If Protestantism Is True

[JillianRose]

Thanks, Ben.

When reading the quote our friend here posted, I took umbrage (with the writer of the quote from from cybercatholics.com ) with the charge that we are obliged somehow to say to the Mormons that it is ok from them to add the Book of Mormon to scripture, because our Church uses the practice of sola scriptura. It is the same apolegetic nonsense one sees when some protestants claim Catholics have to be worshipping the Blessed Virgin becasue they say they pray to her, and prayer only goes to God (ignoring, of course, that prayer has more than one meaning).

Jon

Sir. I have not heard this. Could you please educate me. I am told by my Calvinist friends we worship saints. I know we don’t. I just tell them that it is intercession. So what is the other meaning of prayer? Please and thank you…

 

[stewstew03]

That is not the belief of Sola Scripture. Sola Scriptura claims all doctrines necessary to be believed for salvation by the christian in matters of salvation and Christian are to be found in Scripture. Please see the Westminster Confession of Faith, The London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Thrity-Nine Articles all of which state what they hold to as being Sola Scriptura. The book DISPUTATIONS ON HOLY SCRIPTURE by William Whitaker ( 1547- 1595 ) is a book which defines and defends Sola Scripture . This book is representative of the Protestant position on this . It interacts with leading Roman Catholic scholars during that time. It is a good reading regardless if one agrees or disagrees with it.

Why would anyone need to read the Westminster Confession, or the London Baptist Confession, or the 39-Articles, or anything written by a theologian. Shouldn’t you just be able to point to the scripture verse (or verses) that demonstrate the veracity of the anti-papist’s sola scriptura claim?

 

[DevinSRose]

@Abrigham: Thanks!

@Ben and @Jon: Re: the canon and confession:

Certainly there are differences between Lutheranism and the rest of Protestantism. And intra-Lutheran differences. I recognize that. But Lutheranism is Protestant, as is Anabaptism and Anglicanism, in spite of the fact that some in these denominations reject that classification. Each Protestant denomination has their distinctive beliefs, but much is shared in common.

In spite of including the deuterocanonicals in his Bible (as Apocrypha), Luther did not regard them as on par with Scripture. The deuteros were included (as Apocrypha, if profitable to read Apocrypha) in many Protestant Bibles for hundreds of years after the Reformation. But I would say, go into a Protestant book store today and try to find a Bible that includes the deuteros as on par with Scripture. You will not find it. Any Protestant Bible that has them will be clearly marked Bible + Apocrypha or something like that.

Jon’s point that Lutherans (and I would add, many Anglicans) view the canon historically does not help things, because either God inspired a book, or He didn’t. It’s binary. Sure, some books may be good to read; I love C.S. Lewis, writings of the saints, various devotionals, etc., but these are not inspired. If the boundaries of the canon are left fuzzy, then sola Scriptura is fuzzy, because sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. You need to know which books are inspired and which are not, otherwise you are left with something like Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul’s nonsensical “fallible collection of infallible books.” I’ve argued this with my Anglican friends who point out that they can read the deuteros just “not for deriving doctrine.”

Regarding sola Scriptura, it actually reduces to solO Scriptura with regard to ultimate interpretive authority, and so the creeds, councils, concords, and confessions do not truly have a derivate authority at all. Read this entire article, and in particular the section I link to, for the demonstration of this claim: calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/#delusion

Regarding confession, clearly you believe you are going to a sacramental confession. And I do concede that traditional Lutheranism teaches that (what they think is) confession is good, though I can think of no Lutheran I have known who has actually gone to confession at his church. I don’t think it worthy arguing at this point, as it is similar to discussions I have been in where various Protestants argue they believe Jesus is “really” present in the Eucharist. Usually these are Anglicans or Lutherans (or sometimes Reformed) Protestants. I argue they do not really think Jesus is really present, but such discussions typically don’t go anywhere. We need to have a more fundamental discussion of what a sacrament is, what makes it valid, and so on. Some other time and place.

