A few questions for Protestants

[Buzzard3]

Is your church full of people who are born again or people who are only following rituals, thinking that's the way to get to heaven because that's what thier denomination teaches?

If you think rituals are useless unto salvation, why did you get baptized?

 

[Buzzard3]

And the Holy Spirit gave us the Bible to test/and-correct doctrine

2 Tim 3:16
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

That verse must be read in the context of the preceding v.12 - “all who desire to LIVE A GODLY LIFE”. It
So 2Tim 3:16 is referring to one’s behaviour … aka, works. The part you left out of 2Tim 3:16 says, “that the man of God may be complete, EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK”.

Furthermore, “All scripture” in that verse refers to the Old Testament, not the New Testament.

And 2Tim 3:16 doesn’t say “scripture” can be used to test ALL doctrine, nor does it say scripture contains “all truth” (John 16:13).

 

[Fidelibus]

Yes.

So the next question would be, Do you have the sand to do it?

This forum is also supposed to be about a denomination. "Protestants" is not a denomination.

Point out where I stated Protestants was a denomination?

Nevertheless, I'll accept your protest. I had thought it was permissible to correct factual errors made by others, simply for the sake of having the discussion evaluate actual beliefs and practices rather than stereotypes, misperceptions, or the like.

Sure you can, you can try to correct any so-called factual errors made by others about any of the many Protestant churches or sects you see fit. I'm just asking you don't try to compare them with any non-Protestant churches. Nothing difficult about that!

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Buzzard3]

It was the universal church.

The Nicene Creed was instigated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Who was this "universal church" that held the First Council of Nicaea? It was a visible organization with a hierarchy of recognized leaders in authority, so it must have had a name.

Where is this visible, hierarchical, "universal church" today?

 

[Buzzard3]

The pillar and foundation/ground is the people of God.

1Tim 3:15 says the Church is "the pillar and foundation of THE TRUTH". How come (what you refer to as) "the people of God" have very different and often conflicting ideas about what "the truth" is?

The Bible is God's revelation which guides the believers' doctrinal orientation

Nowhere does the Bible say it is a complete guide to doctrine.

 

[renniks]

Could you give some examples?

I believe I already did, but obviously, the deity of Christ, the Virgin birth, the authority of scripture, the Trinity, the resurrection. The necessity of salvation by faith through grace.
Heaven and hell... you know, the basics.

 

[renniks]

I'm pretty sure Methodists believe that baptism is a sign of regeneration and new birth. And they accept all modes of baptism. That being sprinkling, pouring, and immersion as valid. I also think they preform infant baptisms. Could you give a short list of the churches you've been in that do not believe in baptismal regeneration?

Honestly I'm not sure the Methodists have a clear teaching on what baptism is supposed to do. They are the one Protestant church I have attended that practice baptism of infants. The wesleyans don't... they have child dedications, but they are not about salvation.
I was raised Wesleyan Methodist, same thing as wesleyan's as far as baptism beliefs.
Baptists, although I never attended a Baptist Church, the ones I have conversed with affirm that it is symbolism, not regeneration.
Missionary alliance, same
Church of God, same

 

[renniks]

Well, I am pretty sure Protestant churches like the Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Methodists to name a few would argue that. If I remember correctly, even the early fathers of the Reformation believed in Baptism. So when was it that this changed (date/year) among the different Protestant churches beliefs like your own? And who changed this original belief of the Protestant reformation fathers? And by who's or what authority? Especially being all these Protestant churches and sects abide in the same bible?

I looked it up, apparently the debate was actually set off by the Synod of Dort....among Reformed divines in the 1620s and 30s.
It's connected,at least in reformed theology, with the perseverance of the saints.
Probably why we see some differences among the denominations that Wesley started as he was not OSAS like the Calvinists.
It's a natural progression from understanding that salvation doesn't depend on our works, like Catholics still tend to believe.

 

[renniks]

Are you saying emotions are your guide to finding "all truth" (John 16:13)?

I hope Catholics are doing what their Church tells them, because the Catholic Church is the “fullness” of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) and holds the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 16:19).

Of course emotions aren't always an indicator of what is true.

 

[renniks]

If you think rituals are useless unto salvation, why did you get baptized?

Where did I say that I did?

 

[renniks]

The Nicene Creed was instigated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Who was this "universal church" that held the First Council of Nicaea? It was a visible organization with a hierarchy of recognized leaders in authority, so it must have had a name.

Where is this visible, hierarchical, "universal church" today?

