Re: Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth? 2

[benhur]

. But Jesus never said to make a book of what He taught and distribute it so that all can read it and believe.

Actually He never said it during His earthly ministry as you say, but did do it later. Certainly not so we wouldn’t read it nor believe it.

 

[Denise1957]

Actually He never said it during His earthly ministry as you say, but did do it later. Certainly not so we wouldn’t read it nor believe it.

When did Jesus say it later?

 

[benhur]

When did Jesus say it later?

I did not say he said it later. I said “he did it later” as in make the book, distribute ect. As Vat. II says , God(Jesus) gave us the “book”.

 

[SteveVH]

I did not say he said it later. I said “he did it later” as in make the book, distribute ect. As Vat. II says , God(Jesus) gave us the “book”.

So you mean that Christ, through his one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, gave us the “book”, right? I think most Catholics would agree. Through the guidance of Holy Spirit Catholic men wrote down the word of God and several hundred years later the writings penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were discerned from those that were not and canonized by bishops of the Catholic Church. Imagine, only 27 texts out of over 400 that were considered were discerned as inspired writing. Indeed, it was Christ, as Head of his Body, the Church, who gave us the Bible.

 

[spina1953]

I think that you raise a really good point here. Namely, that the properties that are required to exercise authority apply to persons, not books. Of course a Protestant might say that it is not the book (the Bible) that exercises authority, but Jesus, whom the bible speaks of. But Jesus never said to make a book of what He taught and distribute it so that all can read it and believe. He commissioned mere humans (the Apostles) to go out to the whole world and teach all that He taught them. And a Church developed so that His teachings could be taught most effectively and the Sacraments could be properly administrated…which are things that a book cannot do, in and of itself.

Hi Denise 1957" I believe you are correct. Those who wrote what we call the NT did not think that what they were writing was ever going to be put into a one volume book to be the final authority, I bet St. Paul for example would be very surprised that his Epistles are considered inspired writings or that they are in a book we call the Bible. I have not read anywhere in the Bible or even on the NT where Jesus ever said to the Apostles write down what I taught you and present to everyone as the final authority of my teachings.

it also just seems to me that Jesus as well as the Apostles said and did a lot more than was ever put down in writing, t also seems to me that what was written down was only so that one might come to believe, so there must have been a lot more said and done than ever was written.

 

[guanophore]

take a look .Jesus said their tradition diplaced the law.i said nullify .find the scripture.

I am not disputing that. He criticized the teachers. But the disciples he told to do as they were told.

Find it .The pharisees had bad doctrine/practice which jesus called leaven. This enabled hypocrisy

Indeed, His greatest criticism was toward those who should have known better. But he told the flock to follow the shepherds.

That action depicts a proper faith ?

That it is ok to disobey the authority appointed by Christ because they do something wrong.

No one says this .

But you are!

You keep saying “apostolic is as apostolic does” as if this justifies denying the office and authority of an apostle when they behave badly. All the Apostles behaved badly.

1he same time if they had an improper practice,tradition that practice/tradition were not to be condoned, even followed, as when Peter still thought the gentile unclean, or casting lots for apostleship.

It is true that we cannot justify sin just because our leaders tell us to do it. However, the vast majority of the problems with man made traditions were not sins, just missing the Spirit of the law…like telling someone they could not carry their sleeping mat on the sabbath.

When God appoints shepherds for His flock, He is able to correct them when they err. Unless you think the powerful Jesus we see in the letters of Revelation has lost His touch?

There is nothing wrong with discerning God’s will by casting lots. This is the method God gave them and they used it until Pentecost. Are you honestly suggesting that what Peter did was wrong?

I call that a conditional authority. That they got or recorded everything else correctly does not do away with that.

Yes. conditional authority is an invention of the Reformation designed to reject the authority appointed by Christ.

True, people that make mistakes can still act infallibly. God preserved the authors of Scripture from error, so that the result would be God Breathed.

He also breathed upon His Church, and promised to lead them into “all truth”. This does not mean they were impeccable.

 

[guanophore]

I have not read anywhere in the Bible or even on the NT where Jesus ever said to the Apostles write down what I taught you and present to everyone as the final authority of my teachings.

