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

[dronald]

What changed?

What evidence do you have that it did change ?

Why did the Apostles appoint successors with no authority and with no centrally consistent scripture?

I believe they were appointed and reiterated much of what was said. I believe it is the belief of the CC that everything you believe was taught by either Scripture or by the Apostles mouths. That is to say, no successors made up their own stuff correct?

Unfortunately, no one agrees with absolutely every single word that those successors wrote down, and every belief that Catholics hold found outside of Scripture can’t be proven that it wasn’t contested by someone pretty close to the Apostolic times.

Although I believe I’m in the same Church as you I don’t agree with everything you believe. I often bring up Orthodoxy because I believe they are respected by Catholics more than Evangelicals are. But any fight you pick with me regarding early interpretations can likely be argued from an Orthodox point of view as well with the same tradition and different conclusions.

Scripture is what we all agree on; and we fight and babble over the ECF’s and what they had to say about it, but Christ crucified and the tangible book we have available (not doctored, not amended, nothing removed) can lead to a greater Christianity.

 

[Jon_S_1]

So there is ZERO evidence for Protestant thought where it differs from CC ? It all really began in 1517 A.D. ? …Again, I don’t mean you have to agree with it, but just see what they put forth and why.

Not that I can see, I mean I guess there are slight flavors of Protestantism in different heresies. For example Some none trinitarians might agree with Arius on the divinity of Christ. But then would differ from him on most everything else.

I’m not denying that people held unorthodox opinions and invented man made ideas before.

But I deny their authority to declare it true as I declare there is no authority for Protestant rejection of the Church.

So, I guess in order for me to believe Protestants have it all right I would need to see early bishops and church fathers expounding their doctrines. But I don’t, I see them celebrating mass, denouncing schism from bishops and talking of the real presence and sacraments.

The same people doing that are the same people who compiled the scriptures that Protestants use. So they believe the church can be divinely inspired to get the New Testament right, but the Old Testament wrong in the same meeting, and they were wrong in celebrating mass and being authoritative bishops, but the New Testament they got right???

It’s beyond odd. And dronald saying that every Christian must determine the canon individually based on modern research is bizarre, and if he was honest he would reject Hebrews and Mark since there is no evidence of who wrote them.

Anyway ,

It is as if, the Mormon church was the early church and compiled the Bible in one of their annual conferences alongside declarations of men becoming gods and polygamy, Protestants would say, thanks for the book but we reject the rest.

It’s very very odd.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe they were appointed and reiterated much of what was said. I believe it is the belief of the CC that everything you believe was taught by either Scripture or by the Apostles mouths. That is to say, no successors made up their own stuff correct?

Correct

Unfortunately, no one agrees with absolutely every single word that those successors wrote down, and every belief that Catholics hold found outside of Scripture can’t be proven that it wasn’t contested by someone pretty close to the Apostolic times.

Although I believe I’m in the same Church as you I don’t agree with everything you believe. I often bring up Orthodoxy because I believe they are respected by Catholics more than Evangelicals are. But any fight you pick with me regarding early interpretations can likely be argued from an Orthodox point of view as well with the same tradition and different conclusions.

Scripture is what we all agree on; and we fight and babble over the ECF’s and what they had to say about it, but Christ crucified and the tangible book we have available (not doctored, not amended, nothing removed) can lead to a greater Christianity.

Unfortunately we dint agree on scripture as you reject 7 books that have been used in the entire history of Christianity.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I believe they were appointed and reiterated much of what was said. I believe it is the belief of the CC that everything you believe was taught by either Scripture or by the Apostles mouths. That is to say, no successors made up their own stuff correct?

Correct

Unfortunately, no one agrees with absolutely every single word that those successors wrote down, and every belief that Catholics hold found outside of Scripture can’t be proven that it wasn’t contested by someone pretty close to the Apostolic times.

Although I believe I’m in the same Church as you I don’t agree with everything you believe. I often bring up Orthodoxy because I believe they are respected by Catholics more than Evangelicals are. But any fight you pick with me regarding early interpretations can likely be argued from an Orthodox point of view as well with the same tradition and different conclusions.

Scripture is what we all agree on; and we fight and babble over the ECF’s and what they had to say about it, but Christ crucified and the tangible book we have available (not doctored, not amended, nothing removed) can lead to a greater Christianity.

Unfortunately we don’t fully agree on scripture as you reject 7 books that have been used in the entire history of Christianity.