In 325 were there other believers outside the Catholic church? Serious question. The creed is a collection of beliefs we agree on in regards to doctrine. The church at any time period is all true believers. Does one have to be in an institution to believe what the creed says?

 

[Buzzard3]

Where did I say that I did?

So you don't think all rituals are useless?

 

[renniks]

So you don't think all rituals are useless?

I never said they were useless and apparently you misread that.
Is taking communion useless? No. Does it have anything to add to your salvation? No. Does that mean you should not take communion? No, of course not. It's a blessing and it's a good reminder.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes it does ... in John 16:13 (for starters), Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us to "all truth". .

And the Holy Spirit gave us the Bible to test/and-correct doctrine

2 Tim 3:16
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2 Pet 1:19-21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

so we read what God said.

That verse must be read in the context of the preceding v.12 - “all who desire to LIVE A GODLY LIFE”. It
So 2Tim 3:16 is referring to one’s behaviour … aka, works. The part you left out of 2Tim 3:16 says, “that the man of God may be complete, EQUIPPED FOR EVERY GOOD WORK”.

You are switching topics somewhat. I am simply making the point that the Bible is the judge/rule for doctrine. You are talking about the Bible affirming the fact that a born-again Christian is called to obedience to God's Word not rebellion against it... (good works) as also Eph 2 confirms. I agree.

But I was speaking to the issue of the Bible as the test, the rule. You are using that very method in your post where you correctly note that the Bible dictates obedience not rebellion for Christians. I agree.

 

[BobRyan]

Furthermore, “All scripture” in that verse refers to the Old Testament, not the New Testament.

All scripture in Luke 24 as Luke comments about Christ's teaching after the cross - can only refer to scripture that existed in Christ's day. But Paul was not limited to that -- and Peter says the NT readers even considered Paul's writing to be included along with "the rest of scripture" -- which as you say had to most certainly include all of the OT.

And 2Tim 3:16 doesn’t say “scripture” can be used to test ALL doctrine

It says it is for doctrine and correction - and does not qualify the term - so it is the unqualified all that being tested .

, nor does it say scripture contains “all truth” (John 16:13).

No doubt God had many things to say in both NT and OT that were not recorded as scripture - but whatever is claimed to be a message from God must be tested against scripture to see if it is in contradiction.

 

[Albion]

1Tim 3:15 says the Church is "the pillar and foundation of THE TRUTH". How come (what you refer to as) "the people of God" have very different and often conflicting ideas about what "the truth" is?

That point has been explained several times already in the course of this thread

 

[BobRyan]

So you don't think all rituals are useless?

Mark 7:6-13 condemns many traditions of the magisterium of the one-true-nation-church started by God at Sinai using sola-scriptura testing. But does not condemn all tradition.

 

[Davy]

Sorry, but you definitely did not.
....

I certainly did response to your statement...

You said:
"Under the Protestant/Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) theological system, is it your belief, and would you agree, there exists no person or no institution that can infallibly decide what is true and what is false for Christians when it comes to matters of faith and/or morals?"


And I said:
Pretty obvious per God's Own Word that man is accountable to HIM, and not a system devised 'by' men. Lord Jesus ENDED the Levitical priesthood of the old covenant system upon His cross when the veil of the Holy of Holies was torn asunder. Why do 'some' men try to put that veil back up, violating God's Own Word?

And that is exactly what the Isaiah 2:22 verse is about, God Himself speaking there...

Isa 2:22
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?
KJV

 

[YeshuaFan]

I certainly did response to your statement...

You said:
"Under the Protestant/Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) theological system, is it your belief, and would you agree, there exists no person or no institution that can infallibly decide what is true and what is false for Christians when it comes to matters of faith and/or morals?"


And I said:
Pretty obvious per God's Own Word that man is accountable to HIM, and not a system devised 'by' men. Lord Jesus ENDED the Levitical priesthood of the old covenant system upon His cross when the veil of the Holy of Holies was torn asunder. Why do 'some' men try to put that veil back up, violating God's Own Word?

And that is exactly what the Isaiah 2:22 verse is about, God Himself speaking there...

Isa 2:22
22 Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?
KJV

The Holy Spirit Himself is the One who grants to the saved illumination, not any Church organization, regardless if Lds, JW, or Rome!

 

[Davy]

The Holy Spirit Himself is the One who grants to the saved illumination, not any Church organization, regardless if Lds, JW, or Rome!

And I agree with that, which is what the Isaiah 2:22 verse is actually about. This is why Apostle Paul commended those at Berea for checking him out in their copies of God's written Word, to see if it was so. It all depends upon Who we listen to.