I have to run now and this will have to be my last comment on this thread. Thanks for the discussion and God bless!
Devin

 

[JillianRose]

Hi Jon,

While Protestantism is a diverse set of movements, the various Protestant denominations share much in common. The book sometimes focuses on specific denominations but mostly seeks to demonstrate why Protestantism itself is unworkable, undermining the basis for the entire idea.

For example, all Protestants use a 66-book Bible. So I argue for the 73-book Catholic Bible. All Protestants reject sacramental Confession, so I address that.

There are cases that differ. For example, I enlist Martin Luther himself to defend Catholic baptismal regeneration.

God bless,
Devin

Devin

I just wanted to tell u I loved the book. I was on the verge of leaving the Catholic church for the Lutheran church. Thank you for helping me understand these issues that are repeatedly brought up by protestants. I have been learning more and am have been so happy I stayed. Not to mention my two best friends are Dutch reformers and I am always being persuaded to convert. Thank you…

 

[benjohnson]

I have been in where various Protestants argue they believe Jesus is “really” present in the Eucharist. Usually these are Anglicans or Lutherans (or sometimes Reformed) Protestants. I argue they do not really think Jesus is really present, but such discussions typically don’t go anywhere.

I hope I’m misunderstanding, but I can see why those discussions go nowhere - if you continue to paint others as being disingenuous in their own belief, then naturally the other party will quickly leave if they value their faith.

You are, of course, welcome to state if the sacraments I partake of are valid, illicit, or otherwise.

I hope that in time you will come to see that more charity yields better discussion, better understanding, and if you are indeed correct, it would being the other party closer to the truth rather than build barriers.

Again, I hope I’m misunderstanding, but if you really feel that I “don’t ‘really’ thing Jesus is really present” then I’m afraid we have no common groundwork to even begin a discussion.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Has anyone else read this book? (“If Protestantism Is True” by Devin Rose) I’m currently reading it and it has raised some very convincing points for me to really want to join the Catholic church. Granted, I started reading it because I was already interested and was looking for more information on the subject. Any suggestions of other books I should read while continuing my current plans of joining an RCIA class in September? I would also like to lead my husband this direction through use of good logic. He’s a math guy and less inclined to follow his heart and feelings over logical points. Any book suggestions that you think would be good for him would also be appreciated.

I have not read the book you’re referring to, but I was a big reader of Catholic apologetics during and since RCIA. The books that helped me specifically during RCIA are:

1. The CCC, or course. A must have. I recommend getting the compendium as well, which has most of the document passages which are referenced in the CCC.
2. The Lamb’s Supper and Rome Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn: These were both quick, easy to follow reads which conveyed some of the most important doctrines of the Church in a way that went straight to my heart. In fact, The Lamb’s Supper figures promininently in my conversion story. This was the book that actually got me TO RCIA, as the one you mentioned has done for you.
3. While I was in RCIA, I discovered a century old author who knew more about what’s going on now than most contemporary authors. It was GK Chesterton. The books I read first by him were his biographies of St. Francis of Assisi (who became my confirmation patron St.), and St. Thomas Aquinas, but really, since that time I’ve read maybe 25 books or more by this man, and have even joined the American Chesterton Society. He’s not easy to describe. You kind of need to pick one and just if he connects with you. Although I didn’t read them until after my confirmation, many people start with Orthodoxy. It is an amazing book, and probably very appropriate for discernment, since he himself was a protestant when he wrote it. His catalog is endless, should you become interested.
4. I read two incredible books by C.S. Lewis while in RCIA. The Great Divorce, and the Screwtape Letters. I went on to read many more by him as well, including what may be my favorite book of all time, The Great Divorce. I highly recommend Miracles as well.
5. I love most everything by Peter Kreeft. I didn’t discover him until after RCIA, but he’s another one who can express deep philosophical and theological ideas in an easy to understand manner. Try the "Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Marvelous.
6. Pope Benedict XVI became Pope during my journey, and I had an immediate affinity for his encyclicals which led me to his book Jesus of Nazareth, and then his Introduction to Christianity. While many of his works are quite deep, they are also rich in Christian love and devotion, and are the greatest inspirational works I have ever read. His series of the 2 part Jesus of Nazareth, The Apostles, The Fathers, The Virtues, Holy Women and Great Teachers are indispensable, as are his papal encyclicals. He was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and he is most certainly the greatest mind of the 21st century. God bless our Holy Father. He is a true gift of God.
7. A recent book which would have been great back in the beginning is Michael Coren’s book, “Why Catholics are Right”
8. Three more classic must reads, then I better put a cork in it. The Life of Christ by Bishop Fulton Sheen; The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A’ Kempis; and Confessions by St. Augustine.

