What Do Protestants Think About This Scripture?

[JonNC]

Where’s the verses that say a person is saved by Christ’s church.

I’m not sure I would state it quite that way, but the Church certainly provides sanctifying grace - word and sacrament - that facilitates an individual’s salvation. Certainly, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, but the Holy Spirit has used the Church since Pentecost to offer His grace to us.

Jon

 

[RomanCath379]

I’m not sure I would state it quite that way, but the Church certainly provides sanctifying grace - word and sacrament - that facilitates an individual’s salvation. Certainly, we are saved by grace through faith in Christ, but the Holy Spirit has used the Church since Pentecost to offer His grace to us.

Jon

your not sure you’d state it that way?? **THESE ARE THE WORDS OF GOD JON **there is no getting around this…

 

[Dokimas]

Matthew 16:18
1Timothy 3:15
Matthew 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
‘And the Lord added to the CHURCH daily such as should be saved’ Acts 2:47, KJV
(note the singular ‘the church’)
1Cor 14:12
The bible also states that Jesus purchased the CHURCH of God with His own Blood,
Acts 120:28 KJV
The bible states that Christ gave Himself up for the CHURCH Ephes 5:25
2Cor 1:1
Galatians 1:13
Eph 1:22 and many more

Since all of these mention the word church, proves it was already in existence for many years before they were written.

I have many more verses if you’d like.

Wonderful verses. There’s no evidence in these verses that the Church mentioned in these verses is your church. It’s a universal church made up of those who love Jesus and have trusted Him.

 

[RomanCath379]

Wonderful verses. There’s no evidence in these verses that the Church mentioned in these verses is your church. It’s a universal church made up of those who love Jesus and have trusted Him.

First you wanted to know where the word CHURCH was mentioned. After I prove it to you you want to go a step further. After I prove that to you you will want something else…give me a break. The word Catholic means Universal. That is why our church accepts ALL people. My priest starts off the Mass every week with "Let us pray in God’s Universal church."

 

[MrS]

First you wanted to know where the word CHURCH was mentioned. After I prove it to you you want to go a step further. After I prove that to you you will want something else…give me a break. The word Catholic means Universal. That is why our church accepts ALL people. My priest starts off the Mass every week with "Let us pray in God’s Universal church."

and we pray for those who have chosen to live and worship in a manner of THEIR choosing. They love the Lord… they just don’t recognize that the Lord’s plan, His Truth, has a foundation… The One Church He founded… not the indiscriminate and innovative people who “tweek” the meanings of our book… the Bible… the Book of the Catholic Church.

.

 

[MrS]

Here’s the verse we are discussing:
“There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.” John 21:25

Here’s what I think it says: There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them. There’s nothing that should be TOO hard for a Catholic to understand. Jesus did other things. That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. Now, “did” does not mean “taught”. And “not recorded” does not mean “revealed to one who claims that such has been revealed to self.”

Now, put this with John 20:30, “Now Jesus did (there’s that emphasis on actions rather than teachings as in John 21:25) many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book (The Gospel of St. John).”

That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. I didn’t start with an answer, I just read the text and I think it says what it says - in the words on the page. I’m not deleting any words or adding any words. I think it may be you that’s doing that, that’s assuming something and “seeing” it in invisible words that just aren’t there.

.

Gee, and all this time I would have thought that EVERYTHING Jesus “did” would have been a teaching moment.

Since the Gospels can be read in about a couple of hours… and all the other things Jesus “did” may not fit in the whole world…

… your concept would imply He wasted a lot more time than He spent teaching,

No wonder you are outside the body of the Church He “did” began and “did” place a teaching body in charge of until He comes again.

.

 

[ronin67]

This is why Lutherans, too, use tradition - the early councils, creeds, ECF’s, and the Lutheran confessions. The only difference is we expect and require all teachings and teachers to be measured by scripture.

