Is Protestantism , in it's nature, a heresy?

[highrigger1]

Ok let’s take it this way. Is the Bible or the Church the pillar and foundation of truth?

Wadile,

Scripture is the Word of God provided by the church which is the pillar of the truth because we teach the gospel message. It does not mean that everything we say is correct. We can make mistakes like anyone.

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

Ok let’s take it this way. Is the Bible or the Church the pillar and foundation of truth?

wadile,

The bible contains the Word of God. Our church is the pillar of the truth because it teaches the Gospel message. That does not mean we are always correct on all we say.
Scripture is obviously ahead of us in authority because we are not the Word of God or anything we say.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Wandile]

Only in your opinion. No books were removed. What exactly are our errors?

Peace, JohnR

No books were removed?? What world do you live in?


The original bible up until the reformation had 73 books as decided at the ecumenical councils/African synods. In around the 1800s, 7 books (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/ Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees) as well as 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther were removed from the Bible completely and hence today protestants have 66 books in their bible when the earliest bibles had 73.

 

[highrigger1]

or,

did the Early Church had a bible? then how did they proceed without scripture?

Is the bible WRITTEN TRADITION?

Pat,

No. It was written later. They accepted the gospel message preached by the apostles and others. Peace, JohnR

 

[Patavium]

Wadile,

Scripture is the Word of God provided by the church which is the pillar of the truth because we teach the gospel message. It does not mean that everything we say is correct. We can make mistakes like anyone.

Peace, JohnR

By your admission, The Church is the foundation of truth, if that is so how come sola scriptura hold water? If the apostles didn’t practice sola scriptura, if the early Church did not practice sola scriptura…

Tradition was passed orally, and some of them was eventually written. IF SO, how come sola scripture work? especially if even the bible tell us that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not in the bible itself.

2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. Sacred Scripture and

1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.

1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture.

 

[Wandile]

Wadile,

Scripture is the Word of God provided by the church which is the pillar of the truth because we teach the gospel message. It does not mean that everything we say is correct. We can make mistakes like anyone.

Peace, JohnR

If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it, then should not whatever the Church teach be true for only truth can stem out of it?

If you disagree then you are claiming that the Holy Spirit guided the Church into error and lies which is actually a blasphemy. For if the Church is the Pillar of truth, the Holy Spirit MUST be guiding it. For nothing on earth can be a centre of truth without any divine intervention because all truth comes from God.

Back to the topic now… The Church gave the world the Bible. The Bible did not give the world the Church. There could not possibly be Sola Scriptura for the first 300 years of Christianity for there was no such thing as the bible. Further more the first few decades of christianity did not even have a New Testament so how could they have followed Sola scriptura if everything was oral?

 

[highrigger1]

How did written tradition come from then?

pat,

It came from the pens of the apostles or their disciples.

Am I doing ok so far?

Peace, JohnR

 

[highrigger1]

No books were removed?? What world do you live in?


The original bible up until the reformation had 73 books as decided at the ecumenical councils/African synods. In around the 1800s, 7 books (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/ Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees) as well as 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther were removed from the Bible completely and hence today protestants have 66 books in their bible when the earliest bibles had 73.

No. you are presuming some of those local meetings were churchwide. They were not. In fact the one in Carthage went forward without even consultiing the Roman church.
No Protestants did not remove those books from the bible. They were not really in the bible until Trent since they had never been formally been accepted church wide until Trent. In the Vulgate Jerome labeled them as apochrypha. The Reformers accepted his view.
Until Trent there were advocaes of both views. Your informationi is not correct.

Dont know what you are shrugging about. Here is an expert to explain.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

p59
“For the first fifteen hundred years of christianity, no christian
church put forth a difinintive list of Bible books. Most christians
had followed St. Augustine and included the “Apocrapha” in the canon,
but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders.”

“He (Jerome) writes,‘This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction
to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that
what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apochryphal writings’. He then
exludes Wisdom. Sarach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd and 1&2 Maccabees. He does not mention
Baruch.”

