Protestants, why?

[joe370]

That’s a good point. I have a computer program that has the Didache but it is listed under “Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries.” I think the date and authors of it are disputed.

One reason I asked is because I have Muslim friends and Muslims are taught that the Christians changed and corrupted the teaching of the apostles so God sent Mohammad to deliver the Quran to correct everything. That’s a big reason why I have to read the ECFs to see if there is consistent teaching.

One thing that struck me as odd, long ago, was how quickly the 16th century practice of sola scriptura divided non-catholic Christianity. Can you imagine how divided Christianity would be today if Jesus (2000 years ago as opposed to 500…) had told the apostles to simply hand out bibles to Christians for them to interpret themselves?

 

[joe370]

Yet, even if they did, it is all but certain that there would be splinter groups and factions based on interpretation of the written accounts.

Very good point, and that is exactly what happened as early as the 2nd century AD, which was, no doubt, why Jesus promised to send the Paraclete to guide His church into all truth until the end of time.

 

[Nicea325]

If we needed to know more than the Bible for salvation, the Bible wouldn’t say “Do not go beyond what is written.” The fact that it says not to go beyond what is written implies that everything necessary for salvation was included.

How do you interpret, “Do not go beyond what is written.”?

Where does the Bible explicitly teach everything necessary for salvation is within the pages of the Bible? Where does Jesus teach the same principle?

The Bible reads:

Do not go beyond what is written

Okay? How does it equate into the Bible-only?

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by XianThinker
When I asked about traditional Protestant denominations like Lutherans I was told that Lutherans are more Catholic than Christian.

That’s an interesting claim, one which I have never heard from the mouth of a Lutheran. That said, there is no denying that we hold many of the same fundamental truths.

Even though the statement related by Xian is a non-sequitor, since Catholics are Christians, the thought isn’t far off the mark. From the Conclusion of the Augsburg Confession:

Only those things have been recounted whereof we thought that it was necessary to speak, in order that it might be understood that in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. For it is manifest that we have taken most diligent care that no new and ungodly doctrine should creep into our churches.

Many well catechized Lutherans, including myself, will tell you they relate more strongly to the catholicity of Lutheranism, than they do to other protestantism, including if you will, the non-dedominational variety here in America.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

1. “Do not go beyond what is written. (1Cor 4:6, NIV)" Whatever the apostles taught orally that was important and necessary for us to know must have been included in the Bible because we are not to go beyond what is written.

And yet we have an example in Scripture of the Apostles following the exact OPPOSITE of your paradigm.

In Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem was called, how was it that the Apostles discerned the will of God regarding the Judaizers?

Answer: they went beyond what was written.

For if they had gone all Sola Scriptura on the Church they would have concluded, based on Scripture alone, that all Christians needed to be circumcised. They would have based their doctrine on Genesis 17:9-14 which declared that to be in God’s covenant one needed to be circumcised.

But they didn’t. They used Sacred Tradition to come up with their answer that contradicted the Judaizers, who were the Sola Scriptura advocates of the early Church.

Clearly, “do not go beyond what is written” does not mean, to quote from The Princess Bride again, what you think it means.

 

[andrewstx]

If one reaaly considers the history fo the matter, everyone in the 1st century “searching the scriptures to see it it is true” is revisionist history.

Most people at the time were illiterate. The printing press would not exist for over a millenium, and all books were written by hand and extremely exspensive.

The author of 2nd Timothy was talking about the OT exclusively, since the NT was still far in the future.

 

[Radical]

And yet we have an example in Scripture of the Apostles following the exact OPPOSITE of your paradigm.

In Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem was called, how was it that the Apostles discerned the will of God regarding the Judaizers?

… They used Sacred Tradition to come up with their answer that contradicted the Judaizers, who were the Sola Scriptura advocates of the early Church.

well, let’s no go beyond what is written in Acts 15 and claim that Sacred Tradition was involved in any way…Sacred Tradition is not mentioned at all.

the question was: should the Gentiles be required to obey the law of Moses including circumcism?

the group referred to evidence;

a) God showed that he accepted the Gentiles by providing the HS to them (this from Peter);

b) the church believed in salvation through the grace of Jesus (a thing recorded in scripture) and not by obedience to the law.

c) God worked miracles among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas

then James rendered a judgement.

Now let’s say that we used that as a precedent to answer this question: should the Protestants be required to obey the magisterium of the CC including the Pope?

we would refer to evidence;

a) God has shown that he accepted the Protestants by providing the HS to them ;

b) the church believed in salvation through the grace of Jesus (a thing recorded in scripture) and not by obedience to a hierarchy (such a requirement for salvation is not mentioned in scripture).

c) God has worked miracles among the Protestants (more so than among the Catholics if we accept the evidence of the Charismatics).

and the correct judgment is…

 

[Radical]

If one reaaly considers the history fo the matter, everyone in the 1st century “searching the scriptures to see it it is true” is revisionist history.

but when the Bereans did exactly that, it was declared noble…so let’s follow the example of the more noble and not that of the less noble.

 

[Porknpie]

but there is more to consider

 

[joe370]

And yet we have an example in Scripture of the Apostles following the exact OPPOSITE of your paradigm.

In Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem was called, how was it that the Apostles discerned the will of God regarding the Judaizers?

Answer: they went beyond what was written.

For if they had gone all Sola Scriptura on the Church they would have concluded, based on Scripture alone, that all Christians needed to be circumcised. They would have based their doctrine on Genesis 17:9-14 which declared that to be in God’s covenant one needed to be circumcised.

