PapaLandShark
Member
Lecture 9 in Historical Theology taught by Dr. Nathan Busenitz in TMS
Are you actually Protestant?
- Thread starter PapaLandShark
- Start date
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
ABSOLUTELY!! all "Protestant" really means is: "Ain't Catholic".
Brakelite
Active member
The definition of 'Protestant' isn't just about protesting. Although that's an important component, and there's certainly very few doing that these days. At least in the traditional sense of nailing thesis to church doors etc. The other essential part of the definition of Protestant is the mindset of being pro the testimonies of scripture, that is in full agreement of the protestant reformation basic of sola scriptura, and the teachings thereof. Dare I suggest that that concept is as rare as the first. But let not anyone deceive you into thinking that the Reformation is over, and that there are no longer any protestants around any more, as claimed a few years ago by the Pope, the late Bishop Tony Palmer and Kenneth Copeland and friends.
I shall put my hand up, even though I be accused of being a fundamentalist and a violent terrorist as Francis described Bible believing Christians.
I shall put my hand up, even though I be accused of being a fundamentalist and a violent terrorist as Francis described Bible believing Christians.
Diserner
Well-known member
But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I protested and opposed him to his face [concerning his conduct there], for he was blameable and stood condemned. — Galatians 2:11, AMPC
DavidTree
Well-known member
DavidTree
Well-known member
"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks."
Rockson
Well-known member
Am I or others Protestants? Interesting question that can swing different ways. To not be a protestant means there is some type of original system that what? Everyone was to think upon was credible? We can consider this then.....the Jesus was a Protestant in a certain way of speaking. The religious system of his day was Judaism . There was this system of religion people thought was creditable and Jesus came basically saying that, No, much of the established system were traditions of men and not from God.
But then you could say when THAT religious system developed long before Christ was here that THEY became the Protestants. They missed the true intent of the laws of Moses and claimed it was not sufficient . That's a pulling away any way you look at it. The became protestants. Well....the early church became established. It was established on good doctrine. Years went by.
Another system started to develop we could call Catholicism THEY became the NEXT Protestants! It came to a place where many did consider them the established original and then we get to another group of Protestants. So to ask am I a Protestant? Nope I'm he original going back to the time of Moses and merging with Christ the fulfillment and holding fast to the present day! The real protestants were the religious order just before the time of Christ who dreamed up a bunch of junk and years later Catholicism who protested the more true teachings of Christ.
I think it's probably good to just say I'm a believer in God and the scriptures and if you doubt that then show me why not.
But then you could say when THAT religious system developed long before Christ was here that THEY became the Protestants. They missed the true intent of the laws of Moses and claimed it was not sufficient . That's a pulling away any way you look at it. The became protestants. Well....the early church became established. It was established on good doctrine. Years went by.
Another system started to develop we could call Catholicism THEY became the NEXT Protestants! It came to a place where many did consider them the established original and then we get to another group of Protestants. So to ask am I a Protestant? Nope I'm he original going back to the time of Moses and merging with Christ the fulfillment and holding fast to the present day! The real protestants were the religious order just before the time of Christ who dreamed up a bunch of junk and years later Catholicism who protested the more true teachings of Christ.
I think it's probably good to just say I'm a believer in God and the scriptures and if you doubt that then show me why not.
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
Yup. I ain't Catholic. The rest is "Word games".
DavidTree
Well-known member
God was the first ProtestantAm I or others Protestants? Interesting question that can swing different ways. To not be a protestant means there is some type of original system that what? Everyone was to think upon was credible? We can consider this then.....the Jesus was a Protestant in a certain way of speaking. The religious system of his day was Judaism . There was this system of religion people thought was creditable and Jesus came basically saying that, No, much of the established system were traditions of men and not from God.
But then you could say when THAT religious system developed long before Christ was here that THEY became the Protestants. They missed the true intent of the laws of Moses and claimed it was not sufficient . That's a pulling away any way you look at it. The became protestants. Well....the early church became established. It was established on good doctrine. Years went by.
Another system started to develop we could call Catholicism THEY became the NEXT Protestants! It came to a place where many did consider them the established original and then we get to another group of Protestants. So to ask am I a Protestant? Nope I'm he original going back to the time of Moses and merging with Christ the fulfillment and holding fast to the present day! The real protestants were the religious order just before the time of Christ who dreamed up a bunch of junk and years later Catholicism who protested the more true teachings of Christ.
