If Protestantism Is True

[benjohnson]

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?

My church has definite answers to all these questions, and they are correct except I think only the number of sacraments in not to Catholic standards as we consider some of them to be Rites.

I understand the need to submit: I have submitted myself to those teachings and I am all the better for it. My church’s teachings are more strict that I would be, but their straitness let me center my own life to what is important, after being centered it allows me the freedom to love others. This freedom to love others only happened for me because I could finally respect the love that God has for me.

Now let us go back to our non-hypothetical North Korean prisoner who has a scrap of the Bible - he doesn’t even know about the trinity, hasn’t been baptized, but he loves God. Is he correct enough to be considered in God’s universal church?

This is a conundrum!

Do we say we exclude those with imperfect discipline and imperfect knowledge and imperfect love?

On the other side - do we keep allowing heresy in those that could know better? Are we encouraging them in their error by not drawing a sharp line? Are we encourage error in ourselves by not rebuking?

The only thing I can think of is to keep correcting our fellow Christians and others, and keep loving them. Never condemn them, only keep gently showing them the errors of their ways, equipping them to make the right choice, and encouraging them when they do.

…

I remember that first time I “got” the Trinity - it was like I were holding to opposing thought in my mind at the same time. In the same way, the problem of being ‘strict’ and ‘embracing’ is sort of the same thing. One without the other, in my opinion would almost be meaningless.

Being Lutheran, I think one of Luther’s sermons is appropriate:

“As for example when we feel in our conscience that God rebukes us as sinners and judges us unworthy of the kingdom of heaven, then we experience hell, and we think we are lost forever. Now whoever understands here the actions of this poor woman and catches God in His own judgment, and says, Lord, it is true, I am a sinner and not worthy of Thy grace; but still Thou hast promised sinners forgiveness, and Thou art come not to call the righteous, but, as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:15, ‘to save sinners.’ Behold, then must God according to His own judgment have mercy upon us.”

 

[PRmerger]

My church has definite answers to all these questions, and they are correct except I think only the number of sacraments in not to Catholic standards as we consider some of them to be Rites.

Those were not necessarily issues that I thought Lutherans and Catholics were in dispute over–they were just theological questions that Christians in general cannot agree on.

Now let us go back to our non-hypothetical North Korean prisoner who has a scrap of the Bible - he doesn’t even know about the trinity, hasn’t been baptized, but he loves God. Is he correct enough to be considered in God’s universal church?

If he hasn’t been baptized then, no, he isn’t considered by Christians to be part of God’s universal church.

But whether he is considered by God to be part of his universal church, I wouldn’t dare to proclaim!

Do we say we exclude those with imperfect discipline and imperfect knowledge and imperfect love?

The Catholic Church says no!

On the other side - do we keep allowing heresy in those that could know better? Are we encouraging them in their error by not drawing a sharp line? Are we encourage error in ourselves by not rebuking?

Again, the CC says no!

The Church is at war with heresy, not with heretics.

The only thing I can think of is to keep correcting our fellow Christians and others, and keep loving them. Never condemn them, only keep gently showing them the errors of their ways, equipping them to make the right choice, and encouraging them when they do.

Indeed.
…

I remember that first time I “got” the Trinity - it was like I were holding to opposing thought in my mind at the same time. In the same way, the problem of being ‘strict’ and ‘embracing’ is sort of the same thing. One without the other, in my opinion would almost be meaningless.

Being Lutheran, I think one of Luther’s sermons is appropriate:

“As for example when we feel in our conscience that God rebukes us as sinners and judges us unworthy of the kingdom of heaven, then we experience hell, and we think we are lost forever. Now whoever understands here the actions of this poor woman and catches God in His own judgment, and says, Lord, it is true, I am a sinner and not worthy of Thy grace; but still Thou hast promised sinners forgiveness, and Thou art come not to call the righteous, but, as St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:15, ‘to save sinners.’ Behold, then must God according to His own judgment have mercy upon us.”

Amen!

 

[Roy5]

The weakness of Protestantism is also its strength - depending upon one’s perception.

The weakness is that Protestantism is divided into many denominations. This can be confusing.

 The strength is that mainline Protestants - Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, most Episcopalians, etc. - don't insist that they are the one true version of Christianity. They permit a wide variation of belief, from an evangelical and conservative viewpoint to one that approaches, say, Unitarianism.

  For those who want an authoritative religion that claims to be the one true faith, Catholicism can be very appealing. For those who prefer a 'think and let think' religion, one that doesn't require doctrinal uniformity, that permits wide differences in theology, that can even encourage free thinking, well, mainline Protestantism (not fundamentalism) offers that option. 

