A few questions for Protestants

[Davy]

Hmmm... No, not really.

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.

Yeah....... "You" said!

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?

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!

GO FISH!

You show you well understood what I said, but only want to 'toy' around it, and dance around the Truth of what I showed.

 

[Davy]

My list included Mormons, JW, Sda and Rome

I'd have to agree, even though I am not a Baptist.

 

[Buzzard3]

My list included Mormons, JW, Sda and Rome

If you oppose and malign the Church that Jesus founded, that's probably a fair indication that you're not part of it.

 

[Buzzard3]

Not seeing it. The authority that gave us the Bible was the Holy Spirit.

Is it honest to deny historical facts? It was the Catholic Church - guided by the Holy Spirit - that decided the canon of the Bible in 4th century.

 

[Buzzard3]

Not seeing it.

You mean, you don't want to see it.

The authority that gave us the Bible was the Holy Spirit.

Is it honest to deny historical facts? It was the Catholic Church that decided the canon of the Bible in 4th century.

Jesus gave the Church divine authority - ie, guided by the Holy Spirit - when he gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

 

[renniks]

Is it honest to deny historical facts? It was the Catholic Church that decided the canon of the Bible in 4th century.

Jesus gave the Church divine authority - ie, guided by the Holy Spirit - when he gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

The Catholic church in the 4th century is not the church of today.
I wonder if it went down hill when it started to persecute instead of being persecuted?

 

[Buzzard3]

The Catholic church in the 4th century is not the church of today.
I wonder if it went down hill when it started to persecute instead of being persecuted?

In that case, you deny the words of Jesus in Matt 16:18-19 ... that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" his Church.

 

[timothyu]

Jesus gave the Church divine authority - ie, guided by the Holy Spirit - when he gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

A Jewish church of the people at the time.

If you oppose and malign the Church that Jesus founded, that's probably a fair indication that you're not part of it.

Again all the more reason to focus on the Way the original church of Jews and gentile proselytes that followed the teachings of Jesus pre-institutionalizing. They were the original unlike later gentile churches that made it over into their own Empire image, those later gentile churches that followed those original gentiles of the eastern empire.

 

[renniks]

In that case, you deny the words of Jesus in Matt 16:18-19 ... that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" his Church.

No, because his church isn't limited to Catholics.

 

[Buzzard3]

A Jewish church of the people at the time.

The original Church was led by Jewish apostles. So what?

 

[timothyu]

The original Church was led by Jewish apostles. So what?

It was a true church, an everyday way of life built upon God's truth by the people for the people.

 

[The Liturgist]

Rome has by far most who are blinded!

Can we perhaps stop with the endless attacks on the Roman church? I don’t see very many Roman criticisms of Protestants; this thread itself is an anomaly and it was in response to a Protestant thread attacking theml

 

[Fidelibus]

I'm sure there's many writings to that effect, just like there are many showing the schisms in the Catholic Church, the differences of opinion among leaders.

For Protestantism, I am coming up blank. I just cannot seem to find anything on any Protestant web-sites when (date/dates) the necessity of baptism that was believed, taught and written about by the reformation fathers, those being Martin Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin was deemed non-necessary. Also, whom among of the many splinter churches or sects of Protestantism deemed baptism unnecessary? And whomever it was within Protestantism that deemed baptism non or unnecessary, how did they receive the authority to deem it so?

As for Catholicism, that's a whole different topic. Feel free to start a thread on it for further discussion.

After studying these three Reformers view, it is clear that Baptism is a must. Everyone that belongs to a Christian family should be baptized. All the reformers saw baptism as a means of regeneration. One cannot be justified unless he/she is baptized. The Reformers indeed brought in change in the Church in various aspects, but, they all agreed with the Catholic Church in regards to infant baptism; while many Protestant churches, in the present days find it hard accept. In this respect many Protestant denominations go alongside with the Anabaptist, believer’s baptism, that baptism should not precede repentance, first believe and get baptized. Baptism should be an outward display of the inner change.

