A few questions for Protestants

Valletta · Feb 15, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
The fact that the NT canon was not ratified until the fourth century suggests that
1. The canon was controversial and there was a need within the Church to once and for all clarify what books were indeed inspired and which weren't.
2. In the early centuries of the Church, it's possible that certain uninspired books were doing the rounds and were mistakenly assumed by some to be inspired.

While readings allowed to be read at masses in the first centuries were similar, and books like the Gospels were widely accepted, there were differences from area to area. You are correct, the Catholic Church decided there was a need and set out to determine which texts were God-breathed and which were not. The Catholic Church process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

timothyu · Feb 15, 2022

And were all the different languages and dialects allowed to be kept? No, there was an agenda at play. A corporate takeover.

Valletta · Feb 16, 2022

timothyu said:
And were all the different languages and dialects allowed to be kept? No, there was an agenda at play. A corporate takeover.

That's a very strange comment. People could speak whatever dialect or language they wished. But at the time the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, Latin had very much supplanted Greek as the language of the people. So the Catholic Church set out to come up with a Bible for the people in the common language, the Latin Vulgate (from the word "vulgar" which meant "common). Essentially at that time if you were a Christian in Europe who was literate you could read and write Latin). Latin, we know, eventually morphed into languages like French and Spanish and Italian and thus came more Catholic translations of Biblical texts.

Buzzard3 · Feb 16, 2022

timothyu said:
And were all the different languages and dialects allowed to be kept? No, there was an agenda at play. A corporate takeover.

If the true Church was hijacked or taken over by a false church, that means Jesus didn't keep the promise that he made in Matt 16 ... that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" his Church. According to you, "the gates of hell" DID prevail against his Church.

Albion · Feb 16, 2022

Valletta said:
While readings allowed to be read at masses in the first centuries were similar, and books like the Gospels were widely accepted, there were differences from area to area. You are correct, the Catholic Church decided there was a need and set out to determine which texts were God-breathed and which were not. The Catholic Church process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved of by Councils at Hippo and Carthage in the late 300s. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

'Salting' the answer with the words "Catholic" and "Pope" wherever possible doesn't change the fact that the divisions in Christianity that we know today--Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant--had not yet occurred at that time and that the councils which made such decisions were not those of only one branch of the church.

timothyu · Feb 16, 2022

Valletta said:
But at the time the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible, Latin had very much supplanted Greek as the language of the people.

Yet it was the Eastern Roman Empire in charge at the time (having won the civil war with the Latin west) which was predominantly Greek.

Fidelibus · Feb 16, 2022

Albion said:
Nothing. It's often the case that people who believe the Bible to be sufficient as a rule of faith say that they rely on the Bible alone when explaining it to other people.

So how about the other cases?

timothyu · Feb 16, 2022

Buzzard3 said:
If the true Church was hijacked or taken over by a false church, that means Jesus didn't keep the promise that he made in Matt 16 ... that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" his Church. According to you, "the gates of hell" DID prevail against his Church.

Any organizing institution can be seen as incorporating and the church in the early 4th century certainly was incorporating and also casting out various sects. Winner take all.

But if you want to get technical, the church was never meant to be a human institution built upon the same principles as all others in the Empire at the time, but a movement and way of life belonging to the people resembling the Way which was built upon God's truth and not the institutional truths of man. Jesus kept His promise with that church (and no doubt those today following the same concept of church) but I doubt He did with an institution that later abandoned the Kingdom to join forces with the opposing governance of man. That traitorous institution could still be used by God though to forward His truth in the scriptures while man taught another truth of their own modelled on the governments of man.

Albion · Feb 16, 2022

So how about the other cases?

What other cases did you have in mind?

Fidelibus · Feb 16, 2022

timothyu said:
What does that have to do with what I said.

Why not just answer?

What I said applies to all.

Applies to all? I think not, all you did was give your personal and fallible opinion. Sorry.

Have a Blessed Day!

Fidelibus · Feb 16, 2022

Albion said:
What other cases did you have in mind?

You tell me. It was you that said

"It's often the case that people who believe the Bible to be sufficient as a rule of faith say that they rely on the Bible alone when explaining it to other people."

It's "often" the case.

renniks · Feb 16, 2022

Fidelibus said:
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a common belief among Protestant/non-denominational, Bible alone believing Christians that there are no Christians who can infallibly interpret Scripture? If so, is this your belief as well? Soooo.... wouldn't someone who is guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of Scripture be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture?

