If Protestantism Is True

[Nicea325]

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

Unfortunately my friend,the Arians and other heretical sects disagreed with the church on certian doctrines,did not matter-God’s guides His church into all Truth.

 

[PRmerger]

I thought these were dead issues and that the NT Canon as listed today is received and accepted by the people of God.

Right.

So the question remains: if you deny the authority of the Church in discerning for you this matter, how is it that you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

What *other *way did you conclude this, if not by deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church?

You have proclaimed a nebulous, “Internal and external evidence” criteria, but when pressed to identify these criteria, you have not responded.

AND! I have pointedly asked you if you can honestly proclaim that you have applied this “internal and external evidence” to each and every book of the NT–and you have not responded.

I will bet my post count that you are a man of integrity and would not answer, “Yes, I have personally examined all of the internal and external evidence and applied it to each and every book of the NT and have thereby determined, of my own accord, that each book in the Bible is deserving of the title theopneustos”, for that would be untrue, would it not?

Thus, if you haven’t really applied the internal/external evidence criteria to each book of the NT, the question remains: how do you know that Hebrews is inspired? And Revelation? And 3 John (which, BTW, curiously does not mention Jesus once).

 

[Nicea325]

Right.

So the question remains: if you deny the authority of the Church in discerning for you this matter, how is it that you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

What *other *way did you conclude this, if not by deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church?

You have proclaimed a nebulous, “Internal and external evidence” criteria, but when pressed to identify these criteria, you have not responded.

AND! I have pointedly asked you if you can honestly proclaim that you have applied this “internal and external evidence” to each and every book of the NT–and you have not responded.

I will bet my post count that you are a man of integrity and would not answer, “Yes, I have personally examined all of the internal and external evidence and applied it to each and every book of the NT and have thereby determined, of my own accord, that each book in the Bible is deserving of the title theopneustos”, for that would be untrue, would it not?

Thus, if you haven’t really applied the internal/external evidence criteria to each book of the NT, the question remains: how do you know that Hebrews is inspired? And Revelation? And 3 John (which, BTW, curiously does not mention Jesus once).

Chafer DTS does not know what books are inspired or not,because no amount of denials or pride will change the fact that Chafer simply does not know what is inspired or not inspired due to the Catholic Church telling him.

 

[pablope]

I am not dodging anything.

Hmmmm…I think you have.

I consider inspiration of Scripture by God to really be a given to professing Christians.

 

[Nicea325]

Chafer DTS:

I hold that Scripture is supreme over the church.

Listen carefully to what you are saying here. It is evident you believe the above statement is biblical-correct? Then it begs the question: Then kindly show us where Scripture explicitly makes this vital declaration?

Where does th Bible say it is supreme over the church?

 

[JonNC]

I have come to the conclusion that, in any discussion of the canon of scripture, or doctrine for that matter that Luther’s words here ring true:

• "Yes, we ourselves find it difficult to refute it* [the real presence], especially since we concede – as we must – that so much of what they say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scripture, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"

ISTM there is no real foundation of historical truth if we do not recognize this. But that’s my take.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Chafer DTS:

Listen carefully to what you are saying here. It is evident you believe the above statement is biblical-correct? Then it begs the question: Then kindly show us where Scripture explicitly makes this vital declaration?

Where does th Bible say it is supreme over the church?

Easy question, Nicea - it’s in Jedediah 12:4.

Just kidding.

Chafer, check out 1 Timothy 3:15.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Radical]

Protestants have an inadequate account of why they accept the authority of Scripture.

It seems to me that both Protestants and Catholics are living in glass houses on this issue. Would it not be fair to say that (conservative) Protestants accept the NT canon largely on the basis of faith?..a faith that assumes that God must have acted to ensure that an infallible/reliable record of his revelation would be preserved and recognized by his children with the result being the Bible (Assumption P). Would it not be fair to say that (conservative) Catholics accept the NT canon and what they designate as Sacred Tradition largely on the basis of faith?..a faith that assumes that God must have acted to ensure that an infallible/reliable record of his revelation would be preserved and recognized by his children and to ensure that his revelation would be infallibly interpreted with the result being the Bible, Sacred Tradition and a magisterium that infallibly interprets both (Assumption C).

