Protestants: Is the Bible true because someone repents after reading it?

[CopticChristian]

Now I remember.

As far as the “How many books are in the Bible debate”

The last time I opened up the subject for consideration I decided the right question to ask was “What did Jesus use?” I was hoping this would be a straightforward question but from my quick glance at the issue it seemed to be anything but. I remember of reading 1 source that claimed Jesus would have used both. And of course there was the usual spin.

It seems to me that without this “what did Jesus use” question settled and agreed upon, that you really do not have any kind of baseline to work from. It then seemed to devolve into an issue of what metric do you use, which to me seemed to be an exercise in subjectivity.

And then I lost interest. Or maybe I lost patience. But I did make a “note to self” to ask Edwin this question if I ever saw him on one of these “How many books does the Bible have” debates. But I have not gotten to ask him that yet.

That would be another question within this question. This would be a question concerning the Old Testament however as far as I know, unless you are a Jew that is able to speak from prior to the destruction of the temple, Rabinnical Jew, Samaritan that live today and of course the Ethiopian Jews that still use the Septuagint, it would be another thread.

 

[CopticChristian]

Nooooo!

I will not let this thread devolve into a “How many books are in the Bible” debate.

I started this thread with the specific intent of trying to figure out how non-Catholics, who are recusant to the authority of anything except the Bible in theological matters, know that the Bible is inspired.

How do you know that Titus is inspired and the Shepherd of Hermas is not?

So far your answer, by the transitive property, is: I don’t know.

Another person’s was: by the burning in my bosom and because it made me repentant.

Any other non-Catholics care to offer something?

It would appear that we are in agreement. I could not help but notice that with 1300 posts I am a new member and my friend Amateur Pianist with less than a 1000 posts is a regular member. Do amateur musicians get preference in this status?

 

[AmateurPianist]

non-Catholics, who are recusant to the authority of anything except the Bible in theological matters

That is kind of overstating it. At least for me.

Since you do not want this to be a “how many books are in the Bible thread”

On the 66 books that everybody believes (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) agrees is canonical I will gladly submit to the authority of the universal church that which agrees and has agreed from the beginning are the word of God.

I will leave it to another thread concerning those books that the three major branches of Christianity disagree on (66 versus 73 versus 81).

 

[PRmerger]

It would appear that we are in agreement. I could not help but notice that with 1300 posts I am a new member and my friend Amateur Pianist with less than a 1000 posts is a regular member. Do amateur musicians get preference in this status?

Heh. I think it has to do with start date, as well as how many posts you make that determines your status.

 

[PRmerger]

That is kind of overstating it. At least for me.

Since you do not want this to be a “how many books are in the Bible thread”

On the 66 books that everybody believes (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) agrees is canonical I will gladly submit to the authority of the universal church that which agrees and has agreed from the beginning are the word of God.

Excellent.

So you agree that Sacred Tradition–at least as far as discerning the canon of Scripture–has some authority for you.

And as far as this “universal church” that you submit to, at least as far as discerning what is theopneustos,–do you agree that it contained bishops? Was it not bishops in this universal church that discerned the canon of Scripture?

 

[gerhardc]

So, Yes, Gerhard:
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what fruits of Christ you were referring to apart from his Church.
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what excellence you were judging the Church with apart from Catholic saints like Mr. Teresa.
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) where you derive sola-scriptura in the Bible (book, chapter and verse)
-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what rule you use to select amongst authoritative statements of the Church given with equal language of authority.

If you have answered any of these, quote the specific sections where you’ve given the answers- Don’t just point to “posts” before that you know answer NONE of these questions. Anyone can say refer to post # this- I’m asking for answers! If you’ve given them- produce them.

Peace!

-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what fruits of Christ you were referring to apart from his Church.

