Fascinating inter-Protestant discussion-


#1

Check it out. I just started eavesdropping. I may participate, but maybe not. It’s just interesting to see how they “study” the origins of the Bible by contorting their minds to make their conclusions reach their presuppositions. At first I thought the thread-starter was Catholic because he basically starts with the first questions Catholic apologists start with regarding the Bible.

Anyway, here’s the link: bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21568


#2

Here’s a good example of what I’m seeing there:

We’ve seen now how the Old Testament canon was put together and acknowledged, and we’ve seen just a glimpse of how the New Testament verifies, authenticates and sets the perameters of the Old. But what of the New Testament itself? It’s easy enough to test the veracity of the OT Scriptures because we have the NT to bare witness. But we have no third set of Scriptures to fix for us, the boundaries of the second. So how can we be certain that the NT canon is reliable?

Well, just as our Lord gave His stamp of approval to the OT Scriptures as they existed then (and now), He also provides us with PRE-AUTHENTICATION of the writings of the NT apostles and prophets.

While we all rejoice in the promise and subsequent arrival of the Comforter, it is often overlooked that inseparably linked to the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit, is also the promise of the truth and authenticity of the New Testament Scriptures.

As we’ve seen, our Lord recognized a three-fold division of the OT Scriptures; The Law, The Prophets, and The Psalms; encompassing the whole of the Old Testament as we have it today. Even so, the New Testament is promised and is verified beforehand in a three-fold division…


#3

[quote=montanaman]Here’s a good example of what I’m seeing there:
[/quote]

Seems like the kind of arguement that one could very easily refute by providing examples of what that line of thinking leads to if someone went on there.


#4

[quote=Lazerlike42]Seems like the kind of arguement that one could very easily refute by providing examples of what that line of thinking leads to if someone went on there.
[/quote]

If they’d even entertain the idea that they might be wrong. I find it highly ironic that people who will not/cannot believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church think that they can take it upon themselves that very infallibility for what they want to think is true and what they want to believe. :rolleyes:


#5

[quote=Della]If they’d even entertain the idea that they might be wrong. I find it highly ironic that people who will not/cannot believe in the infallible authority of the Catholic Church think that they can take it upon themselves that very infallibility for what they want to think is true and what they want to believe. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

The truth is that in interpreting it themselves, and asserting that they are correct where others are wrong, even if they assert so charitably, they still make themselves into Popes!


#6

Just one Protestant at a time, folks. Just one at a time…

Of course, it’d be helpful if we weren’t losing TEN to Protestantism for every one we take in. I fear our apologetical descendants will have a lot of work to do… :wink:


#7

“When those “missing” letters were read in the churches, the Holy Spirit made clear to God’s people through His prophets that these were not to be included in the canon of Scripture.”

How nice and convenient :thumbsup:

Its nice that an entire protestant study on the origin of the canon can be summed up in about one sentence, “there were many works circulating, but the Holy Spirit let everyone know which were inspired and which weren’t. The end.”

It is interesting that their logic states consent=divine inspiration. It isn’t even a possibility that the works might simply receive approval for their accuracy. No, approval absolutely and undeniably means the works were co-authored by the Holy Spirit. How do protestants know? Well, of course God would never let them be in error about His own Word.

Their naivety and lack of sound logic always amazes me when discussing the canon.


#8

[quote=michaelgazin]“When those “missing” letters were read in the churches, the Holy Spirit made clear to God’s people through His prophets that these were not to be included in the canon of Scripture.”

How nice and convenient :thumbsup:

Its nice that an entire protestant study on the origin of the canon can be summed up in about one sentence, “there were many works circulating, but the Holy Spirit let everyone know which were inspired and which weren’t. The end.”

It is interesting that their logic states consent=divine inspiration. It isn’t even a possibility that the works might simply receive approval for their accuracy. No, approval absolutely and undeniably means the works were co-authored by the Holy Spirit. How do protestants know? Well, of course God would never let them be in error about His own Word.

