of Scripture. I know it is Scripture from it’s internal and external evidence. Since you are a professing Roman Catholic who agrees that it already is Scripture why are you asking me something that we agree with ? The church is only a wittness and keeper of Scripture. The church itself is not infallible in what it declares. For your position it requires proof of the claimed authority of Roman Catholicism . You by your question are failing to first prove what you already assert. Thus a circular argument. You must prove the authority of the Roman See first before making out your questions about issues relating to the Canon. How do we know for certain that the authority of the Roman See is true ? Without proving this first no one will take your question in a serious manner. I also think it is bad taste in demanding and asking fellow professing believers to prove that Revelation is inspired Scripture when it is already agreed that it is. Hope you see what I am saying. I consider your question as logically invalid and is why I feel no need to answer it since it has already unproven presupositions.

Well then if we both believe that Scripture is inspired and I believe it to be true based on the teachings of the OHCAC. I do not see any proof that you believe that the Bible is inspired other than you are saying so. How could you convince me or anyone else that the Bible is inspired? I see no internal proofs.

 

[poochi]

The real question being asked by so many as I see it is if you take Scripture as being Scripture due to the authority of the RCC (which I personally don’t) why don’t you accept it’s authority in other areas as well.
But for the sake of this discussion let’s say what you propose is true.

Balaams donkey spoke a word to him from God —but I would not consider it a donkey of God.

The Romans crucified Jesus thus providing the physical means of accomplishing the act of salvation—but I would not consider them a people of God.

The Baybalonians were an instrument of correction to Israel----but again I would not think of them as a source of inspiration.

Just because God uses an organization for His purposes in no way is proof He approves of it. In order for me to fall under the authority of the RCC I need more than this. Just my opinion.

And as far as Scripture stating it is to be the rule of faith, my first post said my piece. When you can prove tradition or hierarchies have Gods’ personal description such as He gives the Word then I will rethink my position.

It teaches it is a sufficient source by the mere fact of what it is and what it is capable of doing.

pure—perfect—sure—truth—eternal—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17). (William Webster)

Tell me, what else is capable of doing these things? Tradition? Church Hierarchy?? Then give me Gods’ Word on it in such detail as this and we can have a discussion. Untill then ***in my opinion ***it’s all man made.

 

[CopticChristian]

The real question being asked by so many as I see it is if you take Scripture as being Scripture due to the authority of the RCC (which I personally don’t) why don’t you accept it’s authority in other areas as well.
But for the sake of this discussion let’s say what you propose is true.

Balaams donkey spoke a word to him from God —but I would not consider it a donkey of God.

The Romans crucified Jesus thus providing the physical means of accomplishing the act of salvation—but I would not consider them a people of God.

The Baybalonians were an instrument of correction to Israel----but again I would not think of them as a source of inspiration.

Just because God uses an organization for His purposes in no way is proof He approves of it. In order for me to fall under the authority of the RCC I need more than this. Just my opinion.

And as far as Scripture stating it is to be the rule of faith, my first post said my piece. When you can prove tradition or hierarchies have Gods’ personal description such as He gives the Word then I will rethink my position.

It teaches it is a sufficient source by the mere fact of what it is and what it is capable of doing.

pure—perfect—sure—truth—eternal—forever settled in heaven—it sanctifies—it causes spiritual growth—it is God-breathed—it is authoritative—it gives wisdom unto salvation—it makes the simple wise—it is living and active—it is a guide—it is a fire—a hammer—a seed—the sword of the Spirit—it gives the knowledge of God—it is a lamp to our feet—a light to our path—that which produces reverence for God—it heals—makes free—illuminates—produces faith— regenerates—converts the soul—brings conviction of sin—restrains from sin—is spiritual food—is infallible— inerrant—irrevocable—it searches the heart and mind—produces life—defeats Satan—proves truth—refutes error—is holy—equips for every good work—is the Word of the living God (Psa. 119:9-11, 38, 105, 130, 133, 160; Psa. 19:7-11; Psa. 111:7-8; Isa. 40:8; Eph. 5:26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Jer. 5:14, 23:29; Matt. 13:18-23; Eph. 6:17; Psa. 107:20; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 1:23, 2:2; Acts 20:32]; John 8:32, 10:35, 17:17). (William Webster)

Tell me, what else is capable of doing these things? Tradition? Church Hierarchy?? Then give me Gods’ Word on it in such detail as this and we can have a discussion. Untill then ***in my opinion ***it’s all man made.

