Brief Reflections on the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, and the Protestant idea of Sola Scriptura

If you don't believe that, how about these??

Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise (Ephesian 6:2).

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? (James 2:21)

You are missing the context...That's why you have to compare scripture with scripture...Of course your male parent is your father...Abraham was the first of the seed to be rewarded the 'inheritance'...Henry Ford was the father of mass production...

The context is has to do with spiritual matters...

Joh 8:41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me.

The commandment is to "call no man your father in spiritual matters because you have only 1 spiritual Father...And that is God...In other words, do not call priests, Father...

The Protestant retort is that I need *you*, "Iscool," to interpret it for me. Because the Protestant claim is not a general claim made about a teaching church, but one made about the single, teaching individual.

Where do you get this stuff from??? All Protestant churches have bible classes just as your church does...And a lot of them are just as wrong as your church is...

Where do you get this stuff from??? All Protestant churches have bible classes just as your church does...And a lot of them are just as wrong as your church is...

It's a conclusion based upon observation, study, and painful experience.

For I once left the Catholic Church, beguiled by the "reasonable" Protestant explanations, only to find them empty, circular, and dead.

You may choose to disregard my "authority" if you wish, but the fact remains that I made a good argument, based upon Scripture itself and lots of common sense.

If "only Scripture" is "sufficient," then the canon of the Scripture and the notion that revelation still continues remains an open option, for Scripture does not contain a list of the inspired books nor does it say anywhere that revelation has been completed. IOW, the logical consequence of sola Scriptura is an open canon and continuing revelation.

Deal with that.

-Theo

Deal with that.

I don't have to deal with that...My bible came out of Antioch, Syria...The last book of my bible warns not to add anything to the book...

I realize I didn't ask anyone to interpret that for me but I'll take my chanches that I understood it correctly...

"Do not add to this book, or you will die"...I know that can mean something different to someone else but I'm going to interpret that as meaning the book is finished...The Canon is finished...Works for me...

Mary is barely mentioned in the Bible

Depends on what one means by "barely." Luke devotes two whole chapters to Mary, and in what connection? With the incarnation. Look at the histoic creeds: THE GOD is incarnate by the Virgin Mary. Note it does not say "born of A virgin." . The cult of Mary is not a concoction of the Middle Ages but can be traced to the early Church Fathers, such as Ignatious who proves the divinity of Jesus by reference to the Virgin. The claim--a claim not made by the way by Luther or Calvin--that Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception but not thereafter, tends to diminish not only Mary but Jesus. Contrarily, the exaltation of Mary elevates Jesus. The term Theotokos arises out of the Arian and Nestorian controversies and are part of the definition of the Trinity. Muslims have an inkling of this, assumed, one gathers from heretical sects in Syria which DID make Mary one of the Trinity. The worst that some Marianists in the Catholic Church have done is to raise Mary to demi-god status. But the modern day Protestants go so far in the opposite direction as to put here on the same level as Elizabeth or a Old Testament prototype like Hannah or Sarah. Her originally virginity reduced to a sign and Mary's role in the event a purely passive one. This, IMO. disregards the intent of St. Luke.

No one is their own Pope in any Christian environment. However, all are solely responsible for their own salvation.

This requires personal understanding, starting with the simplest faith BUT NOT ENDING THERE. From there, we must grow in our walk, our faith, and our understanding. We can't rely on another for any of that and we shouldn't when we have the letters of the New Testament available to us.

With the Pope being as infallible as the rest of us simply because he is human, then we are as damned to Hell if we follow Him as if we follow Satan.

We are not to follow ANY MAN BUT CHRIST in His example. That said, wise men and women can help us along on our way.

One can only grant absolution (forgiveness and restoration) of sins in which they were directly a part.

In that way, we all are called to forgive our brothers and sisters when they repent. For those who are not our brothers and sisters, well, they are going to Hell anyway.

The reference you give is otherwise specific to the Apostles on behalf of Jesus and God.

Generally well-stated; however, I beg to differ on the "still Catholic" thing...we are to be Christians or better yet, "disciples".

No one is their own Pope in any Christian environment. However, all are solely responsible for their own salvation.

I beg to differ. You all seem to think that you read the Bible infallibly, but I don't see that you do. If you did, there wouldn't be so many sects of non-Catholics all disagreeing with what the Bible says.

With the Pope being as infallible as the rest of us simply because he is human, then we are as damned to Hell if we follow Him as if we follow Satan.

Oh please! Come on now, get serious. How many of you follow what your preachers say and do? Going to hell over that are you? Are you following Satan when you sit in the pews on Sunday morning nodding your head in agreement with your pastor? Man, what an analogy!

We are not to follow ANY MAN BUT CHRIST in His example. That said, wise men and women can help us along on our way.

Well, you just contradicted yourself there didn't you? If wise men and women can help you along the way, but you aren't to follow anyone but Christ, you better not listen to them either.

Disagree with the Papacy all you want. At least it has kept the Catholic Church going for 2,000+ years now while the non-Catholic churches continue to splinter and fall apart theologically.