Silly Spina! The Reformers made up for this oversight over 500 years ago! Catch up!

so there must have been a lot more said and done than ever was written.

I am offering top dollar for the lectures at Tyrannus.

“(Paul) withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyrannus. 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” Acts 19:9–11

 

[spina1953]

Silly Spina! The Reformers made up for this oversight over 500 years ago! Catch up!

I am offering top dollar for the lectures at Tyrannus.

“(Paul) withdrew from them, taking the disciples with him, and argued daily in the hall of Tyrannus. 10 This continued for two years, so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” Acts 19:9–11

Hi Guanophore: Guess I forgot to take stock in being a reformer or agreeing with the reformers, but then again I don’t know anything I have a empty head without a brain.

 

[Rasoleil]

I’m married to a converted Lutheran, who coincidently is a descendant of Martin Luther ( We’ve done extensive genealogical research), and I’m Catholic. I’m now learning not to even attempt to touch the topic of what denomination ( particularly Lutheran LCMS vs Catholic) is of the Truth. Lutherans ARE “catholic” she says, and more “catholic” than the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally, I’ve learned to just shut up, say little or nothing, or just nod, but none of these tactics really work because I lose any discussion by the virtue of the fact of my silence ( i.e., I say nothing, therefore, she’s right). Any of you married guys already know, or should know, that “she” is always right, even if “she’s” wrong. Trust me. Believe me. Just roll with it. lol

 

[guanophore]

I’m married to a converted Lutheran, who coincidently is a descendant of Martin Luther ( We’ve done extensive genealogical research), and I’m Catholic. I’m now learning not to even attempt to touch the topic of what denomination ( particularly Lutheran LCMS vs Catholic) is of the Truth. Lutherans ARE “catholic” she says, and more “catholic” than the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally, I’ve learned to just shut up, say little or nothing, or just nod, but none of these tactics really work because I lose any discussion by the virtue of the fact of my silence ( i.e., I say nothing, therefore, she’s right). Any of you married guys already know, or should know, that “she” is always right, even if “she’s” wrong. Trust me. Believe me. Just roll with it. lol

You are a wise man, Rasoleil, no doubt having learned obedience through the things you have suffered.

best if you just study your faith, and learn all you can about the Lutheran Confessions, and how they are different from Catholic.

Without a doubt, there are many Lutherans that are more “catholic” in faith than the majority of American “Catholics”, who reject the Teachings of the Church, and can’t even be bothered to go to Mass.

 

[Rasoleil]

You are a wise man, Rasoleil, no doubt having learned obedience through the things you have suffered.

best if you just study your faith, and learn all you can about the Lutheran Confessions, and how they are different from Catholic.

Without a doubt, there are many Lutherans that are more “catholic” in faith than the majority of American “Catholics”, who reject the Teachings of the Church, and can’t even be bothered to go to Mass.

Oh, yes, I’m studying more, and discovering more, and becoming more in love with my own faith daily,of course, as I’ve done for most of my life ( converted from Methodist at 7), and I have read the Lutheran Confessions, etc., and even been through a class on the Book of Concord taught by her pastor, and am reading several books. I have gone to those classes and Bible classes because I also attend services with her ( no communion, of course) every weekend ( when I’m not sick ( minor seizures, etc.), and my own Catholic Masses ( when I’m not having seizures). One thing for certain that I’ve learned from attending Lutheran services and Bible, Confessions classes, is that it actually make me appreciate my own Catholic faith that much more, and is further confirmation that it is the only church which is of the “Truth”.
I did forget to add another important thing, that never to call Lutherans " Protestant", as there is a distinction because Luther sought to reform the Church, not start a new one. And that’s another topic that I learned on which not to tread.
I recently obtained for her an original 1534 Luther Bible leaf, actually printed during his lifetime, under his auspices, which also has a woodcut by Cranach the Elder, Luther’s friend and Bible engraver. She got me a rosary for my birthday, so it evens out.