Start with telling me where the Bible tells you that it is Holy in its entirety and equips for every good work and then tell me where the passages in red have anything to do with the Bible?

 

[CopticChristian]

No, I haven’t. Curious, which protestantism does the author evaluate, because to evaluate protestantism, which is simply, and quite innaccurately, a term used to collectively refer to the various western non-Catholic communions, would be rather useless, ISTM.
OTOH, I understand that for Lutherans, the book, There We Stood, Here We Stand
might be of value.

Jon

From Amazon…

The book’s title reveals its primary method of exploration: If Protestantism is True leans heavily on the logical tool reductio ad absurdum, “reduction to the absurd.” This method says, “If you assume A is true, then the absurd conclusion B must follow. But if you can’t accept the absurdities of B, then you can’t accept A either.” Devin applies this tool to many traditional Protestant beliefs like sola Scriptura, the dismissal of most Sacraments, and the rejection of papal authority, unveiling the natural ramifications of each claim.

But what’s great about this book is that it’s not just dry, intellectual gymnastics. Devin also includes anecdotes of real people wrestling with the claims of Protestantism. In the first chapter, for example, Devin lays out his own story, explaining his journey from atheism, to Evangelical Christianity, and finally to Catholicism. Devin’s conversion strengthens his arguments since he has experienced both sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide, choosing his position only after weighing the claims of each side.

I have not read it and there are Evangelicals that make the leap to the OHCAC, ie Evangelical is not enough and the like.

I just stumbled on the fact that Devin posted who and what he wrote. I did see the name Jillian Rose as a member and wonder if there is a relationship?

 

[PRmerger]

The real question being asked by so many as I see it is if you take Scripture as being Scripture due to the authority of the RCC (which I personally don’t) why don’t you accept it’s authority in other areas as well

That is *one *of the questions.

But the other one is, if you accept the Church’s authority in discerning the canon of Scripture for you, then how is it that you profess to be a Sola Scriptura advocate? What you are tacitly acknowledging, each and every time you cite a verse in Scripture, is that you believe in Sacred Tradition as another channel of God’s Word.

For it was ONLY through Sacred Tradition that you were able to know, with certainty, that, say, Hebrews is inspired.

And another question is, if you accept the authority of the Catholic Church in proclaiming the canon of Scripture, how is it that you deny the charism of infallibility?

Do you believe the Church got it wrong somewhere in her councils? Do you believe, perhaps, that she should have excluded 3 John and included the Shepherd of Hermas?
Or do you believe that the Church did not err in this canon?

 

[PRmerger]

Since the book of Revelation is included in the Roman Catholic New Testament Canon , why is it that you are asking someone who agrees with you if they can prove that Revelation is Scripture ? I thought that Roman Catholics and Protestants had the same New Testament Canon and both hold that all Scripture is inspired ?

The question is a pointed one: the only reason you know that Revelation is inspired is because the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

Unless you are proposing that there’s another way that you know that it’s inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

Instead potentially of debating scripture (remember we only seem to debate scripture every 1700 years or so) , I would be debating church teaching.

I understand your point, and it is an insightful one, ben.

While it’s true that as a Catholic you would no longer need to debate Scripture–you would have the definitive answer–I don’t think it’s true that you would be debating church teaching either. You would have the definitive answer on that as well.

Now, while it’s true that there are many points of theology in which Catholics could debate, the minutiae of whether, say, a wedding Mass at 2pm fulfills one’s Sunday obligation is a bit less important, don’t you think?

You would, as a Catholic, have the assurance that you got certain things right, and the Church to have your back, so to speak.

 

[PRmerger]

IFor your position it requires proof of the claimed authority of Roman Catholicism . You by your question are failing to first prove what you already assert. Thus a circular argument. You must prove the authority of the Roman See first before making out your questions about issues relating to the Canon.

No, not circular, Chafer.

Rather, we offer a spiral argument to prove the infallibility of the Church:

On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.

