Contrary to what some have suggested in their comments on Part 1, these posts are NOT about dissension and discord. As I commented on the previous thread:
On the contrary, the purpose of this thread is to encourage Bible Christians to pull together, to prayerfully reflect on what they have been taught. The word "truth" appears in the Bible, in the singular. There can be only one Truth. If anything, the erroneous theory of sola scriptura has split and divided the christian community into thousands of communities.According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many.
Part 2 ping!
36. Mohammed was not a prophet by Biblical standards. There is not a single miracle attributed to him. He contradicted much of the Bible. He required his followers to actually believe in him, similar to Christ I suppose but unlike any of the others (the purpose being to recruit them for his wars). And of course he denied that Jesus was the Christ, which a Muslim would certainly understand because that would make them all Christians instead.
I assume the answer to the bonus questions is “no where”.
Christianity is not bound by the Bible.
Correct, again this shows Christ founded a Church not a Book.
can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
Sure you can, no law against it, then you can start your own church if you can get a couple of people to follow you. Often these are called cults though.
It amazes me that Catholics go to such lengths to discredit the fullness of scripture to justify following the RCC. Rather telling if you ask me.
Who is Christ in you?
What? Which church leaders? Following Biblical teaching leads to establishment of a body of believers who consistently practice what it teaches. Those who have obtained the scripture and seek to follow it do NOT establish religious organizations like the catholic church, anglican church or mormonism, etc.
It has been demonstrably proven that those acquiring the scripture in lieu of someone's biased teaching leads to establishment of New Testament-style churches with elders, deacons and an organization that does not lead to a superior hierarchy in the church like many organized religions have. Also, each congregation is autonomous and understands that concept (no central authority).
What arrogance on the part of the author! Pure and unadulterated misinformation.
Ping for later
All the questions in both parts have clear answers
You asked. Ask and you shall receive...
John 1:1ff - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Colossians 1:15ff - He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Genesis 11:7 - Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, so that they will not understand one another’s speech.”
Isaiah 48:12ff - “Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last. 13 “Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.
14 “Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things?
The Lord loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon, And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15 “I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16 “Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit.”
It appears that per scripture, Jesus was definitely with God AND was the one who created the world and they were ONE, yet TWO, actually THREE with the Holy Spirit as a separate entity from God. Now, as for the word "Trinity", don't ask me. It's a term referring to the three as one for descriptive purposes. The concept is in scripture even if the descriptive term is not. Funny how you fellas argue against that concept when the term "Pope" nor even the concept is in scripture. There is a word for that, ah, it escapes me right now.
This is just downright offensive and proves your only purpose is to be divisive. I don't know what blasphemy you preach but I hope you take your nonsense elsewhere.
2 Timothy 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
For #35, I would say when the Church was selling Indulgences and saying, “if you give us so much money, we’ll say your mom made it to Heaven rather than saying she’ll be in Purgatory or Hell for eternity.” That was the kind of corruption Martin Luther was “rebelling” against. And the more power to him. So that answers that. Just like with any other organization that has ever existed since the Dawn of Humanity, if the leaders are corrupt, you turn your back on them. Nail a treatise to a church door. If people live their lives based on a Book, make sure they can read said Book, and don’t just take the word of their leaders. They may be men of God, but they are still men. And men are corruptible.
“37. How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?”
For many of those, they’re not specifically mentioned, so we have to go on the things that are mentioned.
Abortion is murder. Murder is condemned. Therefor, abortion is wrong
Masturbation. Don’t personally see this condemned, so I think the jury is out.
Contraceptives. I don’t see a problem with this either. You are not being fruitful might be the only condemnation, but the sperm and egg individually are not human, and therefor doing anything to them (eg spermicide) is not murder.
Eugenics, We are to love our fellow man, for all men are in the image of God. Eugenics is an insult to God’s creation.
Euthanasia, all hinges on whether you think mercy killing is murder or not. Unfortunately, we don’t receive enough guidance here. Jury still out.
21. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?
-Roman Catholics often seem to think that Protestants recognize no authority in the church. Some who call themselves Protestants don’t, actually, and just go about doing as they think best. Speaking as a Bible believing, conservative, Calvinistic Presbyterian (Orthodox Presbyterian), however, I will state that God indeed instituted apostolic authority. We find that the Bible attests to its own validity, as well. The Bible explicitly gives us elders, sometimes translated bishops, to rule and have authority in the church.
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” Hebrews 13:17 We are to submit to them.
“For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. Titus 1:5-9
and many other such examples, as we see the church in Acts for example being ruled by elders who meet and discuss and rule and so forth. To say that Protestants reject rule of the church or apostolic authority is simply incorrect. We reject the authority of the Roman Catholic church: true.
22. Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?
- I don’t know that we ignore it. We don’t regard any decisions by men as infallible, however, and must consistently weigh all decisions against the very word of God, which IS infallible. The reasons for the rejection of the Apocrypha are well documented, basically, they don’t jive with the rest of Scripture and are not self-attesting in that sense.
23. Why do Protestants follow postapostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
- I don’t know that we do. We do reject the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is THE church founded by Jesus Christ, however. We see that church as, basically, apostate, although we do have some hope for it.
24. How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?
- Again, all men are fallible. Scripture makes this clear from Adam (our covenant head) to the patriarchs to the apostles themselves.
25. If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?
- It flourished due to the truth of the gospel being spread faithfully, and the Holy Spirit convicting the hearers of the said truth.
26. How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?
- I don’t know that he did. But we are told that we are saved by HEARING, not reading, so I think that inasmuch as the gospel was faithfully proclaimed, it bore fruit.
” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.” (Romans 10: 16-18)
27. If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?
- a full treatise? This is silly. Of course there are extensive defenses of the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura.” (the Bible alone). For any who may be reading this, it means the Bible is our source text for our faith and practice, and not the traditions of men. All traditions, teachings, thoughts, actions, whatever, must be judged in the light of Scripture, which has final authority. I might ask, what is the purpose of the Bible? A nice book of stories? Helpful suggestions? Are these the purposes of the Word of God?
28. If Jesus intended for Christianity to be exclusively a “religion of the book,” why did He wait 1400 years before showing somebody how to build a printing press?
- His decisions are His own. He ordained that the gospel be spread by the “foolishness” of preaching. One wonders, though, from your point of view, why did He have the Bible written and preserved if not to be utilized as His very word?
“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” 1st Corinthians 1:7-9.
Interesting, even as we are told here of the supremacy of the preaching, the argument for it is, IT IS WRITTEN, which appears so often in the Bible, IT IS WRITTEN, IT IS WRITTEN, the authority of Scripture undergirds everything.
29. If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?
- Because they (biblically correctly) trusted the church Christ has (biblically) instituted, as we should. God set up a church, with elders/bishops and deacons, and I myself believe it is His very bride and would not be caught outside of it.
30. If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did and why was he frustrated at the end of his life that “there are now as many doctrines as there are heads”?
-Because while the Bible is perfect, mankind is not. This, too, is biblically proven.
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.” Romans 3:10-11
Once again, I marvel to see, AS IT IS WRITTEN, even when I quote various portions of Scripture to you to explain to you the Protestant positions on things, I keep seeing the Bible itself saying, “IT IS WRITTEN.”
31. The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in AD 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?
- They had, or had access to, the Old Testament writings and various and sundry of the New Testament writings, which were passed about as letters and read to the churches and so on. The epistles are letters, addressed to churches. One can be faithful to the teachings of Scripture prior to a canon being established.
32. If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?
-Because the church is biblically established, is a biblical institution, and is the government God set up for us while we await His return. Again, Protestants by and large don’t reject the church. They reject the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is the church. We see it as apostate.
33. Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible “unity” that exists only in the hearts of believers?
- Well, God does say they will know we are Christians by our love.
“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:25)
Presumably we are visible as we gather together for worship, also. In Acts we read that the Christians went from house to house, eating bread and so on, and God added daily to the church (see we believe there is a church!) those that were being saved.
“And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:46-47)
34. If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?
- There is sin in the world, and in the church, and we were told from the beginning that this would be so. I might had that the RC church has divisions and factions also from the Jesuits v. Franciscans to the lib nuns v. the Sisters of Charity to the Latin Rite v. the folk mass to the supporters of this pope to that to the post Vatican II v the pre Vatican II, the Liberation theologians v. the conservatives, the cafeteria Cathlolics v. the daily mass, on and on.
God keeps the tares with the wheat so as not to damage the wheat. Should we expect perfect unity prior to the resurrection? No. But we should strive for it.
35. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church’s leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?
- There is no expiration date to this verse. We disobey church ‘leaders’ when they preach another gospel. They are, de facto, not church leaders when they do so. If a priest told you to rob a bank, of course you would not do it. If a man tells me to pray to Mary, I’m not doing that, either.
36. The Koran explicitly claims divine inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?
-Oh my goodness, what a terrible presupposition. The New Testament cites itself as inspired, repeatedly.
“And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”
“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”
“And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
Search for “Jesus said,” “God said,” “inspired,” and similar phrases throughout your New Testament, it is replete with self-attestation. I don’t know where you are coming up with this notion. The Koran? Seriously?
37. How does a Protestant know for sure what God thinks about moral issues such as abortion, masturbation, contraceptives, eugenics, euthanasia, etc.?
