PROTESTANTS! Answer me this....

[ALLFORHIM]

The difference is that with Baptists and Episcopalians (40 years an Episcopalian, here), there is no court of appeals. If your pastor preaches idiocy, he/she [sometimes in concert with a political movement] can more or less claim freedom in the Holy Spirit . . . It’s draining and demoralizing.

As a Catholic, if my Pastor veers off into idiocy, at least we KNOW it’s idiocy (or heresy, or what-have-you). There is a lodestar by which to navigate.

Hi,
Im going to hit and run because I have to go to the gym. That is why God gave us the bible and the Holy Spirit. We also have to ask God for the wisdom to understand what we are being taught. When I hear something from a human including my minister and Im not sure, I always go to the bible and pray for clarity. Hasnt let me down to date. I believe it never will because I believe God and I trust God. Whatever God says in His Word is really the only thing that holds up for me. Ok gotta go.

 

[jmcrae]

2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for REPROOF, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth REPROOF shall die.

Not only sola scriptura but believe it or die. That’s explicit enough don’t you think?

II Timothy 3:16 does not make the term “reproof” to be synonymous with Scripture at all, let alone sola Scriptura.

All St. Paul is saying is that the Scriptures (he was referring to the 46-book Old Testament, since the New Testament had not yet been written, and the 39-book Old Testament did not yet exist) are useful for doctrine, correction, reproof, and instruction. He is not limiting these four things to Scripture alone, obviously, since he spends time during that same letter reminding Timothy to hear the Apostles and follow their ways - not merely to read the Scriptures.

When the Book of Proverbs was being written, we had the first five books of the Old Testament, but nothing else was written down, yet, so it’s clear that the author of the Proverbs (Solomon) didn’t intend to refer to the Christian canon of Scripture in that particular proverb.

The Bible is not some kind of I Ching of Christianity, where you can just match random verses together and make something up based on whatever the two verses appear have in common - we have to read the Scriptures in the context of when they were written, what the human author intended to mean at the time, what else we find in the same Book, and how that particular Book fits in with the rest of Scripture.

 

[sandmountainsli]

Members of break away churches: You will be assimilated; resistance is futile!

 

[MrS]

Hi,
Im going to hit and run because I have to go to the gym. That is why God gave us the bible and the Holy Spirit. We also have to ask God for the wisdom to understand what we are being taught. When I hear something from a human including my minister and Im not sure, I always go to the bible and pray for clarity. Hasnt let me down to date. I believe it never will because I believe God and I trust God. Whatever God says in His Word is really the only thing that holds up for me. Ok gotta go.

A F H : I really do enjoy the sincerety of your posts. You must feel some confidence to continue when you know that there are so many Catholics here who are praying for you and your journey to the Lord.

I have to repeat what a poster, a recent convert to Catholicism by the way, said just the other day:

Division is not a job of the Holy Spirit, unity is.
Where ever there is division, the Holy Spirit is absent.
When individuals claim they are led by the Holy Spirit, and then go in different directions… the Holy Spirit is not the One doing the leading.

I would think that you would agree that if a Mormon knocked on your door and tried to convince you of their “truths”, based on the “burning in the bossom” by the Holy Spirit… you would know better. And you would know that inspite of their sincerety, they are wrong.

Catholics feel that way too. Where there is division in doctrine, there is an absence of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, Scripture is important. Yes, praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance is very important. And Jesus knew there would be division as long as Satan has his way. But He gave us the Church first…First…to lead us through Scripture. The Holy Spirit guides one church… not just any church. And He does so in His way… not ours.

Please keep posting… your continuing quest for Truth is of the Holy Spirit. He is not done with you yet.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

A F H : I really do enjoy the sincerety of your posts. You must feel some confidence to continue when you know that there are so many Catholics here who are praying for you and your journey to the Lord.

I have to repeat what a poster, a recent convert to Catholicism by the way, said just the other day:

Division is not a job of the Holy Spirit, unity is.
Where ever there is division, the Holy Spirit is absent.
When individuals claim they are led by the Holy Spirit, and then go in different directions… the Holy Spirit is not the One doing the leading.

I would think that you would agree that if a Mormon knocked on your door and tried to convince you of their “truths”, based on the “burning in the bossom” by the Holy Spirit… you would know better. And you would know that inspite of their sincerety, they are wrong.

Catholics feel that way too. Where there is division in doctrine, there is an absence of the Holy Spirit,

Yes, Scripture is important. Yes, praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance is very important. And Jesus knew there would be division as long as Satan has his way. But He gave us the Church first…First…to lead us through Scripture. The Holy Spirit guides one church… not just any church. And He does so in His way… not ours.

Please keep posting… your continuing quest for Truth is of the Holy Spirit. He is not done with you yet.

Hi,

Thank you for your kind words. Im so grateful that people are praying for me. I pray for you guys as well. I understand what you say about the church but you know I have a different belief about what the church is or who it is I should say. I believe I already belong to the church which Christ is the head of and I am part of the body. I believe this because I believe what the Scriptures tell me(I wont list because we have been down this road before )that if I believe in Jesus Christ I am born again and adopted into Gods family. Once I am sealed with the Holy Spirit I become part of the church that Christ established.