Their naivety and lack of sound logic always amazes me when discussing the canon.
[/quote]

Maybe this deserves its own thread, but…

to me, this is why the world has lost religion. Think about it: for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the Church and God was what mattered to people, even to kings, who waged wars for His sake. Protestantism comes about, and within 200 years you have people doubting God, and from there people started going away from religion until we are at the point where we are now.

Could this be because of the rise of Protestantism to be the “dominant” Christian religion? Most of their arguements do go something like, “God said so, the end.” It’s no wonder so many have found problems with that line of thought and come to atheism or agnosticism! It’s no wonder so many people view God as a fairy tale when these Protestant views are the ones being promulgated.

From that point I ask this: is it that Protestantism is the “church” of Satan… the means by which he has chosen to attack this world?


#9

[quote=Lazerlike42]From that point I ask this: is it that Protestantism is the “church” of Satan… the means by which he has chosen to attack this world?
[/quote]

I think you mean, is *Protestantism *the 25,000 "church"es of Satan? :stuck_out_tongue:

Certainly Protestantism and the incredible disunity that came with it seemed to detract from any type of credibility Christianity once had, for many.


#10

Certainly Protestantism escorted relativism into Christianity, though the early “reformers” would have been appalled at the suggestion. Relativism is the logical conclusion of Protestantism, and where everything is true (except, of course, the Catholic Church), ultimately nothing is true. Which sounds like a mindset that Satan would be pretty tickled pink about…


#11

[quote=Lazerlike42]From that point I ask this: is it that Protestantism is the “church” of Satan… the means by which he has chosen to attack this world?
[/quote]

Not entirly. Think about it.

Some people read James and say, “Christianity is useless because it contradicts itself” and become athiest or agnostic.

Some people follow James all the way to Rome. :smiley:


#12

[quote=Lazerlike42]Maybe this deserves its own thread, but…

to me, this is why the world has lost religion. Think about it: for the first 1500 years of Christianity, the Church and God was what mattered to people, even to kings, who waged wars for His sake. Protestantism comes about, and within 200 years you have people doubting God, and from there people started going away from religion until we are at the point where we are now.

Could this be because of the rise of Protestantism to be the “dominant” Christian religion? Most of their arguements do go something like, “God said so, the end.” It’s no wonder so many have found problems with that line of thought and come to atheism or agnosticism! It’s no wonder so many people view God as a fairy tale when these Protestant views are the ones being promulgated.

From that point I ask this: is it that Protestantism is the “church” of Satan… the means by which he has chosen to attack this world?
[/quote]

I recently met a man who insisted on personal interpretation, refuses any other theological discussions (he says Jesus is against theology!!) and will not commit to any organised assembly or congregation because the Holy Spirit speaks to him… I explained for 3 days the Church but to no avail.
After much thought prayer and discussion I realise that the Devil has him! To be so consumed with pride to think he is the only one the spirit talks too. He can more damage than a ‘murder of crows’ in a corn field.
They need our prayers and brilliant apologists
God Bless


#13

[quote=CreosMary]I recently met a man who insisted on personal interpretation, refuses any other theological discussions (he says Jesus is against theology!!) and will not commit to any organised assembly or congregation because the Holy Spirit speaks to him… I explained for 3 days the Church but to no avail.
After much thought prayer and discussion I realise that the Devil has him! To be so consumed with pride to think he is the only one the spirit talks too. He can more damage than a ‘murder of crows’ in a corn field.
They need our prayers and brilliant apologists
God Bless
[/quote]

I didn’t talk to him, but are you sure he meant the Holy Spirit only speaks to him? If he is like a lit of non-denom Christians, he thinks the Holy Spirit speaks to him personally even if he doesn’t go to a church, and so does It/He/She speak to others.

There are Bible verses which clearly instruct us that we must assemble together. Did you show him those?


