More Than a Few Questions for Baptists

I'm really NOT trying to cause trouble.

I just don't believe that there is any human mediation between me and God, just Christ. I further refuse to believe that the Lord will tell someone else to give me a message that all is OK.

If I can be frorgiven without the help of anyone else, then why bother ?

 

Then you reject what Jesus said to the Apostles when He told them that whose sins they forgave were forgiven?

 

I reject the way you interpret it.

 

John 20:23
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Doesn't require a lot of interpretative skills.

It's pretty straight forward.

What other possible interpretation could there be?

 

John 20:23
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Doesn't require a lot of interpretative skills.

It's pretty straight forward.

What other possible interpretation could there be?

 

The forgiveness comes thru Christ, am I correct ? Or does it come thru the RCC ?

It can't be both.

 

Forgiveness always comes from Christ. The priest is merely acting in 'persona christi' as he does when he presides over the Mass.


LaRae

 

Please excuse me while I answer the original post. I'm still technically a Baptist, so I'll give them a shot. Some Baptists won't like some of my answers. I hope those Baptists will feel free to respond to me and show me where they think I messed up. As well, I'd like some Catholic input, especially to my answers to questions 18 and 35.

1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

He didn't. He didn't even tell his apostles to write anything, he told them to go and preach.

2) 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?

I take it on faith, and I trust that the early church made the correct choices in recognizing which books make up the NT canon.

3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?

They don't. They seem to say that the church, founded on Christ and the apostles, is the base of the church. The Bible is one of the things the church produced after it was already established.

4) Protestants claim that Jesus categorically condemned all oral tradition (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8?13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them that to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2)?

I'm not sure, as I personally think that not everything that the scribes and Pharisees taught was directly for God himself, and I even think that sometimes the scribe and Pahrisees may have taught something that wasn't exactly correct. However, by binding his listeners to obey them anyway, I think Christ was promoting unity and loyalty to the established, recognized religious system - instead of promoting everyone to split off and start their own Jewish denomination whenever there was a disagreement.

5) Protestants claim that St. Paul categorically condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they "hold firmly to the traditions" (1 Cor 11:2)?

I think he told them that for two reasons: 1. the NT scriptures were not completed yet, and 2. oral tradition is a valid method of transmitting God's truth.

6) If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

I don't think they believed in sola scriptura.

7) Where in the Bible is God's Word restricted only to what is written down?

Nowhere.

8) How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

Tradition, passed down by the church.

9) On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

Personally, I trust in the early church who made those decisions.

10) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

We don't.

11) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

2 Tim 3:16 tells us that all scripture is given by inspiration of God - that means that if something is scripture, it is inspired by definition, whether or not it claims it for itself. Now, recognizing what is and isn't scripture in the first place is not a task I would want to do on my own, I trust the early church recognized and compiled the correct list for us.

12) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us 2000 years later as Scripture?

From the Bible alone? We don't, for the Bible alone doesn't say that.

13) Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

It doesn't.

14) Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

The general idea is that *if* sola scriptura is true, then God would have given us everything necessary in the NT.

15) If the books of the New Testament are "self-authenticating" through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

Because people make mistakes. Clearly, sometimes individuals think they are guided by the Holy Spirit on a matter, when they are not.

16) If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there over 23,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

Same answer as above.

17) Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

Nobody. Neither is really more authoritative than the other. One may be more correct than the other, and one may even be more able to defend his postion than the other, but neither can authoritatively demonstrate their interpretation is superior.

18) Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

They can, in good conscience call something heresy if they believe it is heresy. "In good conscience" does mean they are correct, only that their conscience is telling them they are correct. However, I see this same thing happening *inside* the Catholic Church, not just external to it. Haven't some in history been accused of heresy and called heretics by the Catholic Church, only to have that accusation rescinded (Joan of Arc comes to mind, as does Wycliffe and Tyndale being called heretics for producing an English Bible, something that the Catholics later did themselves)? Does not question 18 go both ways?

19) Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

They can't. Us Protestants can't agree on what are "the important things". Just go up to the Fundamental forum above, and ask what the fundamentals are.

20) How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

Because the power of the gospel does not come from an universally agreed-upon list of writings.

