If Protestantism Is True

[PRmerger]

Lutherans absolutely are advocates of sola scriptura. That doesn’t mean a rejection of the role of the Church.

I know that this is your conception, Jon. And I have heard you say this many times, but if Scripture is the final authority, yet you refer to the authority of the Church, at least as it applies to the canon, then logic dictates that it’s to the Church, not the Scriptures, that you defer.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Indeed. The Church proclaims that she is the servant of Scripture.

I looked up but that is not how it is in practice. The RCC claims no one can know what tradition and Scripture is unless they tell me. They claim to be able to define Scripture and tradition. Thus at least functionally the RCC has itself as supreme over Scripture and tradition since they claim to be the only ones to define both .

Exactly. She has never claimed to have authority over Scripture.

When it claims to define Scripture and traditon and says we cant know what they are apart from it then functionally that makes the church supreme over Scripture.

But the Church does have authority over YOU.

Only the local church has authority over me. I deny that the Pope has authority over me. Only my local bishops / elder do. Yet the authority f the church is not infallible in it’s teaching. The church is a lesser authority than Scripture. I agree with the Thirty-Nine articles as it rightly says " As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith. " ( Thirty-Nine Articles )

And you acknowledge this each and every time you quote from, say, the Gospel of Mark. {?

That is the case for you but not for me. I reject your presupositions on that.Oddly the RCC is unable to tell me who wrote the Gospel of Matthew presently.

Each and every time you quote from Mark you are saying, “I know this comes from God because the Catholic Church discerned this for me!”

That is the theological framwork from which you operate and not for me. The Roman See did not give me Scripture it was God Himself that did and was collected by the church because they were Scripture and are to be received by the people of God. The church itself does not make it Scripture. I quote Mark because is it inspired Scripture by God. It is it’s divine quality and nature of it is how I know it comes from God. I have a high view of Scripture whereas you as an individual do not evidently.

You would not know it any other way, Chafer.

That is an empty claim. When it comes to the matter of proving what you say the evidence is very much lacking.

 

[PRmerger]

I hope that people get fair treatment regardless of their theological disfferences

If you do a quick search you will see that there are a multitude of Catholics who have been banned or suspended. So it’s not just Protestants who get disciplined by the mods.

 

[PRmerger]

I looked up but that is not how it is in practice. The RCC claims no one can know what tradition and Scripture is unless they tell me.

Is there some other way you know what Scripture is, Chafer?

And what’s something that you view as Sacred Tradition that the Church has told you it’s not?

 

[PRmerger]

Only the local church has authority over me. I deny that the Pope has authority over me.

But when you quote the Book of Hebrews you are saying, “I believe this is Scripture. And the only way I know it is because the Pope (and all the bishops in union with him at all the early Church councils–Hippo, Florence, Nicea, Trent, etc etc etc) told me that it was inspired.”

You have no other way of knowing that Hebrews is inspired except because you defer to the authority of the Pope.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

If you do a quick search you will see that there are a multitude of Catholics who have been banned or suspended. So it’s not just Protestants who get disciplined by the mods.

That is good to hear that.

 

[PRmerger]

That is an empty claim. When it comes to the matter of proving what you say the evidence is very much lacking.

Show me that I am wrong, Chafer!

Tell me the *other *way you know that Hebrews is inspired.

And I’m surely hoping that you’re not going to say, “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible! And I know it’s in the Bible because it’s inspired!”

Or that you’re going to say the equally absurd, “I know it’s Scripture because it’s self-attesting!”

 

[PRmerger]

The Roman See did not give me Scripture it was God Himself that did and was collected by the church because they were Scripture and are to be received by the people of God.

Right.

And who were these people that received the Scriptures? Were they bishops? :yup:

The church itself does not make it Scripture.

Exactly. The Church discerned what was Scripture and what wasn’t.

You wouldn’t know that the Protoevangelium of James isn’t Scripture, except for the Church telling you it wasn’t.

I quote Mark because is it inspired Scripture by God.

But who told you it was inspired by God?

Someone else did. An outside authority that you defer to, believing that this outside authority got it right when she proclaimed Mark to be inspired but the Gospel of Thomas to not be inspired.

Both were ostensibly written by apostles.

But the Church in her wisdom discerned that one was inspired and one wasn’t.

And you have deferred to her wisdom in this matter.

It is it’s divine quality and nature of it is how I know it comes from God.

How do you know? Who told you?

Answer: the Catholic Church.

I have a high view of Scripture whereas you as an individual do not evidently.

Well, if we’re going to go down that road then I could say that you worship Scripture while I venerate it.

