Are you actually Protestant?

[mikepec]

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."

Meanwhile if you study actual HISTORY you will know the canon is decided as much by what was ommitted as by what was included by the church. Many other books were in circulation, why do you not include those? The so called "muratorian fragment" includes references to several that ARE NOT canonical. Nor does the fragment claim to be a view of the church. The first actual canon - Marcions - was REJECTED by Rome and there were several proposals later. The actual canon was accepted at Hippo. Even the first latin translator Jerome noted that the decision on what was canonical was up to the church. Seems Jerome knew what the power to "Bind and Loose" means even if you do not!


As I have pointed out.
1/ Sola scriptura is a false and easily disprovable tradition, the origin of 10000 schisms.
2/ You do not have the word of God unless you have the right books and right meaning handed down.
3/ Jesus gave the church the power to make binding decisions as it did on the Nicean creed. The power to bind and loose.
4/ That is why the physical church is declared the "pillar of truth" to which to take disputes.
5/ You are to follow the faith handed down by those "sent" to preach. Not what a reformationist thinks it means.

Nothing you said altered any of the above.















.

 

[mikepec]

And I was going to say adam was the first human protestant

True!!

 

[Rockson]

Even the first latin translator Jerome noted that the decision on what was canonical was up to the church.

So? So am I supposed to believe that God didn't affirm in all disciples for hundreds of years just what was scripture. Come on. So about the 300's or whatever the body of Christ was totally ignorant and in the dark? Sorry Mike not buying it.

 

[mikepec]

So? So am I supposed to believe that God didn't affirm in all disciples for hundreds of years just what was scripture. Come on. So about the 300's or whatever the body of Christ was totally ignorant and in the dark? Sorry Mike not buying it.

This is the problem. So few protestants study history.

God did not "affirm just what was scripture in all disciples".That is pure invention.
Indeed the first canon was rejected as heretical by Rome.

There were disagreements on it until the councils spoke with the power to "bind and loose"
There were many books in circulation that did not make it into scripture.

The so called Muratonian fragment does not include all the books now accepted as scripture, and included some that are not in the canon.
Take the shepherd of Hermas. Iraneus does not state the full list. And even if the fragment were exact, it had no authority to decide.

The faith was passed by tradition , not scripture to which Paul tells you to stay "true" By those who were "sent" to preach.
Most could not read, and even if they could a bible would take a man years to copy, so nobody could afford one anyway!.
Documents were confiscated by romans and burned.
So word of mouth was the primary vehicle for the first centuries.

Consistency with tradition was one of the criteria used on which the church chose scripture.
The canon was tradition committed to paper

Luther had no power to change the canon by ommitting maccabees for example. He seemed to think that he could change scripture to match his doctrine, not the otherway round!

You can "buy" what you like. It will not change the facts. Sola scriptura is false.
You need truth OUTSIDE scripture to tell you WHAT IS scripture, and also what it means.

 

[DavidTree]

And I was going to say adam was the first human protestant

You have me thinking now - question - who or what did Adam protest?

 

[civic]

You have me thinking now - question - who or what did Adam protest?

What God had told him regarding the command and believed the serpent over God hence protested, was against what God told him was true.

 

[Rockson]

Indeed the first canon was rejected as heretical by Rome.

There were disagreements on it until the councils spoke with the power to "bind and loose"

So you're still in this place of saying for 380 years any and all disciples were like Riders On The Storm.....no sound footing. No sound knowing anything is sure from the scriptures'. I can just imagine. The year is 200 AD and disciples lament one towards another saying, " OK just another 180 years to go and we can have peace about this issue or at least our great great grandchildren will!"

There were many books in circulation that did not make it into scripture.

Many would have know in the spirit what God in them was bearing witness to. What that 382 meeting did was come to an agreed consensus that they felt this that or the other was Canon.

So word of mouth was the primary vehicle for the first centuries.

They still had scrolls of the gospels. Not one in every home of course but they had them.

 

[DavidTree]

What God had told him regarding the command and believed the serpent over God hence protested, was against what God told him was true.

Got it - ty

Did Adam protest in accord with God? On anything that comes to your mind?

 

[mikepec]

So you're still in this place of saying for 380 years any and all disciples were like Riders On The Storm.....no sound footing. No sound knowing anything is sure from the scriptures'. I can just imagine. The year is 200 AD and disciples lament one towards another saying, " OK just another 180 years to go and we can have peace about this issue or at least our great great grandchildren will!"

Many would have know in the spirit what God in them was bearing witness to. What that 382 meeting did was come to an agreed consensus that they felt this that or the other was Canon.

They still had scrolls of the gospels. Not one in every home of course but they had them.

You don’t understand how truth was passed down.

Scripture tells you.
By word of mouth of those who were sent to preach. called tradition, paradosis.
Jesus didnt say write this, most apostles didn’t, indeed those who did so, only did so later.

Jesus said do this and go out and teach this . So they did.
Tradition. Hands the truth to present day,
He also promised that the church could resolve disputes , he gave the power to bind and loose.
thats why the church is the pillar of truth , you discover truth from decisions of councils.

You don’t even know what is scripture without the church.