 

[benhur]

So you mean that Christ, through his one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, gave us the “book”, right? I think most Catholics would agree. Through the guidance of Holy Spirit Catholic men wrote down the word of God and several hundred years later the writings penned under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were discerned from those that were not and canonized by bishops of the Catholic Church. Imagine, only 27 texts out of over 400 that were considered were discerned as inspired writing. Indeed, it was Christ, as Head of his Body, the Church, who gave us the Bible.

Yes, to God be the glory.

 

[benhur]

Hi Denise 1957" I believe you are correct. Those who wrote what we call the NT did not think that what they were writing was ever going to be put into a one volume book to be the final authority, I bet St. Paul for example would be very surprised that his Epistles are considered inspired writings or that they are in a book we call the Bible. I have not read anywhere in the Bible or even on the NT where Jesus ever said to the Apostles write down what I taught you and present to everyone as the final authority of my teachings.

it also just seems to me that Jesus as well as the Apostles said and did a lot more than was ever put down in writing, t also seems to me that what was written down was only so that one might come to believe, so there must have been a lot more said and done than ever was written.

Right who would of thunk to put it in writing,or even a book or collection, as if it had been done before,or as if anything needed clarifying.there is just absolutely no precedence.

 

[benhur]

I am not disputing that. He criticized the teachers. But the disciples he told to do as they were told.

Indeed, His greatest criticism was toward those who should have known better. But he told the flock to follow the shepherds.

That it is ok to disobey the authority appointed by Christ because they do something wrong.

But you are!

You keep saying “apostolic is as apostolic does” as if this justifies denying the office and authority of an apostle when they behave badly. All the Apostles behaved badly.

It is true that we cannot justify sin just because our leaders tell us to do it. However, the vast majority of the problems with man made traditions were not sins, just missing the Spirit of the law…like telling someone they could not carry their sleeping mat on the sabbath.

When God appoints shepherds for His flock, He is able to correct them when they err. Unless you think the powerful Jesus we see in the letters of Revelation has lost His touch?

There is nothing wrong with discerning God’s will by casting lots. This is the method God gave them and they used it until Pentecost. Are you honestly suggesting that what Peter did was wrong?

Yes. conditional authority is an invention of the Reformation designed to reject the authority appointed by Christ.

True, people that make mistakes can still act infallibly. God preserved the authors of Scripture from error, so that the result would be God Breathed.

He also breathed upon His Church, and promised to lead them into “all truth”. This does not mean they were impeccable.

Jesus also said do as I do and Jesus disobeyed bad doctrine or practice but still upheld the law and any authority, but the authoritative dictates was conditional not across the board. They had to be correct. You have the idea that Rome is Moses seat. Moses seat was authoritative and P’s would have upheld it’s authority but would not have granted Pharisees or those who sit in the Chair infallibility. Our problem here is not that Rome was authoritative and later was not, as if we reject her because of bad behavior or bad doctrine/ tradition later on. We just don’t think you were authoritative supremely, above all other bishops from the beginning.you only erred when she began claiming that… It seems you keep hiding behind the doing something wrong. I am not talking about that. Iam talking of teaching something wrong. Not behaving badly. As far as apostolic is as apostolic does it is more on judging today who acts as in has practices rites and doctrine that the apostles or their churches had/did,that it is much weightier than just having actual,literal " succession". If it is fair not to judge CC authority or setup by some of its past bad behavior, then it should also not be fair to judge reformers by any later 20000denominations. How do you know the reformers were not God’s method of correcting error ?..I think I am suggesting what peter did by casting lots was a not a sin ,just missing the Spirit. Do you really think Paul is not the twelfth apostle in the revelations foundation ? Leading in all truth does not mean all will follow perfectly. …again you miss my point, what is conditional is doctrine, practice, tradition they must be correct or ok for them to be authoritatively followed. As an example I am in total agreement with Rome when she says, Jesus is Lord and Savior ,that their is a judgement to come, or help the poor, pray for peace, live holy lives etc., etc…She is quite authoritative in that ,as are all churches who espouse the same. The world will be judged by how they respond to such admonitions, for indeed they are of God.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus also said do as I do and Jesus disobeyed bad doctrine or practice but still upheld the law and any authority, but the authoritative dictates was conditional not across the board. They had to be correct.

