Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[SteveVH]

I believe whatever the early believers saw in writings we can also. think both of us could read some of the books rejected from Septuagint and agree they are not canon/as inspired.

The canon of Sacred Scripture was not determined by just any “early believers”. It was determined by bishops of the Catholic Church.

May I ask how you know the book of Hebrews is the word of God? Did you determine this on your own?

 

[PRmerger]

Just don’t want it to seem so robotic that cause the Church says so it must be. I know that in itself is very personal and good, but I like one more step in making it even more personal, so much so so that even if there were no church or anyone else, you would believe it so cause God said so to you personally (ala Peter’s confession-that the Father made possible/revealed).

Sorry, poco. But I don’t know what you are saying here.

Again,not against my foundation.I believe whatever the early believers saw in writings we can also.

So you are not Sola Scriptura then? It appears that you are submitting to an authority that is NOT Scripture, but rather the early Christians serve as your authority?

 

[PRmerger]

I will offer the same challenge you have presented to me, although unless I am missing your point I thought I answered, can you provide scriptural evidence my soul is lost unless I confess my sins to a priest.

[BIBLEDRB]John 20:20-23[/BIBLEDRB]

Having a sin retained is a pretty big deal, don’t you think, Mlon.

That’s what this whole discussion is about. I said the message of the bible is the relational nature between us and God.

Absolutely. But the Bible doesn’t say this is what its message is. The reason you proclaim the above is because of Tradition. You never read in a single page of the Bible: “The message of this book is the relational nature between you and Me.”

And thus, you are not a Sola Scriptura advocate.

 

[pocohombre]

Are you proposing that, independent of any Council, you can determine the Canon on your own?

No. I am proposing that said councils were held by believers in Christ who are like you and me, filled with a divine unction from the Holy One, that you or I could have had the same discernment as council participants.

 

[Brandall]

No. I am proposing that said councils were held by believers in Christ who are like you and me, filled with a divine unction from the Holy One, that you or I could have had the same discernment as council participants.

Absolutely that’s true but since that’s not always the case, it’s nice to have an authority.

 

[Mlon]

Thank you, greetings to you as well.

Agreed

Not totally correct:

1. The Old Testament, which Christ quoted from so frequently, was in place.
2. There is strong internal evidence in NT Scripture that written accounts of Christ’s teaching circulated before the Gospels were complied.
3. We take the promise of Christ to lead the Apostles into “all truth” to bestow upon them unique authority to write the Scriptures AND to establish and teach the early Church. In short, the authors were there so they could teach the content directly.

As I mentioned in my original post, the church was collectively entrusted with the preservation of Scripture. The first generation of believers knew very well what book and letters were authentic, and which were not. This was passed down through the successive generations of Christians. Logically, the task actually became easier with time, as someone presenting an epistle, in say 200AD, that no Christian had ever heard of, was highly unlikely to be widely accepted. It is also likely to contain doctrine inconsistent with the book and letters known to be authentic. As I am sure you know, at the point when the Cannon of Scripture was established the Church was very careful - only accepting works known to be authentic (Revelation was nearly left out out of an abundance of caution). At this point the Cannon had already been established in practice - the church only recognized it formally.

Let me be rabbinical and answer a question with a question: When were these seven books canonized? This answers the question for me… these books were known when the Cannon of Scripture was established.

It sure did. However, remember that they were inserted between the Old and New Testament. The fact that the KJV included them does not prove inspiration - because Protestants at the time considered them to be uninspired, yet still valuable.* “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” Martin Luther *

Wow, let me address these one at a time - or at least in groups.

Addressed above.

Good arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. In deference to this, we let parents decide. I have Baptized infants, but we dedicated our kids, all of whom have since come to faith and been baptized.

Not me!!! I do not see how anyone can argue this from the Scripture…

They would argue this from Scripture, but I believe that the agreement clearly fails. These were at least minority views prior to the reformation.

Pure bunk. Not taught by anyone before 1830. In conflict with Scripture. I therefore reject it. I find it ironic that those who hold so tightly to Sola Scriptura hold this highly questionable doctrine.

