Refuting Protestant Argument on Word of God

[Protestant101]

The Bible as we know it did not exist until the end of the 4th century AD. (The books existed but their canonical status was not determined.) Where then did the Christians during this period turn for the truth – the Church.

Jesus never once commanded His followers to write anything and, with the exception of a few words in the dust (John 8), He did not write anything Himself. What He did do was command His followers to go out and teach.

Even the Bible tells us that it is the Church which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Gary

Anachronistic digressions like this serve no purpose. You missed addressing my point entirely. As I have said; the word “book” as mentioned in any of those texts supplied above does not mean “Bible;” as in the whole Bible. It is only referring to that particular book of the Bible. This fact alone nullifies the entire Catholic argument about “using the Bible” to prove their point about “tradition.”

 

[Nousername]

Hi! Please help me. I am Catholic. I told a Baptist relative that the Church came before the Bible, because the Bible was put together by the Church. Then he cleverly responded that the Bible is God’s Word, and thus existed before the Church, because the book of John indicates: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Therefore, he says, the Bible came before the Church.

I already pointed him to the pillar of truth bible verse, but how do I refute this argument? (Besids pointing again to 1 Tim 3:15).

Thanks and God Bless you eternally.

Hiedi

 

[Nousername]

Forgive me for being ignorant of Chapter and Verse, but isn’t there a scriptual quote that says…And the WORD became FLESH?

“In the beginning was the WORD…and the WORD was WITH GOD…and the WORD WAS God.”…So, now we know that the WORD was not only with God, the WORD was God. Then again, some other scriptural passage IDENTIFIES the WORD (which has been identified AS God) as being MADE FLESH…'And the WORD (God) was made FLESH…The FLESH being GOD in the person of JESUS CHRIST.

This does not (to me) negate the WORD reference to meaning the WORD OF GOD as found in the scriptures…To suggest that the WORD (was the Bible…and existed BEFORE Christ came in the flesh) is either TOTAL CONFUSION from the person posing it…or…just a means of DISTRACTION done purposely to throw off the conversation because the poser of the question needed time to THINK as they FIGHT not to recognize the truth of what they REALLY know. Just my thoughts.

 

[garysibio]

Anachronistic digressions like this serve no purpose. You missed addressing my point entirely. As I have said; the word “book” as mentioned in any of those texts supplied above does not mean “Bible;” as in the whole Bible. It is only referring to that particular book of the Bible. This fact alone nullifies the entire Catholic argument about “using the Bible” to prove their point about “tradition.”

On the contrary, you are missing the point. The Gospel of John, from whom most of the references were taken, was the last gospel to be written and, most likely, the last book written which was included in the canon of Scripture. That John mentioned all that was not written down has a lot more significant than if St. Paul or St. Matthew had written it. John knew he was the last surviving apostle and witness to the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. He knew that nothing more was going to be written.

None of this changes the fact that Jesus charged His followers to pass on His teachings orally. I’m not saying that the NT authors were wrong to commit some of His teaching to writing. They wrote these works mainly to deal with problems at locations remote from themselves. Protestants try to change the Bible into a systematic theology text but it is not. It does not nor was it ever intended to be the main way that Jesus’ teachings were to be passed on.

You also mentioned previously that groups like the Mormons use the same reasoning as Catholics. That is only true if you ignore the promises of Jesus to protect His Church from the gates of Hell (Matt 16:18) as well as His promise of the divine protection of truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). Groups like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot claim this promise because they didn’t even exist until the 19th century. Neither can Protestantism which did not exist until the 16th century. Only the Catholic Church, the Church which Jesus founded with St. Peter as its earthly head, can claim these promises.

Gary

 

[Protestant101]

On the contrary, you are missing the point. The Gospel of John, from whom most of the references were taken, was the last gospel to be written and, most likely, the last book written which was included in the canon of Scripture. That John mentioned all that was not written down has a lot more significant than if St. Paul or St. Matthew had written it. John knew he was the last surviving apostle and witness to the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. He knew that nothing more was going to be written.

Groups like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot claim this promise because they didn’t even exist until the 19th century. Neither can Protestantism which did not exist until the 16th century. Only the Catholic Church, the Church which Jesus founded with St. Peter as its earthly head, can claim these promises.

Gary

A “most likely” proves nothing about the book of John, as you suggest; but again; Protestants have always existed; Jesus Himself was a Protestant; Catholics were never “first.” Jesus’s promise to “the Church” is not denominationally intended. Your so-called “1500 years of history” only proves a progressive development of, not a continuation of doctrine.

 

[garysibio]

A “most likely” proves nothing about the book of John, as you suggest; but again; Protestants have always existed; Jesus Himself was a Protestant; Catholics were never “first.” Jesus’s promise to “the Church” is not denominationally intended. Your so-called “1500 years of history” only proves a progressive development of, not a continuation of doctrine.

