What percentage of Protestant theology is based on the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter bettercallpaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not by the Gothic Arians of yesterday and the Oneness Pentecostals of today. They claim baptism, Jon. And deny the Trinity.

I’m surprised you didn’t know these groups existed…
If you want to set your sails by their standards, go ahead. Typically, Catholics and other Christians don’t
 
40.png
AugustTherese:
40.png
JonNC:
Is it unified? In Baptism? Yes.

Are all members that make it up unified? In some ways, but certainly, and sadly, not all
Only in Holy Baptism? Is that what Our Lord prayed for in John 17, “so that they may be one”, but only in Baptism, not in matters of faith and morals? Also, the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church, solely regarding Baptism, but not in doctrine?
Obviously they need quite a heavy duty goal-post-stretcher, but that seems to be their argument.
I don’t think it’s rational to insist that:
  1. Christ established Petrine leadership within the disciples and apostles and then…
  2. desired for that executive structure to dissolve upon Peter’s death…
  3. to be replaced by a book that won’t begin being written for at least a decade after Christ’s death, won’t be finished until nearly seven decades after his death and won’t be canonized for centuries…
  4. and is to be interpreted by a laity that won’t achieve common literacy for roughly another two millennia.
Noting that 2-4 have no scriptural basis whatsoever…
 
Last edited:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Not by the Gothic Arians of yesterday and the Oneness Pentecostals of today. They claim baptism, Jon. And deny the Trinity.

I’m surprised you didn’t know these groups existed…
If you want to set your sails by their standards, go ahead. Typically, Catholics and other Christians don’t
How very papal of you, Jon!

Now, if we’re bound by baptism, how do we determine which baptisms are valid in your invisible “church”?

[Note: I know the answer is “we can’t”, but I’m interested in what you’ll say]
 
Luke9. 50And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you
I assure you, that man was not a formal schismatic or heretic who was deliberately protesting the Apostles of Christ…

" Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." Matthew 12:30
 
And when was the Canon of Scripture?

What council do Sola Scripturists rely on to know their Bible contents?
Depends on who you talk to. As you know Eastern Orthodox have a different canon(s)
And since sola scripturist isn’t a group, it again depends on the communion.
My personal view is that western Christians would do well to observe a 73 book canon, with great respect to other books of scripture like the Prayer of Manasseh
 
My personal view is that
@JonNC, I am not trying to be facetious or insinuate anything; but, does it not strike a chord in your conscience when you preface an answer dealing with the canonicity of Scripture with: “My personal view”?
 
40.png
JonNC:
My personal view is that
@JonNC, I am not trying to be facetious or insinuate anything; but, does it not strike a chord in your conscience when you preface an answer dealing with the canonicity of Scripture with: “My personal view”?
In keeping with my theory that Protestantism is ultimately self-worship, “my personal view” is the most authoritative thing. Just had to throw that out there.
 
40.png
rcwitness:
And when was the Canon of Scripture?

What council do Sola Scripturists rely on to know their Bible contents?
Depends on who you talk to. As you know Eastern Orthodox have a different canon(s)
And since sola scripturist isn’t a group, it again depends on the communion.
My personal view is that western Christians would do well to observe a 73 book canon, with great respect to other books of scripture like the Prayer of Manasseh
Right, no disagreement. But Sola Scripturists claim Scripture to be the universal rule of faith. So their is a double standard.

And the West relied on various affirmations, but largely Hippo and Carthage. And if im not mistaken, they acknowledged the necessary affirmation of Rome.
 
40.png
Vonsalza:
How very papal of you, Jon!
I accept that as a compliment. Thank you
Now, if we’re bound by baptism, how do we determine which baptisms are valid in your invisible “church”?
Where did I say “invisible church”?
Where and how am I to find the means of grace if the Church is invisible?
Merely a delay of the same question, Jon. It becomes this: Then who is in the visible “church”? How do ya know?
 
Only in Holy Baptism? Is that what Our Lord prayed for in John 17, “so that they may be one”, but only in Baptism, not in matters of faith and morals? Also, the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church, solely regarding Baptism, but not in doctrine?
Did I say, “only in Baptism?”
 
I am not trying to be facetious or insinuate anything; but, does it not strike a chord in your conscience when you preface an answer dealing with the canonicity of Scripture with: “My personal view”?
No. Are Catholics not permitted personal views?
Didn’t Erasmus and Jerome and Cajetan and many many others hold views of the canon?
 
Did I say, “only in Baptism?”
Well, not technically; your words alluded to it, hence why I asked, “Only in Holy Baptism?”. Thereby you would answer with a yes or no and follow up with an explanation.
 
Jon, Jon, Jon, the Catholic Church has the power of binding and loosing - you know that!

Acts 15!

Those who protest are NEVER at peace.

(sigh)
 
They were NOT Pope and council. Jerome, in particular had/has probably a greater knowledge of the scriptures than any who walked this earth. He had doubts about the books from the Greek Septuagint (Close to 90% of the OT quotes in the NT, including those of Jesus come from it). He obeyed the Pope, showing the virtue of obedience rather than rebellion, which is a vice.

Acts 15!

Church and council. 100% biblical.

Which Protestant ecumenical council ever decided anything?

None! There was no such council and there cannot be any, due to the immediate fracturing of the those who rebelled. They forfeited all authority when they split.

Yet, Catholics are allowed a wide variety of beliefs in matters that are not set in concrete by revelation.
 
Right, no disagreement. But Sola Scripturists claim Scripture to be the universal rule of faith. So their is a double standard.
The rule of faith that a Baptist may have is based on the canon that they have approved. So, it isn’t a double standard
And the West relied on various affirmations, but largely Hippo and Carthage. And if im not mistaken, they acknowledged the necessary affirmation of Rome.
Correct.
 
Jon, Jon, Jon, the Catholic Church has the power of binding and loosing - you know that!

Acts 15!

Those who protest are NEVER at peace.

(sigh)
The entire Church has the power to bind and loose. I received absolution this past Sunday!
 
The rule of faith that a Baptist may have is based on the canon that they have approved. So, it isn’t a double standard
So they claim to be able to make an infallible declaration? Both the doctrine of Sola scriptura and the Canon?

Because neither of those had an eccumenical council affirm, right?

You see, the Catholic Church never claimed Scripture to be the independant rule of faith, so she never relied on a Canon as Sola Scripturists would. Yet, Sola Scripturists are unable to refer to an eccumenical council which declared a body of Scripture so that Sola Scriptura has a foundation. We can know our Canon of Scripture because it rests on the foundation of Church authority to decree.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top