A few questions for Protestants

[Fidelibus]

Aside from the obviously inaccurate attempt to make all the Early Church Fathers be seen as members of the Church of Rome of later times,

Inaccurate? hardly, for as history and the ECF writings show, there was only "one" Christian Church, The Catholic Church! Protestant/non-denominational, bible only believing churches and sects did not exist for many centuries later. Early Christian Church history does not include the latter churches and sects I mentioned.

you already knew that Protestants are guided in essentials by the word of God and not the words of men.

Do I now? Maybe you could refresh my memory and show me/us a list of these "essentials" ( non-essentials?) Protestants are guided by, and where in the Bible (book, chapter, and verses) we could find this list, and where it says you "will be" guided by these essentials?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

On the contrary, the explanation is in the very same sentence. See the pink wording above, which clearly identifies "the household of God" as being the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Ahem.... you left out the part about "the Church!"

Wonder why? Maybe it was an honest mistake.

 

[parousia70]

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.

Interesting.
So, your assertion is that, in spite it being an oppressive, self serving orginazation of men who practiced their own doctrines and sided with the wrong governments, the Church successfully and infallibly, preserved, relayed and delivered the complete, essential doctrine of Christian truth to men for 1500 years.

Do I have that right?

 

[timothyu]

Yes, the Bible did, (thanks to the Catholic Church) but "IT" being the belief of sola scriptura, did not exist prior to the Protestant reformation

It did using Hebrew scriptures and oral tradition in the beginning of Christianity. The movement hadn't been hijacked yet.

 

[timothyu]

the Church successfully and infallibly, preserved, relayed and delivered the complete Christian truth to men for 1500 years.

Do I have that right?

That's all that counts while men go about making everything else about themselves. The scriptures got forwarded hopefully 'as is' although that is debatable when a church needs to fit scripture to institution rather than the other way around..

 

[timothyu]

Inaccurate? hardly, for as history and the ECF writings show, there was only "one" Christian Church, The Catholic Church!

Actually it was The Way, a way of life rather than a human institution..

 

[Albion]

Also, Albion, it seems to me, that some of your Protestant/non-denominational sola scriptura adherents/posters on this thread, may not be in 100% agreement of your definition of SS. Is it possible there are many different flavors of SS?

I do find that when someone is asked to explain what Sola Scriptura is, that different people come up with different wording in their replies. However, that doesn't mean that Sola Scriptura itself is vague or is something that's in the eye of the beholder only. And then, you may have run into some folks who just don't know, but that happens with Catholics trying to explain Catholic beliefs also.

Really?? Where in the Bible does it say, if it's not necessary to know what SS means before it's evaluation if it is an "an appropriate standard of belief?" Book, Chapter, and Verse please.

It is what it is, my friend. There is nothing lacking if there is not also a lengthy rebuttal of every possible misunderstand to go along with it. That's the case with all sorts of doctrines, if truth be told.

 

[Albion]

Ahem.... you left out the part about "the Church!"

Well, of course, the "household of faith" is a reference to all true believers.

Yes, the Lord is depending on them to uphold the Gospel. I didn't think that needed further explanation.

 

[coffee4u]

Christ is the head of the Church, which is founded on him. But Jesus gave Peter "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).
What do you think that actually means? ... for a mere, imperfect man to have "the keys to the kingdom of heaven"?

And why would God do that? ... give a sinful, flawed human being the "keys" of supernatural power that surely belong only to God?
These are important questions that I never hear Protestants asking themselves.

If Protestants understood the significance of Jesus giving Peter the "keys", they would understand why Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter (which means "rock"), and why Jesus said he will build his Church on Peter (Matt 16:18).
Christ is the rock on which the Church is built, and Peter is the rock on which the Church is built ... bcoz Peter was given the "keys".

You have elevated Peter to a place we don't hold to.

The keys are not something that an individual or a church holds, the authority is in the gospel, the words of God. The gospel are the keys to the kingdom.

Galatians 1:6–9 Paul stresses that if anyone—even he or an angel from heaven preaches a gospel other than the one he preached, they are under God’s curse. No matter who they are. Later on Paul talks about a time he publicly rebuked Peter because his "conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel"
Galatians 2:14
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
He would not have been rebuking Peter unless Peter was his equal. He didn't view Peter as infallible or in any way special.

We all are flawed human beings and yet we are all charged to spread the gospel, sinful and flawed as we are. I am sure God looks down and thinks good help is hard to get.
(last part is a joke)

 

[timothyu]

The keys are not something that an individual or a church holds, the authority is in the gospel, the words of God. The gospel are the keys to the kingdom.

