Protestants: Hypothetical Question

[But_for_Grace]

Say a man decides to do the following:

*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.

What should he be considered? Are these objective moral evils? Why?

 

[angelmessenger]

But for Grace:

Say a man decides to do the following:

*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.

What should he be considered? Are these objective moral evils? Why?

No one has the right to determine Christian doctrine. No one is competent to do so. That’s why there are so many offshoots from the one Church of Christ.

One single wrong doctrine accounts for the separation of millions of professing Christians throughout the world from the Catholic Church—The theory of justification by faith alone.

God bless

Jan

 

[Magicsilence]

I think the OP was referring to the protestant break away headed by a man who did all the things listed above.

 

[roadrunner570]

As a protestant…I don’t see the point of trying to pick apart another’s actions. In both the early Catholic church and early Protestantism, we can sit and find people who did bad things and try to figure out why one group wants to follow the other.

 

[But_for_Grace]

roadrunner570 - the question is, if someone tried to do these things, would they be worth following? Is it ever acceptable? even if the existing church is corrupt, are such actions permissible?

 

[roadrunner570]

But for Grace:

roadrunner570 - the question is, if someone tried to do these things, would they be worth following? Is it ever acceptable? even if the existing church is corrupt, are such actions permissible?

Well, I guess it would depend. Right now we all have a lot of freedom and can read the scripture ourselves and determine what lines up with what and so on.

At the time of Luther, laypeople could not even read the scriptures. And most people were very oppressed by the Church at the time, like I saw mentioned on another thread, people being coereced and frightened into buying indulgences, etc.

Luther was not perfect and I don’t agree with all his teachings, but I do agree with a lot of them, especially salvation by faith alone (which I’m not going to debate on this thread lol) And also sola scriptura.

I mean, if we want to say is it okay to follow Luther’s teachings because of this that or whatever, then one could also ask is it okay to follow Catholic teachings when they allowed people to be toturtured, murdered and burned at the stake regardless of age, or gender, until they agreed with the authority of the Catholic Church. Does that mean that no one at all, ever should follow Catholic teachings?

 

[angelmessenger]

----“Well, I guess it would depend. Right now we all have a lot of freedom and can read the scripture ourselves and determine what lines up with what and so on.”

That’s the whole problem—people trying to interpret themselves–The bible warns against this!

—“At the time of Luther, laypeople could not even read the scriptures. And most people were very oppressed by the Church at the time, like I saw mentioned on another thread, people being coereced and frightened into buying indulgences, etc.”

At The time of Luther Catholics had been reading scripture–those that could afford a Bible that is! Scripture was, and is still read in Church every single day. Many people were oppressed under Luther’s ideology. Catholics were tortured and hung drawn and quartered for hearing Mass, saying the rosary etc. It was a two way street my friend!

___“Luther was not perfect and I don’t agree with all his teachings, but I do agree with a lot of them, especially salvation by faith alone (which I’m not going to debate on this thread lol) And also sola scriptura”

luther had no authority whatsoever to change the Church’s teachings which were taught from Apostolic times–if you believe he was wrong in some of his teachings then how did you know he was right in others? Through the doctrine of sola Scriptura we now have thousands of denominations who interpret according to what suits–In other words it depends which pastor you have and what you want to believe!.

----" I mean, if we want to say is it okay to follow Luther’s teachings because of this that or whatever, then one could also ask is it okay to follow Catholic teachings when they allowed people to be toturtured, murdered and burned at the stake regardless of age, or gender, until they agreed with the authority of the Catholic Church. Does that mean that no one at all, ever should follow Catholic teachings?

"

It is the Church we follow --not it’s members who Christ said would be a mixture of good and bad. As for the persecutions then it is as I have said it----- was a two way street

God bless

Jan

 

[roadrunner570]

"

That’s the whole problem—people trying to interpret themselves–The bible warns against this!

