A few questions for Protestants

[DeFyYing]

Yes, but that issue is in the same state as claims that the Great Schism of 1054 is about to be resolved or that Anglicans will all be reunited with Rome thanks to the Papacy setting up its "Ordinariate."

In short, all of these are very preliminary agreements involving only some of the necessary participants and basically avoided all the difficult areas of disagreement for the sake of putting a good face on the results. None of it is going to happen in our lifetimes.

Apologies, I thought it was over and done with already concerning justification. Appreciate the correction

 

[Buzzard3]

What about Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, and Romans 5:1?

Firstly, none of those verses say or imply that anyone is saved by faith alone. Gal 2:16 says a believer is "justified by faith", but compare it to James 2:21, which says Abraham was "justified by works". Does that mean Abraham was justified by works alone? Of course not.

Secondly, if a believer is justified by faith alone, why does Paul warn believers (ie, those with faith) that their sins (ie, their works) can prevent them from inheriting the kingdom of heaven (Gal 5, 1 Cor 6)? Paul in fact agrees with James - "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone".

 

[Albion]

So it's like giving the impression of sheeps' clothing?

No, I wouldn't say that. It's a matter of the different denominations having recently made overtures in the direction of other Christians, and that the mere fact of some "talks" having produced agreement on a few issues results in the church newspapers and ordinary churchgoers reading them to go overboard thinking that the reunion of the different churches is at hand. I read one report that opined that the Reformation was over now that a Catholic delegation and a Lutheran one had issued a joint statement agreeing on some basics concerning justification.

In reality, all of that represents only the first step having been taken, and the rest of what is needed for corporate reunion remains nowhere in sight.

 

[com7fy8]

There are people and groups who might claim they are infallible, but they are not.

Could you give an example of who you believe these people or groups are?

no

Could I ask why?

My impression is that not all in a group do this; plus God can make us able to tell the difference > 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 > Paul knew the Christians could tell whom God approved, in spite of how impostors could use politics to make it seem like they were the approved.

Because not all in a group may promote a self-proclaimed infallibility thing, I would not make a general statement about everyone in a certain group. Plus, it is not always clear what certain ones are really claiming; so I just don't make a direct statement about certain ones. I would want to know someone personally, so I can see how they live as their meaning of whatever they say, by the way.

I said it is "my impression".

And, like I mean, above, God is able to simply not have us trust certain ones and groups. He knows.

I try to discover each person of a group, and let him or her speak for oneself about what he or she really believes.

Plus, if I remember right, I have agreed to Christian Forums rules, including that I will not name any group or individual as being false.

So, if you wish to talk about a specific item . . . we can do this

 

[timothyu]

thinking that the reunion of the different churches is at hand

I believe they will be but not over religious or theological matters, but united as one under the global government. Support has already been given so that kind of nullifies any representation of God, and their internal disputes have no meaning as they represent the governance of man and not governance of the Father. Their movement is our kingdom come, not His. A perfect lead up to the end of days.

 

[parousia70]

In that case, what's your objection to Sola Scriptura, which holds that the Bible is the revealed word of God and contains all that is necessary for salvation?

Here's my objection.
This "Sola Scriptura" argument falls apart once we realize that the majority of the Human Race could not read written language until modern times, nor were books able to be mass produced. Jesus used a different method of passing on his true, correct and infallible teaching. If it wasn't written language, then what other channel of communication was selected?

Jesus Christ and the apostles instituted a system for preserving and passing on His truth to the masses for the 1500 years before the invention of the printing press that didn't use books or literacy. And Jesus knew what he was doing.

So, again, since we know it wasn't books or Literacy, what channel of communication do you believe Jesus used to preserve and pass on his truth to the human race?

 

[parousia70]

Sorry but Jesus was anti-institution of man. He represented a counter-culture to the culture of man so many in Christianity still defend. The keys were given to Peter based on the fact God spoke through him whereas Jesus said the only truth comes from the Father, not from man. Hence Peter was given the keys to a Kingdom not of man.

Jesus clearly gave St. Peter "the keys of the kingdom" (Mt 16:18-19) and He didn't invent the notion of "giving the Keys of the kingdom" right there on the spot... it is rooted in the Old testament practice of what the King of Israel Bestowed upon His prime Minister.