That’s just silly. There have been a slew of books recently from solid Evangelical authors who admit that the beliefs of the early Church were not theirs. To claim that Jesus was a Protestant is absurd. What was He protesting? His clear teaching on the Eucharist (see John 6) more that adequately demonstrate that He was not a Protestant. Did Jesus or the apostles teach sola scriptura? They couldn’t. The New Testament was not yet written. Did Jesus and the apostles teach that we are saved by faith alone? If so then why does the only passage of Scripture containing the phrase “faith alone” teach that we are not saved by faith alone. Even the Protestant view of the Church as an invisible body of the saved is entirely foreign to His teachings.

You’d have an easier time trying to prove that Jesus was a Martian than a Protestant.

Gary

 

[BHTech]

Protestant101 said

… Protestants have always existed;

You are right Protestant101! The Scribes and Pharasciees are good examples of Protestants including those Jews who after Jesus death and resurrection objected to his followers teaching in his name.

Jesus Himself was a Protestant;

Now that is illogical since Jesus and the Scribes and Phariscees did not agree. Now I will admit that most Protestants do not agree to this day, but the Bible doesn’t tell us that Jesus got along with the Scribes and Phariscees on some points, say 90% and disagree on the other 10%. What was Jesus Protesting about? the Catholic church formation?

Catholics were never “first.” Jesus’s promise to “the Church” is not denominationally intended.

Can you prove that? Can you prove that the churches planted in Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch were Protestant? Would it logically make sense that they would plant a Baptist church in Corinth, a Pentecostal church in Ephesus and a Lutheran church in Antioch?

Your so-called “1500 years of history” only proves a progressive development of, not a continuation of doctrine.

I’m afraid you are way of base here. Jesus promised that his church will not err.

Blessings

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[garysibio]

Now that is illogical since Jesus and the Scribes and Phariscees did not agree. Now I will admit that most Protestants do not agree to this day, but the Bible doesn’t tell us that Jesus got along with the Scribes and Phariscees on some points, say 90% and disagree on the other 10%. What was Jesus Protesting about? the Catholic church formation?

Great point. Which of the 35,000 different Protestant denominations did Jesus belong to?

Gary

 

[po18guy]

What a curious label you have applied here. It certainly begs the question of why you would feel it so necesarry to defend your “truth” with such impropriety. If it is so “true;” why does it need such coercive bantering? In the real world; something different than the Catholic apologetics world; people do not “ignore” 1500 years, (some say 2000) of so called “Christianity;” rather, we have concluded that all of these years of history show only a progressive development of; rather than a continuation of. This, of course blows the lid off of several key doctrines which Catholic apologists have duped the world with.

101, as an Adventist, you are a true brother in Christ. However, your church, being derived from the Lutheran “tradition”, has discarded the very Traditions which formed Christianity in the early years, and held it together during the intervening centuries. If you don’t know what those traditions are, you must look to the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches, which rely on them for their stabillity.

The shattering of Christ’s body, the abandonment of five out of seven Sacraments, the loss of the priesthood - this is the tragedy of the reformation, which no one is arguing the need for. It was needed. It is the results that we decry. The reformation should have lead to unity. Instead, it lead to disagreement, division and disharmony. A simple glance at Christian unity before and after the reformation stands as stark evidence of the failings of sola scriptura. The truth cannot lead to 20,000-30,000+ different versions of the truth. There is one, just as Christ founded one church.

We are not on Adventist forums defending the truth of Catholic teaching. We are right here, defending it when it is questioned or disparaged. And, since the martyrs shed their own blood in defense of the faith, is it surprising that we should use strong words or absolute terms in the defense of truth? A King defends His castle. We here are just the foot soldiers. It’s not arrogance. Its confidence you are seeing. Confidence that leads directly back to Christ, the founder of the church.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

On the contrary, you are missing the point. The Gospel of John, from whom most of the references were taken, was the last gospel to be written and, most likely, the last book written which was included in the canon of Scripture. That John mentioned all that was not written down has a lot more significant than if St. Paul or St. Matthew had written it. John knew he was the last surviving apostle and witness to the events of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. He knew that nothing more was going to be written.

None of this changes the fact that Jesus charged His followers to pass on His teachings orally. I’m not saying that the NT authors were wrong to commit some of His teaching to writing. They wrote these works mainly to deal with problems at locations remote from themselves. Protestants try to change the Bible into a systematic theology text but it is not. It does not nor was it ever intended to be the main way that Jesus’ teachings were to be passed on.

You also mentioned previously that groups like the Mormons use the same reasoning as Catholics. That is only true if you ignore the promises of Jesus to protect His Church from the gates of Hell (Matt 16:18) as well as His promise of the divine protection of truth by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). Groups like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot claim this promise because they didn’t even exist until the 19th century. Neither can Protestantism which did not exist until the 16th century. Only the Catholic Church, the Church which Jesus founded with St. Peter as its earthly head, can claim these promises.

Gary

Amen, Gary. The ego that lead Luther astray still leads today. Luther was a Catholic priest. He believed in the seven Sacraments. He believed in Sacred Tradition. What has happened to his church in 500 years? Where on earth will it be 500 years from now?

Christ’s peace.

 

[BHTech]

Amen, Gary. The ego that lead Luther astray still leads today. Luther was a Catholic priest. He believed in the seven Sacraments. He believed in Sacred Tradition. What has happened to his church in 500 years? Where on earth will it be 500 years from now?