Exactly. But worldly man sees that as a resource to be claimed and utilized for power and profit. If we put ourselves between the Gospel and the people we can control the narrative and run the show.. until we die of course.. then lookout ! We've had our only reward.

 

[com7fy8]

... which is why there are literally tens of thousands of different Protestant sects and denominations, each pushing their own interpretation

Well, I do not personally know each Protestant and Catholic so I can speak for what each one is doing. But it does appear that there are both Catholic and Protestant individuals who do not obey our Apostle Paul's standards for who qualifies to be a pastor > 1 Timothy 3:1-10. And there is some number of Catholic individuals who do not agree with one another, it seems. How many Catholics do you know personally who obey 1 Timothy 3:1-10?

 

[com7fy8]

Inaccurate? hardly, for as history and the ECF writings show, there was only "one" Christian Church, The Catholic Church!

It depends on who you mean by Catholic. There are individuals who do not obey our Apostle Paul > 1 Timothy 1:1-10. But they call themselves Catholics or Protestants. And there are ones who claim to be Catholic or Protestant but they do not obey how Jesus guides us in His "rest for your souls." > Matthew 11:28-30. Plus there apparently are ones who have ordained and even trusted predators and con artists because they have not been able to know the voice of our Shepherd Jesus guiding whom we are to trust to pastor us > John 10:1-30.

It is not enough to hold to the same outward ideas and practices, which even a psychopath can copycat!

I mean . . . there are even high-level leaders . . . Catholic and Protestant . . . who apparently have not heard the voice of Jesus directing whom they have trusted to take care of people pastorally. Yet, ones of these are still in positions for screening and training and ordaining people who do not meet God's standards > including 1 Timothy 3:1-10.
We need unity of character, not only of book ideas and practices.

"essentials" ( non-essentials?) Protestants are guided by, and where in the Bible (book, chapter, and verses) we could find this list, and where it says you "will be" guided by these

I offer what children of God obey > includes >

Ephesians 1:12 says "we who first trusted in Christ". But, like I mean, not all Protestants and not all Cathollics have gotten started with personally trusting Jesus and how He saves a person and personally guides us in unity of His character and all-loving love. But to me it appears how some number of both Catholics and Protestants are depending on outward stuff mainly on Sunday. And they depend on their own selves, while they compare what they see about each other's outward religion, versus first discovering all which God's word guarantees that He does in each of us who submit to Him > James 4:7, Philippians 2:13-16..

Jesus says it is essential to deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Him > Luke 9:23 > not to depend on myself, but deny myself and depend on God in us! Plus, carry our cross by loving any and all people like Jesus on the cross did > Ephesians 5:2.

It appears how various Protestants and Catholics can be emotionally isolated with their own selves in their own worries and hurry and dreams and demands and arguing and unforgiveness. So they are not truly united, though they can put on the same show on Sunday or at meetings and in schools.

And so, our unity in Jesus is mainly in submitting together "in one body" to how our Father rules us together in our hearts in His own peace > Colossians 3:15 > while we discover how He has us relating in His love > Ephesians 4:31-5:2..

 

[Buzzard3]

You referred to rites of the Roman Church when I mentioned that there are a number of other Catholic CHURCHES or denominations. The different rites of the Roman Catholic Church aren't part of this issue.

The issue is that are there billions of Catholics in the world who are in full communion with the Pope (Bishop of Rome) and who therefore believe the same doctrines, as defined by the Pope.

Protestant Chrisianity cannot even come close to matching that degree of unity - Protestants don't even so much as share a creed.

And there is no Catholic Pope uniting the various church bodies defined as Catholic, either.

That depends on how you define "Catholic". I think you'll find that 99.99% of people would define a "Catholic" as a Christian who accepts the Pope as the head of their church and is in full communion with him and accepts all the dogmas and doctrines decreed by that Pope.

Here is how diffen.com, for example, defines a "Catholic":
"A Catholic is a Christian who follows the Catholic religion as transmitted through the succession of Popes. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church ... Catholicism preaches and believes the Roman catholic church to be the supreme authority ... They believe in the special authority of the Pope ... The Catholic Religion has a historical lineage and hierarchy that is centered in the Pope and Vatican City in Rome."

study.com says
"the leader of the Catholic Church" is "Pope Francis I".

worldatlas.com says
"the pope" is the leader of the Catholic Church".