I could be wrong, and maybe I missed it while reading up on them, but I don't recall reading where they out right rejected the necessity of baptism, other than infant baptism. So, that seems to leave me with questions unanswered. Many Protestants and Protestant denominations still follow the baptismal teachings of the fathers of Protestantism such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. Then there are many Protestants such as yourself, and Protestant denominations that do not.

So the questions remain renniks, when in Protestant history did these Protestants and Protestant denomination decide the fathers of Protestantism got it wrong about baptism? Which splinter church or churches of Protestantism made this decision? And by who's or what authority did they have or receive to make such a decision?

For a non-Protestant like myself, I don't understand why this doesn't seem of great concern among Protestants. Either baptism is a necessity for salvation or it is not, which is it? Being peoples souls and eternal salvation are at stake here, one would think this would be an important issue among Protestants. You yourself renniks said most churches you've been too don't believe water saves anyone, and agreed with them. You also said the idea that water saves surely leads a lot of people to hell. Which of these differing beliefs has it right, and which do not? Yours? Theirs? To what authority could you turn to know? Surely not the bible, for it is part of the disagreement. Don't you find this concerning?

I had a book from the library once that went back into different views theology from very early on, and all the different disagreements. I think I read about half of it, it was not easy reading. But I can't remember the title now.

Please share it if you do.

Have a Blessed day!

 

[renniks]

So the questions remain renniks, when in Protestant history did these Protestants and Protestant denomination decide the fathers of Protestantism got it wrong about baptism? Which splinter church or churches of Protestantism made this decision? And by who's or what authority did they have or receive to make such a decision?

I don't know all the history, just pieces. It still seems inevitable to me that understanding salvation is by grace would lead to another understanding about baptism. It doesn't bother me probably because I was not raised to believe in baptism of infants or regenerative baptism. I have a story about that though... I used to work at a factory with a lot of, let's say party people, who liked to go out and get drunk most weekends. And one party girl in particular I remember had quite a reputation for being wild.
We had a partial shift one afternoon, and things were slow when we were talking, and she mentioned that she used to think everybody just got baptized as a kid. And I got the impression she was telling me this because she knew that I was at least someone "religious". And it just illustrates the false ideas people get from Catholicism. Baptism as a baby equals automatic ticket to heaven- that's it in many people's minds, and any Protestant pastor of a larger Church can confirm they get people who were in that tradition and have to be re-educated to understand that water sprinkled on their head when they were a baby didn't do anything for their soul.

 

[timothyu]

Baptism as a baby equals automatic ticket to heaven-

I was led to believe it meant a parent declaring their child was promised to a particular sect of Catholicism, complete with certificate of possession. Conscription of the innocent.

 

[Fidelibus]

GO FISH!

You darn right Davy.... every chance I can!! I live to fish!..... Fish On!!!

You show you well understood what I said, but only want to 'toy' around it, and dance around the Truth of what I showed.

"You show you well"? Sorry Davy, not sure what that means.

However, what I do know and understand, is that I asked "you" an adherent of sola scriptura, (maybe the abbreviation... "SS" through you off) 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?

That is kind of a yes or no question my friend, which you totally ignored.

Then you went on Davy, and posted the O.T. verse of Isaiah 2:22, followed by your personal and fallible interpretation of said verse, and how obvious "you felt" God's own word was accountable to Him, and not some system devised 'by' men.

Followed by my response were I told you, as a Catholic, I believe in the bible, 100%, but not necessarily your fallible interpretation of it.

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?

Again Davy, something you ignored with a slight wave of the hand.

Then, I followed with a question regarding the passage you posted, Is.2:22:

Would you agree though Davy, 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?

Which, once again, you completely ignored.

Then on this post Davy, you have the gumption to tell me I am dancing around the truth that "YOU" showed?? I have to say my friend, that made me sit back in my chair after reading that!! Wow!

