Protestants: What are the "Basics" that all Non-Catholic Christians agree on? And who determines what the "basics" are?

[PRmerger]

No certainly not, but the problem comes when one has to decide who, since the end of the Apostolic Age is a credible source for those extra-Biblical writings. For example, do Catholics have any faith in the extra-Biblical writings of Ellen G. White - I"m guessing not.

To the degree that Ellen G. White’s writings are consonant with the Faith given, once for all, to the Apostles, Catholics give a hearty

Now, I am certain that you do not consider Ellen’s writings to be* theopneustos. *

Why not?

Because they’re not in the Bible.

And who decided what belongs in the Bible?

Well… (you know what’s coming!)

the Catholic Church.

So even if EGW’s writings had been around in the first few centuries, the ONLY way you’d know that you could consider them to be inspired would be if ANOTHER authority told you it was.

You wouldn’t be able to discern, of your own authority, that it was, right?

 

[PRmerger]

“A History of the English Speaking Peoples”, by (the late) Sir Winston Churchill is not in the Scriptures either, but it never occured to me to wonder whether or not it was inspired.

But you’ll still have to answer the question: how do you know what belongs “in the Scriptures”?

You have to have some better reason than this, A) “I know it’s in the Bible because it’s inspired” or B) "I know it’s inspired because it’s in the Bible."

You’re saying that since Churchill’s writings aren’t in the Bible, they’re not inspired, and are thus using reason “B”.

However, the above in bold is simply a circular argument.

You’ll have to tell us how you know something belongs in the Bible.

And there is NO OTHER WAY, Protector, except that the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

 

[PRmerger]

Seriously though PR, in the sacrament of baptism, do we not all receive the indwelling Holy Spirit,

Indeed!

and does He not guide us in all of our honest endeavors, our religious studies and our walk with Christ

.
Truly. However, no one can deny that the Evil One also attempts to misguide and deceive. How do we discern what’s of God and what’s not? Are not lies mixed with a bit of the truth?

This is what I believe PR so my acceptance of a particular book in the Scriptures is not dependent upon an imprimatur from the Catholic Church.

Then, Protector, you’ll have to share what it is dependent upon.

[SIGN1]How is it that you know that the letter to the Hebrews is inspired? [/SIGN1]

You’re stating it’s not from the authority of the Catholic Church.

Ok.

Then what method do you use to discern if it’s* theopneustos*?

You’ll have to be able to explain a criterion that allows for inclusion of all the books in the NT that also excludes all the other 400 or so other early Christian texts.

 

[PRmerger]

Again I say, certainly not!

Then you’ll have to explain where the CC erred in discerning the NT. Do you think she erred in proclaiming Revelation inspired? Or do you think she should have included the Didache in the canon?

Where did she err?

For example, take the Sabbath question:-

“The Catholic Church,… by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

Yes, she changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, the Lord’s day.

We just don’t keep the Sabbath, just like we don’t keep kosher, and just like we don’t keep all the other 600 plus OT injunctions (and neither do you, I daresay!)

Those statements are pretty old I’ll grant you, but then the Commandment is much older.

What about the other 600 plus OT injunctions. Why do you not keep those?

Do you keep a gate around your roof, as in commanded in Deuteronomy?

When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thy house, if any man fall from thence. Deuteronomy 22:8

I have read the Letter of Clement (of Rome?), and apart from the fact that it is ONLY attributed to him, the subject matter (the sedition within the Church at Corinth) would seem to be written after the style of the Pauline epistles.He makes an interesting mention of the martyrdom of SS Peter and Paul.

Protector.

And by what criterion, then, do you say that it’s not inspired?

 

[PRmerger]

So, Protector, as a follow up on my previous questions I would like you to consider these things:

If you are still wanting to proclaim that it is NOT through the authority of the Catholic Church that you know that the NT is inspired…

What criterion do you use to discern what’s inspired? And you’ll have to cite the Bible verse that tells you how to discern if something is inspired. (Otherwise, you’re using something OTHER than the Bible as your criterion.)