But they didn’t. They used Sacred Tradition to come up with their answer that contradicted the Judaizers, who were the Sola Scriptura advocates of the early Church.

Clearly, “do not go beyond what is written” does not mean, to quote from The Princess Bride again, what you think it means.

 

[PRmerger]

well, let’s no go beyond what is written in Acts 15 and claim that Sacred Tradition was involved in any way…Sacred Tradition is not mentioned at all.

the question was: should the Gentiles be required to obey the law of Moses including circumcism?

Right.

And if they followed the Sola Scriptura paradigm, then what they would have concluded is, “All Christians must be circumcised!”

the group referred to evidence;

Yep. That’s what’s called Sacred Tradition.

a) God showed that he accepted the Gentiles by providing the HS to them (this from Peter);

Yes. That’s Sacred Tradition.

Clearly not Sola Scriptura.

b) the church believed in salvation through the grace of Jesus (a thing recorded in scripture) and not by obedience to the law.

Again, they knew this from…

ST.

c) God worked miracles among the Gentiles through Paul and Barnabas

Not sure how one concludes that this means that Christians don’t need to be circumcised.

then James rendered a judgement.

Ok.

And it definitely wasn’t based on the Scriptures.

 

[Porknpie]

and the correct judgment is…

Let’s not also forget

Matthew 16:18
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” :clapping:

Versus

Wikipedia
“As there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations”. :nope:

And the correct judgement is? :clapping:

 

[PRmerger]

but when the Bereans did exactly that, it was declared noble…so let’s follow the example of the more noble and not that of the less noble.

Meaning to search the OT?

That means you’re proposing a Sola Old Testament tradition?

 

[joe370]

but when the Bereans did exactly that, it was declared noble…so let’s follow the example of the more noble and not that of the less noble.

Certainly PRmerger makes a great point - right? It’s right from scripture; see below:

PRmerger - "Could you please And yet we have an example in Scripture of the Apostles following the exact OPPOSITE of your paradigm.

In Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem was called, how was it that the Apostles discerned the will of God regarding the Judaizers?

Answer: they went beyond what was written.

For if they had gone all Sola Scriptura on the Church they would have concluded, based on Scripture alone, that all Christians needed to be circumcised. They would have based their doctrine on Genesis 17:9-14 which declared that to be in God’s covenant one needed to be circumcised.

But they didn’t. They used Sacred Tradition to come up with their answer that contradicted the Judaizers, who were the Sola Scriptura advocates of the early Church.

Clearly, “do not go beyond what is written” does not mean, to quote from The Princess Bride again, what you think it means."

 

[ByzCathCantor]

and the correct judgment is…

… to be continued (in the afterlife)

 

[PRmerger]

Now let’s say that we used that as a precedent to answer this question: should the Protestants be required to obey the magisterium of the CC including the Pope?

we would refer to evidence;

a) God has shown that he accepted the Protestants by providing the HS to them ;

To the degree that these Protestants declare things consonant with His Body, the Catholic Church, then, of course the HS is with these Protestants.

To the degree that they have divorced themselves from the faith, given once for all, is the degree that they have departed from the HS.

b) the church believed in salvation through the grace of Jesus (a thing recorded in scripture)

This is very Catholic of you to say, Radical!

and not by obedience to a hierarchy (such a requirement for salvation is not mentioned in scripture).

And yet Jesus tells us to obey our leaders, the exact OPPOSITE of what you’re proposing.

c) God has worked miracles among the Protestants…

To be sure.

Not sure what the point of this is, but no one denies that God can use all people to declare his glory.

 

[joe370]

Radical

Sola scriptura as the Christians final authority via individual interpretation or Jesus ’ church via leadership, as it is guided by the HS?

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 16:16 to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it.

1 Thessalonians 5:12 Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Hebrews 13:24 Greet all your leaders and all God’s people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.

 

[PRmerger]

Sola scriptura as the Christians final authority via individual interpretation or Jesus ’ church via leadership, as it is guided by the HS?

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

1 Corinthians 16:16 to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it.

1 Thessalonians 5:12 Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Hebrews 13:24 Greet all your leaders and all God’s people. Those from Italy send you their greetings.

Good verses, all.

And here’s one more from none other than the Big Guy:

The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore **all that they tell you, do and observe, **but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.—Matthew 23:1-3

 

[joe370]

Good verses, all.

And here’s one more from none other than the Big Guy:

The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore **all that they tell you, do and observe, **but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.—Matthew 23:1-3

At best, a soa scriptura advocate should really believe in scripture alone via the authority of their church leadership, and that is an unspoken consensus in the various protestant communities, although they deny that idea in favor of the bible alone as the Christians final arbiter. Sometimes it gives me a real headache to debate the matter of sola scriptura simply because it has an inconclusive circular reasoning to it.

 

[Radical]

Meaning to search the OT?

nope…they probably didn’t have a compilation that matched exactly what we have now in the OT…they referenced whatever scripture that they possessed

That means you’re proposing a Sola Old Testament tradition?

nope, I am proposing that we reference whatever scripture we possess, which of course includes Acts 15…we have nothing about Acts 15 that isn’t part of scripture. What do we have outside of scripture that can be shown to be an actual teaching of the apostles? please note, that the question isn’t what apostolic teaching that you or your church claims to possess (that is outside of scripture)…it is what we actually have. Pick your 3 very best candidates and provide the evidence that tracks those teachings all the way back an extra-biblical teaching of the apostles