God bless you in your journey.

Steven

 

[Abrigham]

I have not read the book you’re referring to, but I was a big reader of Catholic apologetics during and since RCIA. The books that helped me specifically during RCIA are:

1. The CCC, or course. A must have. I recommend getting the compendium as well, which has most of the document passages which are referenced in the CCC.
2. The Lamb’s Supper and Rome Sweet Rome by Scott Hahn: These were both quick, easy to follow reads which conveyed some of the most important doctrines of the Church in a way that went straight to my heart. In fact, The Lamb’s Supper figures promininently in my conversion story. This was the book that actually got me TO RCIA, as the one you mentioned has done for you.
3. While I was in RCIA, I discovered a century old author who knew more about what’s going on now than most contemporary authors. It was GK Chesterton. The books I read first by him were his biographies of St. Francis of Assisi (who became my confirmation patron St.), and St. Thomas Aquinas, but really, since that time I’ve read maybe 25 books or more by this man, and have even joined the American Chesterton Society. He’s not easy to describe. You kind of need to pick one and just if he connects with you. Although I didn’t read them until after my confirmation, many people start with Orthodoxy. It is an amazing book, and probably very appropriate for discernment, since he himself was a protestant when he wrote it. His catalog is endless, should you become interested.
4. I read two incredible books by C.S. Lewis while in RCIA. The Great Divorce, and the Screwtape Letters. I went on to read many more by him as well, including what may be my favorite book of all time, The Great Divorce. I highly recommend Miracles as well.
5. I love most everything by Peter Kreeft. I didn’t discover him until after RCIA, but he’s another one who can express deep philosophical and theological ideas in an easy to understand manner. Try the "Handbook of Christian Apologetics. Marvelous.
6. Pope Benedict XVI became Pope during my journey, and I had an immediate affinity for his encyclicals which led me to his book Jesus of Nazareth, and then his Introduction to Christianity. While many of his works are quite deep, they are also rich in Christian love and devotion, and are the greatest inspirational works I have ever read. His series of the 2 part Jesus of Nazareth, The Apostles, The Fathers, The Virtues, Holy Women and Great Teachers are indispensable, as are his papal encyclicals. He was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and he is most certainly the greatest mind of the 21st century. God bless our Holy Father. He is a true gift of God.
7. A recent book which would have been great back in the beginning is Michael Coren’s book, “Why Catholics are Right”
8. Three more classic must reads, then I better put a cork in it. The Life of Christ by Bishop Fulton Sheen; The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A’ Kempis; and Confessions by St. Augustine.

God bless you in your journey.

Steven

Thanks! I will definitely look into these! (your “better put a cork in it” comment made me laugh)

 

[DevinSRose]

Devin
I just wanted to tell u I loved the book. I was on the verge of leaving the Catholic church for the Lutheran church. Thank you for helping me understand these issues that are repeatedly brought up by protestants. I have been learning more and am have been so happy I stayed. Not to mention my two best friends are Dutch reformers and I am always being persuaded to convert. Thank you…

Jillian,

Thank you for these great words of encouragement! We must be distantly related.

Seriously, I am so glad that God used my book in some way to help you remain Catholic. God bless,
Devin

 

[DevinSRose]

I hope I’m misunderstanding, but I can see why those discussions go nowhere - if you continue to paint others as being disingenuous in their own belief, then naturally the other party will quickly leave if they value their faith.