Peace, JohnR

 

[Patavium]

highrigger1,

Who translated those books (the DC or the ones you said were excluded)?

What was Pope Damasus opinion of St. Jerome’s comment that He considered them as NOT inspired by God?

How did this connect with the dead-sea scrolls, and the Jews in Alexandria?

Thanks,

 

[highrigger1]

By your admission, The Church is the foundation of truth, if that is so how come sola scriptura hold water? If the apostles didn’t practice sola scriptura, if the early Church did not practice sola scriptura… .

Hi Pat,

It holds water because the early church did in fact practice sola scriptura. Here is a quote.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Tradition was passed orally, and some of them was eventually written. IF SO, how come sola scripture work? especially if even the bible tell us that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not in the bible itself.

Tradition was passed verbally before there was scripture and probably for decades later as people could remember. But once scripture was written down. verbal tradition died out. Only scripture and some other writings not for scripture were left.

Whatever Jesus had said not put in scripture has been lost and no one can prove differently.

1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.

1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture

I am very aware of scripture. But you have no proof that Paul passed on any tradition he did not also put in writing. Maybe he did but you do not know what it was and cannot show it. Peace JohnR

 

[Patavium]

highrigger1,

By your own admission, you said the BIBLE IS WRITTEN TRADITION, and by CITATIONS from the BIBLE, it says ORAL TRADITIONS were also passed down. Thus, who holds the pillar of truth? The Church or the Bible? You said it is the Church, and by the authority granted to the Church as mentioned in the bible (to loose and bind) then SOLA SCRIPTURA doesn’t hold water.

For example, Does the bible says to come to the bible if there is a question of faith? What does the bible say about the final authority with regards to such dilemmas?

Thanks,

 

[highrigger1]

If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, and the gates of hell will never prevail against it, then should not whatever the Church teach be true for only truth can stem out of it?:

No I see no reason to assert that at all. WE are the church and we make mistakes. What makes us the pillar of the truth is that we teach and live the Gospel message.

If you disagree then you are claiming that the Holy Spirit guided the Church into error and lies which is actually a blasphemy. For if the Church is the Pillar of truth, the Holy Spirit MUST be guiding it. For nothing on earth can be a centre of truth without any divine intervention because all truth comes from God.

No Im not. The Holy Spirit is our guide but not to perfection. No one is perfect. I am the church also but I am not perfect at all.

Back to the topic now… The Church gave the world the Bible. The Bible did not give the world the Church. There could not possibly be Sola Scriptura for the first 300 years of Christianity for there was no such thing as the bible. Further more the first few decades of christianity did not even have a New Testament so how could they have followed Sola scriptura if everything was oral?

The bible was written before the end of the first century. So scripture was available. In fact many churches had Pauls letters after he wrote them. It was not 300 years. I quoted Irenaeus and that was 170AD. I think you got the ages mixed up.

Of course there was no sola scriptura when there was no bible but once there was and oral tradition had died out there was only sola scriptura.

I think I see where you are trying to go. You are trying to say all your traditions are those traditions that were oral and not written down. BUT if that were true the NT and the ECFs would have been implimentng those traditions but they were not. That is your problem. For example the early ECFs did not teach the following. No pope, no magesterium, no priests, no sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist, no seven sacraments, no praying to Saints, and on and on. That tells me those added things not in scripture were invented centuries later. Where have I gone wrong? peace, JohnR

 

[Patavium]

Hi Pat,

It holds water because the early church did in fact practice sola scriptura. Here is a quote.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Yes, we must follow the priests of the Church (through the traditions, and scripture) according to apostolic succession, and thus have received the truth from Jesus Christ. Both those protestants that separated from the succession then? Iraneus supported APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

 

[Patavium]

Ok highrigger1,

Point to me in the bible where it says that SOLA SCRIPTURA is sufficient?

and also Point to me in the bible where it says that the Church is the authority, and that its members in the body of Christ have the ability to bind and loose?