We know what apostles taught - the meaning of scripture.
Take ignatius to like polycarp taught by John,
Who like Justin martyr stated the eucharist was real flesh , valid only if presided by bishop in succession. So that’s what John taught and the meaning of John 6

Yet all of you use 21st century eyes to give scripture a meaning contrary to what apostles taught
unless you have true meaning of scripture from traditin and authority you do not have the word of God, you only have words.

 

[DavidTree]

You don’t understand how truth was passed down.

Scripture tells you.
By word of mouth of those who were sent to preach. called tradition, paradosis.
Jesus didnt say write this, most apostles didn’t, indeed those who did so, only did so later.

Jesus said do this and go out and teach this . So they did.
Tradition. Hands the truth to present day,
He also promised that the church could resolve disputes , he gave the power to bind and loose.
thats why the church is the pillar of truth , you discover truth from decisions of councils.

You don’t even know what is scripture without the church.

We know what apostles taught - the meaning of scripture.
Take ignatius to like polycarp taught by John,
Who like Justin martyr stated the eucharist was real flesh , valid only if presided by bishop in succession. So that’s what John taught and the meaning of John 6

Yet all of you use 21st century eyes to give scripture a meaning contrary to what apostles taught
unless you have true meaning of scripture from traditin and authority you do not have the word of God, you only have words.

The Apostle John did not teach 'transubstantiation', neither did Christ.

 

[Rockson]

Who like Justin martyr stated the eucharist was real flesh , valid only if presided by bishop in succession.

Sorry Mike but you've got to be kidding. The great injustices Catholicism carried out all through -out the middle ages and you'd actually have us believe God's blessing, anointing, empowerments were actually within these men?

 

[mikepec]

The Apostle John did not teach 'transubstantiation', neither did Christ.

That is your personal opinion of scripture.
your personal opinion Is wrong.

As demonstrated both by what was handed down to johns disciples ( tradition)
Statements of magisterium (authority )
And even forensics of eucharistic miracles.

You should listen to the “ pillar of truth “ , the church, those “sent to preach “ ,stop leaning on “ your own understanding “
I am quoting what scripture tells you to do.

 

[mikepec]

Sorry Mike but you've got to be kidding. The great injustices Catholicism carried out all through -out the middle ages and you'd actually have us believe God's blessing, anointing, empowerments were actually within these men?

You wrongly conflate the actions of those in the church from the teaching authority of the church.
Catholics have more sinners than most, we have more people than most . Even the pope admits to it.
the circumstances in which we can trust the authority are limited to the powers given in scripture.

All churches are full of sinners . Including yours.
And the faxt protestants teach opposites on much doctrine proves most of them do not teach truth.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Tell me. If sola scriptura was true:
Why do protestants have polar opposite views on every aspect of doctrine

Simple: "Sola Scriptura" ACTUALLY MEANS "Sola our paradigmatic interpretation of Scriptura".

ALL God's chilluns gots "interpretations" of "Scriptura"

 

[mikepec]

Simple: "Sola Scriptura" ACTUALLY MEANS "Sola our paradigmatic interpretation of Scriptura".

ALL God's chilluns gots "interpretations" of "Scriptura"

But there is only one right interpretation , which is the truth. Only that is Gods word.
and you know what it is by following scriptures instructions:

-To listen to what is handed down by those who are “sent“ to preach.
- To listen to THE church the pillar of truth , Those given the power to “ bind and loose” meaning. Successors of apostles and Peter.
Thank goodness Jesus gave them that power: it’s how you know what is Scripture.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

But there is only one right interpretation

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!

- To listen to THE church the pillar of truth , Those given the power to “ bind and loose” meaning. Successors of apostles and Peter.
Thank goodness Jesus gave them that power: it’s how you know what is Scripture.

SO when will the "Holy Roman Catholic religious system" pay attention to the "WORD OF GOD that they supposedly produced, and cease from their PAGAN PRACTICES????

 

[Diserner]

Thank goodness Jesus gave them that power: it’s how you know what is Scripture.

It's not how I know they are Scripture, I promise you that.

Scriptures say they are self-attesting, and they are.

I know they are Scripture because God meets me there.

 

[Diserner]

cease from their PAGAN PRACTICES????

All God's chilluns got some pagan practices they need to work on.

 

[MatthewG]

Lecture 9 in Historical Theology taught by Dr. Nathan Busenitz in TMS

Helpful video.

 

[DavidTree]

That is your personal opinion of scripture.
your personal opinion Is wrong.

As demonstrated both by what was handed down to johns disciples ( tradition)
Statements of magisterium (authority )
And even forensics of eucharistic miracles.

You should listen to the “ pillar of truth “ , the church, those “sent to preach “ ,stop leaning on “ your own understanding “
I am quoting what scripture tells you to do.

i follow the Truth of the LORD Jesus Christ who admonishes you to believe His words that you might escape judgment.
Many, many catholics are involved in idolatry.
God warns us to run from it.

No one can receive the LORD Jesus Christ by the falsehood of transubstantiation.


John chapter 6

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

61When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples [n]complained about this, He said to them, “Does this [o]offend you? 62What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”