You are, of course, welcome to state if the sacraments I partake of are valid, illicit, or otherwise.

I hope that in time you will come to see that more charity yields better discussion, better understanding, and if you are indeed correct, it would being the other party closer to the truth rather than build barriers.

Again, I hope I’m misunderstanding, but if you really feel that I “don’t ‘really’ thing Jesus is really present” then I’m afraid we have no common groundwork to even begin a discussion.

Ben,

Firstly, thanks for the discussion. I didn’t think I’d have anymore time tonight to respond, but I got a little pocket here so I wanted to clarify.

I have a friend, Plymouth Brethren, who believes that communion is purely symbolic. But is it meaningless to him because of that? No not at all. He has a “less real” presence belief than either you or I do, but, as he says, he believes that it is intensely symbolic. It has real meaning to him, even if the bread remains bread. He believes Jesus is “really” present (symbolically, spiritually).

Obviously, Catholics are using a different definition of “really” than he is, and what I meant by my statement was that trying to show him that he doesn’t “really” think Jesus is present to the same degree that Catholics do usually goes nowhere. Because to him communion, though only symbolic, is very important.

Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutherans have a “more real” theology of communion than do the Baptists/Anabaptists, in that they, in varying ways, believe that communion is more than a mere symbol.

In short, everyone believes Jesus is “really” present in some way, but that way varies from one Christian tradition to another. Few Protestants are willing to prostrate themselves before the host, however, as Catholics are, because we believe in transubstantiation while Protestants reject that.

But in my experience discussing whether one believes Jesus is “really” present is only helpful insofar as it gets us to the more central, foundational questions. This is why I said that such discussions usually don’t go anywhere; not because Christians aren’t sincere or I don’t believe them when they say they really believe Jesus is present, but because we are operating with different definitions because we have answered the authority question differently. (More on that in a moment.)

Confession is similar. Luther retained baptism and Eucharist as sacraments. Confession’s sacramental status was ambiguous. One place it was omitted another it was included. Lutherans are flexible on it. The other four sacraments were rejected as sacraments (even though Lutherans still recognized them as “rites”).

It seems that you choose to accept the branch of Lutheran doctrine that believes confession is a sacrament whereby your sins are forgiven. Arguing against your belief would entail getting into the definition of a sacrament and more importantly, who has the authority to say what the definition is? My book cuts to the chase and gets to this root question of authority. Why should we believe Luther’s definition of sacrament and more specifically his definition of what the Eucharist is, or what baptism does, or whether Confession is a sacrament or isn’t, etc. etc.? Why not believe Calvin’s or Zwingli’s or the Catholic Church’s or someone else’s?

I hope this helps. I intended no offense but was writing quickly as I thought it would be my last few minutes to respond. Please forgive me if I have caused offense to you.

God bless,
Devin

 

[benjohnson]

Ben,

Firstly, thanks for the discussion. I didn’t think I’d have anymore time tonight to respond, but I got a little pocket here so I wanted to clarify.

I hope this helps. I intended no offense but was writing quickly as I thought it would be my last few minutes to respond. Please forgive me if I have caused offense to you.

God bless,
Devin

Thank you Devin for your clarification - I do appreciate that time constraints can lead to quick words. Your response means a lot to me.

If I may explain why I was quite perturbed:

We Lutherans are a simply lot - Jesus told us that it was his body and his blood, and we firmly believe him. How this happens is considered a ‘mystery of faith’ - we view the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation as a potentially reasonable logical explanation, but fundamentally we think the re-preseation of Jesus’s personal sacrifice is probably beyond our human understanding.

Frankly it’s the most important thing I know, and the most important thing I get to partake in. That Jesus saw fit to give me his Body, his Blood, his Soul, and Divinity, is simply greatest gift I have ever will have.

Please, I ask, that you never tell me that I don’t truly believe this. It is my life’s blood.

