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

[Topper17]

Hi JonNC

Hi Jon S,

I think guan touched on it, when quoting: 12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know even as I am known. (1 Co 13:12).

It is human sin that causes division. look, there are a number of communions that teach Scripture and Sacred Tradition as the model, and yet they are separated from each other: CC, EO, OO, PNCC, Union of Utrecht. One can’t blame that on sola scriptura.

So, it must be the fault of Tradition. Right? No. There is something else involved.
It is human sin.

It seems that one of the things that Protestants struggle with is the degree of a problem, or the numerical element of a particular situation. This is a perfect example of that:

You state that denominalization is because of human sin, which infers that, since all men have always been sinful, denominalization has always been a problem. It is true, heresy has always been a problem and has always been the result of man’s fallen nature, his sins.

Yet, numerically, we see a HUGE difference between the level of ‘sin’ (if you insist) within Protestantism, and that within the Church. Again, the Catholic Church today has over half of the Christians in the world. Obviously, it has ‘lost’ the other 49%, but in 2000 years, and given man’s sinful nature, that is NOT a bad track record.

On the other hand, the Orthodox Churches, after almost 1000 years now, have split into only 17 or so doctrinally independent communions. (quibble with the numbers if you like). Protestantism though, has split into tens of thousands of doctrinally independent denominations in less than 500 years. Your placement of the blame for denominalization on ‘sin’ doesn’t fit the data.

Are you suggesting that Protestantism is THAT MUCH more sinful than Catholicism? If that is the case, then, with that degree of difference, I would think that Protestants would be flocking to the Church in droves.

It must be something different than your theory about ‘sin’. How about if we consider the possibility that Sola Scriptura is actually at fault? After all, Luther was warned that SS would create doctrinal disunity, and that warning has certainly been proven accurate?

**How can you possibly suggest that it is ‘sin’ and NOT Sola Scriptura that has caused the massive doctrinal confusion in Protestantism? **

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[guanophore]

While I think I understand these matters pretty (well), I appreciate the recommendation.

Jon

I thought it came across as rather condescending.

 

[guanophore]

John17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
The denomination that aligns itself with the bible, that is the one that has the truth.

I agree with you daddyd.

But the Word of God is not confined to the Scripture. It is also found in the Sacred Tradition, which is kept infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What do you mean ignoring the question? Here’s what you posted

To which I replied: The KJV works for me. Now, how is this ignoring your question?

I have the KJV

I have a list. It’s right in the beginning of my bible.

I should have known better… Have a good night.

 

[daddyd]

Hard to know unless you tell us what you believe

Seriously Jon, I’ve been posting what I believe scripture says from about page 57. Haven’t you been reading them?

or what denomination your in. But if you are not Catholic, I am sure there are parts you are interpreting wrong (such as John 6 we posted earlier).

But I never posted anything about John 6. So you are just ranting for the sake of ranting?

I don’t think you really care to know though.

Then why bother?

You definitely have it wrong in not having the full Bible. That is a historical fact not an interpretation.

As I said before. EVERY Bible ever written before really 1700 had 73 books in it. As a result I would think you would have very good reason for not having a complete bible.

So, you don’t think that I have the information I need to gain salvation in my bible. Please tell me what I am missing?

 

[daddyd]

I agree with you daddyd.

But the Word of God is not confined to the Scripture. It is also found in the Sacred Tradition, which is kept infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

So, Is there something in that tradition that I need for salvation that is not found in the bible?

 

[Lek]

Paul is not talking about the 27 books of the New Testament. There is no New Testament yet.

Paul is speaking about the Old Testament. And he specifically said that all] Scripture is breathed by God.

However, Paul didn’t give a list.

So what do you think are the Scriptures that Paul is talking about?

And, more importantly:

What did Christians for hundreds of years used as Scriptures?

I don’t know specifically which scriptures Paul was talking about. He could have been talking about the Jewish canon which didn’t contain the Aprocrypha or maybe the Septuagint which did. The aprocryphal books were not accepted by numerous church fathers, including Origen and Jerome, and were controversial since the early centuries of the christian church. They weren’t officially declared cannon until the Council of Trent in 1546. The original KJV did contain these books, but they were put in a separate section and were identified as aprocryphal, and were not considered on the same level as scripture.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Seriously Jon, I’ve been posting what I believe scripture says from about page 57. Haven’t you been reading them?

But I never posted anything about John 6. So you are just ranting for the sake of ranting?

Then why bother?

So, you don’t think that I have the information I need to gain salvation in my bible. Please tell me what I am missing?

It is in the Bible but without the sacred tradition you either don’t see it, overlook it, explain it away, or in some other way miss it.

You are missing the sacraments and the means God put on place for your sanctification.

Feel free to start your own thread if you have questions, but in this thread our talks have been fruitless.

Goodnight.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So, Is there something in that tradition that I need for salvation that is not found in the bible?

Yes

 

[guanophore]

You are upholding and supporting the truth if you are not only upholding and supporting what the bible says but making it part of our lives.

You are right, daddyd, but who decides how the Bible should be interpreted? For example, do all the women in your church wear their hair long, and wear a veil to church?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t know specifically which scriptures Paul was talking about. He could have been talking about the Jewish canon which didn’t contain the Aprocrypha or maybe the Septuagint which did. The aprocryphal books were not accepted by numerous church fathers, including Origen and Jerome, and were controversial since the early centuries of the christian church. They weren’t officially declared cannon until the Council of Trent in 1546. The original KJV did contain these books, but they were put in a separate section and were identified as aprocryphal, and were not considered on the same level as scripture.