It seems to me the #1 reason that people refuse to belong to the Catholic Church is because they are incapable of submission to an authority bigger than themselves. They rely in their own understanding and make themselves final arbiter of what is true.

I would challenge all to examen the implications of such things.

 

[dronald]

Correct

Unfortunately we don’t fully agree on scripture as you reject 7 books that have been used in the entire history of Christianity.

It seems to me the #1 reason that people refuse to belong to the Catholic Church is because they are incapable of submission to an authority bigger than themselves. They rely in their own understanding and make themselves final arbiter of what is true.

I would challenge all to examen the implications of such things.

Yes, and your Church has closed it’s canon on all the books chosen within.

But guess who has a different opinion on a closed Canon with extra books!

Need I say?

 

[powerofk]

It’s beyond odd. And dronald saying that every Christian must determine the canon individually based on modern research is bizarre, and if he was honest he would reject Hebrews and Mark since there is no evidence of who wrote them.

Anyway ,

It is as if, the Mormon church was the early church and compiled the Bible in one of their annual conferences alongside declarations of men becoming gods and polygamy, Protestants would say, thanks for the book but we reject the rest.

It’s very very odd.

Actually, today, the authorship of almost all of the NT books (except for a few of the letters of Paul - Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon) is disputed. And 2 Corinthians, though thought authentically written by Paul, is thought by many academics to be a “piecemeal” letter - with it actually containing pieces of at least 2 and as many as 4 authentic letters of Paul to the Corinthians.

But that’s not my point. The main reason why the Protestants were pretty much forced to accept the Catholic NT canon had to do more with the fact that the books that were not accepted into the NT canon were no longer widely copied and distributed after the canon was formalized and closed. The copies that did exist were buried and hidden away until the early-to-mid 1900s. My point for Protestants is this: dronald says that he accepts the canon as written based on his own research and that he would not add or subtract anything in the NT.

But what if you lived BEFORE the canon was finalized? No authority had definitively declared which books were definitively inspired by the Holy Spirit (the books accepted into the NT canon), which ones were simply pious writings (such as the Shepherd of Hermas), and which ones were definitively fraudulent (such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene). Several individuals had come up with ideas on what books should be in the canon, but it had not been agreed upon by all.

Would you consider your scripture to be the Christian writings that agreed with your vision of the Church or Jesus Christ? Or would you trust the Catholic Church? The Church teaches that it was through the bishops meeting and discussing the matters of the canon, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in which the canon was formalized. If the Church does not have the authority given by Christ to infallibly teach His followers, then the Church did not have the authority to declare the canon, because the canon was authoritatively and infallibly declared by the teaching authority of the Church. If you accept the NT canon as the only Christian writings that are truly scriptural, then you must believe that the Catholic Church, at least at one point in time, was directed by the Holy Spirit to determine such scriptures.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, and your Church has closed it’s canon on all the books chosen within.

But guess who has a different opinion on a closed Canon with extra books!

Need I say?

So are you saying you accept the Orthodox canon. I’m fine with that.

I am not ok with Protestants holding a canon that is defined on the tradition of individuals personal opinions and printing errors.

 

[dronald]

This is fascinating.

Are the Catholics here claiming that the early Church did not use history and reason to conclude the Canon and simply relied on Faith, prayer and the Holy Spirit revealing by those means?

 

[Jon_S_1]

This is fascinating.

Are the Catholics here claiming that the early Church did not use history and reason to conclude the Canon and simply relied on Faith, prayer and the Holy Spirit revealing by those means?

The early church did not use reason.

The Holy Spirit guided the bishops. the bishops maybe used reason to determine a criteria to narrow the field but in the end it was faith and the Holy Spirit that led the bishops to determined the canon.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hey Jon S; I’m curious if you (or other Catholics for that matter) still agree with every word written at the Fourth Council of the Lateran, Canon 3:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

“so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath.”

If not, how could one determine that the Church was speaking falsely at that time? Thanks Jon.

I have been researching this area more and I would like you to read this, I think it could at the very least soften your view that this is a breaking point for you.

