Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon_S_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Per_Crucem said:
If schism and division disprove the Reformation, then how does it figure that schism and division does not disprove the so-called apostolic churches? There were larger and more numerous schisms and divisions before the Reformation then the split between Rome and the Lutherans.
Click to expand...
I thought the discussion was about the REformation…? So are you trying some evasive tactic?

But one thing though…the apostolic churches never called each one anti Christ, only the Lutherans did.
 
daddyd said:
Well, again pablope, If there is nothing in these books that will lead me to salvation. That is not in the other 66 books, I don’t need them. Can you show me something that is?
Click to expand...
The problem with this type of reasoning is that it is against what Paul says in:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The problem is that Paul didn’t give us a list and Paul said: all.

So if someone, somewhere removed books - it no longer is [all] Scriptures but [some] Scriptures. Which is not what Paul is saying.

So the question is really fair and important.
 
pablope said:
I thought the discussion was about the REformation…? So are you trying some evasive tactic?

But one thing though…the apostolic churches never called each one anti Christ, only the Lutherans did.
Click to expand...
It’s about the Reformation, yes. However, if you’re going to say “schism and disagreements over Scripture disprove the Reformation/sola scriptura,” then logically also disproves Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium, since that viewpoint also led to schisms between the Oriental, Assyrian, Roman, and Eastern communions.
 
Per_Crucem said:
It’s about the Reformation, yes. However, if you’re going to say “schism and disagreements over Scripture disprove the Reformation/sola scriptura,” then logically also disproves Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium, since that viewpoint also led to schisms between the Oriental, Assyrian, Roman, and Eastern communions.
Click to expand...
No one’s said that, but you might want to look into my post 873 and address that.
 
Per_Crucem said:
It’s about the Reformation, yes. However, if you’re going to say “schism and disagreements over Scripture disprove the Reformation/sola scriptura,” then logically also disproves Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium, since that viewpoint also led to schisms between the Oriental, Assyrian, Roman, and Eastern communions.
Click to expand...
No, all those traditions actually affirm “scripture, tradition Magesterium”. The division is over far smaller items namely the composition and structure of the Magesterium. That’s a lot different than just saying there is no Magesterium.
 
Per_Crucem said:
It’s about the Reformation, yes. However, if you’re going to say “schism and disagreements over Scripture disprove the Reformation/sola scriptura,” then logically also disproves Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium, since that viewpoint also led to schisms between the Oriental, Assyrian, Roman, and Eastern communions.
Click to expand...
Hmmm no.

The Magisterium was established in Matthew 28:

The Commissioning of the Disciples
16 Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

:cool:
 
spina1953 said:
Hi Wildkit: I just read Catholic Worlds News Headlines and it said that the blood of St. Januarius did in fact run. So the miracle continues.
Click to expand...
It must be a fake or something else,……again, is someone trying to tell me something? 🙂
 
Jon_S said:
No, all those traditions actually affirm “scripture, tradition Magesterium”. The division is over far smaller items namely the composition and structure of the Magesterium. That’s a lot different than just saying there is no Magesterium.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying the dispute between the Orientals, Orthodox, Assyrians and Catholics comes down to simple church structure? And yes, that question is a bit rhetorical. You yourself know that it’s about far more than that. Yes they do affirm Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium. But if division between those who hold to sola scriptura disproves sola scriptura, then division over Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium disproves that as well. It would be special pleading to say otherwise.
 
pablope said:
Wait a minute…in a prior post…you said you do not even need the OT…🤷
Click to expand...
No, I did not say that I don.t need the OT. That is your misinterpretation of what I said.
Anyway, this does not answer the question, how can the Bible speak?
Click to expand...
You quote on Heb 1 says, God speaks through His Son…but did not mention the Bible.
Click to expand...
So again, to my question…how can the Bible speak?
Click to expand...
Really, pablope? Does not Jesus SPEAK to us through the words of the bible?