Both Jerome and Origen preached from them. Do you? Does your pastor? Also Jerome questioned but affirmed. To say there was a lot of controversy is hyperbole. There was not.

Every Bible ever written had the books in them. The church that settled the Trinity used them. The New Testament quotes the Septuagint version 90% of the time. The early church undoubtedly used the Septagint as they all spoke and wrote in Greek. The church always had them. Until a fallible man and other things like printer errors removed them.

There is no justification for it other than it was the tradition you grew up in.

 

[guanophore]

As far as I know, the Bible has no voice of its own…so how can the Bible speak?

How can the Bible determine or tell you which has the truth and which has no truth?

Can you provide the chapter and verse for this?

Wait! First daddyd needs to produce the list of books that belong in the Bible.

Why are there 27 books in the NT?

 

[daddyd]

Wait! First daddyd needs to produce the list of books that belong in the Bible.

Why do I need to do that?

Why are there 27 books in the NT?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t know specifically which scriptures Paul was talking about. He could have been talking about the Jewish canon which didn’t contain the Aprocrypha or maybe the Septuagint which did. The aprocryphal books were not accepted by numerous church fathers, including Origen and Jerome, and were controversial since the early centuries of the christian church. They weren’t officially declared cannon until the Council of Trent in 1546. The original KJV did contain these books, but they were put in a separate section and were identified as aprocryphal, and were not considered on the same level as scripture.

Thank you, Lek.

Some things. There was no such thing as a Jewish Canon. Some Jews accepted only the 5 books of Moses (Torah), some Jews Accepted the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi’im (Prophets), Kethuvim (Writings), and some Jews accepted the Tanakh and the Talmud (Oral Tradition). More info here.

It’s not that some Church Fathers did not accept (They didn’t make themselves an authority outside the Church), but that they questioned if they were to be considered in the same manner as the other Scriptures.

Many other books were controversial as well, but when that happens the Church meets and then the Church makes a decision. Just as we see in Acts 15 in the Council of Jerusalem.

The problem is that these books were taken out mostly because they were not really used and it was cheaper to print Bibles without them. Not only that, but some of these books presented support for Catholic theology.

So in this aspect, when we have Paul saying that [all] Scriptures is breathed by God. Then [all] Scriptures should be kept. And in the absence of certainty, we must err on the side of caution.

 

[guanophore]

That’s just it you’re looking in the wrong place for clarity Do you really think that God leaves us to our own devises? We will never find the truth by looking to man. We must look to God.

John14:

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

So daddyd, how do you carry out this commandment?

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". Mt 18:15–18

How do you identify the church to which you are to go with this “telling”?

 

[guanophore]

Are there thing in those 27 books that will lead me to salvation that I cannot find in the other 66 books? If there are not then I don’t need them.

This is a very interesting position, daddyd, and I would say, one which is indefensible. Basically you are declaring that you do not need the Scriptures that have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, and given to us for our instruction.

The early Church relied entirely upon the OT (all 73 books) to preach the Gospel, and yet, you don’t believe God provided them to you for any important reason?

 

[guanophore]

I hope you can see by the vast number of I statements in your response, that it is in fact you who is the ultimate authority.

With me, it is the church. I will say there are plenty of things that I don’t like that much, or I don’t quite understand, but it is not I who decides, it is the Church.

This strikes me as disrespectful in the context of the conversation. JonNC is relating his own personal faith journey, so of course it relates to his own “I-ness”.

Furthermore, we all participate in this same faith journey, and no, it is not the “church” that decides for us, but we who decide to conform to the Church. Each person is given the responsibility to choose. Each will be judged by how we exercise that choice.

 

[guanophore]

Thats fair enough, the LDS submit to their communion as well, so it kind of brings us back to the real question of why does your communion have the authority for you to submit to it?

For me unless one says that Luther was a prophet of God, one cannot say that their is authority in Lutheranism It was such a departure from the apostolic faith held for 1500 years prior that it is either wrong and man made, or Luther was a prophet and God told him to change things.

It is wrong to hold modern Lutherans, or even the historical Lutheran faith to such a standard. Luther never claimed to be a prophet, nor did he attempt to found his own Church. Lutheran faith is not based upon Luther, or most of what he said and did.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It is wrong to hold modern Lutherans, or even the historical Lutheran faith to such a standard. Luther never claimed to be a prophet, nor did he attempt to found his own Church. Lutheran faith is not based upon Luther, or most of what he said and did.

I know that he is not regarded as a prophet that is my whole point. I also know that he did not found a church.

He did however found a body of ideas that became a church.

My point is, where is the authority for this church to exist?

If it is not founded by the apostles, by a prophet later, and is undeniably based on the works of a sixteenth century man and his compatriots, them with what authority does that church exist?

Is it your belief that Lutheranism is a valid, licit, and full expression of Christian Truth?

 

[Jon_S_1]

This strikes me as disrespectful in the context of the conversation. JonNC is relating his own personal faith journey, so of course it relates to his own “I-ness”.

Furthermore, we all participate in this same faith journey, and no, it is not the “church” that decides for us, but we who decide to conform to the Church. Each person is given the responsibility to choose. Each will be judged by how we exercise that choice.

This was not meant as disrespectful but instead to point out a frame of reference that exists in much of Protestantism that is different than Catholicism. Yes I chose to be Catholic. But I chose it based on it’s authority, not based on how well it fit my personal view on doctrinal things.

My doctrinal beliefs changed once I submitted to that authority. In much of Protestantism, the church is chosen based on how it lines up doctrinally on what an individual believes. This I saw in JohnNC’s mentioning of communions he would consider or not.

People who converted from Protestantism might understand better what I was trying to point out.

This again was not meant disrespectfully.