1. Views of Catholic and Protestant Historians

A. Johann von Dollinger

Historically nothing is more incorrect than the assertion that the Reformation was a movement in favour of intellectual freedom. The exact contary is the truth. For themselves, it is true, Lutherans and Calvinists claimed liberty of conscience . . . but to grant it to others never occurred to them so long as they were the stronger side. The complete extirpation of the Catholic Church, and in fact of everything that stood in their way, was regarded by the reformers as something entirely natural.
(Grisar, VI, 268-269; Dollinger: Kirche und Kirchen, 1861, 68)

B. Preserved Smith (S)
If any one still harbors the traditional prejudice that the early Protestants were more liberal, he must be undeceived. Save for a few splendid sayings of Luther, confined to the early years when he was powerless, there is hardly anything to be found among the leading reformers in favor of freedom of conscience. As soon as they had the power to persecute they did.
(Smith, 177)

C. Hartmann Grisar
At Zurich, Zwingli’s State-Church grew up much as Luther’s did . . . Oecolampadius at Basle and Zwingli’s successor, Bullinger, were strong compulsionists. Calvin’s name is even more closely bound up with the idea of religious absolutism, while the task of handing down to posterity his harsh doctrine of religious compulsion was undertaken by Beza in his notorious work, On the Duty of Civil Magistrates to Punish Heretics. The annals of the Established Church of England were likewise at the outset written in blood.
(Grisar, VI, 278)

D. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (P)
The Reformers themselves . . . e.g., Luther, Beza, and especially Calvin, were as intolerant to dissentients as the Roman Catholic Church.
(Cross, 1383)

1. The Double Standard of Protestant “Inquisition Polemics” (John Stoddard)

I think you would enjoy the whole article: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html?m=1

 

[Jon_S_1]

I just don’t know how I would know whether or not to agree with such a canon during that time. I suppose I wouldn’t have any choice but to agree with it, but would I be wrong for joining a Church that disagrees with the extermination of heretics?

I believe in my research, it is impossible to find such a group at that time, further, the Catholic Church does not exterminate heretics while upholding the teachings you quote. That leads to the conclusion a link is missing in your chain.

By your logic in this area, I can say that Lutheranism is false because if the hate Luther showed for the Jews.

Or

Calvinism is false because he had heretics and dissidents executed

Etc
Etc
Etc

Then you might say, "my modern evangelical church has never executed anyone " to which I say, neither had the Catholic Church or Lutherans or others in that sane time period.

Why?

Because society changed and the civil constructs changed.

I have no doubts that many a Protestant church, if given it’s own nation today, may very well consider executing heretics, gays, adulterers, etc…

 

[Jon_S_1]

The early church did not use reason.

The Holy Spirit guided the bishops. the bishops maybe used reason to determine a criteria to narrow the field but in the end it was faith and the Holy Spirit that led the bishops to determined the canon.

I wanted to add that I first learned this from my Evangelical Pastor.

 

[dronald]

The early church did not use reason.

The Holy Spirit guided the bishops.** the bishops maybe used reason** to determine a criteria to narrow the field but in the end it was faith and the Holy Spirit that led the bishops to determined the canon.

Can you please explain the two bolded statements and how they do not contradict? Certainly reason was used by Paul in Acts 17? Certainly the letters written to the Church by the Apostles were written using reason. Even though Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit he would still quote old non-Jewish writings to make a point. This was the Holy Spirit working through Paul, hand in hand with reason.

The reasons the Early Church gave while being guided by the Holy Spirit are the same reasons you can give now, and so can I. Catholics here are famous for saying “the Bible did not just fall out of the sky” but stating that reason wasn’t used makes it sound like you think it did.

I have been researching this area more and I would like you to read this, I think it could at the very least soften your view that this is a breaking point for you.

I think you would enjoy the whole article: socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/protestant-inquisition-reformation.html?m=1

I don’t really consider that research as it doesn’t address what I have said, rather you’ve used a strawman argument and have directed it back at Protestants. My argument wasn’t that “the people were bad” it’s that “the Church had bad teachings.”

Twelfth Ecumenical Council:
Lateran IV 1215

“Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church,** should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated** by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.”

“…But if any of them by damnable obstinacy should disapprove of the oath and should perchance be unwilling to swear, from this very fact let them be regarded as heretics.”

There wasn’t even opportunity for the people to protest this without being deemed “heretics.” The Church took part in the promotion of the extermination of heretics in their councils.

So all I’m asking is if the words from this council have been renounced? Assuming the Holy Spirit was working through these men and their words, then I can also assume it is binding and still true to this day; except Catholics just ignore it now. Or, perhaps this council has been rejected and there’s no reason to believe that they were ever correct, nor are they correct now. What is the official position regarding this council and the words spoken therein?

