Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

It’s fine, it’s just…
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/Annie27/beatdeadhorse50dm.gif

Lol

 

[pocohombre]

Well, that’s perhaps your definition.

But it’s not everyone’s definition.

And without a magisterium to speak for what your Bible Alone definition means, your definition has no authority over someone else’s definition.

And your magisterium has no authority over another. The only authority anyone has, anything has, any church has, any magisterium has is when she speaks the truth. Last I heard God is not a respecter of persons in that regard. Persons make up church(s).

 

[Jon_S_1]

Without looking ? Bible alone does not mean curling up in a ball clutching a bible Reformers all looked and at father writings and councils and traditions. Many were very knowledgeable on all three. Bible alone means all things are judged /ruled by it .It does not rule out tradition.magisteriums, councils, prophets,apostles, priests,parents, etc., for" in a multitude of council is wisdom". What it does say is all are subject or under authority of Scripture. All are under God’s Word. All must be true to God’s interpretation…As far as the Council at Nicea ,which gave us the foundation for trinity, only one thing and one thing alone was final authority, it was Scripture. So there is no blow to bible alone…We do not reinvent the wheel, yet it is for every generation to freely choose for themselves and “see” that the wheel is perfect for travel and scripturally sound.

I am glad that is your opinion, but it’s not the opinion of a large swath of Sola Scripturists.

I disagree that Nicea relied on scripture alone to prove the Trinity.

Scripture was part of it but not all of it.

I found this online and I think it raises a valid concern regarding what you stated.

The Church gathered in 325 AD to settle the Arian controversy, but assuming that the Scriptures alone are infallible, it seems inconceivable that any council could reliably settle a doctrine of faith, especially one so critical, if she had not first settled the question of which books could be considered as an infallible basis for such a decision.

One might object that such a question is only a concern for those who believe in solo scriptura, but this is false because there is no principled distinction between solo and sola scriptura. Another objection might be that the Church, widely and by general consensus, knew the canon, at least of the New Testament. But the New Testament canon was still in question at the time as no authoritative council would consider the matter for two more generations. To use such an objection would be to base certainty on doubt, an inconsistency that simply won’t suffice.

The reality we are left to consider is that the Church gathered and under the full weight of her authority made a critical theological decision, and the question of the canon never came up. This is inconceivable if the Church had ever considered the Scriptures the sole source of infallibility.

calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/why-didnt-nicaea-address-the-canon-question/

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m simply sick of this discussion as it’s a waste of time.

Way to passive-aggressively quote me to prove a point with another. Lovely.

Definitely aggressive, but not passive.

What is the point of discussing without being truthful and upfront with each other? Truth is not a waste of time, it is worth fighting for, isn’t it?

Unity at what cost, dronald?

 

[Jon_S_1]

And your magisterium has no authority over another. The only authority anyone has, anything has, any church has, any magisterium has is when she speaks the truth. Last I heard God is not a respecter of persons in that regard. Persons make up church(s).

Wrong.

The Holy Spirit has the authority.

Christ promised the Holy Spirit to his church

His church has authority based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The proof is in both unity (1.2 billion Catholics and 300 million orthodox) in relative unity compared to 600 million Protestants in a vast swath of division and contradicting opinions.

Also proof in the timeless and steadfast teaching lasting 2000 years.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And your magisterium has no authority over another. The only authority anyone has, anything has, any church has, any magisterium has is when she speaks the truth. Last I heard God is not a respecter of persons in that regard. Persons make up church(s).

So God didn’t leave us a teaching office made up of persons?

 

[pocohombre]

Where has God’s interpretation of Scripture been manifested?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It’s fine, it’s just…
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y113/Annie27/beatdeadhorse50dm.gif

 

[pocohombre]

The proof is in both unity

Really ? JW’s use the exact same rationale. All around the world the same, identical message is preached. All around the world they have the same liturgy . Last I heard all Assembly of God churches teach the same identical thing all around the world .They are quite unified. Unity is a fruit, just not the only one. Apostolic is as apostolic does , covers a lot of things to judge by.

 

[PRmerger]

I just don’t care, Lol.

Well, this is virtual dialogue, all of us metaphorically on someone’s back patio (hence, my avatar), sipping beverages and eating something deliciously unhealthy, while discussing religion…so one ought to not really care.

This is for one’s enjoyment, and to plant seeds of truth…but as for this having great import in one’s life…not so much.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Really ? JW’s use the exact same rationale. All around the world the same, identical message is preached. All around the world they have the same liturgy . Last I heard all Assembly of God churches teach the same identical thing all around the world .They are quite unified. Unity is a fruit, just not the only one. Apostolic is as apostolic does , covers a lot of things to judge by.

No not doctrinal unity or denomination unity.

Christian unity.

The largest, oldest, apostolic, and most widespread firm of Christianity is Catholicism.

You are right the proof is in the fruit

 

[PRmerger]

I think one of the apostles somewhat asked this of Jesus to His disappointment.

I don’t understand your point.

Do you believe God somehow has left us His interpretation of the Scriptures? If so, where is this interpretation? How do you access it?

The Catholic position, is, naturally, yes, He did leave us this: To wit: the Church and Sacred Tradition.

But as you clearly reject the CC as a manifestation of God’s interpretation of His Word, then where is this interpretation presented in your view?