Not totally sure what you mean by this - but if you are talking about the universal church, composed of all baptized believers, then - at least to some degree - the Catholic Church holds this view. I certainly hold it, based upon Scripture.

Yep, pure tradition. An OK tradition, but tradition never the less. Not taught in, or in conflict with, Scripture.

I would not say this is rooted in tradition. I would say that Sola Scriptura is supported by sound reasoning PROVIDED that it is limited to matters essential to salvation. My belief is simply that all doctrines of such importance should be found in Scripture AND be supported by a preponderance of the Scriptural evidence.

Would such teaching not be found in the Scriptures? Would they have been so careless as to not record it for future generations?

I can understand why you would take that position, given your beliefs. My response is as follows:

1. The Apostolic faith is logically contained in the Scriptures.
2. The fact that the Church guarded, protected and authenticated the Scriptures in no way proves that the Church as equal authority to Scripture.

I just want to second your comment on rapture i.e., Left Behind" eschatology. Not only was it not around before the mid nineteenth century it is bad exegesis of scripture. First, it treats the scripture like a smorgasbord by picking and choosing passages that fit their theology. Second, it turns language on its head by claim words like near or soon means a far away date. They also do not take into consideration things like metaphor, simile, and hyperbole. The only reason I chime in on this is because many think all evangelicals are dispensationialist.

 

[Mlon]

Unless I missed it, you haven’t offered an explanation of John 20:23. What if an apostle did not forgive the sins of an individual?

It extends the authority the to the church to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent person. This was also a special authority given to the original disciples. Mathew Henry outlines this passage in detail:

" One particular branch of the power given them by their commission particularized (v. 23): "Whosesoever sins you remit, in the due execution of the powers you are entrusted with, they are remitted to them, and they may take the comfort of it; and whosesoever sins you retain, that is, pronounce unpardoned and the guilt of them bound on, they are retained, and the sinner may be sure of it, to his sorrow.’ Now this follows upon their receiving the Holy Ghost; for, if they had not had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, they had not been fit to be entrusted with such an authority; for, in the strictest sense, this is a special commission to the apostles themselves and the first preachers of the gospel, who could distinguish who were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and who were not. By virtue of this power, Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, and Paul struck Elymas blind. Yet it must be understood as a general charter to the church and her ministers, not securing an infallibility of judgment to any man or company of men in the world, but encouraging the faithful stewards of the mysteries of God to stand to the gospel they were sent to preach, for that God himself will stand to it. The apostles, in preaching remission, must begin at Jerusalem, though she had lately brought upon herself the guilt of Christ’s blood: “Yet you may declare their sins remitted upon gospel terms.’ And Peter did so, Acts 2:38; 3:19.”

Again, nothing clearly lays out intercession has to be through a priest. As a Protestant I’m not afraid to confess my sins to a person, just feel it’s not necessary when I can confess to The great intercessor Jesus Himself.

 

[Jon_S_1]

It extends the authority the to the church to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent person. This was also a special authority given to the original disciples. Mathew Henry outlines this passage in detail:

" One particular branch of the power given them by their commission particularized (v. 23): "Whosesoever sins you remit, in the due execution of the powers you are entrusted with, they are remitted to them, and they may take the comfort of it; and whosesoever sins you retain, that is, pronounce unpardoned and the guilt of them bound on, they are retained, and the sinner may be sure of it, to his sorrow.’ Now this follows upon their receiving the Holy Ghost; for, if they had not had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, they had not been fit to be entrusted with such an authority; for, in the strictest sense, this is a special commission to the apostles themselves and the first preachers of the gospel, who could distinguish who were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and who were not. By virtue of this power, Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, and Paul struck Elymas blind. Yet it must be understood as a general charter to the church and her ministers, not securing an infallibility of judgment to any man or company of men in the world, but encouraging the faithful stewards of the mysteries of God to stand to the gospel they were sent to preach, for that God himself will stand to it. The apostles, in preaching remission, must begin at Jerusalem, though she had lately brought upon herself the guilt of Christ’s blood: “Yet you may declare their sins remitted upon gospel terms.’ And Peter did so, Acts 2:38; 3:19.”