John8
31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
 
Jon_S said:
On what basis do you accept those books, I see no reason why you should accept them? The book of mormon claims to have God’s word in it too. Just because someone wrote something down and attributes it to God does not make it so.

You must have some other reason why you think the Bible is the Word of God?
Click to expand...
Rom.10
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Why do you reject parts of the Word of God in the Bible but not others?/
Click to expand...
You realize every Bible printed before 1650…EVERY ONE…had 73 books in it.
Click to expand...
Even every protestant Bible between 1550 and 1650 had 73 books in it…so why don’t you have 73 books in yours??
Click to expand...
I find everything I need in my bible.
 
spina1953 said:
What seems to me to be the important question is who has the authority to interpret Scripture, the CC or the individual. We know that Scripture is the Word of God, but has the authority to determine what it is saying and what it means? If it is not the Cc then it has to someone else; the individual unless they are willing to give it to someone the authority to say what it means and says. So if not the Church then who?
Click to expand...
John14
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
 
daddyd said:
John14
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Click to expand...
Hi daddyd: yes that is true enough but how you know that the Holy Spirit is really guiding you do you test the spirits? or do you just understand it because you think the Holy Spirit is guiding you to the truth and the understanding of it?
 
pablope said:
You are dodging and trying to change the subject.

The question is:

And you did not answer my question…which is the correct Bible, the protestant 66 Bible or the 73 book Catholic Bible?

There can only be one…so which is it?
Click to expand...
Correct? The bible is I’m sure you will agree a unique book in that it is the divinely inspired word of God. This book was designed by God to show us the way of salvation. For me that’s the KJV. If you find that in the Douay Rheims, that’s fine.
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
The problem with this type of reasoning is that it is against what Paul says in:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The problem is that Paul didn’t give us a list and Paul said: all.

So if someone, somewhere removed books - it no longer is [all] Scriptures but [some] Scriptures. Which is not what Paul is saying.

So the question is really fair and important.
Click to expand...
Ok, you need to give a list of the things that are in those 27 books that is vital for salvation That is not in the 66 books of my bible. If you cannot then the information in my bible is sufficient and the point is moot.
 
Hi Isaiah,

Thanks for your response.
Isaiah45_9 said:
Topper,

I found myself in that same position after years of reading Scriptures, Church history, theology, and talking with several Pastors/Priests.

I reached the same conclusion. Sola Scriptura doesn’t work, once that was clear I couldn’t be dishonest to myself and my Faith.

On that same token, if I am to be completely honest, there are elements of Catholicism which I don’t think should have been developed so much and/or so drastically. I understand the historical context of them but… I decided to yield, nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Most of the conversions I know of (including my own) have a similar element. I investigated issue after issue, comparing the arguments of both sides (Prot and Cat), Scripture, the Fathers, and in each case, came to the conclusion that the Catholic position was correct, shocking me each time. After all, aren’t Protestants more “Scriptural”? When it came down to the last few issues that had not been resolved in my mind, I began to TRUST and to understand the concept of the Authority of the Church. As you put it, I ‘yielded’.
Isaiah45_9 said:
I believe there are many others that find themselves in the same position and reach an *impasse * and they decide to remain where they are and see how things progress.

Going back to the OP. I think that Protestants agree that Scriptures are true but that there is always a margin of error in our interpretation of them. As such, the margin of error becomes secondary and all that matters is to believe and live a Christian life. We believe the same really. There are as many Catholics who are not aware of the actually Church teachings and history as there are Protestants that are just as unaware. That doesn’t excuse anyone but it is the reality.

The hunt for truth is mostly for people like us that like to read, study and argue. Not necessarily in that order ;)😃
Click to expand...
The ‘hunt for truth’ though presumes the importance of that truth. What I have found is that many people are much less concerned about doctrinal truth than they are about the ‘community aspect’ of a particular congregation, or the music or the seating. The Reformers must be rolling over in their graves. THEY were extremely concerned with doctrine and yet, those who are their followers – not so much.

God Bless You Isaiah, Topper
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top