Does that sound like a fair judgement of your view? :nope:

So I suggest you leave the judging about another’s attitude towards Scripture to yourself. Thanks.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

But when you quote the Book of Hebrews you are saying, “I believe this is Scripture. And the only way I know it is because the Pope (and all the bishops in union with him at all the early Church councils–Hippo, Florence, Nicea, Trent, etc etc etc) told me that it was inspired.”

You have no other way of knowing that Hebrews is inspired except because you defer to the authority of the Pope.

Again that is not true. It is it’s internal and external evidence that we receive it as inspired Scripture. The only real debate on Hebrews is on who wrote it. Christians generally held that Hebrews was Scripture prior to any of those councils. Those councils do not make Hebrews Scripture it was God who did when it was written . I reject the claimed authority of the Pope. He has authority of only the Roman See and not over me personally and or other parts of the church universal. I have never seen any evidence for such big claims like that for the authority of the Roman See.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Show me that I am wrong, Chafer!

Tell me the *other *way you know that Hebrews is inspired.

And I’m surely hoping that you’re not going to say, “I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible! And I know it’s in the Bible because it’s inspired!”

Or that you’re going to say the equally absurd, “I know it’s Scripture because it’s self-attesting!”

You are demanding me to prove a universal negative. Logical fallacy 101. Invalid argument. Besides your argument in itself is also circular as well. It is through it’s internal and external evidence that I know that Hebrews is inspired Scripture. Enough said.

 

[PRmerger]

Again that is not true. It is it’s internal and external evidence that we receive it as inspired Scripture.

Please give the criteria you used to discern that Hebrews was inspired.

Did you examine all the internal and external evidence, or did you rely on someone else’s authority to do this?

The only real debate on Hebrews is on who wrote it.

Yes–and that’s a whopper, isn’t it? If you don’t even know who wrote it, how in the world can you know it’s inspired? How do you know it was written by an eyewitness???

 

[pablope]

You are demanding me to prove a universal negative. Logical fallacy 101. Invalid argument. Besides your argument in itself is also circular as well. It is through it’s internal and external evidence that I know that Hebrews is inspired Scripture. Enough said.

Good AM…Chafer…well, here is a question for you then…why don’t you prove to me who wrote the Gospel of Mark by citing to me the chapter and verse where Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark.

And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you believe Mark wrote it…and why is it not any guy named Mark?

And again, when you find this chapter and verse…why do you believe the Gospel of Mark is inspired? Why should it be in the Bible? Where does Mark claim his gospel should be in Scripture? If not Mark, where does the Scripture proclaim the Gospel of Mark should be in Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

Christians generally held that Hebrews was Scripture prior to any of those councils.

Heh. That’s called Sacred Tradition, Chafer. IOW: what the Christians “generally held” before there was a Bible was known through the testimony of the Apostles and their successors.

Those councils do not make Hebrews Scripture it was God who did when it was written .

Right.

I reject the claimed authority of the Pope. He has authority of only the Roman See and not over me personally and or other parts of the church universal. I have never seen any evidence for such big claims like that for the authority of the Roman See.

Except that you defer to the authority of the Roman see when you quote the Gospels, Chafer.

They discerned for you that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were inspired, but that Thomas, Phillip, James and Barnabas were not.

That’s the ONLY way you know that.

 

[PRmerger]

You are demanding me to prove a universal negative. Logical fallacy 101. Invalid argument. Besides your argument in itself is also circular as well. It is through it’s internal and external evidence that I know that Hebrews is inspired Scripture. Enough said.

Give me an example of the internal and external evidence you used to discern that it was inspired.

And are you really telling me that you did this for every single book of the Bible before you decided to quote from that particular book?

Really?

 

[benjohnson]

Heh. That’s called Sacred Tradition, Chafer. IOW: what the Christians “generally held” before there was a Bible was known through the testimony of the Apostles and their successors…

Yes - and that’s a good thing, and not in conflict at all with Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura places doesn’t limit Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, or the Pope, only that whatever dogma they promulgate be constant with Scripture.

Given that Catholics say that dogma never changes, then Sola Scriptura shouldn’t be a problem at all for any Catholic: As whatever dogma is promulgated now would by definition mesh with the dogma in place when Scripture was written down.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes - and that’s a good thing, and not in conflict at all with Sola Scriptura.

How is it not in conflict with SS? Sacred Tradition is viewed by Catholics as another channel of God’s Word.

You are good with that?

Sola Scriptura places doesn’t limit Sacred Tradition, the Magisterium, or the Pope, only that whatever dogma they promulgate be constant with Scripture.

This is very Catholic!

Given that Catholics say that dogma never changes, then Sola Scriptura shouldn’t be a problem at all for any Catholic: As whatever dogma is promulgated now would by definition mesh with the dogma in place when Scripture was written down.