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 answer would seem to be that they merely make Assumption P and stop short of making Assumption C…or said another way, they believe God inspired the determination of the NT canon and not the doctrinal/interpretive framework . I don’t see how Assumption P provides any more of a problem for Protestants than Asssumption C provides for Catholics. Perhaps you think that the Catholics have an inadequate account of why they accept the authority of their Church…if so, then I agree…it is purely a matter of their faith.

Regarding an assessment of the two assumptions, the internal evidence seems to be all too subjective to be of any use. Further, the external/historical evidence that we have isn’t able to establish the presence of God’s inspiration. I can, however, see how that same evidence would serve to establish the absence of God’s inspiration. For example, one could reasonably assert that inspiration would result in freedom from error. On that basis one could confidently assert that God did not inspire the production of 1 Clement based on the bits about the phoenix etc.

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.

What is your starting point? Do you believe that everything that the early Church taught was without error? Do you believe that everything that the early Church taught was inspired? If not, must we not pick and choose as best we can?

Do you believe that the historical/external evidence calls into question the inspiration of 2 Peter in the same way and to the same degree that it calls into question the inspiration/ divine establishment of apostolic succession? You don’t seem to be saying that if one accepts one conclusion of the early Church, then one must accept all conclusions of the early Church made up to that time. If so, good…because it is a flawed assertion.

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.

On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that if one accepts one conclusion of the early Church (the canonicity of 2 Peter), then one should accept all conclusions of the early Church (to that point in time?) that were contested less virgorously (apostolic succession). That too is a flawed assertion. The presence of divine inspiration is determined by what God did/is doing and not by how much men did or did not argue about the thing.

Further, the external evidence is not the same with respect to the the canonicity of 2 Peter and the doctrine of apostolic succession. One could easily understand the latter to have developed because the Church was growing within the Roman empire and therefore it adopted Roman style governance and ideas regarding the succession of authority. On that basis it could be seen as an uninspired development. On the other hand, one could conclude that Peter definitely did not have a hand in the writing of 2 Peter based on textual criticism and if Peter’s believed involvment was the reason for its inclusion in the canon, then its inclusion could be seen as an uninspired development. These are rather different beliefs and different reasons for possible error. Given the difference it is easy to envision that error could arise in one area without arising in the other…or said another way, it is easy to see how God could have his hand on one area without having his hand also on the other area. So again, I fail to see how Assumption P provides any more of a problem for Protestants than Asssumption C provides for Catholics…both seem to be matters of faith.

Finally, as the centuries pass (and more and more doctrine is added), I think it becomes easier to find external evidence that challenges Assumption C…and once the lack of an infallible teaching authority is the most reasonable conclusion, one has no choice but to pick and choose among what has been put forward as inspired conclusions (or hold onto the less reasonable conclusion).

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Easy question, Nicea - it’s in Jedediah 12:4.

Just kidding.

Chafer, check out 1 Timothy 3:15.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

I like that verse. Too bad in context it is not refering to the Roman See or the church of Rome. It is refering to a local church in context of which Timothy was part of. You may have misread that verse as to which local church it is refering to .

 

[PRmerger]

I like that verse. Too bad in context it is not refering to the Roman See or the church of Rome. It is refering to a local church in context of which Timothy was part of. You may have misread that verse as to which local church it is refering to .

Do you have a verse in Scripture that says that this refers to a local church, and not *the *Church? Chafer?

 

[Taestron]

Do you have a verse in Scripture that says that this refers to a local church, and not *the *Church? Chafer?