Not sure I’m getting what you are after but here are the primary reasons why Christ came.
“ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,[j]
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.” (Luke 418-19)
Nevertheless, as pointed out on a number of occasions already, your definition of ‘church’ and mine is not the same thing. You believe church is an organization, governed by specially appointed men, that has received authority of God to create rules, codes and interpretations. I do not believe that. I believe it is a body of true believers, submitted to Christ in faith and works to back it up that can be found in many different organizations reflected I, for instance, the Presbyterian movement, the Catholic movement the Orthodox movement, the Charismatic movement, etc. etc.
In my opinion you stumble over the idea that there is “one church” and define it according tradition and your version of Scriptural interpretation. You think that because the Bible says there is only one church, it refers to an organization of some sort. I deny that and affirm that “church” means a body of true believers that bear Christ’s fruit, guided by the Holy Spirit and kept in line by elders.
That is as much as I will discuss that particular topic. If you want to revisit it over and over again, you may do so. I see your view. You seem not to see mine.

-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what excellence you were judging the Church with apart from Catholic saints like Mr. Teresa.

The point was made that while good things have been done in the RCC (like most other “churches”), evil things have also been allowed in the RCC.

"But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them." Next you will likely ask me to give examples of fornicators and the like, … I will not do that here but I will ask you to speak to sexual abuse victom’s support groups and ask around how many were there as a result of ‘representatives of God’. A previous answer suggested that these ,men were found guilty and now sit in prison. No, not all.

-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) where you derive sola-scriptura in the Bible (book, chapter and verse)

Sola Scripture is not true for me because someone suggested it centuries ago. It is true for me because I am experiencing it.

-It’s still unclear (and missing entirely) what rule you use to select amongst authoritative statements of the Church given with equal language of authority.

I have no idea what you are saying here Mary! 

If you have answered any of these, quote the specific sections where you’ve given the answers- Don’t just point to “posts” before that you know answer NONE of these questions. Anyone can say refer to post # this- I’m asking for answers! If you’ve given them- produce them.

It’s getting a little tedious, Mary, to continue to bow to your insistence to get priority in being answered for the multiple leading questions you usually have.**

 

[gerhardc]

Fair enough.
I am asking how you know that Philemon, 3 John, Titus (or any books of the NT) are inspired?

You know it by faith. This is a silly question, really. Sorry to say. If you *believe *the Holy Spirit inspired accurate accounts of Jesus and His Kingdom, and if you *believe *the Holy Spirit inspired the canonization of these writings, then how is the above question relevant? **Believing **does not require proof.

Another person’s was: by the burning in my bosom and because it made me repentant.

*"Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” *(John 3:3)

PR, I take some time to reflect on what Jesus says about the need to be born of the Spirit of God, or “Born again” and how that has affected my life, and you equate that to ‘a burning of the bosom’ following repentance. Troubling.

“But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (1 Corinthians 14:28). Good night on this topic.

 

[Marybeloved]

Gerhard, Please stop pretending to be “slow” and state plainly if you have no answers!

You purported to say that Jesus’ claims could be believed because he bore good fruit, but not the Church, which you said bore bad fruit! I ask a simple question (for the third time, now) Which fruit do you credit to Jesus apart from the Church he founded? Simple! Tell me Jesus’ good fruit apart from the Church that rose from the upper-room- Do not pretend to give lessons on why the messiah was born- Answer the Questions that followed from your attempt to contrast Jesus’ fruit from the Church’s.

Tell us which verses in the Bible teach Sola-scriptura!

Tell us which method you use to choose between different proclamations of the same authority!

And don’t Pretend not to understand- Your last 20+ posts proves you are very intelligent and have great English, so just answer the questions or say if you have no answers!

PS-My questions are not “leading”- They are the direct results of your previous assertions. And what is “tedious” is asking questions repeatedly to an intelligent person who refuses to answer simple, clear and direct questions.

Peace!

 

[PRmerger]

You know it by faith. This is a silly question, really. Sorry to say.

Ah. So this is, in the end, what every non-Catholic finally admits in a discussion like this.

The argument proposed *ad fundum *is: “I know something is Scripture because it’s self evident. My faith tells me so.”

Or the variant, “I know Scripture because it’s inspired. My faith tells me so.”

Both equally absurd.

If you *believe *the Holy Spirit inspired accurate accounts of Jesus and His Kingdom, and if you *believe *the Holy Spirit inspired the canonization of these writings, then how is the above question relevant? **Believing **does not require proof.

