SPLIT: Answers from Protestants to "Questions For Protestants"

[kaycee]

QUESTIONS FOR PROTESTANTS

1. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

Where do we find that we are to be under the rule of a human being based out of Rome?

1. Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8 13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?

Considering, the “Moses seat” was where the scriptures were read in the synagogue, is hardly a place to go looking for non biblical tradition.

1. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?

Please list some of the “traditions” Paul speaks about here and why it is different than what Paul writes about in his other epistles. Why does Paul like to repeat himself, saying the same things in different epistles and how that does not poke a hole in your assumptions

1. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

Best recollection and evidence from the Church. Why doesnt the Roman Catholic know for sure who wrote Hebrews?

1. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

How did the Jews know 50 years before Christ that their Torah was scripture?

1. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?

Are you saying the Word of God has a time limit? Faith in Christ was only for those Paul wrote to?

1. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

The Church alsways accepted most of the Books except Heb, James, II, III John and Rev. This was never huge confusion over this as you seem to be implying.

1. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

Elders in the Church, offcourse.

1. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

Because most of the bible can be understood without being a rocket science. Is God the Author of confusion?

1. Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

Those being led by the Spirit of God with a 6th grade education.

1. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

The impact of the Holy spirit.

1. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?

The question begs the erroneous assumption that God requires a human Pope upon the Earth.

 

[Palladio]

Where do we find that we are to be under the rule of a human being based out of Rome?

Considering, the “Moses seat” was where the scriptures were read in the synagogue, is hardly a place to go looking for non biblical tradition.

Please list some of the “traditions” Paul speaks about here and why it is different than what Paul writes about in his other epistles. Why does Paul like to repeat himself, saying the same things in different epistles and how that does not poke a hole in your assumptions

Best recollection and evidence from the Church. Why doesnt the Roman Catholic know for sure who wrote Hebrews?

How did the Jews know 50 years before Christ that their Torah was scripture?

Are you saying the Word of God has a time limit? Faith in Christ was only for those Paul wrote to?

The Church alsways accepted most of the Books except Heb, James, II, III John and Rev. This was never huge confusion over this as you seem to be implying.

Elders in the Church, offcourse.

Because most of the bible can be understood without being a rocket science. Is God the Author of confusion?

Those being led by the Spirit of God with a 6th grade education.

The impact of the Holy spirit.

The question begs the erroneous assumption that God requires a human Pope upon the Earth.

Bad faith. No reason. Next.

 

[Church_Militant]

This should get good…(Breaking out the popcorn and a can of Coca-Cola)http://images.usatoday.com/money/_p...ds.onesite.com/images/blog_photos/popcorn.jpg

 

[terri_fortner]

Why does Paul like to repeat himself, saying the same things in different epistles and how that does not poke a hole in your assumptions

Becasue he was talking to different people, and when he wasn’t, Do you really think it only has to be said once for people to learn it… Humm I should try that the next time I am trying to teach my daughter to read. I told her that word was “the” why does she keep getting it wrong?!

Best recollection and evidence from the Church. Why doesnt the Roman Catholic know for sure who wrote Hebrews?

It’s called believing, not knowing. We are not ot know it all until we are dead.

Elders in the Church, offcourse.

That right there proves the Bible alone isn’t a real belief of those bible alone believers. You believe the canon was truely inspired. Yet there is not a list in there because they didn’t have to clarify things until someone wrote a letter asking them to clarify… And who did they ask? The “elders” were APOSTLES. They had the holy authoritey because Jesus said what ever you hold true on earth shall also be honored in heaven. They named their sucessors, all the way to Pope Benedict.

Because most of the bible can be understood without being a rocket science.

It can?! Since when? I am in college and I have never been a stupid person. I was in honors and AP classes in High School. And I usually have to take much meditation and prayers to fully understand any part of the bible. Even after all that if I wait some time and reread those parts I get a whole new concept from them. I get exactly what God wants me to from it when I need it.

Those being led by the Spirit of God with a 6th grade education.

Again, my college education must be really lacking. People, until approx. 1500 years after the Bible was canonized, didn’t have a sixth grade education, THEY WERE ILLITERATE. Did you miss that part?

Just thought I would point those out for you.

 

[Calvinator]

1. Today’s Protestant Bibles are based on the King James version. King James was a political leader not an ecclesiastical authority. What authority did he have to produce a Bible? Absolutely none! So the question arises, suppose the President of the United States decided to produce a Bible. Would you trust your salvation to the Bill Clinton version of the Bible?