Sola Scriptura is a problem for Catholics because it denies one channel of the Word of God.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Right.

And who were these people that received the Scriptures? Were they bishops? :yup:

The people of God which refers to individual believers together. It is not limited to Bishops as you stated.

Exactly. The Church discerned what was Scripture and what wasn’t.

They were collected because they are inspired Scripture. They are not made Scripture because the church says they are.

You wouldn’t know that the Protoevangelium of James isn’t Scripture, except for the Church telling you it wasn’t.

That is so wrong. It’s internal and external evidence speaks volumes againist it. I reject that gnostic writing because of it’s clear cut errors in it. It was not based on what the church said about it at all.

But who told you it was inspired by God?

Its internal and external evidence of it was which lead me to believe Scripture is inspired by God. That is its quality and nature of which makes it special above every other book that exist.

Someone else did. An outside authority that you defer to, believing that this outside authority got it right when she proclaimed Mark to be inspired but the Gospel of Thomas to not be inspired.

That is true for you but not for me. My views are based on it’s internal and external evidence. The Gospel of Thomas is a very heretical gnostic writing. I did not need the Roman See to tell me that one. It’s own internal evidence speaks out strongly agianist it with it’s errors.

Both were ostensibly written by apostles.

The Gospel of Thomas was not written by an apostle. It is a gnostic writing thats fake. Mark was not an apostle but was directly connected to the apostle Peter. Mark had the prophetic gift evidently since the Gospel of Mark is inspired Scripture.

But the Church in her wisdom discerned that one was inspired and one wasn’t.

By the church I understand it as meaning all believers and not limited to bishops in the church. They were collected because they were Scripture when they were written. Basically Mark was written about 55 ad. That is when it was inspired Scripture and not down the road waiting for the Roman See to say it is Scripture many years later.

And you have deferred to her wisdom in this matter.

My conclusions were based on the internal and external evidence. I did not at all depend on the claims of the Roman See.

How do you know? Who told you?

I know due to the internal and external evidence and I judged it.

Answer: the Catholic Church.

By Catholic Church you are refering to the Roman See only. I view the Catholic Church as embracing all Christians on the earth. I do not limit the Catholic Church to be defined and limited to the Roman See.

Well, if we’re going to go down that road then I could say that you worship Scripture while I venerate it.

Scripture is not God Himself. I do not believe that God is on paper. But rather it is viewed as his inspired written word. It is God’s Word in written form and that is His way of communication to us. When I pray I do not pray to Scripture itself I pray to God whom is in heaven itself. When Scripture speaks it is God who is speaking and is to be obeyed. What I said is far different than you saying I worship Scripture itself. Then again I am not the one who is attacking the realiability of Scripture to the people of God.

Does that sound like a fair judgement of your view? :nope:

My issue is the manner of your argumentation. We already agree with at the very least on 66 books. Our disagreement is over the status of the apocrypah. I deny it is inspired Scripture and hold they are books read only for rule for edification and not for proving doctrine in which I follow the position of Jerome on this matter whereas the RCC views them as rule of faith books for doctrine. Why attack the realiability of Scripture as a whole since we agree with at least 66 books already rather than discuss the books we disagree on ? This is why I view much of your arguments on this as a red herring and as an attack againist Scripture itself ( not sola Scriptura ) . Why question books which we already agree on ? Hope you see my point. Your arguments in the end are circular arguments since it assumes the authority of the Roman See without proving it.

So I suggest you leave the judging about another’s attitude towards Scripture to yourself. Thanks.

Any reasonable person who has a high view of Scripture would be shocked in the manner of your comments about Scripture and the diversion of the direct issue instead of the real specific point of disagreement. We agree on at least 66 books. That means we do not need to discuss that. We disagree on the apocrypha which is where the specific point of disagreement is at. This point is not really being discused and is filled with red herrings.

 

[pablope]

T

My issue is the manner of your argumentation. We already agree with at the very least on 66 books. Our disagreement is over the status of the apocrypah.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chafer DTS
Jesus and the apostles knew what the OT Canon was.

Really? How many books were canonized? Tell me what year,where and by WHOSE authority was it canonized? The Sadducees? Pharisees? Essenes?

 

[JonNC]

I know that this is your conception, Jon. And I have heard you say this many times, but if Scripture is the final authority, yet you refer to the authority of the Church, at least as it applies to the canon, then logic dictates that it’s to the Church, not the Scriptures, that you defer.

Well, yes. I defer to the Church. The use of scripture as the final norm is how the Church (Lutherans, at least) practices hermeunetics. I don’t take it upon myself to interpret scripture, at least in the area of doctrine, I defer to the Church. therefore, to be a Lutheran, I defer to the Lutheran confessions.

Jon