NOW you’re talking, gerhard! What you propose above is exactly the Catholic paradigm!

And if the Holy Spirit inspired the canonization of these writings, then He did so infallibly. And the bishops utilized this gift. (Unless, of course, one wants to propose that the bishops erred in discerning the canon.)

So now we logically can reason that there is such a thing as the concept of infallibility among the Church leaders.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, I take some time to reflect on what Jesus says about the need to be born of the Spirit of God, or “Born again” and how that has affected my life, and you equate that to ‘a burning of the bosom’ following repentance. Troubling.

I fail to see how making a summary of your argument to be “a burning in my bosom tells me something is inspired” is troubling and offensive to you.

Actually, I can see how it’s troubling–you see how it sounds now when you read it on your computer. It does indeed seem to be a curious way to discern what’s inspired or not.

But why it’s offensive to you, when it’s *your *paradigm, is puzzling.

“But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.” (1 Corinthians 14:28). Good night on this topic.

I am sorry to see you leave this topic, but I think it’s been made rather clear to you that you are arguing a nonsensical argument. And that is why you are leaving.

Would that you were able to acknowledge this. :sad_yes:

 

[Good_Fella]

Many people have read the Bible out of academic interest and have experienced nothing spiritually, including conversion. But that doesn’t mean the Bible is untrue.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[PRmerger]

then, one day, when I least expected it and when I certainly did not want it, someone preached a sermon from the Bible which convinced me that Jesus was really the Son of God and that He really came so that I, a Gentile, may know Him. What happened to me at that moment was something I had been oblivious to previously. The word of God** pierced right into my heart**. Only it can do that: Hebrews 4:7 - “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

You know it by faith. This is a silly question, really. Sorry to say.

These 2 comments prompt these questions:

If someone discerns, by faith, that the Odes of Solomon are inspired, does that make it so? May he proclaim that he knows it “by faith” and that makes it inspired?

If someone reads the Gospel of Thomas and says reading it “pierced right into my heart”, does that make it inspired?

Conversely, if someone reads Revelation, and is left feeling puzzled, bemused and confused–and most definitely NOT “pierced by the heart” does that make it then NOT inspired?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Excellent.

So you agree that Sacred Tradition–at least as far as discerning the canon of Scripture–has some authority for you.

And as far as this “universal church” that you submit to, at least as far as discerning what is theopneustos,–do you agree that it contained bishops? Was it not bishops in this universal church that discerned the canon of Scripture?

Hmm…the phrase “Sacred Tradition” is not in my personal “normally used Lexicon”.

I just look at it as a case of 'if everybody agrees at least on the 66 and have since the beginning, then that is good enough for me. If that is what you call Sacred Tradition then I am good.

At some point human beings had to come to some agreement that “yes Hebrews is in but Clement is out”. That is unless some God breathed document that gives instructions in this matter exists. If the folks that did this were called “bishops” (and probably at least some were) then I am also good.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm…the phrase “Sacred Tradition” is not in my personal “normally used Lexicon”.

So you don’t have a word for “that which the Holy Spirit inspired that is external to Scripture.” I’m okay with that.

What you call it doesn’t matter. You believe in it.

And that’s huge.

I just look at it as a case of 'if everybody agrees at least on the 66 and have since the beginning, then that is good enough for me. If that is what you call Sacred Tradition then I am good.

At some point human beings had to come to some agreement that “yes Hebrews is in but Clement is out”. That is unless some God breathed document that gives instructions in this matter exists. If the folks that did this were called “bishops” (and probably at least some were) then I am also good.

And this, too, is huge.

What you acknowledge is that bishops were given a sacred authority to transmit God’s plan for salvation. And it should give you pause that *your *church does not recognize bishops as having any kind of sacred authority.

What you also must now acknowledge is that there exists the entity of infallibility in the Church. Men who were infallible–at least, in your estimation, as it pertains to discerning the canon of Scripture. *Men who were infallible on multiple occasions. *(Council of Rome in 382, Council of Hippo in 393, the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, Second Council of Nicea in 787, Council of Florence 1442 and finally, the Council of Trent in 1546. (Unless you want to claim that these Catholic councils erred at some point and included some books which should have been removed and vice versa.)