Jon

Jon,

I definetely have to agree with you. Being a Lutheran, they (The Missouri Synod) pretty much mirror the Catholic church in the aspect you stated, but the indepth truth of the scripture still is the focal point. Both the Holy Scriptures and church traditions are very important, but they must never be at ends with each other. Harmony with scripture must be evident in church tradition. It is a thing of harmony in my opinion. I love the traditions of the Catholic Church, yet I always feel compeled to be first and formost in harmony with the devine (name removed by moderator)ired word of God thru the Holy Bible. The Catholic Church is in line with scripture, but exbound in areas that confuse many Protestants (The elevation of the Holy Mother Mary, excessive need for statue and symbols other then the cross or crucifix, and praying for the dead). Catholics on the other hand wonder why these are issues with Protestants and say their church tradition weighs just as heavy as scriptural need. I see the points from both sides and can see where both love to agree, to disagree. Bottom line, if a church tradition isn’t in conflict with Scripture, then I don’t preceive it as a issue. Scripture (in my opinion) can never be in conflict with church tradition, since it is the base for church formulated/dictated tradition. That is where I see the power of “Sola Sciptura”. Luther never initially intended for something like the reformation to happen. He asked some questions, expecting some church guidance for his questions, but in return, humans in the Catholic Church, refused to answer thus getting the snowball rolling. I think if he would have received some kind of answers for the questions, the reformation would have never happen. Who knows, maybe our Heavenly Father used this as a humbling tool for the prideful humans that were running his one true church. We will never know, but if I have the great honor of seeing my Father in Heaven, I would like to ask.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[MrS]

Jon,

I definetely have to agree with you. Being a Lutheran, they (The Missouri Synod) pretty much mirror the Catholic church in the aspect you stated, but the indepth truth of the scripture still is the focal point. Both the Holy Scriptures and church traditions are very important, but they must never be at ends with each other. Harmony with scripture must be evident in church tradition. It is a thing of harmony in my opinion. I love the traditions of the Catholic Church, yet I always feel compeled to be first and formost in harmony with the devine (name removed by moderator)ired word of God thru the Holy Bible. The Catholic Church is in line with scripture, but exbound in areas that confuse many Protestants (The elevation of the Holy Mother Mary, excessive need for statue and symbols other then the cross or crucifix, and praying for the dead). Catholics on the other hand wonder why these are issues with Protestants and say their church tradition weighs just as heavy as scriptural need. I see the points from both sides and can see where both love to agree, to disagree. Bottom line, if a church tradition isn’t in conflict with Scripture, then I don’t preceive it as a issue. Scripture (in my opinion) can never be in conflict with church tradition, since it is the base for church formulated/dictated tradition. That is where I see the power of “Sola Sciptura”. Luther never initially intended for something like the reformation to happen. He asked some questions, expecting some church guidance for his questions, but in return, humans in the Catholic Church, refused to answer thus getting the snowball rolling. I think if he would have received some kind of answers for the questions, the reformation would have never happen. Who knows, maybe our Heavenly Father used this as a humbling tool for the prideful humans that were running his one true church. We will never know, but if I have the great honor of seeing my Father in Heaven, I would like to ask.

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

That too is a difference between Catholicism and all other faith communities.

The Canon of Scripture came through (not before) the Catholic Church. It is the collections of writings that come from the Tradition. A sub-set if you will.

As I mentioned elsewhere… many faith communities often have an “answer” first and then devise their personal interpretation of our Bible to try and support their position. Some still discover the accurate position… but they add it to many erroneous concepts. This is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit.

.

 

[Justy90]

First you wanted to know where the word CHURCH was mentioned. After I prove it to you you want to go a step further. After I prove that to you you will want something else…give me a break. The word Catholic means Universal. That is why our church accepts ALL people. My priest starts off the Mass every week with "Let us pray in God’s Universal church."

But your church is NOT God’s universal Church by its own definition and that of Scripture. It is an exclusive institution much like that of the Pharisees

 

[AmericanJosiah]

No wonder you are outside the body of the Church He “did” began and “did” place a teaching body in charge of until He comes again.

.

Well, that would have to be one of the things not recorded. Anyoine or anything can claim that what is not written is nonetheless the case. The Moon of Endor isn’t mentioned in Scripture, thus it’s a dogmatic fact that it exists? Silence = proof? As you know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says Jesus founded it (and yes, THAT actually IS written, just not in anything embraced beyond itself; self claiming for self).

But let’s return to the issue of this thread (as we must).

Here’s the verse we are discussing:** “There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.”** John 21:25

Here’s what I, as a Protestant, think it says: There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them. There you are. There’s nothing that should be TOO hard for a Catholic to understand. Jesus did other things. That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. Now, “did” does not mean “taught”. And “not recorded” does not mean “revealed to one who claims that such has been revealed to self.”