This one is easy enough…it’s not true that Protestant Bibles are based on the KJV so I suggest you strike this one from your list.

 

[Calvinator]

1. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

How do you know who wrote the Matthew? To the best of my knowledge your church hasn’t infallibly declared who is the author of Matthew much less Hebrews. If your church hasn’t made an “official” declaration than you are stuck in the same boat as me.

Did you know one of your own popes suggested that one shouldn’t concern themselves with such matters as who wrote which book? I’ll find and post the reference later.

 

[Calvinator]

1. Why do Protestants follow post apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

I don’t know that it is accurate to state that “…Protestants follow post apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon…”. Jamnia, as far as I know, didn’t decide the Jewish canon.

 

[Calvinator]

1. If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

None of the credal statements on sola scriptura claim such a thing such as “the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth”. So, you certainly aren’t addressing what took place during the reformation.

Google the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession for a reference.

 

[Calvinator]

1. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

If your church is founded by Christ and has the charism of infallibility, why did it take until Trent to get an “infallible” delcaration of which books are canonical?

Or, if you disagree with Trent being the first infallible declaration of the canon, than why did it take up until the council’s or Rome or Carthage for a supposedly infallible church to declare the canon?

Your question 7 doesn’t seem to be all that well thought out because it can be turned against you as well.

Let’s assume the books of the OT and NT are “self authenticating”. Does that mean that all men will accept them with no debate?

 

[Calvinator]

1. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

I didn’t know my faith was based soley on a book…news to me.

 

[mgrfin]

How do you know who wrote the Matthew? To the best of my knowledge your church hasn’t infallibly declared who is the author of Matthew much less Hebrews. If your church hasn’t made an “official” declaration than you are stuck in the same boat as me.

Did you know one of your own popes suggested that one shouldn’t concern themselves with such matters as who wrote which book? I’ll find and post the reference later.

Don’t bother to look for the quote.

It doesn’t matter who physically put the words on parchment. We don’t have the original parchment anyway.

The Author is the Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church is the official interpreter of what is in each of the books.

Accept Catholicism, and calm your conscience in the process.

peace

 

[Calvinator]

Don’t bother to look for the quote.

It doesn’t matter who physically put the words on parchment. We don’t have the original parchment anyway.

The Author is the Holy Spirit, and the Catholic Church is the official interpreter of what is in each of the books.

Accept Catholicism, and calm your conscience in the process.

peace

Oh my troubled conscious…what will I ever do…

Thanks for the advice mgrfin…

 

[Calvinator]

1. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?

The question becomes “What are those traditions that Paul is speaking of?” I don’t know of anyone that rejects tradition entirely but I know plenty of people who try to subject all their traditions to that which is inscripturated.

Many of the traditions your church holds as doctrine such as the assumption appear centuries after the apostles.

How do you know what traditions Paul is speaking of?

 

[mgrfin]

If your church is founded by Christ and has the charism of infallibility, why did it take until Trent to get an “infallible” delcaration of which books are canonical?

Or, if you disagree with Trent being the first infallible declaration of the canon, than why did it take up until the council’s or Rome or Carthage for a supposedly infallible church to declare the canon?

Your question 7 doesn’t seem to be all that well thought out because it can be turned against you as well.

Let’s assume the books of the OT and NT are “self authenticating”. Does that mean that all men will accept them with no debate?

The same is true for all defined doctrines of the faith. There was no catechism written by Peter, defining what was to be believed.

The Eucharist, for example. It was believed in the first century. The more people talked about it, examined it, taught it, preached about it, had devotion to it, the more fully the doctrine developed. Then someone asked: well do you mean this? or that? More discussion, more definitions by the Church.

Someone came along like Luther and Calvin who had their own heretical notions which were cleared up by the Council of Trent, but Patristic fathers, Doctors of the Church, common teaching and understanding of the Church were teaching about it from the earliest times.

What makes the Protestant definition of what are the Canonical books ‘infallible’. Did Luther have an inspiration of the Holy Spirit telling which books were canon, and which were 'deuterocanonical"? I didn’t know John Calvin was infallible.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

The question becomes “What are those traditions that Paul is speaking of?” I don’t know of anyone that rejects tradition entirely but I know plenty of people who try to subject all their traditions to that which is inscripturated.

Many of the traditions your church holds as doctrine such as the assumption appear centuries after the apostles.

How do you know what traditions Paul is speaking of?