I don’t k now where scripture warns of people interpreting the Bible, but I see a TON of warnings against false teachers

At The time of Luther Catholics had been reading scripture–those that could afford a Bible that is! Scripture was, and is still read in Church every single day. Many people were oppressed under Luther’s ideology. Catholics were tortured and hung drawn and quartered for hearing Mass, saying the rosary etc. It was a two way street my friend!

The only Catholics reading scripture were priests and scholars who could read Greek or Latin. It may have been a two-way street which doens’t make it right. The original question was how could we follow such a man, that question would work both ways.

luther had no authority whatsoever to change the Church’s teachings which were taught from Apostolic times–if you believe he was wrong in some of his teachings then how did you know he was right in others? Through the doctrine of sola Scriptura we now have thousands of denominations who interpret according to what suits–In other words it depends which pastor you have and what you want to believe!.
**
I don’t recall any apostles teaching the purchase of indulgences, purgatory, or anything else like that. I know what teachings I agree with on him by what I see that lines up with scripture. If you look at most protestant denominations, the majority of them have the same basic, core beliefs on the Trinity, salvation, etc. Its mostly in worship practices and preferences where we differ, and I don’t see a problem with that. **

It is the Church we follow --not it’s members who Christ said would be a mixture of good and bad. As for the persecutions then it is as I have said it----- was a two way street

Actually, its Christ I follow, I don’t follow any church or man. I have various teachers who I prefer, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with every single thing. I honestly don’t believe God made us all the same and intended for us all to worship exactly the same way. Some may like organ music, some like to sing loudly and dance. If God is glorified, and Christ is the focus, I don’t see a problem.

 

[Hegesippus]

I don’t k now where scripture warns of people interpreting the Bible, but I see a TON of warnings against false teachers

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

2Peter 1:20

 

[RobNY]

roadrunner570:

I don’t k now where scripture warns of people interpreting the Bible, but I see a TON of warnings against false teachers

This is probably a reference to 2 Peter 1:20 which states that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation.

**

The only Catholics reading scripture were priests and scholars who could read Greek or Latin. It may have been a two-way street which doens’t make it right. The original question was how could we follow such a man, that question would work both ways.

**
You act as if people were as ignorant of Latin as they are now. Latin was the lingua franca of Europe for the longest time, so it’s not like it is now. If you could read, you read latin. This is no objection to the language of latin. Futhermore, the Church authorized loads of bibles in various vernacular languages, contrary to popular misconception. In fact, some sixteen or seventeen German bibles alone appeared between 1466-1517. From 1450-1550 some forty Italian bibles, eighteen French editions (with ten before 1520) as well as a hodgepodge assortment of some Russian, Danish, Bohemian, Polish, etc… bibles. English bibles had been produced for long before that of the KJV. (Although the earliest were in Saxon, yes, in the seventh and eighth centuries!!!) This is a common myth that simply must be dropped.

**

**I don’t recall any apostles teaching the purchase of indulgences, purgatory, or anything else like that. I know what teachings I agree with on him by what I see that lines up with scripture. If you look at most protestant denominations, the majority of them have the same basic, core beliefs on the Trinity, salvation, etc. Its mostly in worship practices and preferences where we differ, and I don’t see a problem with that. **

**
Neither do I recall the Church advocating this position. I do recall certain people abusing indulgences, however. As for differences in practices, while many practices are not ‘doctrine,’ they nevertheless fall under the authority granted the Church, i.e., the power to bind and loose, rabbinical terms extending basically to the ability to impose these practices, to retain and forgive sins, these are extensions of the authority granted the Church. If the Church has the authority to do this, then you cannot say you can just ignore them. As for protestant beliefs, if you are looking for what the Apostles taught, they very strongly taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Further, the Fathers of the Church unanimously continued this tradition (as well as the sacrifical nature of the Mass). To me, this is one of the most important beliefs Yet, protestants tend to reject this position, nearly unanimously (except for certain “Anglo-Catholics”).