 Protestants change denominations easily. They may find a Methodist church in Omaha that appeals, and they attend there, perhaps because they have such a dynamic youth group. Then they move to Denver and attend a Presbyterian Church because of its location as well as the minister's preaching ability and the couples club,. On their third move, perhaps to the Boston area, they join a United Church of Christ (Congregationalist) because they are attracted by a variety of factors, from its location and minister to its exciting adult Bible Class, its soup kichen ministry, and neighbors who invited them.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,

I guess we will have to disagree about Trent because I read from the historians that there was no church wide approval of canon until Trent. The synods of the 4th century were not church wide, hence the need for Trent to establish the canon and settle the arguments with the Reformers about the Deuterocanicals.

I see no reason to name any church or denomination in the NT, although the Church of God was named several times by Paul. We are all part of Gods church and don’t need a name in the NT to be his church.

Rob

No church wide approval? In all honesty.did not matter who did not agree…doctrine is doctrine. Did all bishops agree with the Trinitarian doctrine? Nope! Did the church waiver? Nope! Does not matter who disagrees with any doctrine,the church is not asking for individual opinons. That is one the problems with Protestanism: I do not agree,so I’ll move on to another church or start my own.

 

[CopticChristian]

The weakness of Protestantism is also its strength - depending upon one’s perception.

The weakness is that Protestantism is divided into many denominations. This can be confusing.

 The strength is that mainline Protestants - Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, most Episcopalians, etc. - don't insist that they are the one true version of Christianity. They permit a wide variation of belief, from an evangelical and conservative viewpoint to one that approaches, say, Unitarianism.

  For those who want an authoritative religion that claims to be the one true faith, Catholicism can be very appealing. For those who prefer a 'think and let think' religion, one that doesn't require doctrinal uniformity, that permits wide differences in theology, that can even encourage free thinking, well, mainline Protestantism (not fundamentalism) offers that option. 

 Protestants change denominations easily. They may find a Methodist church in Omaha that appeals, and they attend there, perhaps because they have such a dynamic youth group. Then they move to Denver and attend a Presbyterian Church because of its location as well as the minister's preaching ability and the couples club,. On their third move, perhaps to the Boston area, they join a United Church of Christ (Congregationalist) because they are attracted by a variety of factors, from its location and minister to its exciting adult Bible Class, its soup kichen ministry, and neighbors who invited them.

Roy,

You are hilarious. The Church of Christ exists because of a split among those that came to reform the reform. I cannot imagine any Evangelical or Fundamentalist claiming tha Unitarians are just OK Christians…all of these divisions came about due to disagreement. Do you want everyone to believe that these divisions came about due to a soup kitchen or a youth group?:hypno:

 

[Nicea325]

Radical:

some novelties were introduced by the CC that are contraindicated in scriptures?

Really? Name one CC novelty which contradicts scripture?

What I am still waiting to read anywhere in Scripture where teaches everything must be said and taught from Scripture-only?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea, good to talk with you.

Likewise my brother in Christ.

Quote: Originally Posted by Nicea325 Says who? According to who? Scripture? Precisely why I have been asking for years for the chapter and verse where scripture is the only infallible source?

I’m quite sure you know there’s no direct verse that says scripture is the only infallible source. That’s half the fun!

Therefore it is an extrabilbical belief. Do not get me the CC does venerate scripture,but the CC also knows no where does the Bible teach it is the only infallible source.

It is amusing that us Sola Scriptura proponents have to use other sources than Scripture to base our argument. The closest verse is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

But my brother,I hope you are ware 2 Tim 3:16-18 has been highly taken out-of-context and has been debunked in support of SS. The first word reads: ALL…not ONLY. Second, St.Paul was not writing those verses in defense of SS or even advocating such a novelty. Third, the same advocates of SS disagree on certain doctrines such as baptism and connected to the phrase “the servant of God” …equipped for every good work. I’ll give you an example how 2 Tim 3:16-18 cannot support SS. Case in point, an orthodox Presbyterian minister will believe in infant baptism while a Baptish minister will not support in infant baptism and both base it off the Bible-only. So tell me: Who is the servant of God? Who has it correct? The Baptist minister? The Presbyterian minister? Precisely why SS does not work,it is self-refuting.

QuoteNicea325: I think your error lies is with the premise of adding Christ Church into the mix of finite human errors, which is not plausible. People make errors not Christ Church-does it make sense? What about Christ Church being the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)?

I wish had you ability to separate the Church with it’s actions. I can at a certain level, and understand what you mean.

My brother, the NT is clear the action of Judas and Peter-yes? Did Christ just throw his arms up and walk away? No. Precisely why he promised the Helper/Advocate to guide them and His Church. Think about it,God is all-knowing and yet He still chose humans to take care of His Church until His return. Human errors have happened and will continue,however, human error in no way eliminates the sanctity of Christ Church.

Quote:Nicea325 More important, if the church is fallible as so many Protestants teach,then explain to me with what certitude do any of us have the doctrines of the Trinity,Incarnation,canon of scripture are truly accurate? How can a fallible church just “lucky” over the centuries in ratifying such key doctrines binding our very souls? Tell me my friend: If a fallible church gave us the NT canon,isn’t it logical it can plausibly be in error? What other books could be missing in the current NT canon which may contain vital teachings for our salvation?