Indeed, I might have to agree with PRmerger on this, Chafer. 1 Timothy has the theme of defending against false teachers which is common to every church. But I am do not think this verse supports the Catholic argument either. We should keep in mind that the truth the Church is meant to defend is Christ himself. For as the very next verse says. [BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed, I might have to agree with PRmerger on this, Chafer. 1 Timothy has the theme of defending against false teachers which is common to every church. But I am do not think this verse supports the Catholic argument either. We should keep in mind that the truth the Church is meant to defend is Christ himself. For as the very next verse says. [BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

So the question is this: when there are questions regarding doctrine or practice, what does the Bible say to do–consult other verses in Scripture, or does it say consult the pillar and foundation of truth–the Church?

 

[Taestron]

So the question is this: when there are questions regarding doctrine or practice, what does the Bible say to do–consult other verses in Scripture, or does it say consult the pillar and foundation of truth–the Church?

Again, if we are taking 1 Timothy as our guide, let us not leave 3:14 from our consideration. [BIBLEDRB]1 timothy 3:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]It would seem that Paul would have Timothy consult this letter for questions about doctrine. That could either be extrapolated to mean all Scripture, but it probably means most naturally that Paul would have Timothy consult Paul himself. Notice, it does not say to consult to Church, but that Timothy would know how to behave in the Church.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Right.

So the question remains: if you deny the authority of the Church in discerning for you this matter, how is it that you know that Hebrews is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

What I exactly deny is infallibility of the church on this matter. The church is only a wittness to the Canon being Scripture. The church itself is not infallible.

What *other *way did you conclude this, if not by deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church?

The church is properly a wittness to the inspiration of Scripture. But being a wittness does not make it infallible. Just because a church says something does not automatically make it correct. For example, the Mormon church claims their BOM is an addition to Scripture yet we both reject this claim. The reason at least for me is the fact there are no present day apostles or prophets and the fact the BOM contains many historical and doctrinal errors in contrast to that of Scripture.

You have proclaimed a nebulous, “Internal and external evidence” criteria, but when pressed to identify these criteria, you have not responded.

With respect to the Old Testament it must be determined of it was written by either a prophet of God or one who had the prophetic gift or was a prophet of God and had the prophetic gift. This is the basis of the Jewish OT Canon listing in the way books were specifically placed. With the NT it must be determined if it was written either by an Apostle or a direct delegate of an apostle or had the prophetic gift. In otherwords, the individual NT books would have to be apostolic in nature or orgin. In the case of an unknown author in the OT or NT we must judge it based on the content of the individual book itself if the person had the prophetic gift. The internal evidence itself would include such things as historical details , doctrinal content and the spiritual quality of it in it’s message. Based on what I said alone this would exclude the Gnostic writings that circulated around 200ad.

AND! I have pointedly asked you if you can honestly proclaim that you have applied this “internal and external evidence” to each and every book of the NT–and you have not responded.

No I have not done that to each and every individual book. I used it on books which we disgaree on. This would take a very long period of time. I am not alone in my own personal study on things. But based on my own reading of Scripture of individual books which we do agree on it is correct. I am convinced of it. With the apocrypha itself it contained historical errors and doctrinal errors and were written during a period of time in which there was no prophet of God or one with the prophetic gift. The OT itself was completed 300bc.

I will bet my post count that you are a man of integrity and would not answer, “Yes, I have personally examined all of the internal and external evidence and applied it to each and every book of the NT and have thereby determined, of my own accord, that each book in the Bible is deserving of the title theopneustos”, for that would be untrue, would it not?

I never claimed to have personally done it to each and every book. But rather from my own reading of Scripture I remain convinced that it is inspired Scripture. I personally have not found doctrinal or historical errors. Any claimed errors have been resolved in my mind as I looked in to it and found the proper answer.

Thus, if you haven’t really applied the internal/external evidence criteria to each book of the NT, the question remains: how do you know that Hebrews is inspired? And Revelation? And 3 John (which, BTW, curiously does not mention Jesus once).