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?

I think the Church as a body had the authority. People are still free to remove or add books on their own authority, yes - but that doesn't mean their conclusions are correct for even themselves, let alone others.

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. This bothers me quite a bit, and I am currently re-evaluating my understanding of the OT canon.

23) Why do Protestants follow post-apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Same answer as above.

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?

I think the "standard Baptist answer" is the following: the early church fathers were not infallible, and using their own personal authority for their positions on such doctrines, and their personal authority is no more authoritative than Joe Baptist's personal authority today, thus Joe Baptist is free to form his own interpretations from scripture on those doctrines. However, Joe Baptist still believes that God guided those men in their decisions about canon, because God wanted Joe Baptist to read the Bible for himself 1600 years later.

I understand the point the question is making. It personally bothers me that we Protestants pick and choose what we want to accept from the early church - I agree we appear very inconsistent.

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?

I think most Protestants would say that Christianity "grew" during those first 1500 because the Bible was still present, but didn't "flourish" until it became available to the common man and literacy increased.

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. Good preaching I guess. That's pretty cool.

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?

I personally don't think it is so solid, so this question is N/A for me.

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?

Books can exist without printing presses. Printing presses simply make it easier to mass-produce a book.

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"?

I don't think the early Church believed in sola scriptura.

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 people make mistakes. Clearly, sometimes individuals think they are guided by the Holy Spirit on a matter, when they are not.

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 didn't.

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 sola scripture is a nice idea, but logically inconsistent.

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?

It can't. It can only see what one professes, by words and/or actions.

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?

That our unity is fragile at best, and that not all of us can be correct.

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 expiry date on the verse. Protestants generally ignore the implications of this verse, and we generally believe everyone is wholly responsible for themselves. The second question asked in 35 is good (and tough), and I guess the answer is "it never became OK to do that". However, it makes me wonder - what *do* you do when you believe a Church leader should be disobeyed? Surely there are instances when a Church leader, even in Catholicism, makes a really bad call.

Later,
Brian

 

Dear Brian and all,
I'm working on my answers to those questions as well.

 

1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
Answer: You will find that Jesus said to obey His commandments. This instruction is particularly indicated in the Book of John. Also, if one should examine the entire Bible, there is frequent mention of obeying God’s Voice and Listening to Him. If His commandments are in a book, we should look there.
If HE speaks to us, we should listen.

2) 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?
Answer: 2 Tim 3:12-4:1
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV
Any questions?
I do not know about the Koran…but one thing is clear, anyone can claim anything, but that does not make it so.

3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based on a book?
Again in II Timothy, Paul instructs him, Timothy, to guard the treasure. This treasure is the Word.
According to Kay Arthur, the key verse in Timothy is to guard the treasure.

4) Protestants claim that Jesus categorically condemned all oral tradition (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8?13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them that to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2)?
Jesus told them to obey the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees that taught out of the Law, but HE also told them not to act like them. The Law was good, but they were not. (You remember when Jesus said that they take away widows homes with much prayer?)

5) Protestants claim that St. Paul categorically condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they "hold firmly to the traditions" (1 Cor 11:2)?

Because if one will look at the usage of the word “traditions” in the New Testament, one will find that it could mean a good thing or a bad thing. You must remember that John said that the whole world might not be able to contain all the books that could be written about Jesus, yes? And of course as one can imagine many books and manuscripts have been burned in times of persecution.
But, let us look at the complete verses that you quoted…are they indeed oral, or have these been written down???
2 Thess 2:15-16
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
KJV
1 Cor 11:2-3
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
KJV
These were “delivered” and taught.

6) If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

This is an error to claim that these facts in these verses were of oral tradition and not written down in Gospels that were lost, burned, etc. Yet, amazingly, the information that we have now is exactly what God wanted us to have today. There are many, many manuscripts that have survived. Consider that many manuscripts, such as the Magdeline fragments, are fragments, yet, God wanted us to have them. Consider the Dead Sea Scrolls…same story, a complete Isaiah, yes? Why? God’s Grace and Mercy.

7) Where in the Bible is God's Word restricted only to what is written down?