Actually, its Christ I follow, I don’t follow any church or man. I have various teachers who I prefer, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with every single thing. I honestly don’t believe God made us all the same and intended for us all to worship exactly the same way. Some may like organ music, some like to sing loudly and dance. If God is glorified, and Christ is the focus, I don’t see a problem.

I (try to) follow Christ as well. If you love him, why do you not obey him (to paraphrase Scripture)? Christ instituted a Church and gave it authority, thus, we are compelled to follow his Church, whether we like it or not.

In many Catholic churches, you can hear organ music. I know my Church has a huge organ. In any Catholic church with singing, you can sing as loud as you are able. I encourage it, in fact, please join the choir, we could use it. Dancing? Uh, I have to part here. Dancing focuses you on the dancers. As beautiful as dance may potentially be, it should be outside of the Mass, not in it. The purpose of the Mass is not as a social event, but instead to partake of our Lord and God. It is vertically oriented, so to speak, not horizontally.

God bless,
-Rob

 

[roadrunner570]

I don’t k now where scripture warns of people interpreting the Bible, but I see a TON of warnings against false teachers

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

2Peter 1:20

Okay, so we have one vague scripture…which to say it doesn’t mean a person is not to read it themselves is a bit of a stretch. I always thought it was saying that it is God that interprets prophecy, not men. If you read scripture, you’re not learning it through your own understanding but what the Holy Spirit reveals to you.

Now, about 2 verses after that passage, Peter spends a whole chapter warning against false teachers. Then Jude talks about it in his whole letter.

WIthout absolute truth, any teacher can come in and say “Oh yes, it means this…but don’t you read it, take MY word for it.” and that is extremely dangerous.

 

[roadrunner570]

RobNY:

---

You act as if people were as ignorant of Latin as they are now. Latin was the lingua franca of Europe for the longest time, so it’s not like it is now. If you could read, you read latin. This is no objection to the language of latin. Futhermore, the Church authorized loads of bibles in various vernacular languages, contrary to popular misconception. In fact, some sixteen or seventeen German bibles alone appeared between 1466-1517. From 1450-1550 some forty Italian bibles, eighteen French editions (with ten before 1520) as well as a hodgepodge assortment of some Russian, Danish, Bohemian, Polish, etc… bibles. English bibles had been produced for long before that of the KJV. (Although the earliest were in Saxon, yes, in the seventh and eighth centuries!!!) This is a common myth that simply must be dropped.

---

Neither do I recall the Church advocating this position. I do recall certain people abusing indulgences, however. As for differences in practices, while many practices are not ‘doctrine,’ they nevertheless fall under the authority granted the Church, i.e., the power to bind and loose, rabbinical terms extending basically to the ability to impose these practices, to retain and forgive sins, these are extensions of the authority granted the Church. If the Church has the authority to do this, then you cannot say you can just ignore them. As for protestant beliefs, if you are looking for what the Apostles taught, they very strongly taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Further, the Fathers of the Church unanimously continued this tradition (as well as the sacrifical nature of the Mass). To me, this is one of the most important beliefs Yet, protestants tend to reject this position, nearly unanimously (except for certain “Anglo-Catholics”).

I (try to) follow Christ as well. If you love him, why do you not obey him (to paraphrase Scripture)? Christ instituted a Church and gave it authority, thus, we are compelled to follow his Church, whether we like it or not.

In many Catholic churches, you can hear organ music. I know my Church has a huge organ. In any Catholic church with singing, you can sing as loud as you are able. I encourage it, in fact, please join the choir, we could use it. Dancing? Uh, I have to part here. Dancing focuses you on the dancers. As beautiful as dance may potentially be, it should be outside of the Mass, not in it. The purpose of the Mass is not as a social event, but instead to partake of our Lord and God. It is vertically oriented, so to speak, not horizontally.