 

[PRmerger]

No matter what you think authority is, nothing stopped the heretics .Nothing . Not scripture. Not a council. Not a pope. Not an emperor. Not anathemas. Nothing and yet all stood up against heresy .In the end Truth triumphed and heresy withered. His Word stands forever. And blessing to all things and persons who who are under and stand in His banner.

Sure.

Not sure how this addresses my point.

You haven’t answered the question, poco. If Scripture was already authoritative, then why was a council needed to speak…er…authoritatively about a teaching?

 

[dronald]

Definitely aggressive, but not passive.

What is the point of discussing without being truthful and upfront with each other? Truth is not a waste of time, it is worth fighting for, isn’t it?

Unity at what cost, dronald?

Oh, no doubt my friend; we ought to be bold and assertive when necessary. (I wouldn’t say aggressiveness is ever the way to go)

It’s not what you said that is passive-aggressive, it’s the way you said it. I made a comment and instead of discussing the comment with me, you resorted to showing how little my comment makes sense by addressing PR.

See what I just said, PR?

Addressing my point with PR to show what you believe is some type of fallacy that I made was passive-aggressive, and I’m saying that I didn’t appreciate it.

I certainly appreciate any attempt to express truth however.

 

[pocohombre]

dronald once a discovery is made known to man the discovery period is over and enlightenment of that discovery may begin.

Here…
washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/14/christopher-columbus-3-things-you-think-he-did-that-he-didnt/
is the example of how Columbus **did not **discover the earth was round but he did add to our understanding of its size and much more.

Peace!!!

Except the trinity is not a discovery.But i agree,once it is explained in such a fashion,it can never be done again,for the first time.That is not to say one can not revisit to see why the explanation is valid. As a matter of fact the proper admonition is “see for yourself” "Is it not so ?.Does not the spirit tell you the same thing,as he told us ,and our forefathers ?

 

[pocohombre]

Sure.

Not sure how this addresses my point.

You haven’t answered the question, poco. If Scripture was already authoritative, then why was a council needed to speak…er…authoritatively about a teaching?

I have answered. Being authoratative does not mean it is utopian. Your point is that scripture is not enough without a magisterium, even a pope. My rebuttal was that even with that you still needed a council. If the pope is authoratative why did we need council (called by the emperor)? I thought it was quite gracious to admit whatever your view of authoritative source, heresy flaunted it’s face at it. Remember, even after the council, heresy did not depart.

 

[PRmerger]

I have answered.

You have answered, true. But it was a non-sequitur, poco.

Being authoratative does not mean it is utopian.

And this is a straw man.

Were you of the opinion that someone has posited that “being authoriative means it is utopian”?

I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone posit that.

Not to mention, it is also a non-sequitur.

You are the king of that I think!

Your point is that scripture is not enough without a magisterium, even a pope. My rebuttal was that even with that you still needed a council

How is that a rebuttal? It is, in fact, a supportive statement of my position.

“Even with Scripture we still need a council” proves that Scripture needs something else.

QED.

I thought it was quite gracious to admit whatever your view of authoritative source, heresy flaunted it’s face at it. Remember, even after the council, heresy did not depart.

Nonsequitur.

 

[pocohombre]

You have answered, true. But it was a non-sequitur, poco.
Were you of the opinion that someone has posited that “being authoriative means it is utopian”?
Not to mention, it is also a non-sequitur.
How is that a rebuttal? It is, in fact, a supportive statement of my position.
“Even with Scripture we still need a council” proves that Scripture needs something else.
Nonsequitur.

Is it like asking or doubting that speed limit signs are authoratative because after all, we need police with "tickets and courts with fines to enforce them ? Would you obey your government sign without cops and judges? (utopia?). It is quite Old testament to need such outside authority. In the NT, His law is written on regenerated hearts, and they are slaves to it, willingly, like never before, indeed a kingdom of priests. Only the heretics, and judaizers need a “council”. God spoke to Peter quite specifically on gentiles yet it didn’t stick ( maybe cause he still feared the Jews). A pope then needed a council, for his chair is not enough may be a non-sequitur but is apples to apples to your question. Are you saying concilarism then has biblical foundation, as many good Catholics have thought thru centuries ?..Anyways, scripture is the highest authority. That it needs a voice, a carrier, a pillar, one to speak it for others to hear and believe, even a council does not make all the latter equally authoratative. Just as the cop and the judge and any governing agency are not above the law but under it also and derive their authority from it.

 

[PRmerger]

Is it like asking or doubting that speed limit signs are authoratative because after all, we need police with "tickets and courts with fines to enforce them ?

That is exactly right, poco.

Without the police, a speed limit sign is simply a sign.

Would you obey your government sign without cops and judges? (utopia?).

If there were a sign that said, “Do not do [A]” and there were about 30,000 different interpretations of what this meant, then the above question would be more analogous.

That’s why we need the cops and judges, right? Because without them there’s about 30,000 different viewpoints and no one with authority to declare “This is what the sign means!”

This example is a wonderful apologia for the Magisterium! Without the cops and judges, you would have chaos and confusion.

(And, in fact, that is exactly what you have in the Protestant world, which has no magisterium. :sad_yes

 

[jmcrae]

I am glad that is your opinion, but it’s not the opinion of a large swath of Sola Scripturists.

I disagree that Nicea relied on scripture alone to prove the Trinity.

They could not have; we didn’t have a defined Canon of the New Testament until 405 AD; the Council of Nicea was in 325 AD. They were 80 years away from having a New Testament Bible to consult. Therefore, they must have relied on the Holy Tradition.