 

[Alfonsus]

That is not the belief of Sola Scripture. Sola Scriptura claims all doctrines necessary to be believed for salvation by the christian in matters of salvation and Christian are to be found in Scripture. Please see the Westminster Confession of Faith, The London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Thrity-Nine Articles all of which state what they hold to as being Sola Scriptura. The book DISPUTATIONS ON HOLY SCRIPTURE by William Whitaker ( 1547- 1595 ) is a book which defines and defends Sola Scripture . This book is representative of the Protestant position on this . It interacts with leading Roman Catholic scholars during that time. It is a good reading regardless if one agrees or disagrees with it.

Does the canon can be considered doctrine? By the canon it means that these and only these books are to be regarded as scripture, infallible word of God, distinct from different books even if they are most profitable.

And, the question that public revelation is definitely closed, isn’t it part of doctrine? Is it important for salvation to affirm this?
But is this definite teaching that public revelation ended with the last apostle contained in the scripture? Why draw the line with the last apostle?
If it not important for our salvation, then the question that further revelation in par with the current scripture is impossible to reject.

Like other poster said, confessions, traditions, catechisms, are profitable but not infallible.
These two questions, I believe, is more than profitable, it is very important. Are these mere fallible but profitable tradition, or something we can give assent of faith?

If these two questions are only fallible-although profitable tradition, we cannot rule out new revelation, such as the additional Mormon scripture.

 

[JonNC]

I can see from you guys posts that there is varying opinions on Protestant rites, practices, liturgical material, sacrements as well as interpritation of what sola Scriptura means to your church(s) personally. There are over 30,000 denominations of Protestants around the world and to ask and or debate with Devin about which of these he includes in his book, where he makes arguments against sola Scriptura and generalized Protestantism, is silly. How many different volumes of his publication in question would you like him to produce in order to name each of your churches and their belief systems one by one? 1000? 10,000? I totally understand your points of view in wanting your particular church and/or the teachings your particular church abides by, to be portrayed in its exact light, but we can’t reasonably expect Mr. Rose to write About each and every one. There are simply to many differences. The views expressed in Devins are his own, and you can disagree if you like. I personally saw no problem with his book. And to those of you who are arguing about it, have you even read it??

Mr. Rose joined the discussion to talk about the new publication of his book. I did one simply thing, and that was to ask him to be accurate. Of course he can’t discuss the various positions of every Christian communion, but he can be clear that he plans to make broad generalizations which may or may not apply to certain groups, or he can be clear that he is talking about a particular brand of western non-Catholic Christianity.

Even in this thread, he seems to show a lack of understanding of Lutheranism. That’s ok. There’s lots of Lutherans who don’t understand Lutheranism, after all. I’m just asking him to be accurate. Find out what Lutherans teach, if we are to come up in his book.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sir. I have not heard this. Could you please educate me. I am told by my Calvinist friends we worship saints. I know we don’t. I just tell them that it is intercession. So what is the other meaning of prayer? Please and thank you…

Prayer can also mean a sincere request - invocation of the saints is a form of prayer that is not meant to be worship, but instead a request for their intercession with God, much as we do when we pray for each other. The usage is somewhat archaic, but one might still hear it in court settings, etc. Before protestants falsely accuse Catholics of worshipping the Blessed Virgin, they need to have an understanding of what intercession is.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

First, Devin, thanks for joining the thread with your honest and continued dialogue

=DevinSRose;9397571]@Abrigham: Thanks!

@Ben and @Jon: Re: the canon and confession:

Certainly there are differences between Lutheranism and the rest of Protestantism. And intra-Lutheran differences. I recognize that. But Lutheranism is Protestant, as is Anabaptism and Anglicanism, in spite of the fact that some in these denominations reject that classification. Each Protestant denomination has their distinctive beliefs, but much is shared in common.

Fine, so long as you clarify that protestant is simply a convenient way of saying western non-Catholic Christian. It is a loose classification, using an archaic term dating from the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529.

In spite of including the deuterocanonicals in his Bible (as Apocrypha), Luther did not regard them as on par with Scripture. The deuteros were included (as Apocrypha, if profitable to read Apocrypha) in many Protestant Bibles for hundreds of years after the Reformation. But I would say, go into a Protestant book store today and try to find a Bible that includes the deuteros as on par with Scripture. You will not find it. Any Protestant Bible that has them will be clearly marked Bible + Apocrypha or something like that.

