30,000 denominations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mick_Taylor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
However your TRUTH flies in the face of 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition. Both of us read scipture and claim to embrace tradition yet we have differening views-how can we resolve that? It would not be a major problem if it we just you and i but since “Sola Scriptura” was invented Christianity has run off in thousands and thousands of different directions. How can that be if the TRUTH can be found by all in scripture and trasition?
Click to expand...
A couple of different points here. The first thing you say is that my TRUTH flies in the face of 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition. I should hasten to add that Methodists adhere to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. I am not arguing for Sola Scriptura but am pointing out the flaw of the argument; one that has overall implications for Christianity as TRUTH.

Your next statement is how can we resolve this? That is a different question and I will answer it. We cannot resolve it estesbob unless we both agree on the same authority. However, just because subjective people agree to what is objective truth; that does not make it TRUTH. You agree with that. You do not adhere to another’s religions definition of truth because they agree on it.
Next, you have your strongest point as long as you do not overstate it. If you had simply stated that Sola Scriptura is a weaker argument because of the proliferation of interpretations; you and I would completely agree…but that is not what you said. You see, Catholics have a very strong argument when they do not overstate it into some kind of philosophical maxim. In other words, Sola Scriptura MUST be false because subjective people do not agree.
I do not understand your last sentence and cannot comment on it.
Thanks
BH
 
estesbob said:
Not different practices-different docitrines, different versions of the TRUTH.
Click to expand...
Estesbob is correct. SS is about different doctrines although naturally different practices occur as well. That is not really the central issue anyway because the different Catholic rites have different practices but adhere to the same larger doctrines…from what I know about it anyway
 
AJTheMan said:
I don’t think that there are that many different denominations. There are a lot, however. To answer your question – Protestantism is big about individual belief. You can be a free-thinker and take heterodox views and be a Protestant. It’s just the way that Protestantism was born – freedom to take the bible in your own way.

This is in contrast with some Protestant churches and the Catholic churches, however. For instance, to be a Lutheran, they want you to be dedicated to his theology. To be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, they want you to be dedicated to the Pope or Patriarch’s theology.
Click to expand...
Hi AJTheMan,

I find it hard to believe that ‘free thinking’ began with the Protestant reformation. Is this what you’re saying?
 
estesbob said:
However your TRUTH flies in the face of 2,000 years of Sacred Tradition. Both of us read scipture and claim to embrace tradition yet we have differening views-how can we resolve that? It would not be a major problem if it we just you and i but since “Sola Scriptura” was invented Christianity has run off in thousands and thousands of different directions. How can that be if the TRUTH can be found by all in scripture and trasition?
Click to expand...
Hi estesbob,

I would take issue with this:
since “Sola Scriptura” was invented Christianity has run off in thousands and thousands of different directions.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that SS (in some humble form) is simply a manifestation of one’s personal faith in God, and not something that was invented by someone. It is right and proper to be concerned that ultimately, one’s faith must be fixed upon the only truly reliable source–God.
 
Mick_Taylor said:
Hi estesbob,

I would take issue with this:

It seems to me that SS (in some humble form) is simply a manifestation of one’s personal faith in God, and not something that was invented by someone. It is right and proper to be concerned that ultimately, one’s faith must be fixed upon the only truly reliable source–God.
Click to expand...
But SS is not a manifestation of ones persons faith in God-it is a manifestation of ones personal interpretation of Scripture-. And it was invented 1,500 years AFTER thw Church was founded-you can fnd no one adhering to this doctine prior t the so called “reformation”. I agree that ones faith must but fixed upon one truly reliable source-the teachings of the Lord as protected, nutured and taught by the Catholic Church.
 
Mick_Taylor said:
Hi estesbob,

I would take issue with this:

It seems to me that SS (in some humble form) is simply a manifestation of one’s personal faith in God, and not something that was invented by someone. It is right and proper to be concerned that ultimately, one’s faith must be fixed upon the only truly reliable source–God.
Click to expand...
What year did Sola Scriptura start Mick? Did Sola Scriptura exist prior to the formation of the canon?
What you will hear is that was not how Christians have always done things and the strongest proponents of this view appeared 1500 years after Christianity started…which is rather odd if it is THE way of doing things.

Thanks
 
BrianH said:
What year did Sola Scriptura start Mick? Did Sola Scriptura exist prior to the formation of the canon?
What you will hear is that was not how Christians have always done things and the strongest proponents of this view appeared 1500 years after Christianity started…which is rather odd if it is THE way of doing things.