I don’t teach that at all! I don’t think the Catholic Chruch is very fallible at all - Please keep in mind that as a good Lutheran, I agree with almost all Catholic practice and doctrine. Remember we agree on most authority. It’s just that every 1500 years of so, we stand up and say - “Hey! That’s not in the Bible!” and even then, only on cases of doctrine that goes counters to Scripture.

I am sorry,but your asnwer still does not answer the belief of the church being fallible. It is not in the Bible? Where is the 27 NT canon mentioned in the Bible? Does it not seem like an unbiblical doctrine?

Quote:Nicea325 No educated Catholic would ever say the Bible does not contain the Word of God or isn’t inspired. The entire issue lies around the belief that the Bible-alone is supreme in all matters of faith and morals-if so,where is it stated in scripture?

I think I overstepped - I should have said that Catholics accept more than scripture as infallible. But please keep in mind that Lutherans only apply Sola Scripture for doctrine.

Yes because Jesus founded His Church and promised to guide into all TRUTH. Never said its faitful would not error. Lutherans apply SS for doctrine? Then tell me how it was applied before the Bible was compiled as one volume in the year 95 AD? 150 AD? 280 AD?

Quote:Nicea325 Unfortunately, SS is dangerous and history has shown it. It simply does not work nor was it ever taught as the only source to resolve an array issues.

It’s has worked well for us - remember because of it, we haven’t introduced too many novelties. There are Lutheran Synods who are going wayward precisely because they’re not applying SS and are listening to themselves rather than God. I can’t speak for other Protestant sects, but my impression is that some are more Solo Scriptura.

It SS has existed from the get-go and it works well,then why the foundations of thousands of denominations? And why? Because of the Bible and different understandings of doctrines based on SS. How could SS be applied when it is never even taught implicitly anywhere in Scripture? Where does the Bible teach everything must be said and taught in the Bible?

Quote:Nicea325 But the CC/EO and all ancient liturgical churches do not teach in Sola Ecclesia. Moreover it has always used: Scripture,Tradition and the Church.

I mean Sola Ecclesia, as from the final word in this portion of the CCC “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form [Scripture] or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone.” Does Catholic Church has any good way of preventing private interpretation on the church’s teaching, as the same technique would help my interpretation of the bible. Prayer is about the only comfort I can find.

Any Catholic can read Scripture and is free to interpret has he or she chooses,but in the end of the day,it is the church which has the final interpretation due to its role entrusted by Christ. You and I can read the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution,etc,etc and interpret as we please,but at the end,certain government branches and qualified officials do it for the entire nation. Does not matter what we think a certain law means,we are not the people entrusted to do such a task. That is why we a living and breathing government to do it for its citizens,so why wouldn’t God do it for His own Church?

Quote: I’ll pray as well. God Bless my brother in Christ Thank you! God continue to Bless you.

Likewise

 

[Jim_Dandy]

The weakness of Protestantism is also its strength - depending upon one’s perception.

The weakness is that Protestantism is divided into many denominations. This can be confusing.

 The strength is that mainline Protestants - Methodists, Presbyterians, UCC, most Episcopalians, etc. - don't insist that they are the one true version of Christianity. They permit a wide variation of belief, from an evangelical and conservative viewpoint to one that approaches, say, Unitarianism.

  For those who want an authoritative religion that claims to be the one true faith, Catholicism can be very appealing. For those who prefer a 'think and let think' religion, one that doesn't require doctrinal uniformity, that permits wide differences in theology, that can even encourage free thinking, well, mainline Protestantism (not fundamentalism) offers that option. 

 Protestants change denominations easily. They may find a Methodist church in Omaha that appeals, and they attend there, perhaps because they have such a dynamic youth group. Then they move to Denver and attend a Presbyterian Church because of its location as well as the minister's preaching ability and the couples club,. On their third move, perhaps to the Boston area, they join a United Church of Christ (Congregationalist) because they are attracted by a variety of factors, from its location and minister to its exciting adult Bible Class, its soup kichen ministry, and neighbors who invited them.

This is relativism – one religious community is as good as another.

This works if you believe there are no objective Truths that Christ came to teach His Church, and that all ecclesial communities – with their conflicting and competing doctrines – are His Church. Jesus’ own words, I am the Truth, are meaningless in Protestantism. If any and every opinion about what the Bible means is “true doctrine,” as it is in Protestantism, there is no such thing as religious Truth.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Nicea,

I guess we will have to disagree about Trent because I read from the historians that there was no church wide approval of canon until Trent. The synods of the 4th century were not church wide, hence the need for Trent to establish the canon and settle the arguments with the Reformers about the Deuterocanicals.

I see no reason to name any church or denomination in the NT, although the Church of God was named several times by Paul. We are all part of Gods church and don’t need a name in the NT to be his church.

Rob

Rob, you posted a similar message about Trent on the Snake-handling and Sola Scriptura thread, which I answered at length, including the relevant decrees of Trent and other councils (post #145). I didn’t see a reply. Have you read this information?