God bless,
-Rob

Well, in a nutshell, Jesus said:

Mt 22:37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
Mt 22:38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
Mt 22:39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Mt 22:40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I show my love for Christ by following these two commandments. Scripture shows over and over that Jesus wants us to focus on him, not rules. There is nothing wrong with traditons and rituals, as long as they don’t replace Christ. I put him first in all that I do and spend time with him each day.

 

[mlchance]

roadrunner570:

…Peter spends a whole chapter warning against false teachers.

And a false teacher would be one that tries to:

*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.

Or, someone who makes ahistorical claims, thus bearing false witness. To wit:

roadrunner570:

The only Catholics reading scripture were priests and scholars who could read Greek or Latin.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Augustine]

*Remove books from the canon of scripture,
*regulate other books to an unpaginated appendix,
*alter verses by inserting words to support his personal opinion,
*and teaches his opinion of the Gospel based off of this altered canon.

Paraphrasing St. Francis:
That person is committing spiritual murder but did I follow him, I’d be committing spiritual suicide.

 

[UBERROGO]

"

It is the Church we follow --not it’s members who Christ said would be a mixture of good and bad. As for the persecutions then it is as I have said it----- was a two way street

God bless

Jan

Please clairify, who is the “the Church”? Through my Protestant eyes I see the Church is the members. And from my point of view it was the members (and thusly the Church) who were performing these persecutions.Also I am pretty sure that when called to task, the Pope approved of these indulgences and wouldnt back down from his position of allowing them. This is what spurred Luther into having to follow his conscience and attempt to rightly carry on the true Tradition( or at least what his conscience and knowledge told him was the true Tradtion, I am not going to debate it here.) of the Catholic Faith. Are you really defending the Church that was back then in its persecutions?
It was very decietful of the person who started this thread to call this a ‘hypothetical question’ when it is not a hypothetical question. It was an actual event. For shame! :nope:

 

[angelmessenger]

Hi,

------“I don’t recall any apostles teaching the purchase of indulgences, purgatory, or anything else like that. I know what teachings I agree with on him by what I see that lines up with scripture. If you look at most protestant denominations, the majority of them have the same basic, core beliefs on the Trinity, salvation, etc. Its mostly in worship practices and preferences where we differ, and I don’t see a problem with that.”

I can assure you the references for indulgences and purgatory are in scripture.
It was the Church who gave us the Bible --not the other way round. Self interpretation of scripture has led to many heretical doctrines being proclaimed. Sola scriptura is against scripture and is heresy!

-------“Actually, its Christ I follow, I don’t follow any church or man. I have various teachers who I prefer, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with every single thing.”

You are actually admitting here that your teachers cannot get it right, which is natural seeing as how they have no authority.

God bless

Jan

 

[roadrunner570]

angelmessenger:

Hi,

------“I don’t recall any apostles teaching the purchase of indulgences, purgatory, or anything else like that. I know what teachings I agree with on him by what I see that lines up with scripture. If you look at most protestant denominations, the majority of them have the same basic, core beliefs on the Trinity, salvation, etc. Its mostly in worship practices and preferences where we differ, and I don’t see a problem with that.”

I can assure you the references for indulgences and purgatory are in scripture.
It was the Church who gave us the Bible --not the other way round. Self interpretation of scripture has led to many heretical doctrines being proclaimed. Sola scriptura is against scripture and is heresy!

-------“Actually, its Christ I follow, I don’t follow any church or man. I have various teachers who I prefer, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with every single thing.”

You are actually admitting here that your teachers cannot get it right, which is natural seeing as how they have no authority.

God bless

Jan

Actually, God gave us the Bible, not the Catholic Church. And as I pointed out earlier, the scripture used to go against sola scriptura is a big stretch at best. I can’t believe a person thinks it is heresy for a follower of Christ to study God’s word for themselves.