According to the above definitions, the "Catholic denominations" you refer to are not Catholic.

Most of the other Catholic denominations of course pointedly reject the claims of the bishop of Rome, which was pointed out earlier.
Those are still classified as Catholic just as the various Protestant churches are classified as Protestant.

"classified as Catholic" according to who? Certainly not me ... I would classify them as "fake Catholic".

To sum up, your argument against Catholic unity is very weak. The obsure sects you refer to as "Catholic denominations" are so small and insignificant as to be virtually unknown, and/or none of them are part of the Catholic Church bcoz they are not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[timothyu]

It's kind of funny the family feud between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants after all are simply the religious spawn of Catholic loins, descendants that rebelled, not against God, but against the step-father they cared not for.

 

[SamInNi]

The bottom line for many, myself included, is whether or not Scripture fully defines the message of Salvation in Christ apart from unique Roman Catholic dogma. It does, so unique Roman Catholic Tradition is irrelevant, and extensively so.

Roman Catholicism denies that there is such a thing as the fullness of the means of salvation clearly defined in the text of Scripture alone. It locates the fullness of salvation elsewhere. Roman Catholic Tradition obscures the fullness of biblical salvation.

From the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church:

"The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's [Roman] Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'"

What is the Roman Catholic purpose in ecumenism?

According to Cardinal Bea, writing in his book The Unity of Christians, published 1963, the ecumenical movement is a mechanism that leads baptised, unhappily "separated brethren" back to the "Apostolic See". "In virtue of Baptism," he asserts, "they are subjects and members of the [Roman Catholic] Church... She has a strict duty, then, to do everything in her power to bring them back to her.

"[The] unity of the separated members is not to be brought about by force but by the free acceptance of union with the Catholic Church... What we have said makes clear how the Catholic Church understands the ecumenical movement." (Cardinal Bea was appointed President of the Secretariat for promoting Christian Unity by the pope of the day and wrote with the full authority of the Roman Catholic Church.)

Rather than bringing religious clarity to God’s Truth, the all-pervasive distraction of Roman Catholic Tradition actually undermines the authority of Scripture. It disastrously shifts attention away from the powerful effects of true salvation in Christ.

In God’s true and authoritative salvation, the righteousness of Christ is credited to those who put their faith in Him: “...the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe” (Romans 3:22); “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness…” (Romans 4:5); “...be reconciled to God. He made Him [Christ] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2nd Corinthians 5:20, 21); "...be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith," (Philippians 3:9, NASB). This Bible truth is the very teaching the Council of Trent anathematised.

Let’s be very clear about the authentic Gospel message laid out plainly in the Bible: Christ took to Himself all of the sin, guilt and punishment of all those who are lost. To put it another way, our sin and its dire implications have been credited to His account; through His work on the cross he has fully dealt with our sin and in return we receive His perfect righteousness—we fully enjoy a right standing with God. By our faith alone, Christ's righteousness is imputed (or credited) to the believer’s account.

 

[timothyu]

Let’s be very clear about the authentic Gospel message laid out plainly in the Bibl

Jesus made it very clear His only gospel was the Gospel of the Kingdom, not any other proclaimed later. The return of God to take away governance from man and govern Himself. His Kingdom come, His will be done in earth... not man's will or kingdoms.

 

[A_Thinker]

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?

If you happen to answer yes to this question, my next question would be.... under this theological system, 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?

Yet, Jesus says, "Know the truth and the truth will set make you free." (John 8:32)

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?

Have a Blessed day!

We believe Jesus ... and believe that Apostolic writings are an accurate portrayal of His life, teachings, and ministry ...

 

[Buzzard3]

So, Albion, is it your belief that every Protestant or non-denominational church or sect believes or should believe 100% with your definition of Sola Scriptura you posted here? If not, what authority within these churches or sects would have the final authority on who has the correct definition of SS, and who does not? Is it the Anglican church? The Baptist churches? The Methodist church? Pastor Bob and his home church? Pastor Jane and her church that rents out the local school gym? etc. etc. Who's or what authority would make that decision?

Since there are limitless Protestant interpretations of the Bible, there must be limitless numbers of Holy Spirits, each teaching a differerent version of the truth. This is news to me - it's my understanding that there is only one Holy Spirit, who teaches only one truth.

 

[Buzzard3]

Aside from the obviously inaccurate attempt to make all the Early Church Fathers be seen as members of the Church of Rome of later times.

Which Church did the early Church Fathers belong to?

 

[Buzzard3]

Post deleted