Now, put this with John 20:30, **“Now Jesus did (there’s that emphasis on actions rather than teachings as in John 21:25) many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book **(The Gospel of St. John).”

That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. I didn’t start with an answer, I just read the text and I think it says what it says - in the words on the page. I’m not deleting any words or adding any words. I think it may be you that’s doing that, that’s assuming something and “seeing” it in invisible words that just aren’t there.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

 

[Justy90]

Well, that would have to be one of the things not recorded. Anyoine or anything can claim that what is not written is nonetheless the case. The Moon of Endor isn’t mentioned in Scripture, thus it’s a dogmatic fact that it exists? Silence = proof? As you know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says Jesus founded it (and yes, THAT actually IS written, just not in anything embraced beyond itself; self claiming for self).

But let’s return to the issue of this thread (as we must).

Here’s the verse we are discussing:** “There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them.”** John 21:25

Here’s what I, as a Protestant, think it says: There are still many other things that Jesus did, yet if they were written about in detail, I doubt there would be room enough in the entire world to hold the books to record them. There you are. There’s nothing that should be TOO hard for a Catholic to understand. Jesus did other things. That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. Now, “did” does not mean “taught”. And “not recorded” does not mean “revealed to one who claims that such has been revealed to self.”

Now, put this with John 20:30, **“Now Jesus did (there’s that emphasis on actions rather than teachings as in John 21:25) many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book **(The Gospel of St. John).”

That’s what it says, so that’s what I think it says. I didn’t start with an answer, I just read the text and I think it says what it says - in the words on the page. I’m not deleting any words or adding any words. I think it may be you that’s doing that, that’s assuming something and “seeing” it in invisible words that just aren’t there.

Thank you.

Pax

• Josiah

.

Very well said and I agree.

 

[rovimax]

I am a Bible believing Christian and I believe it is the inerant and inspired word of God. But how reliable can the Bible be if each denomination wants to have its own translation. The Bible itself did not declare which translation is inspired. Protestants say the King James Bible is inspired but modern day translator claims there are over 200 mistranslations. Some uses the NIV, NRSV, New World, Contemporary and so on. So whose endorsement for me to follow? Whose tradition should I believe in what Bible to use? Which church endorsement is necessary. I can easily claim one translation and declare I was inspired by the Holy Spirit to choose it but who will believe? Is that how it’s suppose to be??? I don’t think so… ask yourself what basis should we use?

 

[Sarah_Angel]

But your church is NOT God’s universal Church by its own definition and that of Scripture. It is an exclusive institution much like that of the Pharisees

Says who? You?

 

[MrS]

I guess we can expect another new denomination anytime now…

The CAF Posters Non-Catholic Catholic Wannabees.

One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism…

One Church

One Truth

and thousands of fringe groups, all claiming to be the ONE.



.

 

[RomanCath379]

But your church is NOT God’s universal Church by its own definition and that of Scripture. It is an exclusive institution much like that of the Pharisees

Oh boy…

 

[Sarah_Angel]

Oh boy…

Oh boy is right. It’s one of the most common misconceptions about the Catholic Church. It most certainly is not exclusive and we do not act like Pharisees. Everybody is welcome to be a Catholic. Anybody who relies on facts instead of how they feel about the Church should know this.

As for the topic at hand… I feel like this has already been said a number of times, but I want to type a tl;dr version.

What honestly makes people think that John was only referring to mundane things? Logically speaking, we wouldn’t need to know that EVERYTHING that Jesus did wasn’t recorded. It’s pretty obvious that what Jesus ate for breakfast every morning is unnecessary information; the reader is smart enough to assume that we don’t need to know that kind of stuff.

The person who posted the passage from Acts about discussing things for 40 days - golden argument. So far everyone who is still against the idea that John was talking about useful oral Tradition skirted around that point as if it doesn’t exist.

 

[RomanCath379]

Oh boy is right. It’s one of the most common misconceptions about the Catholic Church. It most certainly is not exclusive and we do not act like Pharisees. Everybody is welcome to be a Catholic. Anybody who relies on facts instead of how they feel about the Church should know this.