This is the vehicle that God used to preserve His inspired Word.
Consider how quickly Joseph was forgotten after he died in Egypt. Suddenly, the Israelites were made into slaves. Why? They did not remember and testify to the memory of Joseph. The Word is also for remembering what God has done.
Without it people would forget. Without the Truth, things can go quickly wrong.

8) How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

By the titles of the Books. But Hebrews has always been up for debate.

9) On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

If we had to decide, we would know by the Holy Spirit if that is of God or not. It is like looking at the numerous “lost books of the Bible” type books, and noticing that there are one or two, etc, strange comments therein. A check in the Spirit if you will.
I believe that all Scripture that we have today is God’s plan for us to have today.
This is trusting in God.

10) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

Do you think that the Bible we have is complete? What about the Age to come?
It is not about a list, but it is about what God wants us to know. It is a love letter after all.

11) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

Perhaps because of the sacredness of them (to Christian/believers), ever since they were written. They all are inspired and without flaws, etc. They are cherished.
They reveal God’s Gospel.

12) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us 2000 years later as Scripture?

Because God prepared a place for him to write all this, and HE knew that these would be preserved for us for great use.

13) Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

Actually, it teaches us that the Holy Spirit will teach us. The Bible is the source to teach us where to go, to God.

14) Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

There is much teaching in the New Testament. And what is said above is error. There is much teaching on Christian faith and theology in the Bible. But again, the whole concept is to turn to God and listen to Him and Obey Him, His Voice. And even more, about becoming a new creature in Christ, being Born Again. What we need to know from God is easily understood in the New Testament.
Consider this:
John 1:18-19
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
KJV
If we only had the Four Gospels, we would still do well…for Jesus spoke to us while in the Flesh.

15) If the books of the New Testament are "self-authenticating" through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

Answer: Can you see God’s Hand in action?

16) If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there over 23,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

Because there are wolves in the church. Plus, Satan is out to kill and destroy.
Also, because of lust, unlove, unreconcilation, splits, arguments.
However, there is a lot of good. How strong the church would be if all churches would pull together and be able to emphasize their strong points!
Furthermore, how can this come to pass what Jesus said about those who kill Christians and think they are doing good? Persecution must come, for how else will there be highly honored martyrs between the fifth and sixth seal?
But perhaps, in the long wrong, we will really see our weaknesses, and God will be glorified anyway.

17) Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

Paul said that we should not go to secular court, but to settle matters in the church.
Plus, Jesus said to look at the fruit and test the spirits to see if they are of God.

18) Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

First of all, if God chooses to give an individual a revelation, no one can take it away. If a person just makes stuff up, than that is idolatry, because idolatry is all about pleasing the flesh. And regarding binding others to our particular beliefs, well that is either legalism or judgmental if it pertains to things that are outside of the Bible. We should esteem others better than ourselves. But as far as doing what is right or restoring or doing anything that is right and good, these things are all evident out of the Love that comes from Jesus. If we are operating by the Fruits of the Spirit, we are doing well.

19) Protestants usually claim that they all agree "on the important things." Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

The important things are following the important things that Jesus said to do, which all hinge on love. HE gave the Two commandments that wrap everything up into the important things. Love God and love others as you do yourself. I perceive that all these questions are coming from a heart that does not know God or what is right by the Holy Spirit. This is so essential in being a Christian, for without it, it is just following man and living in works that man ordains.

20) How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

Have you ever read Chapter 11 of Hebrews? All these men of faith walked without seeing but believing. They were looking for that CITY, that City of God that is still to come. They saw Jesus to come, but did not see, but they believed.
How did the first Christians survive without knowing for sure about what was canon?
I believe that there was probably much documentation, perhaps other Gospels written, just like Mark, Matthew, Luke…for even John said that the whole world probably could not contain the books…
But oh, I sure do believe that the things that were written and sure by those who witnessed Jesus, were guarded as treasure. Oh, yes!

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?

I do not know the details of this, but I suppose that it was Catholic church or was it Constantine? But what I read or heard from the Catholic sources, that the Scriptures that were there and compiled were always considered sacred and true and God inspired. I don’t think it was so hard to figure out what was good and what was questionable. Look at the writings that are considered extra Biblical. Any questions?

