A few questions for Protestants

[YeshuaFan]

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.

The bible has final authority, but in those group that I listed here, its their leaders that trump over the scriptures!

 

[timothyu]

The bible has final authority, but in those group that I listed here, its their leaders that trump over the scriptures!

Which would the Adversary prefer?

 

[YeshuaFan]

Which would the Adversary prefer?

Rome has by far most who are blinded!

 

[timothyu]

Rome has by far most who are blinded!

It does seem to me that if Jesus brought us a counter-culture, that is to say ways contrary to the traditional ways of man, then His church would not resemble the traditional ways, institutions and governments complete with king gods that went before. A foundation built upon truth from the Father would not resemble the power structures of man that went before. That would be more fitting for the Adversary upon whose foundations those previous power structures were built.

 

[Buzzard3]

Rome has by far most who are blinded!

You have a keen sense of humour.

 

[Davy]

The bible has final authority, but in those group that I listed here, its their leaders that trump over the scriptures!

I didn't see your list. But I agree God's Word is final authority. We are to respect our leaders, but still check them out in God's Word for ourselves.

The phrase Sola Scriptura (Scripture only) comes from the Protestant Reformers. So of course the Catholic leaders do not agree nor like that idea. And it was bad enough even in Protestant Britain when they had Catholics trying to take over and persecuted many of the saints.

However, even though the Reformers believed the pope in their day was the Antichrist, the prophecy was not fulfilled, and so their Protestant followers should have learned that lesson. Yet still today, there is a movement among the Protestant Church that still believes the pope is the Antichrist.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

would you agree there is no sure way you could have absolute assurance of anything you believe being true? In other words, there is no way of knowing the truth?

Someone either believes something, or he/she does not believe it.

Are not having assurance of the proposition, P, and believing P one and the same thing? If not, then what's the difference?

And, what (if any) difference is there supposed to be between believing the truth and knowing it?

And, what (if any) difference is there supposed to be between assurance of truth and absolute assurance of it?

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?

Is there a difference between deciding that something is true and believing that it is true?
Is there a difference between deciding that something is false and believing that it is false?

What would it be to fallibly believe truth?
What would it be to infallibly believe falsehood?

 

[Buzzard3]

Yet still today, there is a movement among the Protestant Church that still believes the pope is the Antichrist.

... which goes to show how deceived and far from the truth they are.

Reminds me of the scribes who accused Jesus of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul, the prince of demons.

 

[Buzzard3]

In 325 were there other believers outside the Catholic church? Serious question.

Probably. Heretics have existed from the very beginning.

The creed is a collection of beliefs we agree on in regards to doctrine. The church at any time period is all true believers.

For some strange reason, I have trouble accepting that heretics are part of the Church.

Does one have to be in an institution to believe what the creed says?

I don't know.

Btw, I don't think you answered my question. The Nicene Creed by created by the Council of Nicaea in 325. Who was this Council and does it exist today?

 

[timothyu]

... which goes to show how deceived and far from the truth they are.

True enough. Now take someone like Yuval Noah Harari out of Israel. He is busy setting himself and the WEF up as God and pursuing an agenda that takes control of man away from God and into their own hands. These are anti-Christ ways. The current Pope only supports him and the WEF. To say the Pope or his institution would have the means to control the world is ludicrous.

 

[Buzzard3]

True enough. Now take someone like Yuval Noah Harari out of Israel. He is busy setting himself and the WEF up as God and pursuing an agenda that takes control of man away from God and into their own hands. These are anti-Christ ways. The current Pope only supports him and the WEF. To say the Pope or his institution would have the means to control the world is ludicrous.

The opinion of the Pope is not necessarily that of the Catholic Church. As for me, I'm not a big fan of Pope Francis.

It is the will of God that the Catholic Church controls the world:
"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20).

 

[timothyu]

It is the will of God that the Catholic Church controls the world:

Which one?

 

[Buzzard3]

Which one?

The Church led by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

 

[Buzzard3]

Deleted

 

[timothyu]

The Church led by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Late comers in the visible history of the church

 

[renniks]

Probably. Heretics have existed from the very beginning.

For some strange reason, I have trouble accepting that heretics are part of the Church.

I don't know.

Btw, I don't think you answered my question. The Nicene Creed by created by the Council of Nicaea in 325. Who was this Council and does it exist today?

Of course, the Council doesn't exist today. All those people died a long time ago.
So where in the Bible does it say if you aren't part of an institution, you are a heretic? Because my Bible says repeatedly that salvation is by faith, nothing about it being based on church membership. People who think they are saved because they signed a form and became a church member but have never been to the cross are actually the heretics.

 

[renniks]

It is the will of God that the Catholic Church controls the world:

Jesus said Satan controls this world.

 

[renniks]

The opinion of the Pope is not necessarily that of the Catholic Church. As for me, I'm not a big fan of Pope Francis.

It is the will of God that the Catholic Church controls the world:
"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and MAKE DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20).

BTW, the unity of the Catholic church is kind of hard to defend when they had the first church split in the early 1000's

 

[Fidelibus]

I certainly did response to your statement...

Hmmm... No, not really.

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?"

Yes, I did. So, once again, being you are an adherent of SS, do "YOU" believe no one (yourself included) or institution can 'infallibly' decide what is true and what is false for Christians when it comes to matters of faith and/or morals?

You can start off with either a "yes" or a "no", and then explain to me why you believe in your answer.

And I said:

Yeah....... "You" 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?

Pretty obvious to "you!" Maybe not to someone else. So, if someone were to disagree with you, where would you turn to decide who is correct? Couldn't be the bible, because that is what you are disagreeing about. So to who or what authority could you turn too?

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

Would you agree though Davey, being you are not infallible, and just a mere fallible man, that your personal interpretation/opinion of this passage just might not be "exactly" correct?

Now Davey would you please answer the last questions of my OP?

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?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

I looked it up, apparently the debate was actually set off by the Synod of Dort....among Reformed divines in the 1620s and 30s.

I have never heard of this "Synod of Dort" so I researched it myself. The dates I found differed from yours. I found that it was convened in the year of 1618 at the port city of Dordrecht, the Netherlands, and consisted of a number of Puritan delegates from Great Britain, many of whom had been ousted from their posts at Cambridge by Charles I and William Laud, and was dismissed in May of 1619.

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.

My research showed what happened at this Synod was called to deal with a problem that had precipitated in the Dutch church, a problem that started back with Jacobus Arminius. (b.1560; d.1609) His followers pooled together his teachings and wrote up a document called “The Remonstrance.” They were objecting against five teachings of John Calvin on the doctrines of grace. Those being the Doctrine of election, Atonement, Total depravity, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. Nowhere in my research of this Synod, did I see the subject of Baptism.

So renniks, one would think, out of the relatively brief existence of Protestantism in the two thousand plus years of Christianity, there would be some sort of writings, documentation or teachings of when, who, and how any one of the many splinter churches/sects of Protestantism decided what the early reformation fathers believed (along with the many Protestant denominations today) about baptism was/is in error, and what you believe today is not. That being, the non-belief water baptism's saves anyone, and the idea that water baptisms saves, and surely leads a lot of people to hell.

The questions remain, when was this decision made? Who or what made this decision? How was this decision was made, and by what authority?

It's a natural progression from understanding that salvation doesn't depend on our works, like Catholics still tend to believe.

Again renniks, irrelevant, off topic, and most importantly, incorrect. Start a thread on this topic, and I would be more than happy to correct your inaccuracies regarding the Catholic Church's beliefs.

Have a Blessed Day!