I believe in my research, it is impossible to find such a group at that time, further, the Catholic Church does not exterminate heretics while upholding the teachings you quote. That leads to the conclusion a link is missing in your chain.

By your logic in this area, I can say that Lutheranism is false because if the hate Luther showed for the Jews.

Or

Calvinism is false because he had heretics and dissidents executed

Etc
Etc
Etc

Then you might say, "my modern evangelical church has never executed anyone " to which I say, neither had the Catholic Church or Lutherans or others in that sane time period.

Why?

Because society changed and the civil constructs changed.

I have no doubts that many a Protestant church, if given it’s own nation today, may very well consider executing heretics, gays, adulterers, etc…

Yup. Jesus was ahead of His time and the Church fell back. If the Church leaders were always Pope Francis, who I believe does a great job representing the teachings of Christ, then the leaders may not have provoked the authorities to harm heretics. But this certainly was due to the inspiration of the Church, writing in Church wide documents that all must believe; and those who did not believe and take such an oath were also bound to excommunication. It was a scary time to want to be a Protestant, that’s for sure.

Waldo had guts, and so did his followers but that didn’t get them far.

(Also from the Article: )

Dr. Luther, who firmly held to consubstantiation

Come on man.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes, and your Church has closed it’s canon on all the books chosen within.

But guess who has a different opinion on a closed Canon with extra books!

Need I say?

Umm, the Latin, Byzantine, Syriac-Chaldean, Armenian, and Coptic Churches have various Traditions on which books are to be included in addition to the 72. These differences in no way changed unity, faith, doctrine, or Communion among them. Even today, the Catholic and Orthodox accept differences in the Canon among their own Communions as long as the 72 books are present and the Faith remains united.

 

[marywarfield]

This is fascinating.

Are the Catholics here claiming that the early Church did not use history and reason to conclude the Canon and simply relied on Faith, prayer and the Holy Spirit revealing by those means?

No of course not. Lol. The Church never operates that way.
Which is why it would take centuries for the Church to add
anything to the Canon as the research and history
would take forever.

Let’s consider not s scriptural case but a relic. Shroud of
Turin. Many faithful have declared that IS the Face of
Jesus. However after the physicists, botanists, DNA experts,
historians, archeologists, etc etc have examined and
tested it as nauseum the Church carefully preserves
it and says “hey isn’t this interesting?”

If they are that reluctant to define something like
the Shroud imagine what it would take to add an Epistle
to the Bible?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well, perhaps I didn’t answer you thoroughly dronald. I meant that the church fathers did not exclusively use reason in deciding the canon.

Our God is reasonable and creates reason, and we use our reason in cooperating with him.

The Holy Spirit protects and works through the church and guarantees guidance to the church.

The spirit also works through individuals , but the same protection from error is not there.

I prove this by pointing to the millions of sincere prayerful Christians who come to different dogmatic conclusions about God and what it means to be a Christian including what the Bible is.

Are you aware there are believers out there that reject all of Paul’s writings?

I further prove this by showing that God has never worked this way. I know it’s easy to say God abolished the law, but He didn’t.

In the OT, he worked through his chosen people as a whole. He spoke to and protected the leaders and priests and prophets.

It was not ok then for every individual and tribe of Israel to use reason to figure out their own program. God guided them as a whole.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Umm, the Latin, Byzantine, Syriac-Chaldean, Armenian, and Coptic Churches have various Traditions on which books are to be included in addition to the 72. These differences in no way changed unity, faith, doctrine, or Communion among them. Even today, the Catholic and Orthodox accept differences in the Canon among their own Communions as long as the 72 books are present and the Faith remains united.

Love that we hear it from an Eastern brother rather than a Protestant trying to speak for you to sow division !

Thanks!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Courtesy of AmbroseSJ

I found it interesting and pertinent to this thread.

You have to first of all examine your first principle. IOW, whether you realize it or not, you are coming from the Protestant perspective (first principle) that says the Bible is the highest arbiter of Divine Revelation.

No other religion on earth, except Islam is based on a book. IOW, there is Islam and Protestantism. That’s it. All other world religions are based on a Religious Tradition that INCLUDES books or documents.

Christianity was an outgrowth from Judaism, both of which are Religions based on Religious Tradition, which includes the Sacred Scripture.

Protestantism (thanks to the printing press) endeavored to yank the book away from the Religious Tradition, and make it a “Do it yourself” manual for Christians. This was a stupendous failure, as the thousands of contradicting Protestant churches attest.