- We find principles in God’s word that address these issue. One might ask, how do we know what God thinks about stopping at a red light? Abortion? We find sanctions against those who kill a baby when striving with a pregnant woman; we see that the fruit of the womb is God’s reward, that mankind are made in His image; that murder is a sin and crime - so it is not so difficult. Masturbation? Jesus tells us to look at a woman to lust for her is to commit adultery. Masturbation is not specifically addressed as a sin, however, so you must weight that in. Eugenics? Again, murder is involved, so, no. Euthanasia? Murder again, also, we are taught that everyone is made in God’s image and has value and worth, etc. So I don’t really see why these issues are particularly difficult to grasp.
38. What is one to believe when one Protestant says infants should be baptized (e.g., Luther and Calvin) and another says it is wrong and unbiblical (e.g., Baptists and Evangelicals)?
- Well, both can’t be right. Even when we are trying very hard to do God’s will, we fail. We are sinners, and our best efforts are not good enough. So clearly, one or the other is in error, hopefully not deliberately so, but in error.
A Few Bonus Questions
Where does the Bible . . .
. . . say God created the world/universe out of nothing?
Genesis 1? Are you asserting that matter is eternal, and God needed it to make something?
. . . say salvation is attainable through faith alone?
“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)
. . . tell us how we know that the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle?
- Jesus ordained each Apostle, and no other, thus once the last one died, who are we to ordain more? We don’t have that authority. An Apostle is someone who actually was ordained by and walked with Jesus. We do have the authority to ordain elders, and of course we do that, but they aren’t Apostles.
. . . provide a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament?
- It does not. However, each book of the OT was cited as authoritative in the New T, even by Jesus in the gospels, so, if it’s good enough for Jesus and Apostles, it is good enough for us, yes?
. . . provide a list of the canonical books of the New Testament?
- It does not. It does provide a list of the Apostles, and directions for ordaining elders, and self-attestations, and cites itself as authoritative from book to book. But if you are looking for a list you will not find one.
. . . explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”?
- the word “Trinity” is not used. We are taught and told repeatedly that the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is God. We are also told repeatedly that there is but one God. “Trinity” is a word we have coined to shorthand say this. We are told to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
. . . tell us the name of the “beloved disciple”?
- It does not. It is inferred, in a literary sense.
. . . inform us of the names of the authors of the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
The names of the books rather tell us that, no?
. . . who wrote the Book of Acts?
- It does not, to my knowledge. Must we know the particular author of each book?
. . . tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity?
- It merely references the Holy Spirit as a Person, tells us to baptize in His name, and gives attributes of God to Him.
. . . .tell us Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception (e.g. how do we know His Divinity wasn’t infused later in His life?) and/or tells us Jesus Christ is One Person with two complete natures, human and Divine and not some other combination of the two natures (i.e., one or both being less than complete)?
- We are told He is God,
“And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.” (John 20:28)
and man,
“But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” (Romans 5:15)
. . . that the church should, or someday would be divided into competing and disagreeing denominations?
- it is, negatively, illustrated in the New Testament itself, for one example:
“For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (1st Corinthians 1:11-13)
. . . that Protestants can have an invisible unity when Jesus expected a visible unity to be seen by the world (see John 17)?
- I think we do have a visible, though hardly perfected, unity.
. . . tell us Jesus Christ is of the same substance of Divinity as God the Father?
“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?” (John 14:9)
Nice verse to end things on.
Another good question: Upon what authority did the Catholic Church change the Sabbath to Sunday?
One answer comes from a book for which the author received a gold medal from the pope for his scholarship:
From Sabbath to Sunday: A Historical Investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity by Samuele Bacchiocchi
see:
http://www.amazon.com/From-Sabbath-Sunday-Investigation-Christianity/dp/9998203945
This is trivially easy. The Holy Spirit. Whom, you must admit, is in the "church," whether your definition or mine.
There are similarly obvious answers for each of your supposed challenging questions. The real problem isn't that there are no answers; there are answers aplenty. The problem is to conduct an honest and charitable investigation of these answers. If I were discussing these with some local priest at a friendly Starbuck's gathering, what would the tone be? Superior, I hope, to what I see most of the time on these threads. I think we could make real progress if each side actually tried to get inside the head of the other side and try to get past the caricatures. “Bible Christians” have answers for each and every question given, but those answers conflict with fundamental assumptions of the other side, and so they are rejected as non-answers. And so both sides remain intransigent, thousands of words and hours and hours later. To what purpose? Better to admit the answers ARE answers, and that you just don’t like them because of X assumption. Then, and only then, can there be real progress, because only then can we get at the root cause of the conflict. Isn’t that the goal? Or am I missing something?