This is a non-answer.
Great. Why did Paul go to Jerusalem to see Peter?
Non-denominational
Numbers 1 through 5 are non-essentials. Neither Baptists nor Methodists consider that salvation is based on these things. If someone is born into the Methodist church and baptized as an infant by sprinkling, then grows up and becomes a member of a Baptist church, that individual is not made to be re-baptized.
Denomination is of lesser importance to me. When I look for a church to attend and join I generally look to see whether they esteem the Word of God. If the church uses rationalizations to excuse things expressly spoken against in God’s Word, or the church questions the historicity/validity of Scripture, then I am not interested in joining with them.
It sounds like you are disagreeing with Paul here. Please explain.
This dispute involves the essential matter of salvation and is the reason why the reformers could not maintain unity with the RCC. Baptism does not remove the stain of original sin. Scripture says, rather, that our righteousness is derived from Christ:
Good, then we are in agreement
Is this so? Then when Paul speaks about the adoption of Christians, he is only referring to church authorities?: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs–heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” (Romans 8:15-17) Paul wrote the letter to the church at Rome - not the leaders of the church at Rome. Moreover, in Acts 2, are we to suppose that three thousand souls to whom Peter said: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,” were a part of the “select group of men”? Certainly not! For in the very next breath Peter says: “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off…”
So…the itching ears of Protestants want to hear that “the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23)and that salvation “depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace” (Romans 4:16) and that “by grace [we] have been saved through faith; and that not of [ourselves], it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8,9) and that we should “be found in him, not having a righteousness of [our] own that comes from the law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness that comes from God and that depends on faith” (Philippians 3:9)? I agree, it is what I want to hear, and that is why it is called the Good News. I guess I am guilty as charged, but then you must maintain that Scripture does not teach “sound doctrine.”
Once again, here is where the two of us strenuously disagree with one another.
The Pharisees also taught Tradition (doctrine). In fact, they claimed that the Traditions that they taught were oral commands originally given by Moses. This is another way in which the RCC and Pharisees are very similar. The point is, the distinction you make between what traditions are of men and which are not is invalid.
The NIV is a functional equivalence translation. Some evangelicals joke that NIV stands for “Nearly Inspired Version”.
If we refer to formal equivalence translations, such as ESV and (I believe also) NASB, the Greek word paradosis is rendered as “tradition.” So, I have no problem with you are saying here. The question remains, however, how do we discern what traditions are “of men” and which are “of God.”James had opportunity here to reveal the nature of the Church as God intended it. He could have explained to the Judaizers about Peter’s charism of infallibility and that of the other Apostles, he could have explained the hierarchical structure of the Church and how Peter’s position was unique. He could have recounted Christ’s words to Peter, which surely he would have known as Bishop of Jerusalem. If this is an important subject, then James ought to have seized the moment, and failure to do so shows that he in fact did not instruct his flock very well by his words (if in fact he believed these things).
Now who is nit picking? If a Protestant comes up and says “I don’t believe in transubstantion, can I join you?” he may be allowed in some parishes, but in most parishes he would be asked to refrain from participation.
In the end, however, whether Paul understood this is neither here nor there. The Holy Spirit, which prompted Paul, certainly knew how these epistles would be used, and therefore ensured that they would be of benefit to the entire Church for all ages to come.
If Liguori is named a Doctor of the Church, then his writings are deemed to be of “great advantage” to the Church. Obviously he did not have the charism of infallibility, but if his writings grossly distort the cause of our hope and salvation, then the Church erred in bestowing that title on him, and in so doing likely have led many astray. Better for the church to have condemned his writings in defense of sound biblical doctrine concerning the true and only source of our hope and salvation.
Once again, it appears you are arguing against what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: **That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished **unto all good works.”). The word rendered as “perfect” is the Greek word artios, which means complete. As if to stress his point, he then says “thoroughly furnished.”
The Methodist church is an amalgamation of conservative, evangelical-type churches, and churches beholden to theological liberalism. I am hesitant to paint them with a broad brush. Suffice it to say, however, its leadership is increasingly leading the denomination in a direction contrary to the Word of God.
Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8
There are still Jews today who consider only the writings of Moses to be inspired. The rest is considered in the same light that we consider our history books and various study helps.
Are you saying that Jesus was only able to quote from inspired Scripture? Couldn’t He also have quoted from other writings?
And what is that “other gospel”? Surely it is Protestantism in all of its various forms.
I believe I see the first Protestant in the NT in 1 Tim 1 and 2 Tim 2 in Hymeneus. This is why I say it; first off he believes in the essentials that Protestant talk about. He believes in Jesus. He was baptized by the sound of it. He believes in Jesus as his savior, that Jesus rose from the dead, and Jesus is in heaven and he also believes in his own interpretation of what the Apostle are teaching and says the resurrection has already happened which is a non-essential. So I guess Protestantism even existed back then.but you need to read what St Paul thought about how non-essential fit into the teachings. .And what is that “other gospel”? Surely it is Protestantism in all of its various forms.
In the Book of the Acts of the Apostles we already see the healing power of various relics of the Apostles (for example, St. Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons (Acts 19:11-12), and we see that human beings are endowed with the gift of miracles - just as we see in the Catholic Church today.
How do I know the Bible is God’s Holy Word? Well for starters, all of the prophecies in the OT concerning the Messiah were fulfilled hundreds or even thousands of years later with Christ. The probability of being able to fulfill all of those is astronomical. Therefore, only someone who transcends space and time and who is absolutely omniscient (i.e. God) could have made those predictions. In addition, there are numerous archeological discoveries that continue to be made, which prove the veracity of Scripture. Turning to the NT, Christ performed miracles which demonstrated His sovereignty over nature and death, even conquering death itself! These miracles lend credibility to the amazing claims of Christ. After Christ died, those who witnessed the miracles (primarily His disciples) continued to tell of what Jesus had done. That they were willing to face imprisonment and even death for their witness proves they were not following some “cunningly devised fables.” From a broader perspective, the Bible was written through multiple (divinely inspired) human authors over the span of thousands of years and yet, even as Randy has agreed, there is a unifying theme. Who could orchestrate such a thing but God?
That EVERY Protestant would agree on? Well, I guess that would include the theological liberals, in which case the list would be small and maybe even non-existent. You and I will agree on a lot more together than me and a theological liberal. To help you understand theological liberalism, allow me to quote Richard Niebuhr’s description. He explains that theological liberalism teaches that “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.” Therefore, by any true definition of the term, they are not even really Christians.
I didn’t ask for a quote from Richard Niebuhr. I asked for chapters and verses from the Bible.
Yes, I can be rather obtuse sometimes. Thank you for your patience. I agree with your statement, that “all evangelicals ‘hail from’ Protestantism.” Supposing, however, as you posit, that an evangelical found himself in the pew of a theologically liberal pastor, he would be justified in leaving that apostate church for one which demonstrates fidelity toward God’s Word. It would be somewhat analogous to a Catholic who inadvertantly attended mass at a parish belonging to the sect of the Old Catholics. That Catholic could be excused for leaving the mass prematurely. Back to the scenario you painted, there is a binding authority in Scripture. That the Pastor rejects this authority does not nullify the fact. The binding authoritative voice is God’s at the day of judgement. In the interim, I and the pastor go separate ways just as in my analogy the Catholic departs from the Old Catholic mass.
Solus,
Solus,