Where to begin?

[Randy_Carson]

Numbers 1 through 5 are non-essentials.

By whose standards?

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.

I was baptized as an infant in the Methodist Church, and so was my sister. When I joined the Catholic Church, I was conditionally baptized (If you are not baptized, then I baptize you…) because we did not have a record of the rite to determine if a proper Trinitarian formula had been used. If we had such evidence, no baptism would have been necessary in my case; the Catholic Church observes one baptism.

When my sister decided to become a Baptist, she was “baptized” again (although technically, nothing happened). Later in life, she got serious about her faith again, and was “baptized” a third time in a non-denominational “church”.

Does this actually help our discussion? Well may be not, but it does go to show that the differences tend to be things about which Methodists and Baptists can exercise liberty (i.e. are non-essential).

Well, you asked.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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:

1 Corinthians 1:30 “It is because of him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who for us has become wisdom from God, as well as our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.”

What’s more, Christ makes it clear that physical washings are ineffective for the removal of spiritual maladies. In Mark 7, the Pharisees were incensed Jesus’ disciples did not observe the ceremonial washings. Jesus took the Pharisees to task, telling them: “There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” (vs 15) If our defilement stems from within our own depraved hearts, water is powerless to cleanse. Baptism is merely an outward expression indicative of what the Holy Spirit has wrought within.

Jewish ritual washings are not the same thing as baptism, are they?

However, Baptism DOES remove the stain of original sin as the following verses suggest:

The Necessity of Water Baptism Proved from Scripture

The New Testament writers indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation in the following verses of scripture.

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized** will be saved**; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Note that two things are necessary: 1) belief and 2) baptism. Can’t be saved until both conditions are met.

Acts 2:37-39
37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Note that two things are necessary: 1) repentance and 2) baptism. No explicit mention of faith at all.

Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Note that baptism *– not faith – *is prescribed for the cleansing of sins.

Titus 3:4-7
4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Note that the author states that “He saved us through the washing of rebirth” – an obvious reference to baptism.

1 Peter 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

“Baptism…now saves you”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.”

No, the itching ears of the Protestant want to hear the preacher tell them what they already believe about a particular verse, passage or doctrine. If he doesn’t, they either fire the pastor, change churches, or rent some store-front space and start a new fellowship of folks who think just like they do…until the next conflict over interpretation arises…then the cycle starts all over again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The question remains, however, how do we discern what traditions are “of men” and which are “of God.”

Simple. Jesus established a Church to which He gave His own authority to speak in His name and to teach without error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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).

And when the Jews abandoned Jesus in John 6 because they refused to believe that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, He could have chased them down the road to bring them back with a few words of clarification. He didn’t, did He? Because there was no misunderstanding and no metaphor. But I digress.

The matter at hand in Acts 15 was the question of circumcision of the Gentiles.

I’m sure James had ample opportunity to follow up on other these other topics in subsequent gatherings of his church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

If he is allowed to receive communion, then the Priest (or extraordinary minister) has made a serious error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

It was “here or there” when you made the opposite assertion concerning Paul’s awareness. Thank you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.”

I am well-acquainted with the argument having listened to and reviewed numerous Catholic-Protestant debates on the subject and both that passage and artios have been hotly contested. It is the man who is said to be complete…scripture makes the man of God complete but this does not mean that scripture alone is sufficient to complete the man.

 

[Solus_Christus]

And what if my interpretation differs from yours? What then?

Yes, what if? As I have said numerous times before, there ought to be unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and charity in all things. If Joe insists that Jesus was a mere mortal and not “God from God,” then after a reasonable attempt by Harry to convince Joe of his folly, it is appropriate that Harry separates from Joe’s company. When in His high priestly prayer Christ prayed for the unity of believers, it was for unity among those who were His sheep. By rejecting the revealed truth of who Christ is (John 1:1), Joe demonstrates he is not one of Christ’s sheep. Therefore, it is not encumbent upon Harry to maintain unity with Joe. To the contrary, it is appropriate for Harry to break fellowship with Joe in order to make Joe “sorrowful unto repentence.”