Remember again, that Lutheran does not equal Luther. Jerome didn’t consider the D-C’s on a par with the rest of scripture. Additionally, you are correct about English non-Catholic Bibles.

Jon’s point that Lutherans (and I would add, many Anglicans) view the canon historically does not help things, because either God inspired a book, or He didn’t. It’s binary

If it is binary, as you say, then you must also criticize Orthodoxy for having bigger canons, for including books that are not part of thi binary approach. That said, prior to Trent, all Catholics were allowed to look at the historical disputes regarding certain books, Cardinal Cajetan being an example from Luther’s era.

Sure, some books may be good to read; I love C.S. Lewis, writings of the saints, various devotionals, etc., but these are not inspired. If the boundaries of the canon are left fuzzy, then sola Scriptura is fuzzy, because sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith. You need to know which books are inspired and which are not, otherwise you are left with something like Reformed scholar R.C. Sproul’s nonsensical “fallible collection of infallible books.” I’ve argued this with my Anglican friends who point out that they can read the deuteros just “not for deriving doctrine.”

Nothing fuzzy at all about the Lutheran, and apparently Anglican approach. It is interesting that we are often caccused of not looking at history, but when we look at history in the same way the pre-Trent looked at it regarding the canon, “it isn’t helpful”.
The fact is that all communions use scripture in the way they believe best conforms with teaching the true faith. If certain books have a history of being disputed, to accept them as scripture, but use caution regarding them for doctrine, seems prudent and reasonable, and not fuzzy at all.

Regarding sola Scriptura, it actually reduces to solO Scriptura with regard to ultimate interpretive authority, and so the creeds, councils, concords, and confessions do not truly have a derivate authority at all. Read this entire article, and in particular the section I link to, for the demonstration of this claim: calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/#delusion

No it doesn’t. Again, read the confessions. Solo scriptura excludes the use or consideration of creeds, councils, confessions. It is a totally different construct.

Regarding confession, clearly you believe you are going to a sacramental confession. And I do concede that traditional Lutheranism teaches that (what they think is) confession is good, though I can think of no Lutheran I have known who has actually gone to confession at his church. I don’t think it worthy arguing at this point, as it is similar to discussions I have been in where various Protestants argue they believe Jesus is “really” present in the Eucharist. Usually these are Anglicans or Lutherans (or sometimes Reformed) Protestants. I argue they do not really think Jesus is really present, but such discussions typically don’t go anywhere. We need to have a more fundamental discussion of what a sacrament is, what makes it valid, and so on. Some other time and place.

Why on earth would you argue from a position of telling someone what he or she really believes or doesn’t believe? That’s not even good apolegetics, and it is at best a poor approach to dialogue.

I have to run now and this will have to be my last comment on this thread. Thanks for the discussion and God bless!

As I said, Devin, I wish you all the best, but I fear from what you have said that your intentions for your book are less in the spirit of Pope Benedict, and more in the spirit of Father O’Hare. I hope I’m wrong.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=DevinSRose;9397972]
In short, everyone believes Jesus is “really” present in some way, but that way varies from one Christian tradition to another. Few Protestants are willing to prostrate themselves before the host, however, as Catholics are, because we believe in transubstantiation while Protestants reject that.

It has nothing to do with Transubstantiation. Our belief in the real presence, not expressed as Transubstantiation, is ever bit in a real, substantial presence, recived spiritually by faith, AND orally by the mouth.

Confession is similar. Luther retained baptism and Eucharist as sacraments. Confession’s sacramental status was ambiguous. One place it was omitted another it was included. Lutherans are flexible on it. The other four sacraments were rejected as sacraments (even though Lutherans still recognized them as “rites”).

And I’m sure you understand why the Reformers made a distinction between what Christ instituted in the NT, as compared to OT rites.