See which one you can find in the bible.

 

[highrigger1]

highrigger1,

Who translated those books (the DC or the ones you said were excluded)?

What was Pope Damasus opinion of St. Jerome’s comment that He considered them as NOT inspired by God?

How did this connect with the dead-sea scrolls, and the Jews in Alexandria?

Thanks,

pat,

Jerome translated them into the Vulgate and wrote this about them in the Vulgate.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

p59
“He (Jerome) writes,‘This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction
to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that
what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apochryphal writings’. He then
exludes Wisdom. Sarach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd and 1&2 Maccabees. He does not mention
Baruch.”

Whatever the pope said he did not revoke what Jerome wrote in the Vulgate.

It was 200 years previous the Septuagint was translated into Greek for Greek speaking Jews. It included the Deuterocanicals. The DDS contained only timy scraps of the DCs but many other writings from other sources besides scripture. So?

Peace, JohnR

 

[PeterJohn]

No I see no reason to assert that at all. WE are the church and we make mistakes. What makes us the pillar of the truth is that we teach and live the Gospel message.

No Im not. The Holy Spirit is our guide but not to perfection. No one is perfect. I am the church also but I am not perfect at all.

The bible was written before the end of the first century. So scripture was available. In fact many churches had Pauls letters after he wrote them. It was not 300 years. I quoted Irenaeus and that was 170AD. I think you got the ages mixed up.

Of course there was no sola scriptura when there was no bible but once there was and oral tradition had died out there was only sola scriptura.

I think I see where you are trying to go. You are trying to say all your traditions are those traditions that were oral and not written down. BUT if that were true the NT and the ECFs would have been implimentng those traditions but they were not. That is your problem. For example the early ECFs did not teach the following. No pope, no magesterium, no priests, no sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist, no seven sacraments, no praying to Saints, and on and on. That tells me those added things not in scripture were invented centuries later. Where have I gone wrong? peace, JohnR

I see no gospel message in your words besides division.

 

[Patavium]

pat,

Jerome translated them into the Vulgate and wrote this about them in the Vulgate.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

p59
“He (Jerome) writes,‘This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction
to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that
what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apochryphal writings’. He then
exludes Wisdom. Sarach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd and 1&2 Maccabees. He does not mention
Baruch.”

Whatever the pope said he did not revoke what Jerome wrote in the Vulgate.

It was 200 years previous the Septuagint was translated into Greek for Greek speaking Jews. It included the Deuterocanicals. The DDS contained only timy scraps of the DCs but many other writings from other sources besides scripture. So?

Peace, JohnR

Ok, Now tell me was Peter ever rebuked for his opinion on circumcision? What about Jerome on the DC books? then?

Thanks,

 

[PeterJohn]

It was 200 years previous the Septuagint was translated into Greek for Greek speaking Jews. It included the Deuterocanicals. The DDS contained only timy scraps of the DCs but many other writings from other sources besides scripture. So?

Peace, JohnR

The Septuagint was translated way before that.
We need a fact checker to follow this guy around!

 

[highrigger1]

Yes, we must follow the priests of the Church (through the traditions, and scripture) according to apostolic succession, and thus have received the truth from Jesus Christ. Both those protestants that separated from the succession then? Iraneus supported APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

pat,

Apostolic succesion as it has traditionally been taught has been rejected by the historians. I am happy to agree with this definition by Raymond Brown

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them…That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred…Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

Irenaeus was a bishop but not a priest.

Protestants are entirely within the succession as defined above. Our bishops and pastors have take on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR

 

[Patavium]

The Septuagint was translated way before that.
We need a fact checker to follow this guy around!

Yes indeed. Our friend highrigger1 cites what is adequate for him such Irenaeus citation of his famous book. However, He forgets that Irenaeus did believe in Apostolic succession.

highrigger1, please approach your arguments as a whole rather than buying pieces at a supermarket.