Christ’s peace.

To add to what po18guy is saying, and directed at Protestant101, I think most Protestants conveniently forget that Luther was an Augustian Monk to be precise. Not only that, but in all likelihood Luther would not recognize the Lutheran church he left behind given its splits to date and he did not want a church named after him as well. Much more could be said about Luther but here is not the place. I just wanted to point this out to you.

Blessings

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[BHTech]

Great point. Which of the 35,000 different Protestant denominations did Jesus belong to?

Gary

Good question

Blessings

Brent
Converts Den - members.shaw.ca/bmaundy/home.html

 

[Hebrews_4_12]

Great point. Which of the 35,000 different Protestant denominations did Jesus belong to?

Gary

First, I agree it is wrong to label Christ a protestant, but at the same time it would be just as wrong to label Him a Roman Catholic. He was a jew, in fact, He was THE JEW of Jews, perfect in every respect.

Second, when are any of you people going to stop using the silly argument about 35,000 denominations. That is just soooo wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from being taken serious by any knowledgable Christian. Please read the following article and repent of your gross error.
30000denominations

Taken from the above article last 3 paragraphs

In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.

If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).

In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.

Eric Svendsen

“Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.”

Me thinks Eric Svendsen is an optimist!

 

[inthecloud]

If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).

Never mind that the idiosincracies in “Roman” Catholicism do not create several thousand of different chruches teaching very different doctrines. I the CC are only liberals and conservatives of various shades, as are in any protestant denomination.

In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.

Not only Catholic Apologist are using the argument of the thousands of different protestant denominations as a symbol of the problems with Sola Scriptura.
Atheist are doing that too. As a proof the Bible cannot be trusted. And that a perfect interpretation of any text is imposible.

 

[jean8]

Dear Jolly Joe,

I agree with you. It’s like the chicken or the egg question - who cares!! Only, I don’t think I understand fully what you mean when it comes to the Bible and the Church. Please be patient with my lack of intelligence, but would you mind going into that a bit further?

God Bless,

Hiedi

It isn’t the word of God that is in question, but the interpretation given. Check the passage out. Use a commentry if your in doubt.

God bless,
jean8

 

[jean8]

Great point. Which of the 35,000 different Protestant denominations did Jesus belong to?

Gary

Yes, and they all think they have the ‘truth’.
Including the RCC. “What is Truth” Pilate uttered.
Shall we pray.

God bless,
jean8

 

[jean8]

Never mind that the idiosincracies in “Roman” Catholicism do not create several thousand of different chruches teaching very different doctrines. I the CC are only liberals and conservatives of various shades, as are in any protestant denomination.

Not only Catholic Apologist are using the argument of the thousands of different protestant denominations as a symbol of the problems with Sola Scriptura.
Atheist are doing that too. As a proof the Bible cannot be trusted. And that a perfect interpretation of any text is imposible.

A person who walks by ‘Proof’ is on the wrong road.

God bless,
jean8

 

[jean8]

That’s just silly. There have been a slew of books recently from solid Evangelical authors who admit that the beliefs of the early Church were not theirs. To claim that Jesus was a Protestant is absurd. What was He protesting? His clear teaching on the Eucharist (see John 6) more that adequately demonstrate that He was not a Protestant. Did Jesus or the apostles teach sola scriptura? They couldn’t. The New Testament was not yet written. Did Jesus and the apostles teach that we are saved by faith alone? If so then why does the only passage of Scripture containing the phrase “faith alone” teach that we are not saved by faith alone. Even the Protestant view of the Church as an invisible body of the saved is entirely foreign to His teachings.

You’d have an easier time trying to prove that Jesus was a Martian than a Protestant.

Gary

We are saved by ‘grace’ through faith ,
Eph.2:8-9 “For it is by grace
you have been saved, through faith-and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9. not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Blessed be the name of the Lord,
jean8

 

[BHTech]

…Second, when are any of you people going to stop using the silly argument about 35,000 denominations. That is just soooo wrong, you immediately disqualify yourself from being taken serious by any knowledgable Christian. Please read the following article and repent of your gross error.
30000denominations

Dear Hebrews,

I read your article that you referred us to and I do believe it is quite flawed. This can be discussed in another thread, but suffice to say the claim by RC apologists that there are 30k+ Protestant denominations does hold true. I refer you to the INTERNATIONAL BULLETIN OF MISSIONARY RESEARCH , Vol. 30, No. 1. which can be found here in pdf form. Since its 2006 data I suggest you take it up with them, but they have the number of denominations listed as 38,000 by mid 2006 and projected to go to 55,000 by 2025.

Blessings in Christ

Brent
Catholic convert -Shaw Communications

 

[garysibio]

Yes, and they all think they have the ‘truth’.
Including the RCC. “What is Truth” Pilate uttered.
Shall we pray.

God bless,
jean8

The RCC was established directly by Jesus and given the protection of the Holy Spirit to protect it from error. No Protestant denomination can make that claim.

We know the answer to Pilate’s question. It’s Jesus who is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 4:6). If you want the truth, it’s found in Jesus. If you want Jesus, go to the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.

Gary