It seems that you choose to accept the branch of Lutheran doctrine that believes confession is a sacrament whereby your sins are forgiven. Arguing against your belief would entail getting into the definition of a sacrament and more importantly, who has the authority to say what the definition is? My book cuts to the chase and gets to this root question of authority. Why should we believe Luther’s definition of sacrament and more specifically his definition of what the Eucharist is, or what baptism does, or whether Confession is a sacrament or isn’t, etc. etc.? Why not believe Calvin’s or Zwingli’s or the Catholic Church’s or someone else’s?

Why should we not believe the Orthodox expression of the real presence, as their authority is equal to Rome’s?

Jon

 

[DevinSRose]

JonNC,

I own books by Luther, have read the large and small catechisms, have read accounts of the various diets and colloquys and councils and synods and confessions that the early Protestants took part in, both with Catholics and just with themselves. But there is always more to learn, and I am happy to do so.

The statements I have made concerning Protestantism you have not rebutted though. For instance, I originally said that all Protestants reject sacramental confession and that Luther was ambiguous on it. You were right to nuance this that some Lutheran groups teach that it is sacramental. Others don’t. Both are acceptable within Lutheranism. Those who do believe in sacramental confession are in the tiny minority among all Protestants. So while it’s great that you believe that, it is still true that the vast majority of Protestants do not believe it is a sacrament. And it is true that Luther was unclear about it.

Similarly, I said Protestants use the 66-book Bible. You argued that Lutherans can also include disputed books in their Bibles like the deuterocanonicals, that they can be read but not used for doctrine. You linked to the internet monk post that showed how Lutherans are reflecting the complex history of the canon (with some books disputed, rejected, accepted). While it is certainly valuable to look to the history of the canon and the particular books–in fact it must be done–basing your canon on the history of the books cannot ultimately give conscience-binding certainty on your canon. Please read this article to understand why: calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/the-canon-made-impossible-ehrman-mcdowell-an-unlikely-agreement/

Having a fuzzy canon does not pose the same problem for Eastern Orthodox as it does for sola Scriptura Protestants, because the EOs are not Bible alone but believe in Holy Tradition as well as apostolic succession of their bishops, who have teaching authority. Protestants must absolutely be able to say this book is inspired and this one isn’t, because they base their doctrine off the inspired books of Scripture.

Regarding the confessions, I don’t think you read the article I linked to: calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

It is not enough to simply counter-assert that sola doesn’t reduce to solo. The authors of the article (all Protestant converts) syllogistically demonstrate that sola reduces to solo with respect to ultimate interpretive authority. If true, this is a back-breaker for Protestantism. To show otherwise you would need to show whether their syllogism fails.

My intentions are for all Christians to be visibly united in the fullness of the truth. My book is not polemical, does not use straw-men, but quotes from Luther, Calvin, and scholars and documents Protestants recognize as important (e.g. Westminster Confession, solid Lutheran and Anglican leaders/bishops, etc.). It is certainly within the spirit of Pope Benedict.

I would say, my challenge to you is to wait until the new book comes out from Catholic Answers, and I will buy you a copy and send it to you free of charge. You can then read it and make your own judgment. Sound fair?

In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion here and appreciate you guys engaging seriously on these issues. They are important. I will make this truly my last comment on the post. Always feel free to go to my blog and there is my email address if you want to contact me, or message me through these forums.

God bless,
Devin

 

[JonNC]

JonNC,

I own books by Luther, have read the large and small catechisms, have read accounts of the various diets and colloquys and councils and synods and confessions that the early Protestants took part in, both with Catholics and just with themselves. But there is always more to learn, and I am happy to do so.

The statements I have made concerning Protestantism you have not rebutted though. For instance, I originally said that all Protestants reject sacramental confession and that Luther was ambiguous on it. You were right to nuance this that some Lutheran groups teach that it is sacramental. Others don’t. Both are acceptable within Lutheranism. Those who do believe in sacramental confession are in the tiny minority among all Protestants. So while it’s great that you believe that, it is still true that the vast majority of Protestants do not believe it is a sacrament. And it is true that Luther was unclear about it.