If, on the other hand, Joe and Harry disagree about whether the new carpet in the church should be blue or red, then they ought not to strive against one another, but should rather esteem one another above themselves (Philippians 2:1-5). There is nothing commendable about church splits that have occurred over such trivial and non-essential matters and, once again, please do not expect me to defend the indefensible. In this regard, a hierarchical structure of church polity is valuable as it reduces the number of unnecssary divisions. But what to do when the hierarchy missteps on an essential matter, as Protestants maintain?

I do not wish to trivialize the difficulty that sometimes arises when discerning between what is essential and what is not. Sometimes it is difficult to make the distinction and it is paramount for those involved to seek God’s face in humility and His council in prayer. Assuredly mistakes have been made in the past, and it provides great fodder for Catholic polemics. I confess that the mistakes made are probably not pleasing to God. But once again, what recourse is there if the hierarchy of the mother church propagates doctrines contrary to God’s Word? You and I will disagree on this point strenuously, which goes precisely to your question above. In the end, however, regardless of the polity of the RCC, there is still one final arbiter, and that is God.

I also understand Catholics like the idea of being able to bring a matter before a council for final deliberation and temporal resolution. In the end, however, those who strive against God will face His judgement regardless of whether they attend a RCC church or a Baptist church. And likewise, those bent on continuing their rebellion against God are free to leave and establish their own congregation, whether that individual leaves a Baptist church to join a Mormon church or leaves a Catholic church to join a Gnostic church. The final result is still the same.

I am fully aware that the lynchpin here is whether the RCC hierarchy is infallible (as you, my friends, submit) or has erred (as Protestants maintain). I imagine in the minds of most Catholics, Protestants are chronic schismatics who split for the sheer joy of splitting. Keep in mind, however, it was with much fear and trembling Luther made his stand. Jan Hus, who was like minded, had been burned at the stake not too long ago at that point. The conviction of these reformers as well as others, including Wycliff and the Waldensians, came at a great personal price and so was not something done lightly.

 

[Tomb54]

Yes, what if? As I have said numerous times before, there ought to be unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and charity in all things. If Joe insists that Jesus was a mere mortal and not “God from God,” then after a reasonable attempt by Harry to convince Joe of his folly, it is appropriate that Harry separates from Joe’s company. When in His high priestly prayer Christ prayed for the unity of believers, it was for unity among those who were His sheep. By rejecting the revealed truth of who Christ is (John 1:1), Joe demonstrates he is not one of Christ’s sheep. Therefore, it is not encumbent upon Harry to maintain unity with Joe. To the contrary, it is appropriate for Harry to break fellowship with Joe in order to make Joe “sorrowful unto repentence.”

But there are Protestant faiths that make this claim that Jesus is not God or that the Trinity exist.

Also Paul kicked out a follower who was baptized, believed in Jesus as Savior, who believed Jesus rose, but also believed what he also wanted to which was different from the teachings of the Apostles and said the resurrection already happened. So like this I would say Protestant demonstrate they do not have unity as Christ in His high priestly prayer prayed for unity of believers. Therefore Protestants demonstrate they are not one of Christ sheep.

Is this how your logic works? Am I getting it right? or was St Paul wrong and the resurrection is a non-essential?

t
Those of the CC also paid a dear price for their beliefs as they lived their faith (Clement, Polycarp., Ignatious, Irenaeus, etc)

 

[pablope]

Yes, what if? As I have said numerous times before, there ought to be unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and charity in all things. If Joe insists that Jesus was a mere mortal and not “God from God,” then after a reasonable attempt by Harry to convince Joe of his folly, it is appropriate that Harry separates from Joe’s company.

Your view is commendable…but in here, you highlight a big difference between the Catholics and protestants, the way I see it.