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 about this. I have not studied this.

23) Why do Protestants follow post-apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Well, even Catholics admit that there was a lot of corruption around the time that Martin Luther put the 95 thesis on the church door on Halloween. I will post this in the next post (Lord willing). I just happened to find it the other day on the internet! And I wasn’t even looking for it! In other words, the errors of the day probably caused a lot of opposition and concern, and a need to go back to the beginning???
Doesn’t the concept of purgatory come out of Maccabbes? (forgive the spelling).

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?

One thing is true, world wide, is how people can take the Scripture and twist it and turn it into anything they want. From symbolism to literal interpretations. How is it possible for a church to burn people at the stake or send crusades to encircle Barbarians in a theater and kill them all in the name of Jesus? How is it possible for people today to tell others that they will find Jesus if they go here or there? How is it possible that people who read the King James Bible tell people that they cannot wear a red tie to church (legalist churches) or wear a wedding ring or do this and that? How is it possible…fill in the rest.

God has His Hand on His Word.

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?

People all over the world, such as China and other countries are surviving their faith on less. I just heard a story of a woman who prayed for ten years for a Bible, and just now got one. How did they learn, flourish? They heard the Word and it fell on good ground.

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 do not know of this story, but not one word? Surely they documented some of the preaching of Thomas? Surely, this is a testimony of how the Holy Spirit works in people’s lives and reveals Truth to those who believe in Jesus.

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?

I believe there are many books about God’s Grace, Faith Alone, Bible alone, God alone.

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?

I see God’s timing in all of this. There were bonfires of Books and Bibles and manuscripts prior to this as well. What we have today, I believe was ordained of God.

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"?

I even know that! Catholic meant universal. What makes me sad, for example, when I look at the New American Bible that is the current recommended Bible for Catholics, I happened to notice that the verses at the beginning of Ezekiel were switched around. Who gives anyone the right to do this, for example? When I think of this one little thing, I believe God gives to another to guard if another is not trustworthy. Yet, if there is a manuscript that has it like that, I wonder why all the other manuscripts are rejected in view of that?
Or what about the current Priesthood that is failing in many places because of evil reports?
I too find it so sad that there is not one great big church of Jesus right now here without all the different names on the doors. How does one trust the church in the face of so much former corruption?
But I do have one consolation…I have a cousin in Germany that has told me twice now that during World War II, the Catholics remained Catholic. Germany saw the Lutherans (except a few small secs), side with Hitler. After the war and over the years I periodically heard that people left the churches in Germany in droves, refusing to trust church leaders again.
Really, it is about those who have their eyes fixed on Jesus, and those who have their eyes fixed on man. Consider Solomon. He was a people pleaser, and it got him in bunches of trouble.

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"?

Kind of reminds me of when Jesus was surrounded by the masses and said that they were haggard like sheep without a shepherd. Persecuted already by Pharisees and Rulers, and thrown out of the church.
But, in this case, people were out trying to find their way, with Jesus only as their guide. Meeting in homes, gathering people when they were converted to the Christian faith, etc.

People are human. There is such a struggle in the Christian life. A sweet loving Christian leader is like sheep for the slaughter. A domineering leader who exalts himself can make great time getting ahead, but is that the narrow path that God provided for him or her? If a true Christian denies himself and picks up his cross daily, won’t he usually end up persecuted before too long? Consider Paul.

The problem with doctrines in the light mentioned above, is that people are taking Scripture to support their doctrines, BUT not taking all of the Bible as a whole. Thereby, for example, we have a bunch of end-time “views” today, but each one supports their views with Scripture. Who has the Truth on that matter? The one that has no flaws with any other Scripture. If something does not match up, the interpretation is incorrect. We can be assured that many of these views are not right because they do not add up with the rest of Scripture. Thereby, we can be assured that if something does not make sense, it is not that there is a problem with the Bible. The problem is with us and our interpretation is wrong.

So, who reveals Truth? Only God. Only Jesus reveals Truth and revelation knowledge, etc.

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?

I believe there was Scripture!

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)?