I know the CC teaches different and I understand I just dont believe the same way. I agree division stinks. The division I am most sad about is the one between believers and unbelievers. It is so sad how they are just so blinded spiritually and they are truly missing out on the greatest love EVER. Well I guess we just need to keep on reaching out and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ!! AMEN!!

 

[MrS]

I know the CC teaches different and I understand I just dont believe the same way. I agree division stinks. The division I am most sad about is the one between believers and unbelievers. It is so sad how they are just so blinded spiritually and they are truly missing out on the greatest love EVER. Well I guess we just need to keep on reaching out and preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ!! AMEN!!

True, that may be a sad thing for us all… but I realize (finally, I guess) that [1]it all happens in God’s time, and [2] we are His tools.

I really do understand your feelings about belonging to the Church that Christ established, and you have probably heard often that Catholics understand the Church to be both/and… that is the Church is the Body of Believewrs with Christ at the head (to which you and I belong),
and the Church is also the Bride of Christ, His Spouse,
and the Church is also the visible organized, living entity he founded on Peter.

If Jesus (not the Mormon I previously mentioned ) were to knock on your door on Christmas Eve and want to go to Church with you… to which Church would you take Him? I would think He would say “To the Only One that I founded on Peter”

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism… does the Holy Spirit guide us in different directions? I think not.

.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

If Jesus (not the Mormon I previously mentioned ) were to knock on your door on Christmas Eve and want to go to Church with you… to which Church would you take Him? I would think He would say “To the Only One that I founded on Peter”

Honestly, I would have no problem bringing Him to my church.

One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism… does the Holy Spirit guide us in different directions? I think not.

I agree:thumbsup:

.

 

[MrS]

Honestly, I would have no problem bringing Him to my church.
I agree:thumbsup:

.

yep, I understand that… that you, you, would have no problem with that.

The question was, what Church do you think HE would want to go to…

the One He founded
or the one founded by someone else, perhaps even shamefully doing it “in His name”

 

[ALLFORHIM]

MrS:
yep, I understand that… that you, you, would have no problem with that.

The question was, what Church do you think HE would want to go to…

the One He founded
or the one founded by someone else, perhaps even shamefully doing it “in His name”

Well, knowing who Jesus was and is he would probably want to visit with sinners. He may want to visit with all who believe in Him. So I would venture to say He probably would go to wherever His believers are and since they are spread all over the world–I guess He might rack up the frequent flyer miles

 

[Damascus]

I cant understand this. We are not talking about a visit are we? I took it to mean something else, like which Church would he recognize is his and follows his teachings like the John 6:66 one and all the others?

Then, he may visit the others who really need it of course!

 

[jmcrae]

"This of course begs the question “What great authority has assured you that the 27 books…”

Which begs the question that it was Rome that is the basis for the NT canon for non-Catholics. I doubt the Eastern Orthodox say they accept the NT canon based on a decision from Rome either. Which council did Rome decide the canon of the NT? I have seen several early canon lists and don’'t remember when Rome declared one, nor when one was accepted because Rome authorized it.

Pope St. Innocent I, after reviewing the findings of the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, closed the canon of the New Testament in about 405 AD, and promulgated it to the Universal Church. A translation of it was made into Latin by St. Jerome, added to his already-completed Old Testament, and copies of the whole Latin Vulgate Bible then began to be made in monasteries, for distribution to the Catholic churches of the whole world.

It seems self-evident to me that any churches not acknowledging Rome’s authority in this matter would simply not have received any Bibles at all - why would they?

By analogy, if I say that I am going to distribute Christmas gifts to all of my employees, persons not employed by me would not make it on to the gift list - not because they did anything wrong, but simply because they aren’t on my payroll.

Churches not in communion with Rome would not have considered themselves bound by the canon of the New Testament, and nor would they have received any of the Bibles that Rome was in the process of distributing, simply because Rome would have had no record of their address.

As an aside, if the canon of the New Testament were “obvious” it seems to me that they would not have needed so many Councils to figure it out, and the Pope wouldn’t have needed to make an infallible declaration about the contents thereof.

It’s only “obvious” to us because we already have the Bible - all we have to do is turn to the table of contents, and voilà! - there it is.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I cant understand this. We are not talking about a visit are we? I took it to mean something else, like which Church would he recognize is his and follows his teachings like the John 6:66 one and all the others?

Then, he may visit the others who really need it of course!

Hi,

No it was just a what if question and I responded with an answer. No reality here at all.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, knowing who Jesus was and is he would probably want to visit with sinners. He may want to visit with all who believe in Him. So I would venture to say He probably would go to wherever His believers are and since they are spread all over the world–I guess He might rack up the frequent flyer miles

Of course, when Jesus really comes, He won’t go to your church or to mine - He will go to the Vatican, thank the Pope for a job well done, and arrange to have an announcement made in all the Catholic Churches about where to meet for the flight to Heaven.