The question should not be what you, the individual, want, but what does God want, what is God’s will and what is God’s desire.

The question you should be asking is, are you willing to surrender your will to God? And put your trust in an authority he established?

I think it comes down to a matter of faith and trust. Unfortunately, what I have observed is protestants are indoctrinated to trust in themselves, and not in the Church.

There is nothing commendable about church splits that have occurred over such trivial and non-essential matters and, once again, please do not expect me to defend the indefensible. In this regard, a hierarchical structure of church polity is valuable as it reduces the number of unnecssary divisions.

 

[Tomster]

Yes, what if? As I have said numerous times before, there ought to be unity on the essentials, liberty on the non-essentials, and charity in all things. If Joe insists that Jesus was a mere mortal and not “God from God,” then after a reasonable attempt by Harry to convince Joe of his folly, it is appropriate that Harry separates from Joe’s company. When in His high priestly prayer Christ prayed for the unity of believers, it was for unity among those who were His sheep. By rejecting the revealed truth of who Christ is (John 1:1), Joe demonstrates he is not one of Christ’s sheep. Therefore, it is not encumbent upon Harry to maintain unity with Joe. To the contrary, it is appropriate for Harry to break fellowship with Joe in order to make Joe “sorrowful unto repentence.”

If, on the other hand, Joe and Harry disagree about whether the new carpet in the church should be blue or red, then they ought not to strive against one another, but should rather esteem one another above themselves (Philippians 2:1-5). There is nothing commendable about church splits that have occurred over such trivial and non-essential matters and, once again, please do not expect me to defend the indefensible. In this regard, a hierarchical structure of church polity is valuable as it reduces the number of unnecssary divisions. But what to do when the hierarchy missteps on an essential matter, as Protestants maintain?

I do not wish to trivialize the difficulty that sometimes arises when discerning between what is essential and what is not. Sometimes it is difficult to make the distinction and it is paramount for those involved to seek God’s face in humility and His council in prayer. Assuredly mistakes have been made in the past, and it provides great fodder for Catholic polemics. I confess that the mistakes made are probably not pleasing to God. But once again, what recourse is there if the hierarchy of the mother church propagates doctrines contrary to God’s Word? You and I will disagree on this point strenuously, which goes precisely to your question above. In the end, however, regardless of the polity of the RCC, there is still one final arbiter, and that is God.

I also understand Catholics like the idea of being able to bring a matter before a council for final deliberation and temporal resolution. In the end, however, those who strive against God will face His judgement regardless of whether they attend a RCC church or a Baptist church. And likewise, those bent on continuing their rebellion against God are free to leave and establish their own congregation, whether that individual leaves a Baptist church to join a Mormon church or leaves a Catholic church to join a Gnostic church. The final result is still the same.

I am fully aware that the lynchpin here is whether the RCC hierarchy is infallible (as you, my friends, submit) or has erred (as Protestants maintain). I imagine in the minds of most Catholics, Protestants are chronic schismatics who split for the sheer joy of splitting. Keep in mind, however, it was with much fear and trembling Luther made his stand. Jan Hus, who was like minded, had been burned at the stake not too long ago at that point. The conviction of these reformers as well as others, including Wycliff and the Waldensians, came at a great personal price and so was not something done lightly.

You keep dancing around the question trying to evade giving an answer.

Give us your exegesis AND catechesis on the matter. According to your previous posts on this thread this really shouldn’t be a problem for you. Why the delay?

Chapter and verse - the essentials! The Bible and only the Bible

We are waiting!

 

[Lampo]

I beg to differ. Scripture does make this clear. Consider the following:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

By saying these preclude us from inheriting the kingdom, the Scripture is saying that abstaining from these thing is not optional.

Gal 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Certainly it is requirement that we are not severed from Christ or fallen from grace, so we must not believe that we will be justified by the law.

Where does it say these are the “essentials” or “non-essentials”? Or are these what *you *think are the “essentials” or “non-essentials”? Is this an exhaustive list? Where’s the opposite list of what you provided?

 

[Lampo]

Misconstrue according to God.

Where does God tell me that I’ve misconstrued this?

Seek God for the answer.

How?

No Lampo, the Holy Spirit is not the author of error, and so He would not instruct us differently.

So is the Holy Spirit guiding *me *or you? How do we determine this?

To whom do we take our dispute? If the underlying theological implications of Purgatory were not so wide ranging and problematic I would posit this is a non-essential matter and one in which we are at liberty to disagree with one another while still maintaining Christian fellowship.

I missed you answer. Whom do we take our dispute?

Since it is an important matter, however, the result is the Protestant Reformation. We will certainly know for sure who was in error on that day we stand before our Creator.

God didn’t leave us a way to know for sure until then?

 

[Tomster]

Where does it say these are the “essentials” or “non-essentials”? Or are these what *you *think are the “essentials” or “non-essentials”? Is this an exhaustive list? Where’s the opposite list of what you provided?

Thank you very much!

Gettin’ down to the real nitty-gritty.

 

[Tomster]

I beg to differ. Scripture does make this clear. Consider the following:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

By saying these preclude us from inheriting the kingdom, the Scripture is saying that abstaining from these thing is not optional.

Gal 5:4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Certainly it is requirement that we are not severed from Christ or fallen from grace, so we must not believe that we will be justified by the law.

Four verses from the same Book and Chapter?

That’s it?

Is that the best you can do?

These are all of your essentials?

Tell me it ain’t so.

 

[Lampo]

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?

The following books and letters also confirm prior prophesies. Why weren’t these included in the NT?

1.1 The Epistles of Jesus to Abgarus
2. Pseudo-apostolic (general) apocrypha
2.1 Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (Didache)
2.2 Epistle of the Apostles

1. Pseudo-apostolic (specific - by Apostle) apocrypha
   3.1 - Andrew -
   3.1.1 Acts of Andrew
   3.1.2 Acts of Andrew and Matthias*

3.2 - Barnabas -
3.2.1 Acts of Barnabas*
3.2.2 Epistle of Barnabas
3.2.3 Gospel of Barnabas

3.3 - Bartholomew -
3.3.1 Gospel of Bartholomew
3.3.2 Martyrdom of Bartholomew*

3.4 - James -
3.4.1 Apocryphon of James
3.4.2 Book of James (protevangelium)
3.4.3 First Apocalypse of James
3.4.4 Second Apocalypse of James

3.5 - John -
3.5.1 Acts of John
3.5.2 Acts of John the Theologian*
3.5.3 Apocryphon of John (long version)
3.5.4 Book of John the Evangelist
3.5.5 Revelation of John the Theologian*

3.6 - Mark -
3.6.1 Secret Gospel of Mark

3.7 - Matthew -
3.7.1 Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle*
3.7.2 The Martyrdom of Matthew

3.8 - Nicodemus -
3.8.1 Gospel (Acts) of Nicodemus (aka The Acts of Pontius Pilate)

3.9 - Peter -
3.9.1 Acts of Peter
3.9.2 Acts of Peter and Andrew
3.9.3 Apocalypse of Peter - version 1
3.9.4 Apocalypse of Peter - version 2
3.9.5 Gospel of Peter
3.9.6 Letter of Peter to Philip

3.10 - Philip -
3.10.1 Acts of Philip
3.10.2 Gospel of Philip

3.11 - Thaddeus -
3.11.1 Acts of Thaddeus (Epistles of Pontius Pilate)*
3.11.2 Teaching of Thaddeus

3.12 - Thomas -
3.12.1 Acts of Thomas
3.12.2 Apocalypse of Thomas
3.12.3 Book of Thomas the Contender
3.12.4 Consumation of Thomas
3.12.5 Gospel of Thomas