You mean none of the Apostles asked one another, “What happened to Mary, the Mother of Jesus”? They didn’t asked cause they knew.

We have explicit testimony from the Gospel of John… Jesus from the Cross:
John 19, 26-27: When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the discipline standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own."

peace
peace

 

[Calvinator]

You mean none of the Apostles asked one another, “What happened to Mary, the Mother of Jesus”? They didn’t asked cause they knew.

We have explicit testimony from the Gospel of John… Jesus from the Cross:
John 19, 26-27: When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the discipline standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own."

peace
peace

What in the world does John 19 have to do with the assumption?

Also, am I wrong in stating that it took centuries for this belief to show up on the scene, at least based on the evidence we have available to us?

 

[Teflon93]

If your church is founded by Christ and has the charism of infallibility, why did it take until Trent to get an “infallible” delcaration of which books are canonical?

Two errors here, I think.

1. Doctrines are not defined until violated. Since the canon was not violated by the Reformers until Trent, there was no need for further clarification.
2. Canon was defined well before Trent in the 4th century in response to the proliferation of Gnostic “gospels”.

 

[mgrfin]

What in the world does John 19 have to do with the assumption?

Also, am I wrong in stating that it took centuries for this belief to show up on the scene, at least based on the evidence we have available to us?

Mary’s assumption took place during the lifetime of some of the Apostles, in particular, St. John. He was not a martyr, and the only Apostle to die of old age. It was his responsibility, given by Jesus himself, from the Cross, to take care of His Mother.

He was aware of the Assumption, as was the early Church. Because the doctrine was not defined until 1950, it doesn’t mean that the Church didn’t practice and celebrate it.

Maybe you can research for all of us when the first evidence of Mary’s Assumption was celebrated? That way, we won’t get the impression that you are anti-Catholic, or anti-Mary, or something like that.

peace

 

[kaycee]

Mary’s assumption took place during the lifetime of some of the Apostles, in particular, St. John. He was not a martyr, and the only Apostle to die of old age. It was his responsibility, given by Jesus himself, from the Cross, to take care of His Mother.

He was aware of the Assumption, as was the early Church. Because the doctrine was not defined until 1950, it doesn’t mean that the Church didn’t practice and celebrate it.

How can you state that John was aware? There is zero evidence to back that statement. In fact much evidence against it.

Maybe you can research for all of us when the first evidence of Mary’s Assumption was celebrated? That way, we won’t get the impression that you are anti-Catholic, or anti-Mary, or something like that.

For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis.

christiantruth.com/assumption.html

 

[mgrfin]

How can you state that John was aware? There is zero evidence to back that statement. In fact much evidence against it.

For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:

“But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried … Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] … For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence … The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain … Did she die, we do not know … Either the holy Virgin died and was buried … Or she was killed … Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).

In addition to Epiphanius, there is Jerome who also lived in Palestine and does not report any tradition of an assumption. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, echoes Epiphanius by saying that no one has any information at all about Mary’s death. The patristic testimony is therefore non-existent on this subject. Even Roman Catholic historians readily admit this fact:

In these conditions we shall not ask patristic thought—as some theologians still do today under one form or another—to transmit to us, with respect to the Assumption, a truth received as such in the beginning and faithfully communicated to subsequent ages. Such an attitude would not fit the facts…Patristic thought has not, in this instance, played the role of a sheer instrument of transmission’ (Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M., ed., Mariology, Vol. I (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1955), p. 154).

How then did this teaching come to have such prominence in the Church that eventually led it to be declared an issue of dogma in 1950? The first Church father to affirm explicitly the assumption of Mary in the West was Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D. But the basis for his teaching was not the tradition of the Church but his acceptance of an apocryphal Gospel known as the Transitus Beatae Mariae which we first hear of at the end of the fifth century and which was spuriously attributed to Melito of Sardis.

christiantruth.com/assumption.html

You mean to tell me that St. John did not take care of Mary after Pentecost? After the direct command from Jeus himself, his ‘death-bed’ wish.

I guess you’d like us to believe that Mary died, and she was buried. And evidence for that is where? We have a tomb of Mary’s burial? No.

The sinless Mother of God - she was not touched by Original Sin, and it was right that she should not die, and that she should remain incorruptible.

You misread Epiphanius. All he is saying is something we already know, Scripture is silent on the matter. Of course, we don’t accept the Scriptures as being the full deposit of faith - they are only a part

I’ll check with St. Iranaeus et.al., and get back to you.

peace