Again, nothing clearly lays out intercession has to be through a priest. As a Protestant I’m not afraid to confess my sins to a person, just feel it’s not necessary when I can confess to The great intercessor Jesus Himself.

Why would this have been something for the Apostles only?

Could the first Christians not confess to God alone?

Why should the apostles judge sincerity, but no one after that?

 

[stewstew03]

No. I am proposing that said councils were held by believers in Christ who are like you and me, filled with a divine unction from the Holy One, that you or I could have had the same discernment as council participants.

Sure, that’s possible. But the issue of authority is paramount. You and I may come up with a set of books, but if no other believers respect our selection, where does that leave the Body of Christ?

 

[stewstew03]

It extends the authority the to the church to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent person. This was also a special authority given to the original disciples. Mathew Henry outlines this passage in detail:

" One particular branch of the power given them by their commission particularized (v. 23): "Whosesoever sins you remit, in the due execution of the powers you are entrusted with, they are remitted to them, and they may take the comfort of it; and whosesoever sins you retain, that is, pronounce unpardoned and the guilt of them bound on, they are retained, and the sinner may be sure of it, to his sorrow.’ Now this follows upon their receiving the Holy Ghost; for, if they had not had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, they had not been fit to be entrusted with such an authority; for, in the strictest sense, this is a special commission to the apostles themselves and the first preachers of the gospel, who could distinguish who were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and who were not. By virtue of this power, Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, and Paul struck Elymas blind. Yet it must be understood as a general charter to the church and her ministers, not securing an infallibility of judgment to any man or company of men in the world, but encouraging the faithful stewards of the mysteries of God to stand to the gospel they were sent to preach, for that God himself will stand to it. The apostles, in preaching remission, must begin at Jerusalem, though she had lately brought upon herself the guilt of Christ’s blood: “Yet you may declare their sins remitted upon gospel terms.’ And Peter did so, Acts 2:38; 3:19.”

Again, nothing clearly lays out intercession has to be through a priest. As a Protestant I’m not afraid to confess my sins to a person, just feel it’s not necessary when I can confess to The great intercessor Jesus Himself.

I do find it interesting that you would bring in commentary by Matthew Henry. Given that we could each provide a set of commentaries (I could cite Scott Hahn, Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, etc.), I think it’s best if we limit ourselves to scripture and the early church fathers. Matthew Henry would not persuade me any more than Scott Hahn would persuade you.

In any event, where would you limit this special authority? What about baptism? Did you also baptize yourself?

And if you are married, did you perform you own marriage ceremony?

 

[stewstew03]

It extends the authority the to the church to proclaim forgiveness to the penitent person. This was also a special authority given to the original disciples. Mathew Henry outlines this passage in detail:

" One particular branch of the power given them by their commission particularized (v. 23): "Whosesoever sins you remit, in the due execution of the powers you are entrusted with, they are remitted to them, and they may take the comfort of it; and whosesoever sins you retain, that is, pronounce unpardoned and the guilt of them bound on, they are retained, and the sinner may be sure of it, to his sorrow.’ Now this follows upon their receiving the Holy Ghost; for, if they had not had an extraordinary spirit of discerning, they had not been fit to be entrusted with such an authority; for, in the strictest sense, this is a special commission to the apostles themselves and the first preachers of the gospel, who could distinguish who were in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, and who were not. By virtue of this power, Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead, and Paul struck Elymas blind. Yet it must be understood as a general charter to the church and her ministers, not securing an infallibility of judgment to any man or company of men in the world, but encouraging the faithful stewards of the mysteries of God to stand to the gospel they were sent to preach, for that God himself will stand to it. The apostles, in preaching remission, must begin at Jerusalem, though she had lately brought upon herself the guilt of Christ’s blood: “Yet you may declare their sins remitted upon gospel terms.’ And Peter did so, Acts 2:38; 3:19.”

Again, nothing clearly lays out intercession has to be through a priest. As a Protestant I’m not afraid to confess my sins to a person, just feel it’s not necessary when I can confess to The great intercessor Jesus Himself.