As far as saying teachers not getting it right, I"m saying that any teacher is human and subject to error. I see no place in any part of the Bible giving one man authority over all believers. Christ is the head of the church.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Peace be with you!

roadrunner570:

Actually, God gave us the Bible, not the Catholic Church. And as I pointed out earlier, the scripture used to go against sola scriptura is a big stretch at best. I can’t believe a person thinks it is heresy for a follower of Christ to study God’s word for themselves.
**God inspired the writers of the Bible, He did not give it to us. Are you aware that at the time the canon of Scipture was finalized there were over 200 pieces of writings that all claimed to have apostolic origin? Take the Gospel of Thomas, for example, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, two Gnostic “gospels”. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus kills a boy. In the other, he tells Peter that he will make Mary into a man so that she can enter heaven.
No one is saying that it is heresy to study Scripture. Catholics read the Bible all the time. What everyone is saying is that you can’t INTERPRET the entire Bible for yourself because that is placing yourself as the sole authority on what God’s Word is. And as was pointed out earlier, we see how well that works in Protestantism’s 33,000+ denominations.
**
As far as saying teachers not getting it right, I"m saying that any teacher is human and subject to error. I see no place in any part of the Bible giving one man authority over all believers. Christ is the head of the church.
I see two specific places. Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 21:15-17.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Road, do you even realize that when Luther put up his theses, Gutenberg’s printing press was only about 50 YEARS OLD?

When you talk about Catholics “not reading the Bible”, were you thinking that then, like now, Bibles were easily available, the majority of the population in Europe was LITERATE, and that somehow those wicked old priests were keeping the Catholics down while the enlightened protestant ministers were administering the KJB to THEIR flocks daily?

If so, you need a good refresher course in history.

If not, then why on EARTH would you make the assertions you do?

If the Bible was (and it was) rare BECAUSE there were FEW people who could READ it, a very NEW technology just coming in to make it available to those readers at a more affordable cost, and this was not just the case for poor old Catholics, but was the norm for ALL Christians (who happened at that time in Europe to be all CATHOLIC Christians).

It was NOT a case of bigoted clerics attempting to keep Catholics from learning the “real deal” like the Protestants.

Do you know that Protestant literacy was no greater than Catholic literacy? Oh, sure, by the 18th century when both the Reformation and counter-reformation had occurred, and there was a “status quo” so to speak, there might (MIGHT) have been more Protestant families per capita with a Bible in the home. BUT. . .would most, or even any, in the family have been capable of READING it just because it was there in their “own language”? No, the literacy rate for people in Europe and the New World in the 18th century was still abysmal. Not having a Bible to read when one cannot read, or HAVING a Bible to read when one cannot read. . .umm, there is not much difference, is there? One still CANNOT READ IT. It might as well not be there–unless of course it is a sort of status symbol or simply a SYMBOL of the faith. You know, here is my bible, that shows I am a good Christian because I have a bible. (Not that I am NOT saying that the person might not indeed be a perfectly good Christian, but he is certainly not a good Christian because he has an unread Bible in his home, but he would be one if he did as Christ commanded. The Bible might be a symbol for him to remember, “Hey, I’m a Christian, I will remember to act in a Christ like way today to those I meet”. . .but that is rather like statues of saints, holy cards, rosaries and sacramentals that Catholics have, to help remind them to act in a Christ like way. )

And, of course, while reading the bible is a great thing for us all to do, we can’t just skim through Exodus 9, for example, sigh, “well, I’ve read my bible” and then proceed to go out and beat our wife, steal from the company. . .or even just sit back complacently thinking, “what a great guy I am”. Right?

 

[roadrunner570]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

In Christ,
Rand

God inspired men to write his word, but they wrote what he led them to write. God also saw to it that his word has been preserved through the ages. Do you honestly think that books would or wouldn’t make it into the Bible that God didn’t want there?

And to read and interpret scripture is not claiming sole authority over God’s word, that is for the Holy Spirit. And yes, I’m well aware of the catholics interpretation of Matt 16:18.

And the 33,000 denominations is a gross exaggeration. There are few major denominations, and several spinoffs of those main ones. And I addressed this issue earlier.