Just as Jehovah Set up a governmental structure for OT Israel, Jesus is setting up His Governmental Structure for NT Israel, the Church.

Read Isaiah 22:15-24 to gain the scriptural understanding of what it means for the King of Israel to bestow the keys of the kingdom to His prime minister.

 

[timothyu]

what channel of communication do you believe Jesus used to preserve and pass on his truth to the human race?

Scrolls and oral tradition. But you are right. God often uses self serving man for His own purposes and the Church was a perfect platform to pass along scripture far into the future when man would be loosed from the yoke of church oppression and gain personal freedoms. This while it practiced it's own doctrines and sided with the wrong governments, man's not God's.

 

[timothyu]

Just as Jehovah Set up a governmental structure for OT Israel, Jesus is setting up His Governmental Structure for NT Israel, the Church.

You seem to be making the same mistake as the Jews in expecting a mortal kingdom to be set up at the hands of a physical king. Our ways are not His ways as the fall of the Jews once showed.

 

[parousia70]

You seem to be making the same mistake as the Jews in expecting a mortal kingdom to be set up at the hands of a physical king. Our ways are not His ways as the fall of the Jews once showed.

Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to).

The governmental structure of the New Israel is related to the Divine and historic government that existed before it. Bishops/shepherds were common names given to Israel's tribal leadership. So also "elder" was a common office of leadership over Israel. There were the kings of the monarchy, and there were prime ministers in Israel, second in command only to the reigning monarch. In a word, Israel always had a divinely instituted government, and this government was re-constututed under the New Covenant King in the first century. In the granting of the "Keys" to Peter (Matt 16:18-19/Isa 22:15-25), the appointment of the new 12 patriarchs (Matt 19:28; 10:1-4; Rev 21:12-14), and the ordination of bishops/elders and deacons, Jesus re-created Israel under the terms and conditions of the New Covenant order. Christ re-instituted the familiar leadership offices from Israel's history, and established the Twelve who expanded the Bishopric/Episcopate for New Israel. They went about ordaining men to offices in every city by the laying on of hands, and commissioned those appointees to continue this same practice also by the laying on of hands (a cardinal NT doctrine according to Hebrews 6:1-2). The establishment of the authorized bishopric can be traced throughout the New Testament scriptures, and is especially highlighted in Acts and the letters to the Bishops Titus and Timothy. The authorized government of New Israel is evidenced in Holy Scripture, and was maintained from Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus and those that followed.

Quite simply, God created a visible Church and who can deny it from scripture? Protestantism, on the other hand, is 20,000 or more denoms that teach a myriad of different things, do not recognize each other's authority or doctrines, do not work together, compete against each other, etc.etc. It seems impossible to me that anyone could claim protestantism as a legitimate form of the one true Church of scripture (or history).

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

Protestantism, in Contrast, is an endless schism of divisions with multiple different teachings and authority structures, with no effective means of excommunication and no traceable Apostolic Lineage.

 

[timothyu]

Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable

Right... as scripture shows, the church is not an institution but a community practicing a way of life of servitude to each other (think large loving family), not a way of life based on rules and regulations and rituals built on the same foundations as man's governments are set up. (think hierarchal workplace)

for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to).

No it is not for it is evident in the way (the reason for the name The Way) that people living together or apart treated each other and their enemies with the same degree of love and aide they would expect for themselves. Nothing there about yet another government of man and ballooning institutions that eliminated anyone who questioned their authourity. The so called succession you speak of is not people but a system no different than the governmental systems that went before and have worked alongside ever since, only the name of the emperor was changed. That is not the way of the Kingdom or of God's governance. His ways run contrary to the ways of man.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

[Albion]

Here's my objection.
This "Sola Scriptura" argument falls apart once we realize that the majority of the Human Race could not read written language until modern times, nor were books able to be mass produced.

Hi.

I don't know how many times this has been explained by now, but the same comment seems always to come back from Catholic members. I don't know why that is, but here's the explanation once again--

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible IS the ultimate authority for essential doctrine, being that it is God's revelation to mankind.

What Sola Scriptura does not mean is that every last human is guaranteed to understand everything that's in the Bible. In fact, there isn't anything that in this life, is guaranteed to be correctly apprehended by every last human on Earth.