By the way, here is what the father of the protestant church had to say about confession:

“Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.”

–Martin Luther, The Small Catechism, paragraph V

 

[pocohombre]

Absolutely that’s true but since that’s not always the case, it’s nice to have an authority.

Yes, just remember who is behind the “nice” authority, the holy one and spiritually regenerated human beings like you and me, and from us he gives gifts, some as leaders,some who are sent to “councils”.

 

[pocohombre]

Sure, that’s possible. But the issue of authority is paramount. You and I may come up with a set of books, but if no other believers respect our selection, where does that leave the Body of Christ?

Brother, never underestimate the “invisible” (except thru us) power of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.The same Spirit that tells us is striving to tell all in the Body the same thing. He is like the wind. He sweeps thru the assembled congregation. He does not say ,“Oh, there you are deacon, I will touch you and oops, that was close I almost touched that lay person, here I come presbyter…” All are touched by the “wind”, all are touched by the truth He deposits and His giftings.

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, just remember who is behind the “nice” authority, the holy one and spiritually regenerated human beings like you and me, and from us he gives gifts, some as leaders,some who are sent to “councils”.

I’m not sure what this means. Can you elaborate?

 

[batman1973]

For me, there is no stumbling block, as there is no need for me to join the Roman Catholic Church. I am an Evangelical Catholic. My church offers everything I need: The Sacred Scriptures, Confession and Absolution, The Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. The Lutheran Church I am a member of is big on liturgy. It’s everything I need. I am home. After 20 years of searching, I can say I AM HOME!

 

[pocohombre]

Absolutely that’s true but since that’s not always the case, it’s nice to have an authority.

If it is not always nicely true for us, then it is also not always nicely true for councils also. After all ,as I said councils are made up of people like us.

 

[stewstew03]

Brother, never underestimate the “invisible” (except thru us) power of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.The same Spirit that tells us is striving to tell all in the Body the same thing. He is like the wind. He sweeps thru the assembled congregation. He does not say ,“Oh, there you are deacon, I will touch you and oops, that was close I almost touched that lay person, here I come presbyter…” All are touched by the “wind”, all are touched by the truth He deposits and His giftings.

This is gobbledygook. Is the Holy Spirit with the Mormon church, and the Branch Davidians, and the Jehovas Witneses, etc.?

 

[pocohombre]

This is gobbledygook. Is the Holy Spirit with the Mormon church, and the Branch Davidians, and the Jehovas Witneses, etc.?

Is the “wind” going thru those congregations, for I didn’t say so. You went to an extreme. Is the other extreme that the Holy Spirit is only with the CC and it’s bishops and magisterium, key word being “only”, as in only bishops(not lay people) and only CC bishops(not O or P) (and of course only Her councils with said bishops) ? How do you say the Holy Spirit moves to establish the Body in unity and authority ?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Is the “wind” going thru those congregations, for I didn’t say so. You went to an extreme. Is the other extreme that the Holy Spirit is only with the CC and it’s bishops and magisterium, key word being “only”, as in only bishops(not lay people) and only CC bishops(not O or P) (and of course only Her councils with said bishops) ? How do you say the Holy Spirit moves to establish the Body in unity and authority ?

Oh yes, the Holy Spirit tells baptists to say the sinners prayer

And Methodists to follow Wesley’s method

And Episcopalians to ordain Homosexual marriage

And Evangelicals to build monument mega churches to glorify their pastor

And Catholics to Have. 7 sacraments

And on and in and on.

It seems to me the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic

Or else all the different Protestant denominations believe the Holy Spirit has guided their denomination perfectly and the others are close but “not as good as mine”

 

[stewstew03]

Is the “wind” going thru those congregations, for I didn’t say so. You went to an extreme. Is the other extreme that the Holy Spirit is only with the CC and it’s bishops and magisterium, key word being “only”, as in only bishops(not lay people) and only CC bishops(not O or P) (and of course only Her councils with said bishops) ? How do you say the Holy Spirit moves to establish the Body in unity and authority ?

You say “extreme” but those groups would disagree. And what gives you the authority to determine the Holy Spirit is not with those groups, but dwells with other groups?