A few questions for Protestants

[YeshuaFan]

By what authority were they "Fixed and accepted"?

By the Holy Spirit working among the early Church. as the living Apostles would have known what was to be canonical!

 

[com7fy8]

I don't know even ONE Catholic who is perfect.

How many Christians do you know who are perfect?

No one . . . but what I asked is >

How many Catholics do you know personally who obey 1 Timothy 3:1-10?

These are qualifications for a pastor; so I would say Jesus knows these qualifications are realistic, since Jesus had Paul give us these standards. But, of course, a person needs to mature in Jesus and in his own home, so he can become so qualified.

I have shared with a number of married pastors who I would say are growing in these qualifications. They minister good example, I would say, and they minister God's word, and they do not make a project of comparing themselves or their churches to other people and groups. But they attend to how to live for God.

And they can use their marriage and family life as an example and experience for helping married and single people to know how to relate in marriage and how to care for children. In Jesus's priesthood He went through this of this life so now He can feel for us and help us with the grace that made Him so able to so do well > Hebrews 4:15. And, like this, married pastors have their priestly function of going through things of marriage and family life so they can use this to help them feel for family people and help them.

 

[coffee4u]

No, not me ... Jesus elevated Peter to a place you don't hold to.

Sorry, but that looks awfully like a blatant denial of what Scripture says:

"And I also say to you that you are PETER ... And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matt 16:18-19.


You seem confused. Paul rebuked Peter, NOT for what Peter PREACHED, but for NOT PRACTISING what he preached. This doesn't prove Peter did not have the final say (due to being the only apostle who held the "keys") on what should be preached (dogma and doctrine).

However, it does prove that the Christ-chosen leader of the Church (in this case, Peter) can be rebuked by another Church elder to address a personal failing.


That's why Jesus gave Peter the "keys" (Matt 18-19) ... despite being a flawed human being, he and he alone was guided supernaturally to infallibly decide (ie, have the final say) on what the Church should preach.

Good bye hon, I'm not hear to argue with argumentative men like you. I simply came here to share my belief, I will let you men do the 'I'm the biggest male' stompee feet dance around each other while us ladies go laugh about it.

 

[BBAS 64]

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?

Good Day, Parousia

Where is the world di you come up with such a flawed understanding of what the historical doctrine of Sola scriptura is?


Again for our the the understanding of those that carry the Roman Catholic denominations presuppositions and baseless assertions (therefore).

The Roman Denomination says the church is need to determine a Canon... Name it , and that they are the Church to fulfill that requirement... Claim it.

Silly fallacy known as circular reasoning.

Now I do not hold it against them that they have developed a Canon at Trent for their own members. Just that those members have made a mistake and bought into the fallacy.

What then is Sola Scriptura:

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Fidelibus]

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.

Since, not a single Protestant or non-denominational church or sect was in existence (that wouldn't be for many more centuries) when these books were agreed upon, and then compiled to give us the Bible, what church is it that you speak of? Keep in mind, you phrased this church in a singular form as "the church."

p.s. The Catholic church is not a denomination.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[Fidelibus]

No it's Jesus. He is the truth.

Thats not what the question asks. Please read it again.

Of course we learned about him from the book, but say we interpret something wrong, that does not lesson his faithfulness or truthfulness.

You speak of "the book," I take it you mean the bible, yes? If so, and since this is a thread for non-Protestants to ask Protestants (Just as well include non-denominational) questions, I have a few more. Is it your belief and understanding, that from the very start of Christianity, it was the practice of believers to depend on the Bible alone as the one authoritative source of doctrine? If you answer yes to this question, I'd like to follow up with 2/3 more.

1. Where did the teaching come from of relying on the Bible alone?

2. Can you show me when it started?

3. Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?

I ask these questions because, for there have been occasions where the Catholic Church is accused of innovation by straying from this early Church standard of sola scriptura.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[BBAS 64]

Since, not a single Protestant or non-denominational church or sect was in existence (that wouldn't be for many more centuries) when these books were agreed upon, and then compiled to give us the Bible, what church is it that you speak of? Keep in mind, you phrased this church in a singular form as "the church."

p.s. The Catholic church is not a denomination.

Have a Blessed day!

Good Day,

For normative structured discussion about the issue of denominations one should consider from where the material for such discussion comes from:

The source is the two-volume World Christian Encyclopedia (Barrett, Kurian, and Johnson; Oxford University Press). Take note of the passage where the 33,000 figure comes up:

World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed [sic] of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries (Vol. I, p. 16).

So according to the WCE, the 33,000 figure represents “world Christianity.” Now unless a Catholic wants to suppose that “world Christianity” means Protestantism, the number would have to be something less. 33,000, according to the source from which the number comes, means the whole of Christianity, not Protestantism specifically.

The WCE then goes on to break down “world Christianity” into the following broad categories:

• Independents: 22,000 denominations
• Protestants: 9000 denominations
• Marginals: 1600 denominations
• Orthodox: 781 denominations
• Catholics: 242 denominations
• Anglicans: 168 denominations

I guess if you continue hold to the baseless assertion about your denomination, not being classified as a denomination (242 of them). For useful dialog you would be considered out side the objective reality on this topic.

In Him,

Bill

 

[YeshuaFan]

Good Day, Parousia

Where is the world di you come up with such a flawed understanding of what the historical doctrine of Sola scriptura is?


Again for our the the understanding of those that carry the Roman Catholic denominations presuppositions and baseless assertions (therefore).

The Roman Denomination says the church is need to determine a Canon... Name it , and that they are the Church to fulfill that requirement... Claim it.

Silly fallacy known as circular reasoning.