The church is the people of God (Jesus), and those that are led by His Spirit – no one needs to teach them. JOHN 14:26

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?

Jesus said that if we have love for one another, then we will know we are HIS disciples.

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 are those that cause division. And there are those that unite. There are those that believe and follow 1 Cor 13. There are those that love, and there are those that persecute. But of course all these denominations, ever increasing…it is not good.

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

Mark 9:38-41
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
KJV

Also, please consider what a true leader a Christian leader was according to Jesus…this leader was the servant of all. Truly, I believe that no true Christian has trouble following or submitting to a Christian leader who is led by the Spirit of Jesus!

How blessed one would be if to hear a Pastor or leader say, Follow me as I follow Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How did I do? Did I pass the test?
It is all about the Lord Jesus.

 

_Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences_
by Dr. Martin Luther, 1517
Published in:
_Works of Martin Luther_
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol. 1, pp. 29-38.

DISPUTATION OF DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER
ON THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF
INDULGENCES

OCTOBER 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light,
the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg,
under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther,
Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in
Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that
those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us,
may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam
agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be
repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance,
i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by
the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no
inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers
mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as
hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward
repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom
of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any
penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his
own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that
it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's
remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases
reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in
such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely
unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same
time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His
vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and,
according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us,
because in his decrees he always makes exception of the
article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who,
in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for
purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of
purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown
while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not
after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are
already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be
released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the
imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity,
great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say
nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of
purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair,
almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror
should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that
they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of
increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all
of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness,
though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope
means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by
himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who
say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every
penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which,
according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this
life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission
of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission
can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very
fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the
people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding
promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over
purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate
has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in
purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not
possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles
into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the
money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result
of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God
alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be
bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and
Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much
less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also
the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most
rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their
teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation
because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the
pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man
is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of
sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that
contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls
out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full
remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of
pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in
all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is
granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the
blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in
no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the
declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest
theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people
the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal
pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at
least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest
the people may falsely think them preferable to other good
works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend
the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of
mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor
or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes
better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more
free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in
need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons,
purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation
of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more
than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary
for their own families, and by no means to squander it on
pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is
a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting
pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for
him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are
useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether
harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the
exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St.
Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be
built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's
wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many
of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money,
even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain,
even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself,
were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the
Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order
that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon,
an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this
Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons,
which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell,
with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which
is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred
bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope.
grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among
the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident,
for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so
easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even
without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man,
and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were
the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the
word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given
by Christ's merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of
reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of
the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes
the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is
naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which
they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they
now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest
graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote
gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared
with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of
apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and
attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own
dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71 . He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let
him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the
pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art,
contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who
use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love
and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could
absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and
violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not
able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its
guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could
not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter
and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and
any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit,
the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written
in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms,
which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal
worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk
to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy
matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to
the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of
the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the
sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are
there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake
of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former
reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the
dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the
withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it
is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope,
that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy
to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and
do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own
need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in
actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now
satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were
still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day
greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one
church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the
money of poor believers?"

87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what
participation does he grant to those who, by perfect
contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church
than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now
does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and
participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of
souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences
and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal
efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by
force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to
expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their
enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the
spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily
resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people
of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of
Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in
following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and
hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather
through many tribulations, than through the assurance of
peace.



_________________________________________________________________

This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by
Allen Mulvey and is in the public domain. You may freely
distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments
or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at
Concordia Theological Seminary.

E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 481-2123 Fax: (260) 481-2126
________________________________________________________________


file: /pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther: ninetyfive.txt

 

Brian, well-done! even if I don't agree with all your points. Your above answer leaves only one result: ANARCHY!

 

The Quakers believe the primary authority is the Holy Spirit. They say that Protestants disagree about interpretation of scripture, Catholics disagree about tradition, and Socinians (rationalists) disagree about the conclusions of reason. They say that in the end, these three respective authorities--scripture, tradition, and reason--all depend on the Holy Spirit which produces them.

Kind of hard to argue with that.

 

ttt for Carson Weber