LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM

The Coming Home Network ^ | Brian W. Harrison

[HarleyD]

Your response speaks volumes.

[papertyger]

Fascinating . . .

I agree. This post points back to one I sent to you, yet it's not addressed to me.

One might think you were avoiding me.

instead of apology, more insult.

Why would you expect apology for something conjured from your own imagination? As I recall, you made no attempt to get clarification from me, but rather preferred performing a Sharpton-esque soliloquy.

from the marvelously mangled Mother Earth magicsterical, no doubt.

Would you prefer a more, ehem, extraterrestrial source ;o)

[Always Right]

We are not saying that the books in Luther’s OT canon are not inspired, just that the canon was truncated by him

Actually Luther did not truncate them, but that was done by Jews. Luther included those books in an appendix, and that was later dropped in the 1800's. But the Bible is not the gospel. The gospel is simply the good news of Christ. And I think we can all agree on what the good new of Christ means to us all.

[Petronski]

As does yours. Those “early church fathers” you mention are the Popes and Bishops of the Catholic Church, Christ’s own. Your Traditions of Men do not permit you to acknowledge that.

You cannot even acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding them to select the truly inspired Word of God for inclusion in the Canon, for that might mean you had to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church.

Instead, you are stuck with the convoluted arguments of a despotic French lawyer, and his Traditions, the very arguments so artfully dismembered by the author of this piece.

[Petronski]

Would you prefer a more, ehem, extraterrestrial source?

LOL

[Titanites]

The only reason they believe in Christianity is because of the word of God. That is how the word of God is self-authenicating.

I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so. - St. Augustine

[papertyger]

The summary of this argument is that no matter what reasoning man may try to propose, it is the word of God that convicts a man's heart of sin, righteousness and of judgment.

That is not an "argument." It is a gratuitous assertion, and one at variance with Romans 2:15.

Are you sure you understand what Calvin was saying?

[papertyger]

Fascinating . . . instead of actual response, more insult.

Ask him about bible codes. Go on, ask him ;o)

[papertyger]

It's called "fulfilled prophecy" and is part of the reason why, like the Bereans, we believe that the scriptures are the self-authenticating word of God.

So where's the prophesy of Lk 2:29?

[papertyger]

I have heard this argument many times from many sources.

And successfully ignored them all. Go Team! 10 and 0!

[Zionist Conspirator]

I will ignore your blatant denial of my own experience (and the fact that you are implicitly calling me a liar).

Dei Verbum is of no use because it can be interpreted any way the reader wishes to interpret it (just as Protestants interpret the Bible). Inerrantists insist it teaches total inerrancy; anti-inerrantists insist it teaches partial inerrancy ("those truths for the sake of our salvation"). Anti-inerrantists invoke Dei Verbum the same as inerrantists do.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Of course the Old Testament is older, but the Christian Canon of it is set forth by the Church, while the New Testament, the tool that unlocks the Old Testament for us, is a direct product of the Church.

If you're going to insist the Jews "got it wrong" for the thousand years after Sinai, don't complain that Martin Luther was silly to believe the Church got it wrong for the first 1500 years of chr*stianity.

Assuming the truth of chr*stianity is no different than assuming the truth of Protestantism. If Protestants should open themselves up to critique by the prior tradition then so should chr*stianity itself.

[papertyger]

Speaking of hoopla...was there anything in your prattle about prophesy that authorized using a wrench for a hammer?

[Zionist Conspirator]

Ahhh, there's the switch. The Hebrew Bible is not the entire Bible, merely the Old Testament of the Bible.

And since you refuse to question this and consider the claims of Judaism--since you basically claim the Jews "got it wrong" for the thousand years after Sinai--what right do you have to demand that Protestants question their own assumptions and open themselves up to prior chr*stian tradition?

[papertyger]

The early church fathers never had a problem understanding what the core sets of inspirational scriptures were.

Then why would Paul warn against letter supposedly from him?

Since you feel that I'm "obfuscating" the issue, can you explain to me and our readers precisely the difference between the inspired scriptures and the writings of the fathers?

Translation: You caught me so let's change subjects.

[Petronski]

...since you basically claim the Jews "got it wrong" for the thousand years after Sinai...

I do? Really?

[Petronski]

...what right do you have to demand that Protestants question their own assumptions and open themselves up to prior Christian tradition?

When did I make such demands?

[papertyger]

Specifically it would be beneficial to know how the inspired scriptures and traditional writings are used to formulate doctrine such as Mary's ascension into heaven or purgatory.

"Knowing how" which I believe you already do, and "persuading you to accept" are not the same thing.

Kindly refrain from wasteing peoples efforts by pretending they are.

[wmfights]

These articles are all the same...."the Bible is the inspired word of God, but we don't really know what is inspired...except that we do know what was inspired...but what we mean is the Church knows what was inspired...except the Church didn't know what was inspired until we confirmed what was inspired at Trent then everyone knew what was inspired although what we were quoting from as inspired was inspired until the Church officially said that stuff wasn't inspired..."

ROTFLOL!

What a great way to start the day.

With a little research, any Christian will find the NT was pretty well established way before any synods, or councils. One thing we owe our Christian ancestors is gratitude because they were so serious about recognizing forgeries and non inspired books.