The Great Protestant Fallacy

You started a wrong thread, condemning the Believers by Great Fallacy. Go to bed as the sleep will help you change your mind.

 

If you bothered to read what others post here you would note that Agnus

(a) isn't Catholic

(b) has announced his intention to be received into the Orthodox Church

Do try to keep up!

 

Catholic Church maintains that there is little difference between the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox and so they hold open communion between the two.

When the RCC claims that she alone is the recipient of the New Covenant via the Catholic Mass - she allows that this holds true for the Eastern and Greek Orthodox as well and so actual Protestants derived from dissenting Catholics who left the church of Rome might be wise to view them as the same just to the same extent as they view each other that way.

Try to keep up.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The is some truth here - but the fallacy is in these two areas.

1. In Acts 17:11 WE DO find the saints TESTING even the Words of Paul to "SEE IF those things are so".

2. In Acts 15 we do see church council deciding matters for the church - BUT IN ALMOST EVERY denomination there is ALSO a central church council to which matters are referred for the group. Hint: Even SB's have the SBC.

The Catholic posters often "imagine" that other churches DON't have leadership and administration within that group and so must go outside the group to THE POPE if they want central admin on some doctrinal matter.

Yet such is simply not the case. There is no LACK of magesterium among the various churches!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

I believe this is the point Chemnitz is trying to make.

Prov 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Prov 15:22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established.

Acts 15:5-6 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

As yet as another mercy the Lord offers through wise counsel, a check to the beliefs of a person who may hold an unorthodox position.

A person like Matthew Henry who garners much respect within Christendom, can offer much support for good understanding of God's word, and yet his interpretation is not the final word on the matter. Each man goes to heaven or hell based not on what Matthew Henry or some other teacher believes, but for his own personal belief.

Hence we have the balancing instruction to:

John 5:39 ...Search the scriptures...

Acts 17:11...they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


BGTF

 

Well said -

 

Sorry Matt, but unless you are saying that the New Testament is not Scripture, then where is the problem? The only Scripture the Bereans had at that time was the Old Testament, so that is where they looked to check that what the apostles were teaching was true. We now have the complete Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, so that is where we turn for God's truth.

 

Agreed - the point is clear.

Issue 1 "Are we supposed to use Scripture to CHECK OUT what we are being told EVEN if it is an APOSTLE like Paul speaking".

The verdict "is in" from Acts 17:11 -- "we ARE".

Issue 2: "IS the NT now ALSO a reference a guide and part of SCRIPTURE so that we now use BOTH the NT and the OT to do that Acts 17:11 type of validation?"

Often the "bait and switch" done when trying to avoid the inconvenient details of ISSUE 1 from Acts 17:11 is to "substitute in" ISSUE 2 whenever there is a debate over ISSUE 1. But as noted -- ISSUE 2 is not a problem for ISSUE 1 in anyway given that Acts 17:11 stands affirm NO MATTER WHICH side of ISSUE 2 you take!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

You might want to check it out with +++Bartholomew of Constantinople - I doubt he'd be too chuffed to learn that the was in the Church of Rome.

 

No, I'm not saying that the NT isn't Scripture - clearly for us Christians it is, as much as the OT. The point I am making though is at the time of Acts 17, the only Scripture in existence is the OT; so I'm not sure how you get from "the Bereans searched the Scriptures (=OT)" to "we should rely solely on Scripture (=OT&NT)".

 

The "Bereans search the scriptures" as Jews and God-fearing Gentiles they searched the "known scriptures.

We do the same today.

It is pretty obvious.

As additional scriptures were given - those two become the standard.

Nothing confusing about that and no way to spin it back against the clear fact that THEY DID search the scriptures to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO.

It is hard to get around

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ah, now you're adding words into the said Scriptures which aren't there - eg: "known". So much for SS! Nice bit of eisegesis, though.

 

Eliyahu:

Multiple people here have noticed that you engage in debate without showing the slightest awareness of what is being debated plus information and beliefs that have already been posted.

Then you waste time debating them.

I believe that Proverbs 18:13 is in your copy of the Bible Bible as it is mine. It says "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him" (KJV).

If you do not have time to "waste" studying what it is you debate in order to do it right, then you do not have time to waste debating. No one is urging you to agree with any viewpoint -- but trying to debate while refusing to be informed only makes you or anyone else look foolish.

 

What did I miss in their posts?

The OP itself is a great fallacy by a hireling pastor! I don't input much time to be sympathized with such fallacy! You are making the hasty judgment as the foolish man pointed out by the Proverb which you referred to.

 

You would find that Orthodox clergy commonly do not share the same respect for the Vatican that the Vatican holds for the Orthodox.

Orthodox clergy commonly accept no communion with Catholics. Often, it is insisted that this must be the case until the Metropolitan bishop of Rome = pope goes back to a collegial relationship with the Metropolitan bishops of Orthodoxy.

 

Chemnitz, I have some problems with this: three come from Scripture itself, and one from practicality.

2 Timothy 3:16-7 “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for |doctrine|, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness: so that the| person who serves God| may be complete, | entirely instructed for all good work.”*

From what I see, Scripture is provided for the individual "person who serves God" to be instructed to do good works. The individual is to take personal instruction direct from Scripture, and that would include personal interpretation/inference.

2 Timothy 2:15b "“Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ASV).

From what I see, in this letter to an individual, the individual person is to "give diligence" (ASV) to be "handling aright the word of truth" (ASV). To "give diligence" means `give an effort.' The individual is to make an effort to handle the written Word of God correctly.

Acts 17:11 which describes Bereans that Paul was preaching to: "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (ASV).

The church of Christians did exist at this time, yet the Bereans still studied Scripture for themselves to judge even an apostle's preaching by it. They were commended for studying Scripture for themselves to test church teaching even though the church already had interpretations set.

Practicality If we are to limit our interpretations of Scripture to how others in the church interpret it, which one do we choose? Orthodoxy claims that limiting status. Catholicism claims that limiting status. How do we choose? Do we choose an Anabaptist group? Which one, and why? Do we go back to what was believed by the dominant church body in 1000 C.E.? If so, why? If not, how far back do we go? Council of Chalcedon, or maybe at Nicaea? Why? If not, do we go further back -- how far and why? The earliest post-New Testament writings? Which opinions do we adopt, and why? I propose just sticking with Scripture, as that is what came out in the New Testament era.

For these four reasons, I believe "private interpretation" is a good thing. As I see it, we too often fail to make "private interpretation" genuinely personal, and try to press our conclusions onto others.

There is something to be said for charitably expressing one's own understandings of Scripture, but when it gets taken beyond that to trying to press conformity onto others, "private interpretation" is not the problem.

____
*ESV|KJV, NKJV|NBV|ICB|ASV|RVR 1909 “enteramente instruído para toda buena obra” translated.

 

I would personally go for the Undivided Church prior to 1054. After that, your guess is as good as mine, but at least (IMO) we have a reliable body of interpretation for the first millenium of the Church if not the second.

 

But, why pre-1054? The church was not "undivided" then either -- a Catholic record of the 1500's reports that the Anabaptists were at least 1200 years old in the 1500's, and portions of the Eastern church divided from the rest of the church over the Council of Chalcedon long before 1054.

I believe this illustrates my fourth point: which group, which time, and on what basis would we determine that? This supports my thesis that "private interpretation" of Scripture is necessary.