And, how do you know that the particular bible verse is inspired??? Who told you that? Yes, “all Scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching” but you still have to have a starting point for discerning whether something IS Scripture, right?

If your criterion is: the NT books have to have been written by an apostle, or a witness to the ministry of Christ (Bible verse, please, to show that this must be a criterion), **THEN, how do you claim that Hebrews is inspired? ** Who wrote Hebrews? And if you don’t know, then how do you know that the author was even around to see Jesus’ ministry. And THEN you’ll have to claim that the Protoevangelium of James is inspired because it was written by the “brother” of the Lord.

If your criterion is: the NT book must mention Jesus (Bible verse, please, to show that this must be a criterion), THEN how do you claim that 3 John is inspired--because it doesn’t mention Christ in a single verse! And THEN you’ll have to conclude that the Apocalypse of Peter is inspired, because it does mention Jesus.

If your criterion is: it must fulfill a prophecy of the OT (Bible verse, please, to show that it must be a criterion),** THEN how do you claim that Philemon is inspired-**-what OT prophecy does it mention? AND you’ll have to conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is inspired because it mentions several OT prophecies.

 

[Nicea325]

Interesting to consider what Pilate thought when Jesus answered him in Latin (if in fact Jesus did–let’s just go with this scenario for the sake of the discussion )

Did a little voice speak in the mind of Pilate that said, “How does this itinerant, poor Jew know my language? Maybe this guy is indeed the Jewish God’s anointed. Otherwise, how does he know this esoteric knowledge of my language?”

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:

Protector:

For example, take the Sabbath question:-

“The Catholic Church,… by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.

That is right! Who was given the authority to add the NT with the OT in order to give us a one volume Bible? The Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Do you also keep and follow all the other OT laws an practices? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Protector]

Nicea325;8873630
That is right! Who was given the authority to add the NT with the OT in order to give us a one volume Bible? The Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ. Do you also keep and follow all the other OT laws an practices? I seriously doubt it.

Hi Nicea (and PR) - not in the mood for answering questions at the moment - a dear friend died early this morning. I will endeavour to answer all of them in time. Thanks!

Protector.

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea (and PR) - not in the mood for answering questions at the moment - a dear friend died early this morning. I will endeavour to answer all of them in time. Thanks!

Protector.

Sorry to hear. Take your time…God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Nicea (and PR) - not in the mood for answering questions at the moment - a dear friend died early this morning. I will endeavour to answer all of them in time. Thanks!

Protector.

Prayers going up right now, Protector. May he have eternal rest and may perpetual light shine upon him.

 

[couponfit]

Never say “all” when it comes to Protestants. There are always exceptions, always.

That being said, most Protestants agree, along with Catholics, on the "Five Fundamentals of the Christian Faith, which are:

1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. Virgin birth and Deity of Jesus Christ
3. Substitutionary Atonement by God’s Grace through faith.
4. Bodily Resurrection of Jesus
5. Authenticity of the Miracles of Jesus, OR The Second Coming of Jesus (depends on which denomination–Catholics believe in both, and most but not all Protestant, denominations believe in both, but some only believe in one of these).

The Five Fundamentals of the Christian Faith were hammered out in the early 20th Century in response to modernist/liberal teachings that were creeping into the churches. When you hear the term “fundamentalist,” this is what they are referring to.

Hope this helps.

Solo Scriptura
Solo Fide
Solo Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria

 

[Michel2]

The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament through the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic teachings aren’t “based” on the Bible because the Catholic Church proceeded the New Testament, but there is not a single Catholic teaching that contradicts the Bible.

Beautifully stated
Michel

 

[JonNC]

Solo Scriptura
Solo Fide
Solo Christus
Sola Gratia
Soli Deo Gloria

There are some Anglicans and Methodists who do not claim sola scriptura. My experience as a Lutheran is Sola Deo Gloria seems to garner little attention amongst us.

Thats said, Cat’s list seems closer to “basics”.

Jon