Jesus used a different method of passing on his true, correct and infallible teaching. If it wasn't written language, then what other channel of communication was selected?

Jesus Christ and the apostles instituted a system for preserving and passing on His truth to the masses for the 1500 years before the invention of the printing press that didn't use books or literacy. And Jesus knew what he was doing.

Wouldn't it be great if that self-serving myth which the institutional church invented were actually true? But even if, for the sake of the argument, we agreed that it is true...please do not tell me that every last human fully understands what that institution says is the truth!

And since the traditions, opinions, customs, and decrees of the institutional church are clearly NOT understood by everyone, how does this alternative to the very word of God himself solve the problem you say you see with Sola Scriptura? Quite obviously, it cannot!

 

[coffee4u]

Well, if this is true, could you help us non-Protestants by explaining your positions we do not understand?



First off, which of the many different scriptural interpretations (fallible) within the many Protestant/non-denominational churches or sects are you referring, that I don't agree with? You need to be a little more specific, because there are so many!

Secondly, the Church I am a member of is not "my" Church, it is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, The Catholic Church!

Thirdly, it is not my Church whose interpretation of Scripture you do not agree with, it is Christ's Church you disagree with! Doesn't it make sense that the Church founded by Jesus Christ would claim to be the authentic interpreter of Scripture? Which brings up the next question....Where do you believe the Bible came from? It did not just fall down out of heaven. It was not handed to us from the sky directly by God. So, where did it come from?

Have a Blessed Day!

Here again, we are coming at this from two different directions..

You claim claim Christ founded the Catholic church, that Peter was the rock. Tell me if I have that correct.

We claim that the rock is Christ and that the church is founded on Christ. That those who have faith and trust in him, that is the church. That members of the church can be found in every Christian church whether they are from the Catholic church, baptist, Anglican etc.
The church is the body of believers.

These two views are never going to mesh because each view shades how we see things, how we approach them.
No matter how much you expound say upon church fathers, we will never agree, to me and most protestants they are just men, no different to us. As men I have no more need to hear them than I do of any other person posting to CF. They may be good teachers worth listening to, but I would still hold them up to what scripture says. I am not held to believing their words any more than I am of your words or you have of mine. No man is infallible.

So it comes down to do you want to argue with us or understand us?
If you want to argue all this achieves is going around a circle. This argument has probably gone around on CF a hundred times.

If you can understand that for us the rock is Christ himself and that all believers are the church then you will understand where we are coming from. I am not trying to force you to agree me since you obviously don't but unless you can see our point and understand it then all you will ever do is argue with us. Maybe this is what you enjoy, I don't. I think arguing in circles is what men enjoy. I am female so I don't see any value in arguing for argument sake, I am far more into understanding.

 

[timothyu]

These two views are never going to mesh because each view shades how we see things, how we approach them.

Perhaps that is why scripture is a threat to church authourity as it clearly states truth from God is the foundation of the church, not a man and that in scripture Jesus said He was the truth and spoke the truth from the Father even as Peter had done in the passage proceeding the rock debacle altered to be worldly rather than of the Kingdom..

 

[coffee4u]

The Holy Spirit is enough but he works through the Church that the Son founded, which is lead by one man - the man Jesus gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" to.

Like all non-Catholic Christians, you haven't put any thought into the significance of Jesus giving Peter the "keys", have you?

I will say the same to you as i told the last man.

You claim claim Christ founded the Catholic church, that Peter was the rock. Tell me if I have that correct.

We claim that the rock is Christ and that the church is founded on Christ. That those who have faith and trust in him, that is the church. That members of the church can be found in every Christian church whether they are from the Catholic church, baptist, Anglican etc.
The church is the body of believers.

These two views will never mesh so the best you can do is learn to understand where we are coming from and us understand where you are coming from.
The wish to argue seems very strong with most of you though and I have no wish to argue.

 

[coffee4u]

Perhaps that is why scripture is a threat to church authourity as it clearly states truth from God is the foundation of the church, not a man and that in scripture Jesus said He was the truth.

I think so.

I try and understand that they feel God gave Peter the authority and as such everything they believe follows on down from that point. If one believes Peter was the rock I can see why they feel the church, the church fathers and the Pope are the main guide, why they believe what they do.