Interesting, by what you said here, let me ask, are there Christians that belong to this "true church" you speak of, and "true believers of every stripe", who are being guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretations of Scripture, who have belief systems that are not exactly the same?

One last question, since I pray to the Holy Spirit before reading Scripture, does let's say for example..... does Joel Osteen, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, interpretations of Scripture, or yours for that matter, have more authority than my interpretation of Scripture? The Bible is inerrant, not any particular church organization.

Have a Blessed day!

No one interprets scripture perfectly. Certainly not the Catholic church.. . the Bible is inerrant, but no church organization holds all truth.

renniks · Feb 16, 2022

Fidelibus said:
My point is, early Christian history shows us, in the first three plus centuries, and before the canon of the bible was ratified in the late forth century, there were many writings that were determined not to be included into the bible we have today.

And...

Albion · Feb 16, 2022

Fidelibus said:
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a common belief among Protestant/non-denominational, Bible alone believing Christians that there are no Christians who can infallibly interpret Scripture?

"Infallibly"...or Correctly??

What you've described -- if you are meaning that no one gets it right -- is absolutely NOT the case with Protestant churches or of Protestants generally. Of that you can be confident.

YeshuaFan · Feb 16, 2022

Fidelibus said:
Well, I have family/friends that belong to the various Protestant/non-denominational churches and sects that are bible alone Christians, that tell me that "yes", they do rely on the bible alone, and believe the bible is "Sufficient as a rule of faith." Pretty sure these same believers could be found right here on this 'Christian forum.'

So, what would you say to them?

Bible alone is inspired and final authority on all matters of doctrines and practices!

Valletta · Feb 16, 2022

Albion said:
'Salting' the answer with the words "Catholic" and "Pope" wherever possible doesn't change the fact that the divisions in Christianity that we know today--Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant--had not yet occurred at that time and that the councils which made such decisions were not those of only one branch of the church.

Salting? You lost me. History is history.

Albion · Feb 16, 2022

Valletta said:
Salting? You lost me. History is history.

Well, history is history; that's correct.

But people can make it seem like history is something other than what it really is...by carefully choosing the words they use when explaining it.

BNR32FAN · Feb 16, 2022

Fidelibus said:
Not quite sure which of my questions you are referring to here. Could you please elaborate?

Thank you Saucy for your response, but I must disagree with you on your answer. The reason being, is that Jesus never said anywhere in Holy Scripture that His words are the "pillar of our truth and faith." If I am incorrect, please show me where He (Jesus) does say His "words are the pillar and ground of truth." Now....., what I have read in Holy Scripture, and according to the apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:15, the "Church" (in the singular sense) is the pillar and ground of the truth. ("But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.")

So, respectfully Saucy, and now seeing this directly from Scripture, would you be willing to agree with me that the 'bible', for a Christian, is "Not" the pillar and ground of the truth - i.e., the upholder and foundation of the truth, but rather is the "Church"?

Have a Blessed day

Which church was Paul referring to?

Albion · Feb 16, 2022

What Paul was actually referring to is right there in the verse that was cited in support of the notion that Jesus was speaking of the Roman Catholic Church.

However, what he actually said (and now I'm quoting directly from Fidelibus' post) was this--

Now....., what I have read in Holy Scripture, and according to the apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 3:15, the "Church" (in the singular sense) is the pillar and ground of the truth. ("But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.")

Obviously, it's the people of God who as a whole are defined as Christ's church.

BNR32FAN · Feb 16, 2022

YeshuaFan said:
Bible alone is inspired and final authority on all matters of doctrines and practices!

the problem with this is that concept is it’s subject to interpretation which is often influenced by popular opinion, personal feelings, upbringing, location, or widely held doctrines which actually ends up putting sola scriptura in the back seat so to speak. For example most universalists interpret the scriptures differently to coincide with their personal feelings of what they think God would do instead of taking certain verses literally that refute the idea. Many protestants will interpret certain verses differently because they often hold to their doctrines as their foundation so the verses that refute their doctrines get interpreted differently to coincide with those doctrines. Too many people think it’s ok to believe what they want to believe because nobody knows the truth, but the teachings of the apostles have been handed down not only thru the scriptures but also in the writings of their disciples and students who followed them for years. If someone really wants to know what the apostles taught they really have to open their eyes & ears to other perspectives in order to make a more educated decision on what is orthodox and what is heresy. Unfortunately some are just content in believing what they choose to believe because it’s easier and doesn’t require any further study.

A few questions for Protestants

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

He’s a Way of life

Facilitator

He’s a Way of life

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency