A few questions for Protestants

[Buzzard3]

Very much like the many Catholic Christian church bodies.

How many billion Catholics accept the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) as the head of their Church, are in full communion with said Pope, accept all the dogmas and doctrines decreed by said Pope, and recite exactly the same creed at every Mass in the world on every Sunday?

How many Protestants recite the same creed every Sunday? Wait ... do Protestants even have a creed?

 

[Albion]

How many billion Catholics accept the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) as the head of their Church, are in full communion with said Pope, accept all the dogmas and doctrines decreed by said Pope, and recite exactly the same creed at every Mass in the world on every Sunday?

When you said that Protestant churches are divided, you were not making the claim that the church with the most members--nominal as well as practicing--is, ergo, the true church and the one that understands Christ clearly.

How many Protestants recite the same creed every Sunday?

Well, hundreds of millions of them for sure, but how many exactly I couldn't say offhand.

 

[YeshuaFan]

We've yet to get to anything that says Peter was the "Christ-chosen leader of the Church," however.


WHAT's why Jesus gave Peter the keys? You have a guess, but others have interpreted the passage in a different way.

The Church in Acts seemed to have "3 popes", as James was head of the Mother Church, and peter Apostle to Jews, with Paul one to the gentiles!

 

[Albion]

The Church in Acts seemed to have "3 popes", as James was head of the Mother Church, and peter Apostle to Jews, with Paul one to the gentiles!

You are certainly correct that although Peter was one of Christ's favorites and a leader among the Apostles, we also see several other of the Apostles acting as the accepted leader at different times and in different ways.

The Early Church Fathers spoke of Peter being the leader, but at other times, Peter and Paul were described as the joint leaders, and even Peter, Paul, AND James. And then there is the problem of understanding what being the leader means.

The idea of one of them being the ruler of the whole Christian world and infallible, etc. never was the belief at any time during the days of the Apostolic church.

 

[YeshuaFan]

You are certainly correct that although Peter was one of Christ's favorites and a leader among the Apostles, we also see several other of the Apostles acting as the accepted leader at different times and in different ways.

The Early Church Fathers spoke of Peter being the leader, but at other times, Peter and Paul were described as the joint leaders, and even Peter, Paul, AND James. And then there is the problem of understanding what being the leader means.

The idea of one of them being the ruler of the whole Christian world and infallible, etc. never was the belief at any time during the days of the Apostolic church.

Peter could not have been the first Pope, as he never claimed to be such, and he always seems to have deferred to Paul, James, and John at times!

 

[timothyu]

Which Church did the early Church Fathers belong to?

The synagogues of Judah and The Way.

 

[timothyu]

Which Protestant has been given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19)?

It was a Jew.

 

[timothyu]

Which Church did God entrust to compile the NT in the fourth-century (by which time the "movement" had been well and truly "hijacked", I presume)?

More important who wrote the compilations. It doesn't matter who hijacked the original faith later on.

 

[timothyu]

The OT prophets were "men", so why should anyone trust what they said?

Look up the definition of prophet. The only ones other than Jesus whom God spoke through. The only ones called king makers, unlike the self proclaimed king makers after Jesus' time who eventually took on the role of a king for themselves. Interesting how the most powerful sect of Christianity mimicked the kingdoms of man in building themselves up as a world authority, leaving the Kingdom of God behind. Jesus turned down the 'all this can be yours' ploy in favour of the true Kingdom. Gentiles lapped up the offer of a kingdom here.

 

[timothyu]

It wasn't a "human institution" - Jesus gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of God" (Matt 16:19), which is obviously a supernatural power.

The Kingdom is not a human institution.

 

[timothyu]

And where does the Bible teachs which books, letters, gospels and epistles are to be included in the canon of scripture and which are not? Did it "self collate"?

An obvious choice meant to favour the gentile group. Built in the image of them rather than the image of God compete wit dictates all else shall be called heresy in order to protect themselves, not the word of God which spoke of a Kingdom not of this world.

 

[timothyu]

Meanwhile, there are tens of thousands of non-Catholic Christian sects and denominations in existence because they can't agree on what Jesus made "very clear" ...

You either follow the Gospel of the Kingdom or you don't. That applies to all of Christianity especially those infighting over who gets to control an institution of man which serves no purpose in the Kingdom, but does carry forward the written words behind that Gospel even if they don't follow it.

 

[timothyu]

Peter could not have been the first Pope, as he never claimed to be such, and he always seems to have deferred to Paul, James, and John at times!

Not to mention pope would infer a worldly king of a worldly institution or empire. Peter would ever have accepted that role as He was not of the world, but solely and purely of the Kingdom which already had a King.

 

[parousia70]

The 66 canon books were all written by close of the first Century, and all but 4 of them were already fully accepted and being copied and used early Second Century as the NT books, as the OT canon was already fixed and accepted by time of Christ!

By what authority were they "Fixed and accepted"?

 

[parousia70]

Good Day, Parousia

What make you presume you need scripture to come to this understanding.

In Him,

Bill

The Rule of Sola Scriptura, of course.

The Rule that there can not be an outside authority that determines what IS scripture and what is NOT, as that would place the canon of scripture in subordination to such authority.

Therefore, it must be contained within the pages of scripture alone.

So again I'll ask, WHERE?

 

[timothyu]

By what authority were they "Fixed and accepted"?

By the ruling gentile church government of the time in association with the ruling gentile secular government of the time. Those of the Kingdom never needed the collection which became the foundation of the institution/kingdom. They already had the Gospel of the Kingdom not of this world..

 

[Albion]

The Rule of Sola Scriptura, of course.

The Rule that there can not be an outside authority that determines what IS scripture and what is NOT, as that would place the canon of scripture in subordination to such authority.

That is a non-starter of a criticism.

All denominations, Catholic or Protestant, accept that the books agreed upon by the church in the early centuries of Christian history are the word of God. Both the Catholic and the Protestant churches base most of their doctrines and practices on that Bible.

What is in dispute when it comes to Sola Scriptura is just whether there is something manmade that is the equal of God's word. The reformed churches say "No, there can be nothing that is the equal of or superior to divine revelation."

Meanwhile, the unreformed churches say that that various human customs, opinions and so on are indeed the equal of the Bible, but they also justify that stance by deeming whatever these human customs, legends, and etc. hold to also be divinely inspired although there's nothing in the Bible to that effect.

How to interpret either of these--the Bible or "Holy Tradition"--is a separate matter from whether what is being interpreted is authoritative or not.

 

[renniks]

So, let me leave you with this last question: For a Christian, what is the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth? Is it the Bible? Yes or no?

No it's Jesus. He is the truth. Of course we learned about him from the book, but say we interpret something wrong, that does not lesson his faithfulness or truthfulness.

 

[Albion]

The verse itself says that it's the "household of faith." Whichever way anyone translates that phrase, it refers to something other than Jesus himself.

In fact, this verse is making an important point about who it is that Jesus is depending on to defend the faith after he's returned to heaven.

So it connects to Jesus in that it's a reference to his people, but no, the "household of faith" is not Jesus himself,.

 

[timothyu]

The verse itself says that it's the "household of faith."

Exactly. A household, not an institution.