St. Paul was describing the Church, not naming it.

The name “Catholic” first appeared in writing in A.D. 107 in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans: **“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” **Ignatius was taught by St. John, the Evangelist. This was written only seven years after St. John’s death c. 100. He most likely got the description “universal”, (Greek: Katholikos), from him, or from St. Peter or St. Paul, whom he also knew, and it became the name. Jesus simply called it, “My Church.” At the time it didn’t need a name – it was one of a kind. But within the lifetimes of the Apostles there were already heresies, and a name was needed to identify the True Church. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch, who was thrown to the lions in the Roman Coliseum for his Faith.

 

[adrift]

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be
done, on earth as it is in heaven Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our
trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from evil. Amen

Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee
blessed art thou among women and
blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus
Holy Mary mother of God pray for us
sinners now and at the hour of our death
Amen.

Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning is now ever shall be world without end Amen

 

[Roy5]

Roy,

You are hilarious. The Church of Christ exists because of a split among those that came to reform the reform. I cannot imagine any Evangelical or Fundamentalist claiming tha Unitarians are just OK Christians…all of these divisions came about due to disagreement. Do you want everyone to believe that these divisions came about due to a soup kitchen or a youth group?:hypno:

Golly, gee, Mr. Coptic Christian. Glad I add a little hilarity to this discussion. I don't know how the Church of Christ got into this. That is far removed from the United Church of Christ. Actually, the Church of Christ - true - is a reform of a reform of a reform. Unlike mainline Protestants the Church of Christ believes that it is the one true church, rather like the ark when the flood is approaching, and you'd better get on board. In this respect it is considerably more like Catholicism than mainline Protestantism.

 In sharp contrast, the United Church of Christ, a merger of the Congregationalists and Evangelical and Reform Churches back in 1957, is one of the most liberal of the Protestant groups. It traces its Congregationalist roots to the Pilgrims and Puritans. It not only has women ministers - and has had them for many years - but it now ordains gay and lesbian pastors. Not to be confused with the Church of Christ in any way!  The Congregationalists produced many of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence (55 of whom were Protestants, incidentally). 

 Within mainline Protestants there are bonafide members who tend to be exceedingly liberal theologically, almost Unitarian. The Unitarian-Universalist Church, however, has been denied admission to the National Council of Churches because of its Christology. Member churches must recognize Christ and Lord and Savior.

 Etc. 

 God bless all of his children, including Unitarians. I have a special fondness for the Quakers, myself, though I do my darndest to show respect for all faiths and their followers who seek to live in love and charity with people of other creeds, colors, cultures and countries. Religion too long has been a barrier, promoting division and bigotry, when it should be a bridge that promotes understanding, humility, friendship, respect, and love. Christ would surely appreciate that.

 

[Contarini]

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.

Oh no, not that again. . . .

As I’ve pointed out before, this argument utterly fails (as does its Protestant, “Old Princeton” counterpart) because the premise doesn’t work.

You can’t come even remotely close to proving by purely historical means the reliability of the Bible at a level that would support the claim that an infallible Church was founded.

Never mind that it’s by no means clear to all reasonable interpreters that Matt. 16, for instance, establishes an infallible Church. (The “gates of hell not prevailing” could mean a lot of things, not necessarily infallibility.)

Purely historical inquiry leaves considerable doubt as to whether Jesus said the words recorded in Matt. 16 about the gates of hell prevailing. Now it may be that the majority of historical critics are wrong here. But it makes no sense to claim that something can be proved by purely historical methods when most of the people using purely historical methods come to the opposite conclusion.

If we are to believe that Jesus really said “the gates of hell will not prevail,” we will believe this by faith in the authority of the Church, which declares Scripture to be inspired. We will not believe it based on purely historical methods. (Not, of course, that historical methods prove that Jesus didn’t say it–they simply can’t establish with even reasonable probability that He did.)

Hence the “spiral argument” fails utterly and should no longer be used by anyone. It’s an embarrassment to Catholic apologetics.

Edwin

 

[lulu88]

Golly, gee, Mr. Coptic Christian. Glad I add a little hilarity to this discussion. I don’t know how the Church of Christ got into this. That is far removed from the United Church of Christ. Actually, the Church of Christ - true - is a reform of a reform of a reform. Unlike mainline Protestants the Church of Christ believes that it is the one true church, rather like the ark when the flood is approaching, and you’d better get on board. In this respect it is considerably more like Catholicism than mainline Protestantism.

 In sharp contrast, the United Church of Christ, a merger of the Congregationalists and Evangelical and Reform Churches back in 1957, is one of the most liberal of the Protestant groups. It traces its Congregationalist roots to the Pilgrims and Puritans. It not only has women ministers - and has had them for many years - but it now ordains gay and lesbian pastors. Not to be confused with the Church of Christ in any way!  The Congregationalists produced many of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence (55 of whom were Protestants, incidentally). 