They are first of all apostolic in orgin. They are written during a period of time which inspired books were being written. All those books are connected directly to the Apostle John or in the case of Hebrews one who had the prophetic gift though we dont know who wrote it. While the author of Hebrews is unknown we know from it’s contents that the one who wrote it had the prophetic gift. With 3 John and the book of Revelation it was written by the apostle John.The book of Revelation itself claims to be a prophecy. I find no doctrinal or historical errors in them. A book does not need to specifically name Jesus in it in order for it to be inspired. If we followed that logic than the entire OT would be thrown out since the name Jesus Christ is not in them. I do not believe you would go that far if followed what you stated. I provided a basic foundation for you.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Indeed, I might have to agree with PRmerger on this, Chafer. 1 Timothy has the theme of defending against false teachers which is common to every church. But I am do not think this verse supports the Catholic argument either. We should keep in mind that the truth the Church is meant to defend is Christ himself. For as the very next verse says. [BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 3:16[/BIBLEDRB]

The chapter itself shows it is a local church in contrast to the church as whole. Each local church is the pillar. My only objection him and others of applying that by application to only their commmunion. I have no problem with any application to each local church by principle. I just do not believe it is specifically of the Roman See or the Church of Rome alone. It involved the fellowship Timothy was a part of. Each local church must defend againist false teachers. The only disagreement is over if it refers only to Roman Catholicism or not. Hope this helps.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, if we are taking 1 Timothy as our guide, let us not leave 3:14 from our consideration. [BIBLEDRB]1 timothy 3:14-15[/BIBLEDRB]It would seem that Paul would have Timothy consult this letter for questions about doctrine.

And surely Paul can’t be saying that for questions on doctrine we consult only this letter, right?

That could either be extrapolated to mean all Scripture

How so?

but it probably means most naturally that Paul would have Timothy consult Paul himself.

A great argument, then, for Sacred Tradition.

Notice, it does not say to consult to Church, but that Timothy would know how to behave in the Church.

But what does Scripture say we are to do when we cannot resolve doctrine/practice issues?

 

[PRmerger]

The chapter itself shows it is a local church in contrast to the church as whole. Each local church is the pillar. My only objection him and others of applying that by application to only their commmunion. I have no problem with any application to each local church by principle. I just do not believe it is specifically of the Roman See or the Church of Rome alone. It involved the fellowship Timothy was a part of. Each local church must defend againist false teachers. The only disagreement is over if it refers only to Roman Catholicism or not. Hope this helps.

Oh, good. You’re online now I see.

So could you please answer the question I posed earlier about what internal evidence you used to discern that Hebrews is inspired and what external evidence you used to discern that Hebrews is inspired?

And if you are indeed claiming that you use this for each and every book of the NT to discern whether these books are inspired or not?

 

[stewstew03]

The chapter itself shows it is a local church in contrast to the church as whole. Each local church is the pillar. My only objection him and others of applying that by application to only their commmunion. I have no problem with any application to each local church by principle. I just do not believe it is specifically of the Roman See or the Church of Rome alone. It involved the fellowship Timothy was a part of. Each local church must defend againist false teachers. The only disagreement is over if it refers only to Roman Catholicism or not. Hope this helps.

So… which local church is the pillar and ground of truth? Does that church still exist? Or are you saying that ALL present-day “local churches” are pillars of truth?

 

[pablope]

The chapter itself shows it is a local church in contrast to the church as whole. Each local church is the pillar. My only objection him and others of applying that by application to only their commmunion. I have no problem with any application to each local church by principle. I just do not believe it is specifically of the Roman See or the Church of Rome alone. It involved the fellowship Timothy was a part of. Each local church must defend againist false teachers. The only disagreement is over if it refers only to Roman Catholicism or not. Hope this helps.

If its not the CC, there which church is it? And for one, it cannot be any one borne of disobedience…for it is written in Scripture…

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

well…for one thing…there were no protestant churches at the time…so it could not be referring to any protestant communion.

Besides, there was only one church in existence at the time…the Catholic Church…and the local churches were in communion with one another…not like the protestant churces of today.

And St. Ignatius actually describes this church…Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

 

[pablope]

Oh, good. You’re online now I see.

Originally Posted by Chafer DTS

And the question poised to you by Nicea in post number 281? Since you obviously know the Bible so well, better than us here…so you should easily be able to cite that chapter and verse…