True. And since He is God, He had no trouble determining “correct”. But now we have very sincere Christians who all believe they have discerned the will of God, but they have opposing ideas about what is “correct”.

You have the idea that Rome is Moses seat.

No, I don’t. Jesus gave His authority to His apostles, who passed it to their successors, the Bishops. The responsibility to hold and teach the faith lies with every Bishop. Together, with the successor of Peter, they form the teaching authority appointed by Christ to feed and guide His flock.

Moses seat was authoritative and P’s would have upheld it’s authority but would not have granted Pharisees or those who sit in the Chair infallibility.

I am not sure who the “P’s” are here, but the gift if infallibility is given to the Church to prevent her from falling into error. He promised to lead us into all truth".

Our problem here is not that Rome was authoritative and later was not, as if we reject her because of bad behavior or bad doctrine/ tradition later on.

This does not make any sense at all. If there was nothing wrong with the doctrine, why did new doctrines need to be developed during the Reformation? If there was not bad behavior, how is it that Luther found so much fault?

We just don’t think you were authoritative supremely, above all other bishops from the beginning.you only erred when she began claiming that…

If this were true, then you would be Orthodox. But you cannot be, ,since you have espoused doctrines considered by Apostolic Churches to be heresies.

It seems you keep hiding behind the doing something wrong. I am not talking about that. Iam talking of teaching something wrong. Not behaving badly. As far as apostolic is as apostolic does it is more on judging today who acts as in has practices rites and doctrine that the apostles or their churches had/did,that it is much weightier than just having actual,literal " succession".

The two are not separated, Ben. Authentic successors of the Apostles hold and teach the doctrines of the faith. If you do not consider “literal succession” weighty, then you have already departed from the Apostolic faith.

 If it is fair not to judge CC authority or setup by some of its past bad behavior, then it should also not be fair to judge reformers by any later 20000denominations.

You will get no argument for me on this point.

How do you know the reformers were not God’s method of correcting error ?..

I do not think the teaching of Christ had any errors that needed to be corrected. The invention of new doctrines is not needed. That being said, men are always in need of reform, and correcting errors is our constant task. It is not necessary for the Church to be divided for this to happen.

I think I am suggesting what peter did by casting lots was a not a sin ,just missing the Spirit.

You are basically saying that God allowed His Church to fall into error immediately.

Do you really think Paul is not the twelfth apostle in the revelations foundation ?

I think if God had a dispute about what Peter did, He would have revealed it to Peter. I must confess that I do not understand about the selection of the 12, or their heavenly inheritance, but there were many more than 12 Apostles. Certainly Paul is one of great prominence, and God has a special place for him in heaven.

 Leading in all truth does not mean all will follow perfectly.

This is certainly true, which is why I keep disputing your premise. God promised to lead the Church into “all Truth”. He chose Apostles and gave them training and authority, then commissioned them. He knew from the beginning they would fall, some many times. The inability of people to follow perfectly does not negate God’s promises, or his gifts of office.

…again you miss my point, what is conditional is doctrine, practice, tradition they must be correct or ok for them to be authoritatively followed.

So basically you have made yourself the final judge. You determine what is correct, and which can be lawfully followed.

 

[Denise1957]

Hi Denise 1957" I believe you are correct. Those who wrote what we call the NT did not think that what they were writing was ever going to be put into a one volume book to be the final authority, I bet St. Paul for example would be very surprised that his Epistles are considered inspired writings or that they are in a book we call the Bible. I have not read anywhere in the Bible or even on the NT where Jesus ever said to the Apostles write down what I taught you and present to everyone as the final authority of my teachings.

it also just seems to me that Jesus as well as the Apostles said and did a lot more than was ever put down in writing, t also seems to me that what was written down was only so that one might come to believe, so there must have been a lot more said and done than ever was written.

I agree that those who wrote what the Church promulgated in the NT did not ever consider that their writing would be considered as the final authority. I do think that God moved them to write what they did, but even they (the writers of the NT) did not write that scripture is the final authority. God is the author of scripture, but he needed holy and obedient men to write it down.