I think it's probably good to just say I'm a believer in God and the scriptures and if you doubt that then show me why not.
God continues to be a Protestant
God is a Protestant that brings Good News to a Dark World
You mean - Pro your personal opinion of the meaning (and content) of scripture.
And against what the early church , including post apostolic fathers said it meant.
You do not have the word of God unless 1/ you have the right table of contents for scripture 2/ you have the right meaning to go with it 3/ A method to respove disputes on menaing and 4/ the words of scripture. Protestants only have the last
Sola scriptura IS the problem
It is neither biblical, historical, or even logically defensible.
It is truly a man made tradition of the reformation, We know who invented it and when in the middle ages. It is tradition in the meaning of scripture because you have handed it down ever since .
But Even scripture opposes it! and it is the source of massive fragmentation.
Tell me. If sola scriptura was true:
Why do protestants have polar opposite views on every aspect of doctrine from baptism, eucharist, soteriology, end times, priesthood, marriage. You name it , protestants disagree on it all BECAUSE of sola scriptura empowering all to make up their own version. Luther despaired of the consequence of it when he said "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine" as he lamented in later life.
Thats why protestant became evangelical me, went home to catholicism with thousands of theologians and pastors..
By study of the early church, which is complete blindspot for most protestants.
eg To understand the importance of the succession you can look to the first post apostolic fathers, those even taught by apostles. To understand the eucharist study those who John the apostle taught!.
Last edited:
Diserner
Well-known member
This is definitely a logical error. Asking a "why" question with the assumption nothing can answer it is a fallacy.
Certainly nothing about Scripture as authority guarantees people agree, anymore than one person dominating the interpretation guarantees that one person got it right.
We have sin nature, we are prone to error—Scripture tells us this, and why we all must be vigilant personally for ourselves and not pass that buck to a higher institution that could mislead us.
Which is precisely why our Lord gave the mechanisms
- first for passing on the truth "paradosis" tradition by those who were "sent". To which we are told to "stay true"
And
- the means to resolve disputes on doctrine the power to "bind and loose" given to the apostles (and successors) jointly and to peter (and successors) alone. That is the power wielded in council and why we can trust council decisions becasue they are "bound in heaven"
- the power to bind and loose is the ONLY reason you have a definitive canon of scripture which was a decision of council of the church.
Luthers argument for later removing maccabees is utterly absurd, indeed he had no authority to decide scripture which was already a done deal.
- THAT is why we are told to take disputes to the church physical "the household of God" and why the church (not scripture) is called the "pillar and foundation of truth"
Indeed what protestants all do in stating their own meaning for scripture is in direct violation of proverbs where they are told not to "lean on their own understanding". Protestants need to consider why it was we were told that only those who WERE SENT can preach, and who they are. The sucession..
Rockson
Well-known member
The early church made sure we ended up with the scriptures. We don't need any body else in our generation passing on truth in the sense that only their group own all this exclusively.
So you're saying if the hierarchy of Catholicism meets today you have a guarantee what's going to come out of their is sold genuine doctrine? This way of thinking is no different than the religious Jews of Jesus day, Pharisees and Sadducees thinking the same way about themselves.
All throughout the years before Catholicism had this meeting church groups already affirmed what was scripture.
An interesting read from Let Us Reason,
Who Gave Us the Scriptures
Where did the church receive the Scriptures from? Who really gave us the bible we have today.
www.letusreason.org
"The Roman church says they proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament. Actually the Catholic Church in 397 the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and church’s long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. The Synod of Antioch in 266 AD. had rejected Paul of Samosata’s teaching (a modalist) as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the New Testament and quoted from almost every book. He said they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away.
Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Church’s. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them. Are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the church to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the whole Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100’s to 200’s.In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern."
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
I've said for many years that "Prima Scriptura" is the only logically sustainable position.
It is also logical that "protesters" can be found anywhere. Including among what some declare "universal" among Catholicism.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
What canon might that be? Surely you know that there have been multiple canonical councils that disagreed with one another. Just pointing "at the last one" is to ignore apostasy.
civic
Well-known member
And I was going to say adam was the first human protestant