 Within mainline Protestants there are bonafide members who tend to be exceedingly liberal theologically, almost Unitarian. The Unitarian-Universalist Church, however, has been denied admission to the National Council of Churches because of its Christology. Member churches must recognize Christ and Lord and Savior.

 Etc. 

 God bless all of his children, including Unitarians. I have a special fondness for the Quakers, myself, though I do my darndest to show respect for all faiths and their followers who seek to live in love and charity with people of other creeds, colors, cultures and countries. Religion too long has been a barrier, promoting division and bigotry, when it should be a bridge that promotes understanding, humility, friendship, respect, and love. Christ would surely appreciate that.

**
**Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture, which I believe that is what most are responding too. As a former Lutheran(Protestant) we always preached and followed this succession.

I feel too many new sects have come along with man-made doctrines, the most famous being OSAS (once saved, always saved) or Eternal Security which just is not biblical and or scriptural. Most Orthodox or Mainstream Protestants do not profess such doctrine as biblical and the teachings of Christ.**
Lulu**

 

[PRmerger]

You can’t come even remotely close to proving by purely historical means the reliability of the Bible at a level that would support the claim that an infallible Church was founded.

I am not a scholar, Edwin, and as such cannot compete with you in the area of the historical reliability of the Bible.

But I will say that I have heard many Catholic apologists, who *are *scholars, argue for the historical reliability of the Bible.

And, as such, it’s your word against theirs, and I will go with their opinion on this matter.

 

[Contarini]

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

That doesn’t make any sense.

You’re dodging a question you can’t adequately answer, it seems to me.

It’s perfectly legitimate to say:

“We both believe doctrine X, but you seem to deny the grounds on which we believe it, so I’d like to know what your grounds are for believing it.”

. I know it is Scripture from it’s internal and external evidence.

Vague.

I’ll take “external evidence” to mean historical evidence. As judged by whom? Are you aware of the conclusions reached by mainstream historical scholarship about the reliability of Scripture? Just how do those conclusions support your belief that Scripture is inspired?

I take “internal evidence” to mean the witness of the Spirit in your heart. Am I to understand that you have examined each of the books of the Protestant canon and that the Spirit has witnessed individually to you that each of them is inspired? And how would your “internal evidence” compare to that which the Mormons appeal to for the inspiration of their distinctive sacred text?

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.

RCs do often make circular arguments in this regard (and the “spiral argument” doesn’t work, as I argued above, because it falls into the same traps that the conservative Protestant approach does). However, the challenge is not necessarily circular at all.

Protestants have an inadequate account of why they accept the authority of Scripture. That doesn’t require the infallibility of the Roman See at all. The challenge, properly put, is not “how can you believe in Scripture if you don’t accept the infallibility of Rome” but “why do you accept the NT canon established by the historic Church and not the doctrinal/interpretive framework also handed down by that Church?” The Orthodox don’t have a problem in this regard (those RCs who are engaging in a circular, quasi-epistemological argument mistakenly think that they do). Protestants have a very serious problem.

Specifically, I’ve never heard a good Protestant argument for why we should continue to accept II Peter as canonical, given that purely historical arguments point pretty heavily away from apostolic authorship of that particular book.

I see no reason to accept II Peter based on the consensus of the early Church, and reject such things as prayer for the dead, a sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist, the doctrine of apostolic succession, the necessity of union with the Church (defined as a worldwide fellowship of bishops), and the necessity of good works for final salvation, all of which were also taught and practiced by the early Church. Indeed, there was more debate about certain books of the NT (including 2 Peter) than there was about any of the doctrines I’ve mentioned.

You must prove the authority of the Roman See first before making out your questions about issues relating to the Canon.

No. RCs often insist on sticking in the authority of the Roman See, because it’s like King Charles’ head for them (if I were a true Anglo-Catholic, I’d say St. Charles, King and Martyr). They stick it in everywhere.

But the real problem here has to do with the continuous historic witness of the Church as the only reason why we accept the NT canon in its totality. Obviously the OT canon is a bit different, because Protestants and Catholics do differ on this. The main reason for the difference is that Protestants follow Jewish rather than Catholic tradition, which is arguably a mistake but would be a bit of a digression here.

Edwin

 

[lulu88]

**There is more unity than difference in the way Catholics, Lutherans and Episcopalians understand doctrine and celebrate, communion, church attendance along with the agreement on how one should abide and follow the ten commandments. etc…

Lulu **

 

[Nicea325]

This is relativism – one religious community is as good as another.