Similarly, I said Protestants use the 66-book Bible. You argued that Lutherans can also include disputed books in their Bibles like the deuterocanonicals, that they can be read but not used for doctrine. You linked to the internet monk post that showed how Lutherans are reflecting the complex history of the canon (with some books disputed, rejected, accepted). While it is certainly valuable to look to the history of the canon and the particular books–in fact it must be done–basing your canon on the history of the books cannot ultimately give conscience-binding certainty on your canon. Please read this article to understand why: calledtocommunion.com/2012/02/the-canon-made-impossible-ehrman-mcdowell-an-unlikely-agreement/

Having a fuzzy canon does not pose the same problem for Eastern Orthodox as it does for sola Scriptura Protestants, because the EOs are not Bible alone but believe in Holy Tradition as well as apostolic succession of their bishops, who have teaching authority. Protestants must absolutely be able to say this book is inspired and this one isn’t, because they base their doctrine off the inspired books of Scripture.

Regarding the confessions, I don’t think you read the article I linked to: calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/

It is not enough to simply counter-assert that sola doesn’t reduce to solo. The authors of the article (all Protestant converts) syllogistically demonstrate that sola reduces to solo with respect to ultimate interpretive authority. If true, this is a back-breaker for Protestantism. To show otherwise you would need to show whether their syllogism fails.

My intentions are for all Christians to be visibly united in the fullness of the truth. My book is not polemical, does not use straw-men, but quotes from Luther, Calvin, and scholars and documents Protestants recognize as important (e.g. Westminster Confession, solid Lutheran and Anglican leaders/bishops, etc.). It is certainly within the spirit of Pope Benedict.
I would say, my challenge to you is to wait until the new book comes out from Catholic Answers, and I will buy you a copy and send it to you free of charge. You can then read it and make your own judgment. Sound fair?

In any case, I have enjoyed the discussion here and appreciate you guys engaging seriously on these issues. They are important. I will make this truly my last comment on the post. Always feel free to go to my blog and there is my email address if you want to contact me, or message me through these forums.

God bless,
Devin

Devin,
The part I have bolded is good to hear! I trust what you say your intentions are,that your intent is not polemics, but instead a positive dialogue with the goal of reconciliation, as that is what Pope Benedict, in his words and actions, clearly seeks. I share with you and the pope this desire.

God’s blessings also with you.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Ben----

Being a life-long, fairly well-read Evangelical myself, I have to say the meaning of Sola Scriptura that I’ve consistently heard throughout my life is the same as what I’ve seen JonNC and others describe here at CAF numerous times. **As you stated it, “Sola Scriptura only demands that doctrine be shown to be compatible with the Bible.”
**
----your Evangelical friend

Hmmmm…but which authority will you accept that will accomplish this for protestants?

You can certainly state this till kingdom come…but the question that remains unanswered is…where is that authority that you will submit to?

 

[pablope]

That is not the belief of Sola Scripture. Sola Scriptura claims all doctrines necessary to be believed for salvation by the christian in matters of salvation and Christian are to be found in Scripture.

But who is ultimately to decide for protestants what is and is not to be found in Scripture?

You can say and define in any way…but unless you decide on that authority that will make the ultimate decision and you will accept that authority…aside from yourself…then the never ending split of protestantism will never cease…till kingdom come.

Please see the Westminster Confession of Faith, The London Baptist Confession of Faith and the Thrity-Nine Articles all of which state what they hold to as being Sola Scriptura.

 

[pablope]

It teaches that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice. It does not exclude secondary things such as councils,or church authority, tradition or things like that. But it does hold those things are to be subject to Scripture.

Who would do the holding to Scripture? The Scripture is a book…so it cannot do it.

I think infallibility indicates an action incapable of error. So when you say infallible…how does or how can the Scripture exercise infallibility?

It holds those other things are fallible while Scripture is infallible. If Scripture says one thing and someone says something else we are to take what Scripture says on the matter.