Now I do not hold it against them that they have developed a Canon at Trent for their own members. Just that those members have made a mistake and bought into the fallacy.

What then is Sola Scriptura:

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

In Him,

Bill

The 66 Books of the Canon are the only inspired ones from God, and are the final and supreme authority in all doctrines and practices. but Rome adds additional books not inspired, and also elevated church traditions of men equal to the sacred scriptures!

 

[Albion]

Since, not a single Protestant or non-denominational church or sect was in existence (that wouldn't be for many more centuries) when these books were agreed upon, and then compiled to give us the Bible, what church is it that you speak of?

That is what's often called "the Undivided Church." It is the Ancient Church that existed prior to the divisions that came about later and produced the denominations we are familiar with today such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Eastern churches, and the Protestant churches.

 

[YeshuaFan]

That is what's often called "the Undivided Church." It is the Ancient Church that existed prior to the divisions that came about later and produced the denominations we are familiar with today such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Eastern churches, and the Protestant churches.

None of them existed until much later in church History, so there was NO Church of Rome back in bible times!

 

[Albion]

World Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed [sic] of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries (Vol. I, p. 16)...

• Independents: 22,000 denominations
• Protestants: 9000 denominations
• Marginals: 1600 denominations
• Orthodox: 781 denominations
• Catholics: 242 denominations
• Anglicans: 168 denominations

And there are other organizations which have come up with similar statistics, but in all of them the reason for so many alleged "denominations" existing is because the legal incorporation of a denomination in different countries is counted as different denominations.

For example, the same church in Canada and in the USA, is treated as though they are separate denominations.

Multiply that by every other country in which there is such a church operating and you can see why the numbers are so high, also that they are misleading, and that it's Protestant denominations that are multiplied most dramatically.

 

[BBAS 64]

The 66 Books of the Canon are the only inspired ones from God, and are the final and supreme authority in all doctrines and practices. but Rome adds additional books not inspired, and also elevated church traditions of men equal to the sacred scriptures!

Good day,

That happened quite late for the Roman Church, they have the right to do it IMHO they were wrong and unhistorical in doing so...but to err is human.

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.


The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

In Him,

Bill

 

[timothyu]

None of them existed until much later in church History, so there was NO Church of Rome back in bible times!

Considering Rome had lost the civil war to the East within the Roman Empire and would not have had much clout in the 4th century including within the State religion.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Good day,

That happened quite late for the Roman Church, they have the right to do it IMHO they were wrong and unhistorical in doing so...but to err is human.

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.


The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible

In Him,

Bill

We Baptists see Rome as adding those books due to the fact that most of their dogmas and doctrines cannot be confirmed in the 66 canon books of scriptures!

 

[Albion]

We Baptists see Rome as adding those books due to the fact that most of their dogmas and doctrines cannot be confirmed in the 66 canon books of scriptures!

Wait a minute. The RCC did not add those books. They were included with the others back in the fourth century AD, but only provisionally.

The Jews were divided on whether these were inspired writings or not and the Church wasn't sure

In the sixteenth century, the Protestants decided that none of them belonged in the Bible, and the Catholic Church responded by deciding that some but not all of them did.

There are, however, hardly any doctrines that are dependent upon what is in those books.

 

[BBAS 64]

We Baptists see Rome as adding those books due to the fact that most of their dogmas and doctrines cannot be confirmed in the 66 canon books of scriptures!

Good Day, YeshuaFan

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Roman Church along with it's members are in any way concerned about how/if their dogmas or doctrines align with Scripture.

Consider:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger :

While commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Albion]

Good Day, YeshuaFan

I think it is a mistake to assume that the Roman Church along with it's members are in any way concerned about how/if their dogmas or doctrines align with Scripture.

To the extent that the Catholic and Orthodox churches believe that Sacred Tradition also defines doctrine, that would be so.

That's all I see in the two quotes you gave us, not a rejection of the authority of Scripture.

 

[renniks]

Thats not what the question asks. Please read it again.

You asked what the standard of truth was. I answered. How is that not addressing the question?

 

[BBAS 64]

To the extent that the Catholic and Orthodox churches believe that Sacred Tradition also defines doctrine, that would be so.

That's all I see in the two quotes you gave us, not a rejection of the authority of Scripture.

Good Day, Albion

I do not think they reject the authority of Scripture, I just think the Roman Church peddles it's ( Scripture) authority as dependent on it's own:

Catholic Encyclopedia: One may not appeal to the inspired authority of the Scriptures, since for the fact of their inspiration the authority of the Church must be invoked, and unless she be infallible in deciding this one would be free to question the inspiration of any of the New Testament writings. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, Infallibility (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 792, 1st column.

Proving Inspiration

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

In Him,

Bill

 

[renniks]

You speak of "the book," I take it you mean the bible, yes? If so, and since this is a thread for non-Protestants to ask Protestants (Just as well include non-denominational) questions, I have a few more. Is it your belief and understanding, that from the very start of Christianity, it was the practice of believers to depend on the Bible alone as the one authoritative source of doctrine? If you answer yes to this question, I'd like to follow up with 2/3 more.

1. Where did the teaching come from of relying on the Bible alone?

2. Can you show me when it started?

3. Did the first-century Christians bring their Bibles with them to church?

The Apostles used the Septuagint on their missionary journeys. So I would say using the Bible started there.
Of course most of the first Christians didn’t have any opportunity to own a personal copy of the Scriptures...the evidence shows that most people could not even read or write.
Christian learning in the early church was centered on the story of God, Israel, and the world as found in the sacred writings.
Communal reading was the norm and that reading was a way of avoiding any serious alterations in the traditions and teachings of the first Christians.
So they didn't bring their Bibles but they certainly heard the Bible read regularly.