Also, what you then must acknowledge with the comment above is that Scripture is not the only vehicle of God’s Revelation.

While the above acknowledgements may not make you Catholic, they definitely must make you review your AOG affiliation.

 

[pablope]

Hmm…the phrase “Sacred Tradition” is not in my personal “normally used Lexicon”.

I just look at it as a case of 'if everybody agrees at least on the 66 and have since the beginning, then that is good enough for me. If that is what you call Sacred Tradition then I am good.

 

[AmateurPianist]

What you also must now acknowledge is that there exists the entity of infallibility in the Church. Men who were infallible–at least, in your estimation, as it pertains to discerning the canon of Scripture. *Men who were infallible on multiple occasions. *(Council of Rome in 382, Council of Hippo in 393, the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, Second Council of Nicea in 787, Council of Florence 1442 and finally, the Council of Trent in 1546. (Unless you want to claim that these Catholic councils erred at some point and included some books which should have been removed and vice versa.)

Hmm…infallability if I understand it correctly is “incapable of being wrong”.

Which is different from “being 100% correct”. Or even being 100% correct repeatedly.

I might get 100% on 10 straight math tests but that doesn’t mean I am incapable of being incorrect in math. Who knows on the next math test I might miss an answer and get only as 99%.

Also to me "incapable of being wrong implies some sort of repeatable process that if followed will always yield the correct results (like a bug free computer program run on hardware that is defect free). So the Catholic church uses word correctly in that it identifies a process that if followed will be incapable of being incorrect.

So when there are instances where we agree the church was “100% correct” in discerning a particular issue I don’t see it necessarily as infallability. Infallability requires a repeatable process that is guaranteed to provide the correct results every time.

Also, what you then must acknowledge with the comment above is that Scripture is not the only vehicle of God’s Revelation.

Yes and…

Although I would say it is the norm…although I do not want to argue the point.

While the above acknowledgements may not make you Catholic, they definitely must make you review your AOG affiliation.

I dunno whether I have said anything that “heretical” per AOG belief here. If I am “heretical” it is in regards to certain “distinctives” that are not that relevant here. But i’ve talked those over and since my current church is not hard-core we are good.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hmm…infallability if I understand it correctly is “incapable of being wrong”.Which is different from “being 100% correct”. Or even being 100% correct repeatedly.

I might get 100% on 10 straight math tests but that doesn’t mean I am incapable of being incorrect in math. Who knows on the next math test I might miss an answer and get only as 99%.

Also to me "incapable of being wrong implies some sort of repeatable process that if followed will always yield the correct results (like a bug free computer program run on hardware that is defect free). So the Catholic church uses word correctly in that it identifies a process that if followed will be incapable of being incorrect.

So when there are instances where we agree the church was “100% correct” in discerning a particular issue I don’t see it necessarily as infallability. Infallability requires a repeatable process that is guaranteed to provide the correct results every time.

Yes and…

Although I would say it is the norm…although I do not want to argue the point.

I dunno whether I have said anything that “heretical” per AOG belief here. If I am “heretical” it is in regards to certain “distinctives” that are not that relevant here. But i’ve talked those over and since my current church is not hard-core we are good.

Protestants claim the “infallibility of Scripture” and yet there are fallible interpretations as you would agree. In the Protestant world there is no infallible interpretation by any Protestant rendering the infallble entity undecipherable. It is like not having the “code”. If you can accept the “infalliblity of Scripture” and if you can accept that Christ is Lord, His body is the Church, The mystery hidden for all ages through which it is what God wants us to know, the Church is nothing more than the conduit of the infallbility of God. Not so hard to imagine.

If you were going to set up a Kingdom, we have experience with earthly Kings, would you not set up some sort of method to be sure the subjects got the “infallible” messages, in consideration that Protestants have rendered the notion of “church” to other than the mystery through which all fallilble messages flow.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm…infallability if I understand it correctly is “incapable of being wrong”.