Roman Catholicism is structurally united under the Pope and the bishops who recognize the authority of the Papacy. However, it is far from theologically unified. Checking intra-Catholic fights here on FR and elsewhere provides more than ample evidence of that disunity. Issues such as the validity of the Tridentine Mass vs. the so-called Novus Ordo Mass, the doctrine of "outside the church there is no salvation," the degree to which church leaders should be involved in political matters, especially when those leaders hold leftist positions, the use of Latin vs. vernacular languages, the continued celibacy of the priesthood, the role of women and lay persons in liturgical worship, and the dispensation of Communion to persons who are not Roman Catholics are but a few of the issues that divide people who recognize the Pope as the visible head of the church.

OTOH, the absence of structural unity among Protestants does not necessarily imply significant theological differences. For example, the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, both conservative Reformed denominations, are in agreement as to a strict adherence to the Westminster Standards. Smaller conservative Reformed denominations, such as the United Reformed Church are in substantial doctrinal agreement with the conservative Presbyterian bodies, even if their doctrinal statements draw from Continental, rather than British, confessions of faith. Reformed and Calvinistic Baptists may disagree with their Presbyterian brethren on the administration of baptism and church governance, but would agree on issues of Biblical interpretation in most other areas. The theological differences between the Calvinistic Baptist Albert Mohler and the conservative Presbyterian R.C. Sproul are smaller than those between the the leaders of the Society of St. Pius X and the Pope Benedict XVI, both of whom are considered part of Roman Catholicism's conservative wing.

Roman Catholicism does have structural unity, but in terms of theological disputation, it is as fractured as are the churches that are in the tradition of the Reformation.

Roman Catholicism does have structural unity, but in terms of theological disputation, it is as fractured as are the churches that are in the tradition of the Reformation.

I shouldn't laugh, but I can't help it. These intra-Catholic fights on FR seldom rise to the same level as the intra-non-Catholic fights. In fact, I think I see a lot more unity among the Catholic posters.

You say we are just as fractured as those in the Reformation? Hardly.

Mainline Protestant churches no longer dominate NCC Yearbook’s list of top 25 U.S. religious bodies

Three of the largest 25 churches in the U.S. are Pentecostal and six are African American, the yearbook reports.

The list includes the rapidly growing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and – largest of all – the Roman Catholic Church.

Take a look a that list and that doesn't even mention every splinter group that is out there among non-Catholics.

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "follow".

We are to follow the advice of those more wise than us only to the extent their words are compatible with Scripture. We cannot follow them nor their examples, as these are both highly fallible.

I do not follow what my minister says or does beyond what is consistent with the Bible, as that is what I am to be judged by on Judgment Day.

I agree that many have differing views of what the Bible says. Of course I believe my views are correct, otherwise I would not be following them nor espousing them! However, I also realize there are many things I have yet to learn. Additionally, there are many things we can agree to disagree on in "good faith".

For instance, I can believe capital punishment is valid, as there appears to be Scripture supporting such. But others can point to Scripture saying we are to forgive our enemies and take that as meaning no punishments should be handed out that might include death. I disagree with them, but I can see where they could have such understanding. I don't see this difference being one that compromises one's Salvation, so one can agree to disagree. Others, such as ordination of openly gay leaders in the Church, is effectively prohibited as an "abomination" before God.

The Catholic church has had its own splintering, including Luther's breakaway, the Anglican church, the Orthodox church, etc. To top it off, Pope over the years have issued conflicting and sometimes perverse edicts.

People are fallible, but the true Truth is not. For whoever speaks that, the rest should listen and get encouragement in their own walk.

You should check Web sites such as www.traditio.com or www.catholictradition.com with respect to the discomfort of the traditionalist wing of Roman Catholicism with the mainstream of their church. They routinely denounce the current Mass as "Protestant, Masonic, and Satanic," and regard the sacraments and the priesthood of those ordained since the late 1960s as invalid. Those Catholic conservatives who accept the present Mass and the Vatican II changes to liturgy and doctrine denounce the more radical traditionalists as schismatics and Magisterium literalists akin in spirit to Protestant fundamentalists. These debates are as fierce as any Calvinist-Arminian or KJV Only vs. Critical Text debates among conservative Protestants. Keep in mind that what I have discussed only deals with the right wing of Roman Catholicism. When you consider the left wing, you have an enormous theological gap. I dare say the chasm between Archbishop Lefevre and Hans Kung is at least as wide as that between Jerry Falwell and Bishop Spong.

As for church growth, you fail to mention that the annual growth rate for the Southern Baptist Convention, a predominantly conservative evangelical denomination, is only slightly smaller than that of the Roman Catholic Church. Keep in mind too that the large majority of Latin American immigrants, who are at the core of the illegal alien problem, are at least nominal Catholics. Of course, both the Southern Baptists and the Assemblies of God (another conservative evangelical denomination) have aggressive outreach programs among Hispanics, and their growth could also be partially due to immigrants. OTOH, there is a drift of liberal Roman Catholics to Episcopalianism, which may explain the growth of that denomination in contrast with the losses experienced by other mainline bodies, and a movement of conservative Episcopalians to Roman Catholicism. The growth of the Orthodox Churches and Mormonism are probably the result of conversions of native born Americans rather than ethnic mission work.