1. Pseudo-Pauline apocrypha
   4.1 3 Corinthians
   4.2 Acts 29
   4.3 Acts of Paul
   4.4 Acts of Paul and Thecla
   4.5 Acts of Peter and Paul*
   4.6 Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena
   4.7 Apocalypse of Paul
   4.8 Apocalypse of Paul - other version
   4.9 Epistle to the Laodiceans
   4.10 Revelation of Paul*
   4.11 Paul and Seneca
2. Infancy Gospels apocrypha
   5.1 Arabic Infancy Gospel
   5.2 First Infancy Gospel of Jesus Christ
   5.3 Infancy Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
   5.4 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek A
   5.5 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Greek B
   5.6 Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Latin
3. Relatives of Jesus apocrypha
   6.1 Gospel of Mary
   6.2 Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
   6.3 Book of John concerning the dormition of Mary (transitus mariæ)*
   6.4 History of Joseph the Carpenter*
   6.5 Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
4. Sub-canonical (disputed canon) apocrypha
   7.1 Shepherd of Hermas
   7.2 II Clement
   7.3 Diatession
   7.4 Gospel of the Lord (Marcion)
5. Other significant Epistles and pseudomynous writings and apocrypha
   8.1 I Clement
   8.2 Avenging of the Saviour
   8,3 Epistles of Pontius Pilate
   8.4 Letter of Aristeas
   8.5 Sentences of the Sextus
   8.6 Alexandrians
   8.7 Revelations of Stephen
   8.8 Muratonian Canon (fragment)
6. Fragments of lost apocryphal books
   9.1 Gospel of the Ebionites
   9.2 Gospel of the Egyptians
   9.3 Egerton Gospel (Egerton Papyrus 2)*
   9.4 Gospel of the Hebrews
   9.5 Traditions of Mattias
   9.6 Gospel of the Nazaraeans
   9.7 Preaching of Peter

 

[Lampo]

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?

A couple things. The Scriptures came from God because He is their author. The “Bible” was compiled by the Catholic Church at the end of the fourth century, at the direction of God. I want to make this distinction between what is God-breathed Scripture vis-à-vis how we KNOW what is God-breathed Scripture. We only know what is inspired by the authority of the Catholic Church.

The inspiration of the Old Testament is not necessarily confirmed by the reasons you provide. Why? Because the sacred writers also quote from and allude to non-inspired texts. If this were the test for inspiration, our Bible would be a lot bigger than it is. The inspiration of the Old Testament was held by authority and tradition, not self-authentication. The Jews believed in the inspiration of the OT because their tradition and authority told them the texts were inspired. This demonstrates the truth of the Catholic position as well. That is, we believe in the authority and inspiration of Scripture because the Church and Tradition tell us so, not because the books tell us. To my fallible mind, the Didache seems inspired to, but the Church has told us that it is not. We also note that, regarding the OT, there were still disagreements among the Jews as to certain books (e.g., the Sadducees versus the Pharisees). This fact begs for an authority outside of Scripture to make the final determination.

(some of that taken from here.)

 

[Solus_Christus]

Solus,

“The earnest Protestant who goes directly to the Bible for his beliefs is brought into immediate contact with the Holy Spirit, and can take the ideas that his reading conveys to him personally as the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit to himself, and the individual inquirer can . . . be SURE [emph. mine] of extracting from the Scripture text the intended meaning of its divine author.” - Martin Luther

There you have it. Straight from Dr. Luther’s mouth (his own oral tradition) which was passed on in written form.

Can you see the flawed reasoning he exhibited when he promulgated this doctrine? Can you see how it lead to a multiplicity of fallible opinions and creeds in Protestantism, all of them based on the Bible?