Thanks
Click to expand...
I don’t know when SS began, but the OT books were recognized as Scripture by the Jews long before the Catholic Church began. Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, in so doing He seems to have implied that, A) they knew that what He was quoting was, in fact, Scripture, and B) that the person or persons to whom He quoted Scripture would probably interpret it correctly enough to get whatever point Jesus was making.
 
estesbob said:
But SS is not a manifestation of ones persons faith in God-it is a manifestation of ones personal interpretation of Scripture-. And it was invented 1,500 years AFTER thw Church was founded-you can fnd no one adhering to this doctine prior t the so called “reformation”. I agree that ones faith must but fixed upon one truly reliable source-the teachings of the Lord as protected, nutured and taught by the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Hi estesbob,

Is there a ‘chair of Peter’ mentioned in the bible? Many people think so. I have read the entire bible and yet somehow I’ve missed the parts that talk about a bishop over all the bishops unless it is referring to Jesus as the head of the church.
 
Mick_Taylor said:
Hi estesbob,

Is there a ‘chair of Peter’ mentioned in the bible? Many people think so. I have read the entire bible and yet somehow I’ve missed the parts that talk about a bishop over all the bishops unless it is referring to Jesus as the head of the church.
Click to expand...
Mt 16:18
 
Mick_Taylor said:
I don’t know when SS began, but the OT books were recognized as Scripture by the Jews long before the Catholic Church began. Whenever Jesus quoted Scripture, in so doing He seems to have implied that, A) they knew that what He was quoting was, in fact, Scripture, and B) that the person or persons to whom He quoted Scripture would probably interpret it correctly enough to get whatever point Jesus was making.
Click to expand...
Actaually the Jews did not set the Old testament canon until 90 AD. The canon they set differed from the Canon used by Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity until the so called “reformers” embraced the Jewish OT Canon.

Where did the NT canon come from?
 
estesbob said:
Mt 16:18
Click to expand...
Here is that verse: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If it is your own personal interpretation that this verse supports or establishes the papacy, I would just point out that your own personal interpretation (and mine) could be very wrong!
 
estesbob said:
Actaually the Jews did not set the Old testament canon until 90 AD. The canon they set differed from the Canon used by Christians for the first 1500 years of Christianity until the so called “reformers” embraced the Jewish OT Canon.

Where did the NT canon come from?
Click to expand...
The NT canon came from God just as the OT canon came from God.
 
Mick_Taylor said:
Here is that verse: And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

If it is your own personal interpretation that this verse supports or establishes the papacy, I would just point out that your own personal interpretation (and mine) could be very wrong!
Click to expand...
I have NO personal interpreation of Scripture. I am not qualified to interpret scripture for you or anyone else. The primacy of Peter is proven by
  1. Scripture
  2. Sacred Tradition
  3. The unchanging teachings of the magestrium.
 
I do need to clarify on the 90 AD statement. It is a commonly held belief that Jamnia set the canon for the Jews. That is not the case. Please read the following Catholic link on that estesbob

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0409fea4.asp

Good discussion though and not wanting to interupt. I think what estesbob is getting at is the church debated (some books in particular) the contents of the canon and it really firmed up around the year 400 AD. Those books included what we call the Apocrypha and Catholics call the Deuterocanonical books. They have ALWAYS been part of what Christians looked to in SOME capacity for 1600 years. To not have them in the Bible in some capacity is actually I believe indefensible. I do not wish to interject too much into the debate because I recognize that I am primarily talking with an evangelical and a Catholic and that I hold a …position inbetween the two.
 
BrianH said:
If the spirit guides all who prayerfully read scripture and believe in Tradition, is there room for even one additional group?
Click to expand...
No. There are only one Catholic Church. Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, u call it, but only one Catholic Church sharing same belief and Tradition. The differences maybe only the liturgical Rites. So we are still ONE Catholic Church sharing one Faith and Sacred Tradition.

I wonder where did Barret manage to count 200+ Catholic ‘denominations’. Is he a Catholic himself and does he knows about Catholic’s Faith, otherwise where did the 200 denomination appears when we share exactly same belief in America, Africa, Europe, Asia and Australia?
 
totallylost said:
No. There are only one Catholic Church. Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, u call it, but only one Catholic Church sharing same belief and Tradition. The differences maybe only the liturgical Rites. So we are still ONE Catholic Church sharing one Faith and Sacred Tradition.

I wonder where did Barret manage to count 200+ Catholic ‘denominations’. Is he a Catholic himself and does he knows about Catholic’s Faith, otherwise where did the 200 denomination appears when we share exactly same belief in America, Africa, Europe, Asia and Australia?
Click to expand...
But there are several groups that have scripture and Sacred Tradition. Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. They are not the Catholic Church but in every sense they would say it is Catholicism and not them that are correct. In other words, if the presence of even TWO groups invalidate Sola Scriptura, so does the presence of two groups for these as well. In other words, subjective human response does not determine or invalidate TRUTH. The issue is not whether you have a compelling case for being the one true Church but faulty reasoning can also be used against us.
 
Mick_Taylor said:
Hi tobinatorstark,

Does the bible tell us that personal interpretation of Scripture ought to be avoided? If so, where?
Click to expand...
Yes it does 2 Peter 1:20

Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top