Replies

But I'll settle for small gains. The Romans, The Anglicans, The Orthodoxes, and The Lutherans ought to get together and then deal gently with the "sola scriptura" people.

And just what is "sola scriptura?" And does it make them the more liberal people?

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

Would you agree that that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God?

Was this the standard in the year 45 A.D., 12 years after Pentecost, before many NT books were even written?

Who had the authority to decide, in the year 100 A.D., that the book John was writing on the isle of Patmos was divinely inspired? How could Scripture possibly answer this question?

Who had the authority to decide in the year 250 A.D., which books constituted Scripture, when the canon of Scripture was still debated? How could Scripture possibly answer this question?

Which Bible today is the true Bible? How do you know? Is this authority infallible? Which canon of Scripture should answer these questions?

How are illiterate people saved? Today they represent almost 20% of the world's population.

Where is your notion that "Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience," in the Bible?

Jesus reveals the "transcendent supreme standard for obedience" in Scripture, yet this is ignored by Protestants.

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The power to "bind and loose" is a rabbinic expression, meaning to "forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority."

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
John 20:23
If you bind fast the sins of any, they remain bound ... if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained ...

(The "keys of the kingdom" referred to in the OT [Isaiah 22:22] represented authority over Israel delegated to the majordomo in the Davidic king's absence. This authority, or office, is now widened by Jesus to refer to authority over His earthly Church, over which Jesus is the King [Rev 3:7], in Christ's earthly absence, with the pope acting as Christ's vicar on earth. The pope is not The King, but the King's earthly representative, as the vice-regent of the Kingdom of David was during the Davidic king's absence.)

Would you agree that that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God? As is abundantly evidenced. <>p>I most assuredly would agree. Would you agree that 1500 years of Christian belief, practice, and tradition as a living faith throughout the Western World is also somehow relevant?

You see, not only were my humble ancestors among the Christians who preceded us, as were yours, but the so were the descendants of the apostles and their families, of the disciples and their families, even the descendants of the earthly "family" of Jesus and His "relatives."

Surely many of them were saved by grace through faith. What they believed should at least be of interest, don't you think?

BTW, I also believe that through the centuries spurious and corrupt practices crept into established Christianity, even pagan influences. However, the establishment churches tell me, "Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater." Seems somewhat sensible.

BTW,I do think of this often, when I contemplate not only churches, but the Republican Party. Does one kill a corrupt organization ... or cure it? What follows?

Is it simply too hard to imagine that some silk-and satin-bedecked 14th C. bishop surrounded by clouds of fragrant incense might also be saved, as well as a sweating peasant looking no farther than the tail of the ox pulling his plow?