If it is true that Luther’s reasoning was flawed, then his idea was ignoble and the Bereans, far from being declared noble, ought to have been chastised for attempting the same (Acts 17:11). Moreover, Paul would not have exhorted the Ephesian church to “take…the Sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” (Ephesians 6:17) Rather, he would have instructed them to leave the Sword of the Spirit in the hands of the Sacred Magisterium. The writer to the Hebrews, in chapter 10, quotes from an OT prophecy (Jeremiah 31:33) that describes the nature of the relationship between the elect and God’s Word. It says: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, and write them upon their minds.” Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth,” (2 Timothy 2:15) is also for all Christians. Luther surely had in mind those who rightly handle the word of truth. Those who do not rightly handle the word of truth do not thereby invalidate this exhortation. Those who do rightly handle the word of truth are not answerable for those who do not.

I have never read this quote from Luther, and so am not familiar with it. I am, however, familiar with the Scripture passages above. Though I am sure you would like to identify the idea of the Holy Spirit instructing us in His Word as an innovation of Luther, the notion was originally conveyed by God through His Word. Psalms 119:105 says that God’s Word is a lamp to our path and a light to our feet. If our way is illumined through God’s Word, then we can be sure the Holy Spirit has been at work. Therefore, your charge against Luther is really a charge against God. It is your word against His.

I hate to state the obvious, but opinions and creeds do not need to be infallible in order to be true. I am not suggesting there are multiple truths, but only that infallibility is not requisite. I, being fallible, can utter a true statement, such as “2+2=4”.

Finally, since his debut at the Garden of Eden, the Adversary has been at work to cast doubt on God’s Word and to lead astray. He can “drown out” the truth of God with a multiplicity of competing untruths, but God in His goodness and divine providence will lead, like a good shepherd, those who are His. If the Adversary causes some to doubt God’s very words, then it comes as no surprise. If the Adversary can place any distance between some people and God’s Word, then he will assuredly consider it a victory. If the Adversary can redirect some people’s attention toward some distortion of God’s Word then he takes great pleasure in it. And if he can make those same people hold fast to that distortion with great fervor and lure them into believing the certainty of that distortion, then he has dominion over those souls unless and until God opens their eyes.

Give us your list of essentials from the Bible please.

I recently addressed this, but there is no official list. Paul made a very high-level list when he said: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) In a similar vein he also said: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)

I will also repeat what I stated previously - that it is not always readily evident what is essential, and believers must look to God and His Holy Spirit for wisdom and discernment. More than likely, however, if it is not clear from Scripture then it probably is not essential.

You asked me to provide “my list.” Why do you want or even care what my list would look like (supposing I even had one)? Is my opinion of any significance? No! But name a topic and we will look and see what the Scriptures say to determine whether it is essential. I made a similar challenge to the Catholics on this forum to provide me with an official list of ex cathedra doctrines. Can you provide me with this?

 

[Tomb54]

I hate to state the obvious, but opinions and creeds do not need to be infallible in order to be true. I am not suggesting there are multiple truths, but only that infallibility is not requisite. I, being fallible, can utter a true statement, such as “2+2=4”.

I recently addressed this, but there is no official list. Paul made a very high-level list when he said: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:3-8) In a similar vein he also said: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Then why did St Paul hand over those who did not follow all the teaching of the Apostle to the Satan? Remember Hymeneus? I would say he believed all the thing Protestant would say are the essential even though there is not official list. I guess Jesus and the HS just were not smart enough to give any guidance to His church like He promised. Or I would say He did give that guidance to His church which they earliest of the ECF state was the Catholic Church.

I will also repeat what I stated previously - that it is not always readily evident what is essential, and believers must look to God and His Holy Spirit for wisdom and discernment. More than likely, however, if it is not clear from Scripture then it probably is not essential.

Then you are saying Jesus gave His church no guidance because I see Protestants coming up with all kinds of ideas that they say are clear and in the Bible and their interpretation differs from other Protestants. Remember there are Protestants that say Jesus is not God and I would classify that as one of the main essentials but since there is no Authority in the Protestant faiths they can believe whatever they want and say it is from the HS guiding them.