#14

Watching some of the threads on this board is fascinating. Every kind of error imaginable is embraced. There’s even the typical masturbation thread, and some of these “Christians” are saying it’s a perfectly acceptable release. The anti-rational nature of nearly every post is shocking. Seriously–it’s time to circle the wagons. Protestantism in itself is no worse heresy than any other the Church has faced down over the millenia, but it’s problematic today because of the ingrained relativism and anti-reason so much a part of it. You can’t even talk to people with whom logic and reason is a foreign concept.


#15

I haven’t had much free time lately to respond to the thread on bibleforums.com and they seem to be down at the moment so I’ll post my reply here and, if they come up, I might have the time to post it over there.

I took the first quote the author posted to “prove” that individuals wrote the Bible book and they were accepted by the majority of “believers:”

Exodus 24:3-8

When Moses came to the people and related all the words and ordinances of the LORD, they all answered with one voice, “We will do everything that the LORD has told us.” Moses then wrote down all the words of the LORD and, rising early the next day, he erected at the foot of the mountain an altar and twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. Then, having sent certain young men of the Israelites to offer holocausts and sacrifice young bulls as peace offerings to the LORD, Moses took half of the blood and put it in large bowls; the other half he splashed on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it aloud to the people, who answered, “All that the LORD has said, we will heed and do.” Then he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words of his.”

I read just the first two paragraphs of Exodus 24, that the author on bibleforums.com left out, which includes a very important piece of information.

Exodus 24:1-2

Moses himself was told, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, with Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You shall all worship at some distance, but Moses alone is to come close to the LORD; the others shall not come too near, and the people shall not come up at all with Moses.”

Moses went up with 70 of the elders! This was a Synod. Before the books were brought to the people of Israel, they Synod approved the books.

Once again we see Protestants selectively picking passages to support their private interpretation and just a little digging undermines their entire case.


#16

When I first clicked on the link and saw Dave S – well, I had to read the city of residence – while it isn’t my brother’s true last initiial who says we exactly use our real names on these boards anyway?

I was relieved though that it wasn’t my fundy brother – was too low on word count. If you think I am verbose – you haven’t met my brother.

I read their posts and the one woman who says – I wonder how long the Bible has been around anyway? Well look it up sweetheart. It has been around longer than the Great Divorce.


#17

I’m a member of that board. If anybody wish to post specific replies to specific comments, I’ll be happy to re-post them over there.


#18

[quote=Lazerlike42]I didn’t talk to him, but are you sure he meant the Holy Spirit only speaks to him? If he is like a lit of non-denom Christians, he thinks the Holy Spirit speaks to him personally even if he doesn’t go to a church, and so does It/He/She speak to others.

There are Bible verses which clearly instruct us that we must assemble together. Did you show him those?
[/quote]

I am one of the “lit of non-denom Christians” who thinks the Holy Spirit speaks to me and don’t go to church (as you say). As far as the Bible verses which clearly instruct us that we must “assemble together,” which Bible do you mean? I like to read Tyndale’s or Geneva’s translation which doesn’t use the word “assembling:”

Let us not forsake the fellowship that we have among ourselves…" - Hebrews 10:25 Tyndale (1534)

I like to think that where two or more are gathered together in his name, there is Christ in the midst.

As far as the canon of scripture goes, I trust the masoretic and byzantine traditions because I agree with their judgemnt of what constitutes scripture. In the end, it comes down to whether each Christian as lead by the holy spirit concurs with a body of other believers as to what God wrote. If there is disagreement, one group is right (i.e. truly lead by the holy ghost), and the others are wrong (i.e. deceived). God and only God will one day reveal who is right and who is wrong.

CL - www.geocities.com/clmartinwp


#19

I’m not sure how useful this quote is in these situations but I thought it was a good one for Protestants looking into the origin of the Bible:

``We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all" - Martin Luther in his Commentary on St. John


#20

I like how the OP on that thread says no using history. Hmmm, I wonder why that is? Oh yeah, to get deep in history…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.