The key to showing the error of Protestantism

[JonNC]

And, again, if a FORMER follower of Christ goes around professing that Mary is a goddess, he would be rebuked.

And you would agree with that.

Yes, I would.

Again, I am not saying that Catholics can’t or shouldn’t disagree with Fr. Martin on his opinion. Just be accurate about it.

He didn’t hold the view about the DC’s because he didn’t like some doctrine in one or the other. That just isn’t the case. He states clearly in his prefaces his reasons.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I would.

Thank you.

Again, I am not saying that Catholics can’t or shouldn’t disagree with Fr. Martin on his opinion. Just be accurate about it.

What you are saying, Jon, as Ambrose so eloquently stated, is that Luther was just another Catholic with permissible opinions.

We all know that this is absurd.

When his authority spoke, he was obligated, painfully so, to shut his mouth.

He did not.

 

[PRmerger]

Now, please tell me if I understand you correctly:

1. Fr. Martin got it wrong because he endeavored to translate without permission. Yes?

Not that he “got it wrong”. But that he did something he had no authority to do. That was wrong.

What would be your reaction if your pastor came out with a new translation of the Bible?

1. Fr. Martin got it wrong because he changed the order of the books in the Bible to reflect his view regarding the DC’s. Yes?

Jon

He got it wrong because 1) he had no more authority to change the order of the books in the Bible than your pastor does.

What would be your reaction if your pastor came out with a Bible that put the Epistles of St. Paul in a different place?

1. by putting these books in a different spot he was implicitly declaring them to be of a different order (“order” here is not referencing “sequence” but rather “quality”).

He also had no authority to do this.

What would be your reaction if your pastor proclaimed that the Gospel of Mark was less inspired than the Gospel of Matthew?

 

[JonNC]

Not that he “got it wrong”. But that he did something he had no authority to do. That was wrong.

What would be your reaction if your pastor came out with a new translation of the Bible?

He got it wrong because 1) he had no more authority to change the order of the books in the Bible than your pastor does.

What would be your reaction if your pastor came out with a Bible that put the Epistles of St. Paul in a different place?

1. by putting these books in a different spot he was implicitly declaring them to be of a different order (“order” here is not referencing “sequence” but rather “quality”).

He also had no authority to do this.

What would be your reaction if your pastor proclaimed that the Gospel of Mark was less inspired than the Gospel of Matthew?

I’d tell him he full of nonsense.

But this is not the topic of the thread:

And here is the KEY: It is historically demonstrable that the Protestant canon of 66 books is wrong. Any honest look into Christian history will show that the Reformers’ personal determination to reject the Deuterocanonical books is groundless. The Orthodox Church accepts these as scripture; the Catholic Church does so; and the early Christian community did as well.

The subject of Protestant vs. Catholic canon has often been treated as just another topic for apologetics. But to me, it seems like the chief way to approach Protestantism.

If the Protestant canon is wrong, then sola scripture rests on very faulty ground indeed.

So, my involvement in this thread is only to dispute two things:

1. that Luther’s view of the DC books was based on the idea that he opposed doctrines therein. This is patently false. Unless someone has quotes from him stating otherwise, his statements in his prefaces are the reasons for his understanding of the DC’s, while part of the Bible, were not equal to the rest.
2. that Luther was not permitted (while others were) to have and state his opinions about the canon. This, too ,is false, as you have already stated.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I’d tell him he full of nonsense.

Thank you.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d tell him he full of nonsense.

But this is not the topic of the thread:

What is on topic is that you should be consistent here. One ought not be telling one person who divorces himself from the authority of his communion “You are full of nonsense” while also endorsing the divorce of someone from the authority of his communion.

So, my involvement in this thread is only to dispute two things:

1. that Luther’s view of the DC books was based on the idea that he opposed doctrines therein. This is patently false. Unless someone has quotes from him stating otherwise, his statements in his prefaces are the reasons for his understanding of the DC’s, while part of the Bible, were not equal to the rest.

Ok.

I have only been peripherally invested in this part, so forgive me for asking you to repeat this: what was his reasoning for putting the DC books in a different order?