If God were really a Protestant, as the Protestants seem to think, then surely Jesus would have told the Apostles to write down everything He taught them, and put it in a book to distribute among the nations in order that they be converted and believe. But that didn’t happen.

And what if Jesus HAD instructed the Apostles to do this? What would have happened? That’s open to speculation, but I imagine that if the Aposltes had wandered about the world, preaching and distributing copies of the Bible (and having no authority behind how Scripture is interpreted and used), then there would have been MANY different interpretations and ways of viewing Scripture, and MANY more denoms nowadays than there otherwise would have been if there were no Church authority from the beginning.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, to God be the glory.

So when are you joining RCIA?

 

[JonNC]

I’m married to a converted Lutheran, who coincidently is a descendant of Martin Luther ( We’ve done extensive genealogical research), and I’m Catholic. I’m now learning not to even attempt to touch the topic of what denomination ( particularly Lutheran LCMS vs Catholic) is of the Truth. Lutherans ARE “catholic” she says, and more “catholic” than the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally, I’ve learned to just shut up, say little or nothing, or just nod, but none of these tactics really work because I lose any discussion by the virtue of the fact of my silence ( i.e., I say nothing, therefore, she’s right). Any of you married guys already know, or should know, that “she” is always right, even if “she’s” wrong. Trust me. Believe me. Just roll with it. lol

Welcome to CAF, where you have the permission of the Lutherans here to speak your mind, tell us what you think about Lutherans (not counting your wife), and take us to task when we deserve it. Just be gentle. :blackeye:

Jon

 

[benhur]

True. And since He is God, He had no trouble determining “correct”. But now we have very sincere Christians who all believe they have discerned the will of God, but they have opposing ideas about what is “correct”.

Same as in Jesus’s day. Yet it was not just Jesus who got it right. There is always at least a remnant that get it right ( like Mary and Joseph and the parents of John the baptist and Zacharias, Martha, Lazarus,Peter, etc.) and sometimes thousands (Pentecost). Anyways Jesus did not say, " I am going to do away with this problem of differing “opinions, The new testament will not have this problem for I will give them a catholic church to dispense truth perfectly.” . Diversity will be there till the end, just like the poor. His concern was for some and as many as possible to get it right. Judaism had much diversity, even error, yet they still delivered perfectly the Messiah, right on schedule (so no “problem” of diversity to fix). Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke. I think you are trying to justify your church by this diversity issue. The fact is while we have differences the bigger picture shows a more universally unified church if we are willing to see it. Jesus sees our differences and He will manage to make a bride out of us all yet , just as surely as a supposedly "messed up"Judaism perfectly produced the Messiah. Yes the church has a role for truth dispensing, but not to it’s own justification, for it is really the Holy Spirit’s ministry to author any good outcome. Yes the HS moved Peter (the Church) to eloquently and powerfully dispense conviction and gracious salvation and the HS moved on the 3 thousand souls to “see” and believe.

 

[spina1953]

I agree that those who wrote what the Church promulgated in the NT did not ever consider that their writing would be considered as the final authority. I do think that God moved them to write what they did, but even they (the writers of the NT) did not write that scripture is the final authority. God is the author of scripture, but he needed holy and obedient men to write it down.

If God were really a Protestant, as the Protestants seem to think, then surely Jesus would have told the Apostles to write down everything He taught them, and put it in a book to distribute among the nations in order that they be converted and believe. But that didn’t happen.

And what if Jesus HAD instructed the Apostles to do this? What would have happened? That’s open to speculation, but I imagine that if the Aposltes had wandered about the world, preaching and distributing copies of the Bible (and having no authority behind how Scripture is interpreted and used), then there would have been MANY different interpretations and ways of viewing Scripture, and MANY more denoms nowadays than there otherwise would have been if there were no Church authority from the beginning.

Hi Denise 1957: I have to agree with you and hit the nail on the head. God using His Holy Spirit moved those in the early Church to see the truth in what was written Gospels and Epistles that are now the NT canon, yet without Tradition how would the early Church know what was written was true? By making sure that what was written conformed to the tradition which was orally taught.