Quote:

---

5 solas

---

Says who? Not even all protestants believe that. And anyone that won't will completely reject your authority to say otherwise. At which point you appeal to.. what, exactly?

Quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by unified. They are as unified as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are

---

This is like saying a mirror broken in half is as unified as one shattered into a thousand pieces.

The Roman and Eastern Church are separated by exactly two issues: papal supremacy and the filioque. In reality, they are separated by the filioque, which brought the issue of papal supremacy to head.

Regardless, this is a ridiculous stance to take. You can't even list all the protestant denominations, much less define all of the variants of heresies and what beliefs separate them.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Depends on the Anabaptist.

Most mainline Baptist Churches today are Protestant.

Amish and most Menonites are not.

---

So what are they?

---

Heterodox?

---

They were born during the Protestant Reformation out of Protestant theology.

---

There were a pretty huge rage of anabaptist views. Most reformers didn't classify them as orthodox.

---

I agree they weren't Orthodox. They were Protestant.

Puns aside, was there a set group of reformers who decided for everyone what was and was not Protestant?

Five solas came about in the 20th century. The history of Protestantism proves Guenon's point that rejection of tradition and authority ends in disaster.

I'd define Protestants as Western Christians by heritage who aren't Catholic. Other than that there are so many Protestant groups with different and conflicting theologies that it's impossible to define or draw boundaries.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Depends on the Anabaptist.

Most mainline Baptist Churches today are Protestant.

Amish and most Menonites are not.

---

So what are they?

---

Heterodox?

---

They were born during the Protestant Reformation out of Protestant theology.

---

There were a pretty huge rage of anabaptist views. Most reformers didn't classify them as orthodox.

---

I agree they weren't Orthodox. They were Protestant.

Puns aside, was there a set group of reformers who decided for everyone what was and was not Protestant?

---

Probably similar to the same group who decided that the Pope was the head of the church and the vicar of Christ on earth.

There is a formal line that is drawn somewhere. Otherwise Mormons could legitimately be called Christian.

Drawn somewhere by whom?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Drawn somewhere by whom?

---

Ultimately by God. His opinion is the only one that counts.

Dodge dip dive duck and dodge.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Dodge dip dive duck and dodge.

---

I'm not sure of the objection. You think you are in a better position because your church leaders can define dogma?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Do you think you're in a better position because you think you can by yourself?

---

The Holy Scriptures define dogma. It's the only thing I'm aware of that is theopneustos.

Then surely you have no objection to the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth? Oh sorry, we're being fancy - the church as "stylos kai hedraioma tes aletheais".

These are old questions.

St Vincent of Lerins (434 AD):

Quote:

---

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Then surely you have no objection to the Church as the pillar and foundation of the truth?

These are old questions.

St Vincent of Lerins (434 AD):

Quote:

---

I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.

Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

---

---

The Roman Catholic Church isn't a true church.

Sigh. That was written in 434 AD and the worth Catholic there is simply a titular use of the word "universal", not a proper noun shorthand for Roman Catholic.

And again -- Says who? And anyone that doesn't agree with you will completely reject your authority to say otherwise. At which point you appeal to.. what, exactly?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Sigh. That was written in 434 AD and the worth Catholic there is simply a titular use of the word "universal", not a proper noun shorthand for Roman Catholic.

And again -- Says who? And anyone that doesn't agree with you will completely reject your authority to say otherwise. At which point you appeal to.. what, exactly?

---

Quoting people who aren't theopneustos doesn't help me. They are only offering opinions.

Setting yourself up as a stylos kai hedraioma tes aletheais, party of one is arrogant and unscriptural.

Besides, who cares who he was? What he said was profound, even if you don't believe it to be divinely inspired...how do you answer that?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Setting yourself up as a stylos kai hedraioma tes aletheais, party of one is arrogant and unscriptural.

Besides, who cares who he was? What he said was profound, even if you don't believe it to be divinely inspired...how do you answer that?

---

Answer what? The Roman Church ceased having authority when it compromised the Gospel and made the true Gospel of Christ anathema. I'm not accountable to the Roman Church, I'm accountable to God.