1. that Luther was not permitted (while others were) to have and state his opinions about the canon. This, too ,is false, as you have already stated.

Jon

And do you acknowledge that when he was told by his authority to stop, he should have stopped?

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;14369330]What is on topic is that you should be consistent here. One ought not be telling one person who divorces himself from the authority of his communion “You are full of nonsense” while also endorsing the divorce of someone from the authority of his communion.

I think you know me by now, that I am fully aware of the damage done by those who separated, and those who, by their failure to lead in a Godly way, helped precipitate that separation. Father Martin could have gone much farther, done much more, to seek reconciliation. But Rome had far m ore power, far more opportunity, far more capability to act for the cause of reconciliation.

Ok.

I have only been peripherally invested in this part, so forgive me for asking you to repeat this: what was his reasoning for putting the DC books in a different order?

I encourage you to read his prefaces.

And do you acknowledge that when he was told by his authority to stop, he should have stopped?

Do you mean that the 18 year old son should have submitted to being grounded by his father even after his father threw him out of the house?
Ironically, I think that argument can be made, but there must be actions on both sides for that to happen. Simply by claiming “authority”, and a questioned authority at that, isn’t enough. Authority has to act with leadership, as a servant as much as a ruler.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

I think you know me by now, that I am fully aware of the damage done by those who separated, and those who, by their failure to lead in a Godly way, helped precipitate that separation. Father Martin could have gone much farther, done much more, to seek reconciliation. But Rome had far m ore power, far more opportunity, far more capability to act for the cause of reconciliation.

I encourage you to read his prefaces.

Do you mean that the 18 year old son should have submitted to being grounded by his father even after his father threw him out of the house?
Ironically, I think that argument can be made, but there must be actions on both sides for that to happen. Simply by claiming “authority”, and a questioned authority at that, isn’t enough. Authority has to act with leadership, as a servant as much as a ruler.

Jon

Jon, what could Rome have possibly done that would have stopped what happened? If sola fide was and is the article where the Reformation stands or falls, then the only thing Rome could have done that would have averted the Reformation would have been to overturn 1500 years of Church teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you mean that the 18 year old son should have submitted to being grounded by his father even after his father threw him out of the house?

Well, that’s physically impossible, and the CC wouldn’t demand something that’s impossible.

What would be more analogous would be: parent says stop mouthing off. Kid keeps mouthing off. Kid is grounded. Kid should have submitted to this.

You know that this is what should have happened.

'nuff said.

 

[Michael_Francis]

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h...umblr_lnj2s28sf21qm00hqo1_500_zps595a21a1.gif
Get back on topic please…

 

[Nelka]

Otherwise, you’ll get the standard response that the King James is the “real” bible, presumably because the Almighty Himself floated down on a cloud and personally handed it directly to King James.

I did know of a debate between two Protestants where one claimed the King James Bible is the only one and the other argued that it wasn’t.

 

[JonNC]

I did know of a debate between two Protestants where one claimed the King James Bible is the only one and the other argued that it wasn’t.

I believe it was here at CAF, a few years back, that I witnessed two Catholics where one claimed that the NABRE was a good Catholic translation, and the other claimed that it wasn’t.



Jon

 

[adf417]

I did know of a debate between two Protestants where one claimed the King James Bible is the only one and the other argued that it wasn’t.

I believe it was here at CAF, a few years back, that I witnessed two Catholics where one claimed that the NABRE was a good Catholic translation, and the other claimed that it wasn’t.



Jon

To be fair Jon…the acertion above from Nelka uses the words “the only one”. This is not the same thing as declaring ones preferences as your example shows.

Jon even if your quote above, from a Catholic, used the word “only”, you know as well as anybody there is a mechanism in place to resolve the issue within the Catholic church. Where is this mechanism within the non-Catholic community? What is being done with those who do profess “the KJV is in the only one”? Isn’t the lack of this mechanism, and therefore the perpetuation of such claims, the quintessential aspect of the title of this thread?

Peace!!!