So Davy, tell me if I got this right. Under your very own Protestant theology, as impressive as yours, or anyone else's, scholarly or non- scholarly background might be, your personal interpretations or opinions mean absolutely nothing when it comes to having an authoritative interpretation of Scripture, right? In other words, in your Protestant belief system, the interpretation of any person who can read the Bible is just as valid, just as authoritative, as the interpretation of any other person who reads the Bible, right? Again Davy, pretty simple yes or no questions.

So, Davy, pretty sure I clarified here, that no way did I "dance around the truth" as you seem to think.

So Davy, if you happened to answer yes to my questions above, where my interpretations of the Bible, are just as valid and just as authoritative as your own, maybe you can explain to me why and how you believe your interpretation of Is. 2:22 is the absolute and infallible truth?

In closing Davy, I would like to ask you again, (for the third time) one of my original OP questions you have ignored completely:

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!

 

[BobRyan]

However, what I do know and understand, is that I asked "you" an adherent of sola scriptura, (maybe the abbreviation... "SS" through you off) 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?

1. SS - Sola Scriptura - does not mean that no governing body of Christians can ever be correct on doctrine.

2. 2 Cor 5:10 - DOES MEAN that no governing body of Christians will "stand in your place" and/or "Answer for you" as you stand alone before the judgment seat of Christ.

3. Scripture is the Word of God and as such - is the highest authority on Earth. It is the final test of all doctrine, tradition and practice. Even NON-Christians were fully capable of using it to determine IF the teaching/doctrine of the Apostle Paul - was correct according to Act 17:11

 

[Fidelibus]

The text says not to regard any man above what is written.

The NIV puts it this way ...

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

The question is...... where in the bible does it say the bible has the "final authority? It surely does not say it where you have it highlighted.

 

[Fidelibus]

1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a sense transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn through us not to regard men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Thank you for posting this passage A-Thinker. However, let me be clear, as a Catholic, I believe what the Bible says 100%, but that does not mean I necessarily agree with your fallible interpretation of it. You would agree your personal interpretation of this passage is your fallible interpretation, and could be in error?

Now, in my/our Catholic bible studies, I/we believe to get the full understanding of this passage, verses seven and eight should or must be included.

6, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written,* so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another.
7;Who confers distinction upon you? What do you possess that you have not received? But if you have received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?
8;You are already satisfied; you have already grown rich; you have become kings* without us! Indeed, I wish that you had become kings, so that we also might become kings with you.

The words "to go" are not in the Greek text but are added to the translation to give a better sense of the message. In 4:6-8, Paul accuses the Corinthian Christians of the sin of pride.

Paul warns the Corinthians: so that you may learn from us not (to go) beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride [puffed up] in favor of one person over against another.

So A-Thinker, let me ask you, what is Paul's point and what is the "what is written" to which Paul refers?

Tell me what you think, and I will gladly tell you my view.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

I don't know all the history, just pieces.

But wouldn't you want to know the when, how, and who decided the fathers of Protestantism had it all wrong? I sure would want to know.

It still seems inevitable to me that understanding salvation is by grace would lead to another understanding about baptism.

But what if some other Protestant has differing beliefs or understanding regarding this? Where could the two of you turn to find the truth?

It doesn't bother me probably because I was not raised to believe in baptism of infants or regenerative baptism.

But what if the fathers of the reformation had it right? And what if whomever it was from any of the splinter churches of Protestantism that decided they were in error, are in error themselves? You would agree whomever it was that made this decision were mere fallible men or women and could be wrong, right?

So, can you honestly say renniks, knowing this, you have no concerns putting your soul and eternal salvation entirely upon their fallible decision? I mean think about it, at the start of this post you yourself said "I don't know all the history, just pieces."

I myself find this very concerning, and will pray for you.

Have a Blessed day!