Yes.

Which is different from “being 100% correct”.

Ok.

Or even being 100% correct repeatedly.

Now here’s where you’re incorrect. (And therefore NOT infallible on this concept.)

If you’re 100% correct repeatedly, then that makes you infallible, at least as it pertains to this one concept that you have never been wrong on.

So, in the case of the canon of Scripture, if they were 100% correct at the Council of Rome, and 100% correct at the council of Hippo and 100% etc etc etc…then you must agree that the Church has been infallible, at least on this concept.

I might get 100% on 10 straight math tests but that doesn’t mean I am incapable of being incorrect in math. Who knows on the next math test I might miss an answer and get only as 99%.

But you were infallible on the first 10, no?

Also to me "incapable of being wrong implies some sort of repeatable process that if followed will always yield the correct results (like a bug free computer program run on hardware that is defect free). So the Catholic church uses word correctly in that it identifies a process that if followed will be incapable of being incorrect.

Right.

So when there are instances where we agree the church was “100% correct” in discerning a particular issue I don’t see it necessarily as infallability.

Fair enough. But, as I’ve shown, it’s been on numerous “tests” that she scored 100%, so she meets the criterion for infallibility.

Infallability requires a repeatable process that is guaranteed to provide the correct results every time.

Correct. And at each and every council the Church affirmed her “correctness”, no?

I dunno whether I have said anything that “heretical” per AOG belief here. If I am “heretical” it is in regards to certain “distinctives” that are not that relevant here. But i’ve talked those over and since my current church is not hard-core we are good.

Your AOG pastor is okay with your acknowledging that you proclaim you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church (or, as you put it, the universal church–that had priests and bishops, which your church doesn’t have) at least in one area?

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm…infallability if I understand it correctly is “incapable of being wrong”.

Which is different from “being 100% correct”. Or even being 100% correct repeatedly.

This prompts an interesting question: how is it that you believe that the Scriptures are infallible, that is, incapable of being wrong, but not 100% correct?

 

[AmateurPianist]

Now here’s where you’re incorrect. (And therefore NOT infallible on this concept.)

If you’re 100% correct repeatedly, then that makes you infallible, at least as it pertains to this one concept that you have never been wrong on.

So, in the case of the canon of Scripture, if they were 100% correct at the Council of Rome, and 100% correct at the council of Hippo and 100% etc etc etc…then you must agree that the Church has been infallible, at least on this concept.

But you were infallible on the first 10, no?

Fair enough. But, as I’ve shown, it’s been on numerous “tests” that she scored 100%, so she meets the criterion for infallibility.

Correct. And at each and every council the Church affirmed her “correctness”, no?

Here is where we disagree and I still think I am correct although I am certainly not infallible.

Back to math test example. What does it mean to be infallible with respect to math tests.

Well the repeatable process is “Whenever I take a math test”? and the result it is impossible for me to be incorrect.

Let us say I have taken 10 math tests so far and I have scored 100% on each math test. For me to be infallible in taking math tests, it must a certainty that every future math test I take for the rest of my life will be 100% correct. If there is any possibility that the next test I take can have an error in it, then I am not infallible with respect to taking math tests.

Since I am a human being and subject to error as much as the next human being, you can not be certain that the next 100 math tests I take will be error free just on the basis that my first 10 were. Because it is possible that my 11th will contan an error.

Your AOG pastor is okay with your acknowledging that you proclaim you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church (or, as you put it, the universal church–that had priests and bishops, which your church doesn’t have) at least in one area?

Well the alternative would be that I get to decide for myself what my personal canon would be. I don’t that is a good idea and I don’t think my pastor would.

Instead my I am just submitting to the same NT canon that my church uses. And my church uses the same NT canon that everybody else uses. And everybody else has been using that same canon for a very long time…in fact back to the point where somebody or some group of individuals had to decide that Hebrews was in and 1 Clement was out.

I don’t see whereas this should be controversial at all. It is a matter of the historical record after all. Unless there is some document that fell from the hand of God that gave specific directions to include Hebrews but not 1 Clement. But I have not read where such a document exists, but who knows.