"The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister ? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.' " So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.
Romans 14:3-14 NIV
https://bible.com/bible/111/rom.14.3-14.NIV "

Jesus founded only one Church. The only Christian Church around until the Orthodox Church broke away in the 11th Century was the Catholic Church. AND...Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, so anyone saying that the Catholic Church "lost its authority" somehow does not believe what Christ said about those gates of hell.

Gates of hell did not prevail against it. It was just divided into two large chunks and then split into a million pieces.

You refuse to answer the question about authority because you can't.

You have no answer for what by what authority you claim Mormon's aren't Christians or why you can exclude certain protestants as such or why you can say that the definition of protestantism is the 5 solas.

But never mind authority; you say you only care about scripture. But on what grounds? By what authority is the scripture preserved? Which scriptures are inspired and why do you think so? You're back to the authority argument again, with yourself as sole arbiter.

This tricky problem was faced by St Irenaeus when the heretics denied the authority or sufficiency of scripture, or claimed there were additional teachings not in scripture. You know what he appealed to? Public teaching of the apostles and universal (literally catholic) teachings.

Saying the Lord will judge is punting. It's a complete abdication of our personal responsibility. The Lord will judge, yes. But why do you throw out the entirety of the NT when it comes to church authority, the selection of clergy, expulsion of immoral people from the church?

Quote:

---

I wrote to you not to associate with anyone being designated a brother if he is sexually immoral or a coveter, or an idolater or verbal abuser, or a drunkard or swindlerwith such a one not even to eat. For what is it to me to judge those outside? Do you not judge those within? But God will judge those outside. "Expel the evil out from among yourselves."

---

Quote:

---

Reject a factious man after one and a second admonition, knowing that such a man is corrupt and is sinning, being self-condemned.

---

Quote:

---

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which [include]...contentions, dissensions, factions (lit. heresies)...as to which I forewarn you, even as I warned before, that those doing such things will not inherit God's kingdom.

---

Quote:

---

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

---

Quote:

---

Obey you those leading and be submissive--for they watch over your souls, as about to give account--so that they may do this with joy and not groaning, for this is unprofitable for you.

---

Quote:

---

Remember those leading you, who spoke the word of God to you, of whom, considering the outcome of their way of life, you are to imitate the faith.

---

Quote:

---

But we implore you, brothers, to appreciate those toiling among you, and taking the lead over you in the Lord, and admonishing you, and to esteem them exceedingly in love, because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we exhort you, brothers, to admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient toward all.

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

You refuse to answer the question about authority because you can't.

You have no answer for what by what authority you claim Mormon's aren't Christians or why you can exclude certain protestants as such or why you can say that the definition of protestantism is the 5 solas.

But never mind authority; you say you only care about scripture. But on what grounds? By what authority is the scripture preserved? Which scriptures are inspired and why do you think so? You're back to the authority argument again, with yourself as sole arbiter.

This tricky problem was faced by St Irenaeus when the heretics denied the authority or sufficiency of scripture, or claimed there were additional teachings not in scripture. You know what he appealed to? Public teaching of the apostles and universal (literally catholic) teachings.

Saying the Lord will judge is punting. It's a complete abdication of our personal responsibility. The Lord will judge, yes. But why do you throw out the entirety of the NT when it comes to church authority, the selection of clergy, expulsion of immoral people from the church?

Quote:

---

I wrote to you not to associate with anyone being designated a brother if he is sexually immoral or a coveter, or an idolater or verbal abuser, or a drunkard or swindlerwith such a one not even to eat. For what is it to me to judge those outside? Do you not judge those within? But God will judge those outside. "Expel the evil out from among yourselves."

---

Quote:

---

Reject a factious man after one and a second admonition, knowing that such a man is corrupt and is sinning, being self-condemned.

---

Quote:

---

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which [include]...contentions, dissensions, factions (lit. heresies)...as to which I forewarn you, even as I warned before, that those doing such things will not inherit God's kingdom.

---

Quote:

---

Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

---

Quote:

---

Obey you those leading and be submissive--for they watch over your souls, as about to give account--so that they may do this with joy and not groaning, for this is unprofitable for you.

---

Quote:

---

Remember those leading you, who spoke the word of God to you, of whom, considering the outcome of their way of life, you are to imitate the faith.

---

Quote:

---

But we implore you, brothers, to appreciate those toiling among you, and taking the lead over you in the Lord, and admonishing you, and to esteem them exceedingly in love, because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we exhort you, brothers, to admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient toward all.