This works if you believe there are no objective Truths that Christ came to teach His Church, and that all ecclesial communities – with their conflicting and competing doctrines – are His Church. Jesus’ own words, I am the Truth, are meaningless in Protestantism. If any and every opinion about what the Bible means is “true doctrine,” as it is in Protestantism, there is no such thing as religious Truth.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

You are correct Jim. I have met many Protestants who tell me: It does not matter what church one belongs to because we are all Christians. They all cannot be correct. Protestanism in all practical terms did not reform the church or Christianity,but it caused a bigger mess: denominations. :tsktsk:

 

[benjohnson]

. But my brother,I hope you are ware 2 Tim 3:16-18 has been highly taken out-of-context and has been debunked in support of SS. The first word reads: ALL…not ONLY. Second, St.Paul was not writing those verses in defense of SS or even advocating such a novelty.

Oh I agree! I don’t think Scripture is the only authority to follow, only that other authorities should be tested against Scripture when dealing in doctrine! I don’t think you can ‘proof-text’ SS in the bible - an only brought up what I think is good advice from the bible when specifically asked to find a passage. I did so under protest!

Case in point, an orthodox Presbyterian minister will believe in infant baptism while a Baptish minister will not support in infant baptism and both base it off the Bible-only. So tell me: Who is the servant of God? Who has it correct? The Baptist minister? The Presbyterian minister?

Being Lutheran, I think they’re all wrong.

Here’s something to ponder - some of these Churches stand not in opposition to my church or your own, but in opposition to secularism. I have no doubt that some of these churches have members that would be secular, if that church didn’t exist.

I’m not saying that you and I shouldn’t help them see clearer and bring them up! But sometimes I think we should be tentatively thankful that they are there.

Lutherans apply SS for doctrine? Then tell me how it was applied before the Bible was compiled as one volume in the year 95 AD? 150 AD? 280 AD?

At that time had oral history and the apostles - so we use the Scripture to come closer to the resurrection on matters of Doctrine.

It SS has existed from the get-go and it works well,then why the foundations of thousands of denominations?

I only said that it works well for us, and only when used very sparingly. Others seem to be using part of the idea in ways contrary to how we use it. I’ll let them espouse their own reasoning.

You and I can read the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution,etc,etc and interpret as we please,but at the end,certain government branches and qualified officials do it for the entire nation. Does not matter what we think a certain law means,we are not the people entrusted to do such a task. That is why we a living and breathing government to do it for its citizens,so why wouldn’t God do it for His own Church? Likewise

I do disagree with this! I certainly think the commerce clause has been abused, and I think Roe. Vs. Wade is not a decision made on constitutional grounds as all.

I think Courts can sometimes make decisions based on incorrect factors - politics, loyalty, righteousness. Hence we should pray for them!

Perhaps, I do think I know better. It’s something I struggle with. I pray that God tempers my mind.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

I am not dodging anything. I limit my discussions on inspiration to atheist and agnostics due to the amount of time that I would have to spend interacting with them on this issue. I consider inspiration of Scripture by God to really be a given to professing Christians. If both sides already agree with the NT Canon why should we be wasting time discussing that instead of focus on books which we disagree on with respect to the Old Testament Canon in which 6 apocrypha books ? His question was actually a red herring. It also assumed a number of things of which I disagreed with. He assumes the church determines the Canon whereas I hold that God determined the Canon since He is the one who inspired each and ever individual book and they were collected because they were inspired. If one wants to study the issue of the inspiration of Scripture and the NT Canon there are detailed books which do a treatment on this subject such as The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield Volume I REVELATION AND INSPIRATION by Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield. I do not believe anyone can do full justice to this issue in a single post. It would take a good deal of post to provide essential points and argumentation. Let’s now forget that people may disagree with conclusions and reply to it and thus distracting for any further discussion. On the issue of the Canon I follow the 39 Articles on this issue. I feel the discussion must be limited to the apocrypha since the exact point of issue is essentially on this point. This was the historical issue at the time of the Reformation.

Yes historical evidence. Who do you think judges it ? The people of God who have studied this issue. I am aware of the conservative scholarship and that of liberal scholarship who already deny anything vital of essential Christianity by their indicated denial of the supernatural in a great majority of cases. I fully support and agree with the general conclusions of the book Introduction To The New Testament by Dr. Henry C. Thiessen. This was his specialized area of study on the New Testament.

I am referring to the general spiritual quality of each book. Each NT book was written by one who either was an apostle or was written by one who was directly connected to an apostle and thus apostolic sanction or if the author is unknown does this person based on the content of it given evidence in the writing to have had the prophetic gift. The doctrinal and historical content are to be factored in it. I have come to my conclusions based on my own reading of Scripture and see the divine quality of it and it’s consistant message. I don not believe in the " burning bossom " that mormonism does. Mormons claim that present day apostles and prophets exist today as the basis of their book yet in Ephesians 2:20 we see the foundation of the christian faith is already setted. This foundation has already been built. The Book of Mormon has a great deal of doctrinal historical errors within it in contrast to that of inspired Scripture. The basic error of Mormonism is that of their belief of new divine revelation being given today through their own apostles and prophets. The book of Mormon is very easy to refute in my eyes from an objective stand point. Whereas with Scripture that cant be done though many unbelievers have tried to do so.