From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.

And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.

This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." [source](http://archive.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp)

 

[benjohnson]

I understand your point, and it is an insightful one, ben.

While it’s true that as a Catholic you would no longer need to debate Scripture–you would have the definitive answer–I don’t think it’s true that you would be debating church teaching either. You would have the definitive answer on that as well.

Now, while it’s true that there are many points of theology in which Catholics could debate, the minutiae of whether, say, a wedding Mass at 2pm fulfills one’s Sunday obligation is a bit less important, don’t you think?

You would, as a Catholic, have the assurance that you got certain things right, and the Church to have your back, so to speak.

Yes, I concur that Catholic teaching is more comprehensive and determinate than many other churches. But do we still don’t have a solution to the “personal interpretation” problem - the problem still exists, diminished or not.

I would certainly like to figure out some solution - as my oldest child will be an adult in 10 years, and I would really like to find a way for him to understand the need to submit to authority in things that are important. That by submitting, one becomes free.

I’m not sure making my son understand will be an effective antidote to rebellion, I need to find something more than mere intellect. Of course, the same could be said for me, as I too needlessly seem to rebel even though I understand the need to submit.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I concur that Catholic teaching is more comprehensive and determinate than many other churches. But do we still don’t have a solution to the “personal interpretation” problem - the problem still exists, diminished or not.

Could you give an example of what you mean by the “personal interpretation problem”?

 

[lifeandhope]

I do not understand what it is you are writing about. Your purple ink is hard to read.

Wow is a declaration. What are you declaring?

Rude Much? This is a question. Where are you directing it and what is it you want answered. I ask you to address this before I address the rest of what you wrote.

Thank you

Whether you intend it or not, you come across as extremely condescending. The ‘wow’ was because I was very surprised at the rude tone of your post in response to the kind post of apology. I shouldn’t need to spell that out, but there you go. Allow me to make my point clear: you were rude to the person who apologized. I personally think that person showed class and character in his apology. I have a feeling that the point is lost…

Ben, you’re a classy guy. We disagree theologically, but you have my respect.

 

[CopticChristian]

Whether you intend it or not, you come across as extremely condescending. The ‘wow’ was because I was very surprised at the rude tone of your post in response to the kind post of apology. I shouldn’t need to spell that out, but there you go. Allow me to make my point clear: you were rude to the person who apologized. I personally think that person showed class and character in his apology. I have a feeling that the point is lost…

Ben, you’re a classy guy. We disagree theologically, but you have my respect.

Life,

It appears that what you are asking for is clarity. For that I am at fault, forgive me. Allow me to take you back to what I wrote and what I meant. Meaning as you will agree is all important.

Ben,

I have sinned. I was uncharitable. I asked forgiveness and my sin was forgiven. Apologies are for rookies. If you are trying to be funny, let us know in advance. I do not read minds.

The word “I” is used 3 times. This is me. When you step on someones toes in a theatre you say, excuse me. When you apologize you say I apologize and that implies nothing in the context of a Christian life. Does Jesus teach us to apologize or ask forgiveness?

So let us get back to what I wrote.

I have a private message that I see at the bottom of my profile that says

Uncharitable Post & Insulted Other Member

This happened in November 2011. I wrtoe something like…you lied, or some other dumb thing…I sinned. I was notified of this infraction and immediately realized that I needed to ask for forgivenes. I followed that notice with an immediate recognition of my error and I asked for forgiveness.

I sinned. I was uncharitable. I asked for forgiveness. My sin was forgiven and the infraction on this thread carried points with it and it was reversed. I should have said, while an apology was issued I am more inclined to accept a request for forgivenes.

In consideration of the notion of humor I do not read minds.

So I suggest you rethink this and understand that the person that sinned, the person that was uncharitable and the person that asked for forgiveness and was granted forgiveness was me. I sinned. I was uncharitable and I asked for forgiveness and it was granted.

I suggest that we dismiss the notion of apology and do as we were taught. When we are offensive, let us just recognize it and ask for forgivenes. Apologies are not in keeping with Christian thought.

I trust that this clarifies your perception and thank you for asking for clarification.

 

[benjohnson]

Could you give an example of what you mean by the “personal interpretation problem”?