---

---

By the same authority I can claim the Roman church isn't Christian. They are heterodox with regard to the teachings of the Godbreathed Scriptures.

The Scriptures are preserved by God. There is no other authority I need to appeal to.

Great. Then you have no basis to denounce Islam, Mormonism, or any other faith that claims divine providence.

Either you're blind to this or intentionally obtuse; either way, you've set yourself up as a church of one: a dangerous path, for sure.


"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" -- good luck with your faction.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Depends on the Anabaptist.

Most mainline Baptist Churches today are Protestant.

Amish and most Menonites are not.

---

So what are they?

---

Heterodox?

---

I could see this claim from a Catholic or Orthodox, but a Protestant? That just seems odd.

Aggi said:

---

By the same authority I can claim the Roman church isn't Christian. They are heterodox with regard to the teachings of the Godbreathed Scriptures.

---

Are you saying that Roman Catholics aren't "Christian"?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Great. Then you have no basis to denounce Islam, Mormonism, or any other faith that claims divine providence.

Either you're blind to this or intentionally obtuse; either way, you've set yourself up as a church of one: a dangerous path, for sure.


"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" -- good luck with your faction.

---

Yes I do. They don't align with the Scriptures.

Thus issue is one of ultimate authority. The Protestant view is Sola Scriptura. The Roman Catholic view is Sola Ecclesia.

My ultimate unprovable assumption is that the Bible is infallible. Your ultimate unprovable assumption is that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Great. Then you have no basis to denounce Islam, Mormonism, or any other faith that claims divine providence.

Either you're blind to this or intentionally obtuse; either way, you've set yourself up as a church of one: a dangerous path, for sure.


"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" -- good luck with your faction.

---

I know I didn't believe the Bible until I found out it was approved by some council. Then and only then did I realize it was the word of God. I used to think the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon had equal weight.

RetiredAg said:

---

Aggi said:

---

By the same authority I can claim the Roman church isn't Christian. They are heterodox with regard to the teachings of the Godbreathed Scriptures.

---

Are you saying that Roman Catholics aren't "Christian"?

---

Absolutely. There may be Roman Catholics who are Christian dispite the Church. However, the Gospel of the Roman Catholic Church cannot save.

RetiredAg said:

---

Aggi said:

---

By the same authority I can claim the Roman church isn't Christian. They are heterodox with regard to the teachings of the Godbreathed Scriptures.

---

Are you saying that Roman Catholics aren't "Christian"?

---

Are Calvinist Baptists Christian?

k2, is anybody on this board besides you Christian?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Great. Then you have no basis to denounce Islam, Mormonism, or any other faith that claims divine providence.

Either you're blind to this or intentionally obtuse; either way, you've set yourself up as a church of one: a dangerous path, for sure.


"A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" -- good luck with your faction.

---

I know I didn't believe the Bible until I found out it was approved by some council. Then and only then did I realize it was the word of God. I used to think the Bible, Quran, and Book of Mormon had equal weight.

---

So your basis for belief in the Bible is a fallible group of men who made up a council?

"Some council" approved the scriptures after the protestant reformation and was held by Roman Catholics by themselves. It's rather strange to simultaneously appeal to and reject authority, isn't it?

Personal belief isn't a strong standard, which is exactly my point. For the record, conciliar confirmation of scriptures is superfluous and a relatively new idea in Christendom. The historical litmus test of scripture is what is read in Church, that is to say, it was established by use, not decree.

Good thing I'm not protestant or Roman Catholic.

My view is "mono Christos" - I don't make an idol of the Church or the Bible, but worship Him alone.

Sure there are. I'm not judging anyone's devotion to Christ or their intentions or hearts. I simply believe some concrete things about the Church and I think that these are defensible claims, both in a demonstrable sense and a historical sense.

The Church is the repository of the faith and contains the fullness of Truth.

However, I find it kind of curious that protestants can hold such strong cognitive dissonances in their mind about their faith. Appealing to a scripture clearly preserved by an authority they reject made no sense to me when I was a baptist, and it makes no sense to me now. I think most protestants, especially modern evangelicals, are simply ignorant of these quandaries.

Bingo.