 

[St.Eric]

2Ti 3:16
ALL scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for REPROOF, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth REPROOF shall die.

Not only sola scriptura but believe it or die. That’s explicit enough don’t you think?

Nice attempt but it misses the mark by a mile. First, the scripture you quote was only talking about the OT, since there wasn’t even a NT when this was written. Second, the verses are stating that srcripture is “profitable for doctrine, reproof, for correction,etc”, are stating just that, the scriptures are “profitable”, not the only source of…

“even the world could not contain the books it would take to record the things that he did…”

 

[St.Eric]

Of course, when Jesus really comes, He won’t go to your church or to mine - He will go to the Vatican, thank the Pope for a job well done, and arrange to have an announcement made in all the Catholic Churches about where to meet for the flight to Heaven.

Amen, Amen! :clapping:

Pax Vobiscum

 

[Knight4God]

Pope St. Innocent I, after reviewing the findings of the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo, closed the canon of the New Testament in about 405 AD, and promulgated it to the Universal Church. A translation of it was made into Latin by St. Jerome, added to his already-completed Old Testament, and copies of the whole Latin Vulgate Bible then began to be made in monasteries, for distribution to the Catholic churches of the whole world.

It seems self-evident to me that any churches not acknowledging Rome’s authority in this matter would simply not have received any Bibles at all - why would they?

I didn’t know about Innocent I, was this at a council? I haven;t seen him on any of the canon list charts. What is the name of the decree?

Churches that did not acknowledge Rome’s authority could still receive Bibles, because there where other councils and traditions with the same books going back before 405AD. They could have acknowledged Rome as a first among equals, or even as an important church, without needing Rome to make the growing canon list official. I would have to see the documents myself, but demonstrating that the Pope ratified the canon as we have it now, does not by necessity imply that the Church as a whole accepted it because of him. Especially in the East that would not have been using the Vulgate anyway.

By analogy, if I say that I am going to distribute Christmas gifts to all of my employees, persons not employed by me would not make it on to the gift list - not because they did anything wrong, but simply because they aren’t on my payroll.

Churches not in communion with Rome would not have considered themselves bound by the canon of the New Testament, and nor would they have received any of the Bibles that Rome was in the process of distributing, simply because Rome would have had no record of their address.

This assumes another issue, that Rome had that kind of official authority in the West, as opposed to merely being the major ecclesiastical center due to being in the capital of the empire. Plus, when dealing with “how do we know the 27 books are canonical” again, a church, say in the East could look to the developing consensus without needing Rome’s official stamp, even though that stamp would have added to the weight of making those 27 official.

As an aside, if the canon of the New Testament were “obvious” it seems to me that they would not have needed so many Councils to figure it out, and the Pope wouldn’t have needed to make an infallible declaration about the contents thereof.

It’s only “obvious” to us because we already have the Bible - all we have to do is turn to the table of contents, and voilà! - there it is.

not “obvious” actually, and I did not mean to imply it was so. Perhaps I should make a point clear. Protestants believe the scriptures are infallible by definition of being inspired by God, but not the canon list, so in other words we accept the canon due to having faith in the Spirit to guide the general consensus of the early church, and by looking at each book individually, and by looking at the organic development of the canon, so that we have a good level of certainty that we are right. We do not look at any type of outside principle that declares the canon list is by definition infallible.

So to answer the first question of how we know without relying on the authority of Rome, is that we know with historical certitude like we know certain facts about ancient roman history from primary sources. We can look at history and deduce what was most widely used in the early Church and whats “seemed” to develop as the canon, while not taking the canon based on any one source of authority.

To sum:

scriptures: infallible by nature

canon list: possibly fallible

canon determined: overall organic development and comparison, other competing books, apostolic authorship and other objective criteria

 

[St.Eric]

Knight4God,

I am curious. Why do you believe that King Henry VIII had discovered that the Pope and the Catholic Church were apostate, and founded the true church? I am really curious in light of what was happening at the time.

 

[Knight4God]

Knight4God,

I am curious. Why do you believe that King Henry VIII had discovered that the Pope and the Catholic Church were apostate, and founded the true church? I am really curious in light of what was happening at the time.

??? Henry VIII was very Roman Catholic, he broke off because he wanted a divorce so he could get a male heir so that England could not plunge back into a civil war like the earlier war of the roses. Unlike the continental reformers, the English reformation started political and ended up being theological. I don’t believe that Rome was “apostate”, nor do I believe that now. I do not believe that the CoE is the one true Church either. I believe that traditional/confessional Anglican theology is the most correct out of all the others, and is more like what Christ taught the Apostles and what the Apostles taught. I actually converted to Anglicanism recently from being a Baptist, although I was actually baptized Methodist long ago.

 

[Damascus]

Hi,

No it was just a what if question and I responded with an answer. No reality here at all.

You made me laugh, and of course you are correct its not a reality senario, we hope. But when he does come, we dont know what he will want to do first and can not rule it out.

Yet, I am so in agreement with you. Its a hypothetical situation to begin with.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Strawman Liveth. Don’t bite.