An example is me:

My LC-MS Church does not agree with the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. I really don’t see the problem with it, and I think I know better than my church leaders. Even worse, I don’t even agree with their reasoning.

I’m rebelling against authority - in this case, the teaching authority of my Church. The problem we have with some Protestants groups is that they’re rebelling again the other authorities, and I’ve known of Catholics who rebel against the Magisterium and place their own interpretations above the plainly spoken teaching of the church.

 

[PRmerger]

An example is me:

My LC-MS Church does not agree with the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. I really don’t see the problem with it, and I think I know better than my church leaders. Even worse, I don’t even agree with their reasoning.

I’m rebelling against authority - in this case, the teaching authority of my Church. The problem we have with some Protestants groups is that they’re rebelling again the other authorities, and I’ve known of Catholics who rebel against the Magisterium and place their own interpretations above the plainly spoken teaching of the church.

So here’s the thing, ben. If you’re in a church that happens to proclaim every single moral precept and doctrinal teaching that happens to coincide with your own views, then, I daresay, you’re in the church of the almighty self, patterned after one’s own image, rather than God’s.

(This is merely a rhetorical “you”. Not an indictment of a personal you. I have no idea about that!)

The true paradigm should be this: find the Church that Christ established and then conform your views to that Church’s.

That is the correct paradigm, don’t you think?

 

[mark_a]

Any book suggestions that you think would be good for him would also be appreciated.

If it hasn’t already been mentioned, Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating is very near the top of my list.

 

[benjohnson]

So here’s the thing, ben. If you’re in a church that happens to proclaim every single moral precept and doctrinal teaching that happens to coincide with your own views, then, I daresay, you’re in the church of the almighty self, patterned after one’s own image, rather than God’s.

(This is merely a rhetorical “you”. Not an indictment of a personal you. I have no idea about that!)

The true paradigm should be this: find the Church that Christ established and then conform your views to that Church’s.

That is the correct paradigm, don’t you think?

Ha! I love it! You keep it up and you’ll find plenty of people in RICA because of you. This is a good thing!

Here’s how we Lutherans claim that we’re already part of Christ’s Church: - we think Christ’s that Christ established is the universal Christian church. This of course includes ourselves, Catholics, Orthodox, all the way down to even a poor man in a North Korean prison camp that has only a scrap of a Bible and yet he has faith.

Oh course… you would be quite right to notice that our ideas have changed. When individual Lutherans were part of the Catholic church - we didn’t think so universally.

It’s only when we became the outsider that we opened up our arms to other outsiders - perhaps there’s a lesson there. As I know many poor people that are more generous than I am.

 

[PRmerger]

Ha! I love it! You keep it up and you’ll find plenty of people in RICA because of you. This is a good thing!

Here’s how we Lutherans claim that we’re already part of Christ’s Church: - we think Christ’s that Christ established is the universal Christian church. This of course includes ourselves, Catholics, Orthodox, all the way down to even a poor man in a North Korean prison camp that has only a scrap of a Bible and yet he has faith.

And what does the Church of Christ proclaim regarding baptism? Justification? Are there 2 sacraments or 7 or none? Are women to be ordained? What about sin–can sins be forgiven without a priest? Is Mary ever-virgin or only a virgin until Christ’s birth?

Oh course… you would be quite right to notice that our ideas have changed. When individual Lutherans were part of the Catholic church - we didn’t think so universally.

But the point remains, don’t you think, ben, that we as creatures need to conform our views to Christ’s, not find a church that conforms to our own views?

And if you* haven’t* changed a particular belief or moral precept because, well, because your church proclaimed it to be true, then you are creating a god in your own image, I daresay.

I will offer a personal example: I happen to believe, if I had my own way, that those who divorce and re-marry ought to be given a second chance at happiness.

However, I cannot change that which God has proclaimed. So while I personally wish that divorce and re-marriage ought to be just fine and dandy, I know that the error lies in my thinking, not Christ’s, and thus have conformed my views to Christ’s.

Same with the idea that a couple who doesn’t like children ought not have children. I personally think that’s fine. However, Christ through his Church has declared that if you’re not open to having children, you ought not be getting married. Period. End of story. I conform.