I find this similar to creation and theistic evolution, each gives a very different foundation to ones overall world view, and world view is a big part of of how people view the Bible and how scripture is read. Catholic vs Protestant is another foundation that then colours how scripture is viewed and read. To me scripture being God breathed will always sit above any thing any man will ever say. I don't care who the man(or woman) is either, if he is a church father, a pope, a minister, a doctor or a taxi driver, I believe all are equal.

Mark 12:41-44

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.


43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
I would be far more inclined to listen to something the poor widow said than someone with a list of letters after their name who acts like they are god.

 

[coffee4u]

Perhaps that is why scripture is a threat to church authourity as it clearly states truth from God is the foundation of the church, not a man and that in scripture Jesus said He was the truth.

I think so.

I try and understand that they feel God gave Peter the authority and as such everything they believe follows on down from that point. If one believes Peter was the rock I can see why they feel the church, the church fathers and the Pope are the main guide, why they believe what they do.

I find this similar to creation and theistic evolution, each gives a very different foundation to ones overall world view, and world view is a big part of of how people view the Bible and how scripture is read. Catholic vs Protestant is another foundation that then colours how scripture is viewed and read. To me scripture being God breathed will always sit above any thing any man will ever say. I don't care who the man(or woman) is either, if he is a church father, a pope, a minister, a doctor or a taxi driver, I believe all are equal.

Mark 12:41-44

41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.


43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
I would be far more inclined to listen to something the poor widow said than someone with a list of letters after their name who acts like they are god.

 

[timothyu]

I find this similar to creation and theistic evolution, each gives a very different foundation to ones overall world view, and world view is a big part of of how people view the Bible and how scripture is read.

Yes world view is a problem considering we are to follow Kingdom view which is contrary to the world man has made in our image.

 

[Buzzard3]

And, like I mean, above, God is able to simply not have us trust certain ones and groups. He knows.

David Koresh used to say the same sort of thing.

 

[parousia70]

Right... as scripture shows, the church is not an institution but a community practicing a way of life of servitude to each other (think large loving family), not a way of life based on rules and regulations and rituals built on the same foundations as man's governments are set up. (think hierarchal workplace)

Again, the governmental structure that Jesus instituted for His church, As clearly evidenced in the holy Scriptures, is real and visible… it is not some invisible, non existent structure-less feel-good mythos, as you would have us believe.

No it is not for it is evident in the way (the reason for the name The Way) that people living together or apart treated each other and their enemies with the same degree of love and aide they would expect for themselves. Nothing there about yet another government of man and ballooning institutions that eliminated anyone who questioned their authourity. The so called succession you speak of is not people but a system no different than the governmental systems that went before and have worked alongside ever since, only the name of the emperor was changed. That is not the way of the Kingdom or of God's governance. His ways run contrary to the ways of man.

It appears You’re confusing the authority of the APOSTOLIC, appointed office, with the fallible men who fill those seats that come and go.

The New Covenant Church offices (be it bishop, deacon, elder, prime minister, etc) each derive their authority by virtue of its apostolic (or Christic) appointment, NOT by virtue of the men who then hold that office at any given moment.

You do realize the difference, right?

Men either live up to the honor and integrity inherent in the office as a direct result of its apostolic and/or Christic investment and creation, or they do not.

The fact that fallible men, who come and go, may or may not live up to the honor and integrity invested by Christ and His apostles in that office, does not make the office itself any less authoritative, apostolic or biblical, as you seem to want us to believe.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Another straw man Sola Scriptura thread created by a member of the Roman Church oh Boy.

Please allow a non Roman Church member to define what in a nut shell is meant by the term 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.

Now your simple mistake is you conflate the issue of interpretation which you can clearly see has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura at all.

You own reliance on your denomination to infallibly interpret scripture for you is nothing more than a fallacy:

Lets consider:

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

Continuing in the next sentence, Brown says, “Moreover, church interpretations of Scripture in Roman Catholicism are affected by qualifications laid out in reference to church teaching in general which have the effect of recognizing historical conditioning.” Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 31-32.

Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

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.

Now I believe that the Roman Church has never interpreted on single word of Scripture, because of its own flawed presuppositions which renders them completely unable to do so.

Seeing that Matt 16 has shown up, I would remind my friends in the Roman Church:

Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid: . . the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.

In Him,

Bill