It can be when they right from the start claim we cant know the Canon of Scripture apart from them and they related claims on this and they use this as a basis to attack Sola Scriptura. I believe conservative Protestant scholarship has the evidence on their side of things. I assume that you are Protestant since Episcopalians are Protestant based on their following of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

I disagree with you based on the number of Protestant writings which deals specifically with the inspiration of Scripture. Maybe you are unaware of these books ? Believing that Scripture is inspired by God is more than sufficient grounds for accepting the authority of Scripture if it is true. Scripture is after all God’s Word in written form and carries with it the authority of God Himself. I dont see any higher authority than God Himself or of anyone or anything equal to Him. If we take your words at face value it implies that the people had no reasonable grounds for believing the spoken words of God through the prophets of the Old Testament times during their ministry. I have never seen any evidence of any claimed infallibility from the Roman See at all. The historical evidence contradicts this very clearly from the case points I have seen from general councils of the church.

Maybe you are unaware of specific books written by Protestants which deals with that issue . I never found any convincing arguments from liberal scholarship for it being excluding from the NT Canon. The evidence does point to Peter being the author of 2 Peter though some claim he was not. Your view is in contrast to that of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and a majority of Protestantism. I disagree with you about the historical arguments you claim againist 2 Peter. But I am aware of the doubts during the middle ages of Hebrews, Jude, James , 2 John, 3 John , 2 Peter and the book of Revelation . But I had thought these doubts were dead issues long ago and the acceptence of the NT Canon listing that is held by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Protestantism. I do grant that Anglicanism allows that based on the Thirty-Nine articles since it affirms all NT books commonly received without a specific listing.

I am aware of the debate of at least 7 NT Books. Some held it was part of the NT and others did not. Which explains why debate on it remained for a period of time. I thought these were dead issues and that the NT Canon as listed today is received and accepted by the people of God. I guess there will always be individuals who do not follow this acceptence but that still does not mean that there is no inspiration of Scripture of individual books because since it is inspired by God it is this what makes it Scripture and not when we as believers discern what inspired writings by God are. I will keep you in prayer on this matter.

If one does not accept their claims they must at least provide a logical basis and proof of this claimed authority of the Roman See. I do accept the authority of the church but I do not believe that the church itself is infallible nor equal in authority to inspired Scripture. I believe that Scripture is supreme over the church as the thirty-nine articles affirm. ( see The Principles Of Theology An Exposition Of The Thirty-Nine Articles by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas ) . This is a major point of contrast between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism on the relationship of Scripture to the church as it related to the reformation.

I do consider the church as a whole a wittness to the New Testament. I never had a problem with this at all. I just deny infallibility to the church. I hold that Scripture is supreme over the church. In the final factor it is Scripture by the Holy Spirit who convinces us of the inspiration of Scripture. The church then is only a wittness to this fact though it is not infallible. A wittness does not need to be infallible to say something is true. The Protestant OT Canon agrees with that of jewish tradition and that of even catholic tradition. Protestants follow Jerome and other learned men on this matter with regard to the OT Canon. It is the council of Trent which went againist catholic tradition on the OT Canon. A good deal of church fathers can be cited as following Jerome. The Thirty-Nine Articles itself follows Jerome on the OT Canon. The arguments of Augustine were incorrect on this matter and based on false premises. Even Hippo and Cartage affirmed books which were rejected by Trent on the OT. The Anglican scholar William Whitaker dealt with this issue in his book DISPUTATIONS ON HOLY SCRIPTURE by William Whitaker ( 1547-1595 ) . It covers the essential issues involved in this debate againist Roman Catholicism. Thank you for posting to me.

 

[Nicea325]

I am not dodging anything. I limit my discussions on inspiration to atheist and agnostics due to the amount of time that I would have to spend interacting with them on this issue. I consider inspiration of Scripture by God to really be a given to professing Christians. If both sides already agree with the NT Canon why should we be wasting time discussing that instead of focus on books which we disagree on with respect to the Old Testament Canon in which 6 apocrypha books ? His question was actually a red herring. It also assumed a number of things of which I disagreed with. He assumes the church determines the Canon whereas I hold that God determined the Canon since He is the one who inspired each and ever individual book and they were collected because they were inspired. If one wants to study the issue of the inspiration of Scripture and the NT Canon there are detailed books which do a treatment on this subject such as The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield Volume I REVELATION AND INSPIRATION by Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield. I do not believe anyone can do full justice to this issue in a single post. It would take a good deal of post to provide essential points and argumentation. Let’s now forget that people may disagree with conclusions and reply to it and thus distracting for any further discussion. On the issue of the Canon I follow the 39 Articles on this issue. I feel the discussion must be limited to the apocrypha since the exact point of issue is essentially on this point. This was the historical issue at the time of the Reformation.

Yes historical evidence. Who do you think judges it ? The people of God who have studied this issue. I am aware of the conservative scholarship and that of liberal scholarship who already deny anything vital of essential Christianity by their indicated denial of the supernatural in a great majority of cases. I fully support and agree with the general conclusions of the book Introduction To The New Testament by Dr. Henry C. Thiessen. This was his specialized area of study on the New Testament.