The Catholic church has had its own splintering, including Luther's breakaway, the Anglican church, the Orthodox church, etc. To top it off, Pope over the years have issued conflicting and sometimes perverse edicts.

Gotta get back to work, but wanted to say that what should be stated here is not Luther's breakaway, but Luther's rebellion and Henry XII's lusts being satisified.

The Popes have been very consistent in doctrine, so I disagree with you on that one. Perverse? Well, I can show you some perverse ones in non-Catholics sects.

For your viewing enjoyment.

Rodney Howard Browne

Robert Tilton's Performing Poodles

Pastor Theo Faith Healing Exposed

Benny Hinn Examined

It's getting a old hearing that we're "perverse." Look in the mirror.

You should check Web sites such as www.traditio.com or www.catholictradition.com with respect to the discomfort of the traditionalist wing of Roman Catholicism with the mainstream of their church. They routinely denounce the current Mass as "Protestant, Masonic, and Satanic," and regard the sacraments and the priesthood of those ordained since the late 1960s as invalid.

They aren't the Pope so that they don't speak for the Church. What they have to say is of little consequence in the grand scheme of things. There will always be some that disagree and think they know better than the Pope. I will say this, some of the concerns by the Traditional Catholics are valid. IMO, ecumenism has gone way overboard with some of the Catholic clerics.

As for church growth, you fail to mention that the annual growth rate for the Southern Baptist Convention, a predominantly conservative evangelical denomination, is only slightly smaller than that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Slightly smaller? Hmm...the Roman Catholic Church has now slightly over 67 million and the Southern Baptist Convention has 16,439,603? What math are you using to come up with that?

OTOH, there is a drift of liberal Roman Catholics to Episcopalianism, which may explain the growth of that denomination in contrast with the losses experienced by other mainline bodies, and a movement of conservative Episcopalians to Roman Catholicism.

I know nothing of this "drift" of liberal Roman Catholics to the Episcopal church. Can you show documentation supporting that claim? If true, then I'm glad they left and went to where they belong. We don't need naysaying liberals in the Church trying to corrupt it with liberalism. I will, of course, pray for conversion of their hearts back to the Church.

Can you please tell me why Paul would give 2 chapters on speaking in toungues when they would be gone?

Can you tell me where in scripture the perfect has been defined from 1 Cor 13:10?

If speaking in tongues was a known language, why did Paul do it more than anyone he knew?

What does it mean in Eph 6 when we are commanded to pray in the Holy Spirit?

I used to teach Baptists baptist theology. Then I actually read what the bible says and stopped listening to the Baptist theology. Perhaps you will aslo.

Acts 2:11 shows that the tongues used by the early Church were words in legitimate human languages--ones that those people otherwise were never taught. It was not babbling nonsense.

Can someone who rejects the Catholic church and yet believes in Jesus be saved?

With respect as to who speaks for Roman Catholicism, it is my understanding that the Pope speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra, from the Chair of Peter. A Pope or his spokesmen can and are considered to err, at least by traditionalists, when they deviate from the Magisterium. Several patristic and medieval church leaders who have been canonized, such as St. Bridget and St. Athanasius, were forthright in denouncing the Pope and other church leaders. Only when the Pope states that he is speaking ex cathedra are his statements regarded as infallible, as I understand Catholic teaching.

With regard to growth of different church bodies, please note that I was speaking about annual growth percentages, not raw numbers. The article you previously cited dealt with annual growth rate among the 25 largest Christian bodies. With a base of 67 million vs. 17 million, the raw numbers of Catholic increase will be about fourfold that of the Southern Baptists, though the growth rate is similar. Additionally, over half of the megachurches listed in a recent survey of the most influential congregations in America were either non-denominational, such as The Potter's House in Dallas, Texas, or associated with a small denomination, such as Coral Ridge Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, affiliated with the conservative Presbyterian Church in America, with denominational membership at about 350K. A lot of church growth exists beyond the range of the larger Christian bodies.

As for the drift of liberal Catholics to Episcopalianism, this observation is based on statements of current liberal Episcopalians as to their faith background and why they left Roman Catholicism, often because of Catholic opposition to homosexuality, abortion, etc. The reverse flow of conservative Episcopalians is based on personal observation, including old family friends who "swam the Tiber" 20 years ago when the liberalism in that denomination was too flagrant, as well as the existence of an Anglican usages group within the Roman Rite.

***Scripture is holy because God says so, yes, but this only becomes meaningful when the Church proclaims it so.***

The scripture of the God of the universe is only meaningful when a lowly church says so? I think you had better rethink that. It is meaningful because GOD says so. It is meaningful when the Holy Spirit makes it so in your heart. The church is only a minor player in things.