Get back to basics. Does God leave JUST A BOOK for everyone to fight over, or does God leave HIS OWN stewards to safeguard HIS Revelation? Ironically, the answer is right there in the Bible!

 

[dronald]

Umm, the Latin, Byzantine, Syriac-Chaldean, Armenian, and Coptic Churches have various Traditions on which books are to be included in addition to the 72. These differences in no way changed unity, faith, doctrine, or Communion among them. Even today, the Catholic and Orthodox accept differences in the Canon among their own Communions as long as the 72 books are present and the Faith remains united.

Love that we hear it from an Eastern brother rather than a Protestant trying to speak for you to sow division !
Thanks!

Yes, yes; I get it. Evangelicals are in huge danger for not including certain books but Catholics are cool with closing their Canon never to be opened again even in the midst of there being other books that could be inspired and are thought to be by many in Orthodoxy.

No of course not. Lol. The Church never operates that way. Which is why it would take centuries for the Church to add anything to the Canon as the research and history would take forever.

Let’s consider not s scriptural case but a relic. Shroud ofTurin. Many faithful have declared that IS the Face of Jesus. However after the physicists, botanists, DNA experts, historians, archeologists, etc etc have examined andtested it as nauseum the Church carefully preservesit and says "hey isn’t this interesting?"If they are that reluctant to define something likethe Shroud imagine what it would take to add an Epistle to the Bible?

I agree completely. And I also believe the Catholic Church does a great job understanding that Scientists will come to many conclusions, and yet still maintain that God is the author. This is especially true in regards to Catholics on evolution/creationism; I have great respect for the Church in this regard, and for many other reasons.

Well, perhaps I didn’t answer you thoroughly dronald. I meant that the church fathers did not exclusively use reason in deciding the canon.

Our God is reasonable and creates reason, and we use our reason in cooperating with him.

The Holy Spirit protects and works through the church and guarantees guidance to the church.

The spirit also works through individuals , but the same protection from error is not there.

I prove this by pointing to the millions of sincere prayerful Christians who come to different dogmatic conclusions about God and what it means to be a Christian including what the Bible is.

Are you aware there are believers out there that reject all of Paul’s writings?

I further prove this by showing that God has never worked this way. I know it’s easy to say God abolished the law, but He didn’t.

In the OT, he worked through his chosen people as a whole. He spoke to and protected the leaders and priests and prophets.

It was not ok then for every individual and tribe of Israel to use reason to figure out their own program. God guided them as a whole.

I agree with everything you have stated. Again, the Scriptures bind; I don’t think pointing to Mormons, JW’s or some anti-Paulists is a convincing argument.

You have to first of all examine your first principle. IOW, whether you realize it or not, you are coming from the Protestant perspective (first principle) that says the Bible is the highest arbiter of Divine Revelation.

No other religion on earth, except Islam is based on a book. IOW, there is Islam and Protestantism. That’s it. All other world religions are based on a Religious Tradition that INCLUDES books or documents.

Christianity was an outgrowth from Judaism, both of which are Religions based on Religious Tradition, which includes the Sacred Scripture.

Protestantism (thanks to the printing press) endeavored to yank the book away from the Religious Tradition, and make it a “Do it yourself” manual for Christians. This was a stupendous failure, as the thousands of contradicting Protestant churches attest.

Get back to basics. Does God leave JUST A BOOK for everyone to fight over, or does God leave HIS OWN stewards to safeguard HIS Revelation? Ironically, the answer is right there in the Bible!

The major sects of Islam have the Hadith, which is in it’s self tradition. Seeing as such writings were written long, long after Muhammad’s death; Sahih Bukhari approximately 256 years after Muhammad died being the earliest. The largest sect of Islam (Sunni Muslims) accept the six main Hadith the latest probably compiled around 303 years after Muhammad’s death, but still considered authentic to Muslims.

And yes, they fight over their oral tradition all the time. Did Muhammad say that? Is it a weak Hadith? Chain of naration, etc.

The idea that the Qur’an is the only authority is rejected by almost all of Islam. They have their traditions like how Catholics do.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You just don’t understand Sacremental grace…I have tried and tried to explain it, but seeing as it is not part of your experience I am uncertain why you feel you are an expert in it.

It has nothing to do with what I do or don’t understand. It has to do with what the Orthodox believe about the sacrament of holy orders. They do not believe that the sacramental grace of orders remains after being removed from the priesthood. The person is no longer a priest in any sense of the term.