I am referring to the general spiritual quality of each book. Each NT book was written by one who either was an apostle or was written by one who was directly connected to an apostle and thus apostolic sanction or if the author is unknown does this person based on the content of it given evidence in the writing to have had the prophetic gift. The doctrinal and historical content are to be factored in it. I have come to my conclusions based on my own reading of Scripture and see the divine quality of it and it’s consistant message. I don not believe in the " burning bossom " that mormonism does. Mormons claim that present day apostles and prophets exist today as the basis of their book yet in Ephesians 2:20 we see the foundation of the christian faith is already setted. This foundation has already been built. The Book of Mormon has a great deal of doctrinal historical errors within it in contrast to that of inspired Scripture. The basic error of Mormonism is that of their belief of new divine revelation being given today through their own apostles and prophets. The book of Mormon is very easy to refute in my eyes from an objective stand point. Whereas with Scripture that cant be done though many unbelievers have tried to do so.

It can be when they right from the start claim we cant know the Canon of Scripture apart from them and they related claims on this and they use this as a basis to attack Sola Scriptura. I believe conservative Protestant scholarship has the evidence on their side of things. I assume that you are Protestant since Episcopalians are Protestant based on their following of the Thirty-Nine Articles.

I disagree with you based on the number of Protestant writings which deals specifically with the inspiration of Scripture. Maybe you are unaware of these books ? Believing that Scripture is inspired by God is more than sufficient grounds for accepting the authority of Scripture if it is true. Scripture is after all God’s Word in written form and carries with it the authority of God Himself. I dont see any higher authority than God Himself or of anyone or anything equal to Him. If we take your words at face value it implies that the people had no reasonable grounds for believing the spoken words of God through the prophets of the Old Testament times during their ministry. I have never seen any evidence of any claimed infallibility from the Roman See at all. The historical evidence contradicts this very clearly from the case points I have seen from general councils of the church.

Maybe you are unaware of specific books written by Protestants which deals with that issue . I never found any convincing arguments from liberal scholarship for it being excluding from the NT Canon. The evidence does point to Peter being the author of 2 Peter though some claim he was not. Your view is in contrast to that of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and a majority of Protestantism. I disagree with you about the historical arguments you claim againist 2 Peter. But I am aware of the doubts during the middle ages of Hebrews, Jude, James , 2 John, 3 John , 2 Peter and the book of Revelation . But I had thought these doubts were dead issues long ago and the acceptence of the NT Canon listing that is held by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and Protestantism. I do grant that Anglicanism allows that based on the Thirty-Nine articles since it affirms all NT books commonly received without a specific listing.

I am aware of the debate of at least 7 NT Books. Some held it was part of the NT and others did not. Which explains why debate on it remained for a period of time. I thought these were dead issues and that the NT Canon as listed today is received and accepted by the people of God. I guess there will always be individuals who do not follow this acceptence but that still does not mean that there is no inspiration of Scripture of individual books because since it is inspired by God it is this what makes it Scripture and not when we as believers discern what inspired writings by God are. I will keep you in prayer on this matter.

If one does not accept their claims they must at least provide a logical basis and proof of this claimed authority of the Roman See. I do accept the authority of the church but I do not believe that the church itself is infallible nor equal in authority to inspired Scripture. I believe that Scripture is supreme over the church as the thirty-nine articles affirm. ( see The Principles Of Theology An Exposition Of The Thirty-Nine Articles by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas ) . This is a major point of contrast between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism on the relationship of Scripture to the church as it related to the reformation.

I do consider the church as a whole a wittness to the New Testament. I never had a problem with this at all. I just deny infallibility to the church. I hold that Scripture is supreme over the church. In the final factor it is Scripture by the Holy Spirit who convinces us of the inspiration of Scripture. The church then is only a wittness to this fact though it is not infallible. A wittness does not need to be infallible to say something is true. The Protestant OT Canon agrees with that of jewish tradition and that of even catholic tradition. Protestants follow Jerome and other learned men on this matter with regard to the OT Canon. It is the council of Trent which went againist catholic tradition on the OT Canon. A good deal of church fathers can be cited as following Jerome. The Thirty-Nine Articles itself follows Jerome on the OT Canon. The arguments of Augustine were incorrect on this matter and based on false premises. Even Hippo and Cartage affirmed books which were rejected by Trent on the OT. The Anglican scholar William Whitaker dealt with this issue in his book DISPUTATIONS ON HOLY SCRIPTURE by William Whitaker ( 1547-1595 ) . It covers the essential issues involved in this debate againist Roman Catholicism. Thank you for posting to me.

And the whole Jerome argument is weak. I’ll tell you why and very easily,Jerome placed the will of the Church over his own will and his own agendas. Protestant reformers pushed their own agendas and wills over the Church. Big difference.