As for the topic at hand… I feel like this has already been said a number of times, but I want to type a tl;dr version.

What honestly makes people think that John was only referring to mundane things? Logically speaking, we wouldn’t need to know that EVERYTHING that Jesus did wasn’t recorded. It’s pretty obvious that what Jesus ate for breakfast every morning is unnecessary information; the reader is smart enough to assume that we don’t need to know that kind of stuff.

The person who posted the passage from Acts about discussing things for 40 days - golden argument. So far everyone who is still against the idea that John was talking about useful oral Tradition skirted around that point as if it doesn’t exist.

 

[ronin67]

That too is a difference between Catholicism and all other faith communities.

The Canon of Scripture came through (not before) the Catholic Church. It is the collections of writings that come from the Tradition. A sub-set if you will.

As I mentioned elsewhere… many faith communities often have an “answer” first and then devise their personal interpretation of our Bible to try and support their position. Some still discover the accurate position… but they add it to many erroneous concepts. This is NOT the work of the Holy Spirit.

.

Agree to a point. The writtings exsisted before the formation of the one true Catholic church (Torah/Old Testament). The writtings were gathered, assumtions/in depth meanings on these writtings were formulated, structure/order was decided that these devined inspired words of God would be put in, thus standards/a Canon (turning into traditions over time) were put in place to teach/spread God’s inspired word. Canon formation was based off of written scriptures and oral tradtions that were passed on. Oral traditions are not all correct according to the written inspired words of God. The agnostic views of the devinity of our Savior Jesus Christ were different then the Canon that we have today. These were oral traditons of many, but in the final Canon of Scripture, they were not placed in the Holy Bible. Why?

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

 

[MrS]

Agree to a point. The writtings exsisted before the formation of the one true Catholic church (Torah/Old Testament). The writtings were gathered, assumtions/in depth meanings on these writtings were formulated, structure/order was decided that these devined inspired words of God would be put in, thus standards/a Canon (turning into traditions over time) were put in place to teach/spread God’s inspired word. Canon formation was based off of written scriptures and oral tradtions that were passed on. Oral traditions are not all correct according to the written inspired words of God. The agnostic views of the devinity of our Savior Jesus Christ were different then the Canon that we have today. These were oral traditons of many, but in the final Canon of Scripture, they were not placed in the Holy Bible. Why?

Take Care and May God Bless!

Ed

Ed, I am having a hard time following your post.

Perhaps this will help. To a Catholic, the word Tradition is singular. It is the whole of what Jesus taught to those whom He chose to follow Him. It is the efforts of the 12 who went forth and put these teachings into action (and sometimes into words).

All this Tradition, that is, what was revealed to the Apostles during the Ministry of Jesus and continuing during their lives on earth… ended with the death of the last Apostle, John.

Most all of their teaching was by word of mouth. Some things were written in letters so that each of the readers would get the same instruction , or guidance.

Anyway, the Church teaches that much of Tradition was eventually written. And at the same time, there were some who distorted beliefs and tried to either mislead or confuse the early Church.

So for hundreds of years, the Church studied most, if not all, of what was circulating as Church teachings.

Perhaps some of what was rejected or overlooked does contain Truth.

but

When the Catholic Church declared the Canon of Scripture in the late 4th century, they were declaring that what was in the Canon was inspired by the Holy Spirit, with men as the human authors. They additionally included the books of the Old Testament along with their canonized books of the New Testament as the 73 books of the Bible, the book of the Catholic Church.

so… the Canons did NOT turn into Traditions over time. Much of Tradition was written, and selected writings became the Canon as we still know it.

The “other” tradition, what is often called “small t tradition” is NOT part of what came from Jesus to His Church.

The most obvious could be this: It is tradition which books belong in the Bible.

Protestants selected their own tradition… less books, their choice. We know that Tradition will never change, because Truth will never change.
Small t, tradition could change. Protestants could eventually accept one or more of the books which they have rejected. And pizza could be the common dinner at Thanksgiving. Ya never know.

/

The agnostic views of the devinity of our Savior Jesus Christ were different then the Canon that we have today Huh??

but in the final Canon of Scripture, they were not placed in the Holy Bible. Why? Why the heck would they be???

 

[Justy90]

Says who? You?

Says Scripture.