Agreeing on "Major Things"

[MT1926]

I’ve heard it said on quite a few occasions over the past few weeks that…

“Protestants agree on the major things, though there may be differences in minor things.”

Or

“We can agree on the essentials and disagree on the non-essentials”.

Then they go and list what they believe is essential and non-essential. However, they don’t usually give an explanation where they got the list.

Seeing that the people that tend to make these claims are usually Sola Scriptura, I was wondering if someone could help me understand how the essentials and non-essentials are determined from the Bible Alone?

Is there some formula in the Bible or is it the number of times Jesus repeats something? I’m having a hard time understanding why someone expects me to accept something is non-essential when it seems pretty clear, to me, in the Bible that it is essential?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[TheButler]

Seeing that the people that tend to make these claims are usually Sola Scriptura, I was wondering if someone could help me understand how the essentials and non-essentials are determined from the Bible Alone?

As I posted in another thread historically in the UK during Henry VIII’s reign there grew a great sense of distrust for the Catholic Church. Indulgences had become a commercial venture. Pilgrimages to holy relics had become expensive affairs and during the dissolution of the monasteries the authenticity of the relics was seriously called into question. When Thomas Cromwell first had the Bible translated into English it became clear that there were discrepancies between what the Church was practising and what Scripture said. For example Jesus’ expulsion of the money changers in the House of God could not be readily reconciled with charging admission to view a relic or paying for a loved one to go to heaven.

The result was effectively a re-boot of Christianity in the UK which wasn’t the only country to experience this. Any doctrine or teaching of the Catholic Church perceived not to be supported by Scripture was ditched. Hence purgatory, ‘over-devotion’ to Mary, the literal Eucharist, cash transactions other than donations without expectation of a return, decadence of decoration, worship of relics etc were no longer considered to be in line with the teachings of Jesus which the population could confirm themselves with a bible in its own language.

That tradition has continued.

What percentage of Protestant theology is based on the Bible? Non-Catholic Religions

There is no mention of Indulgences in the Bible and that was one of the sticking points for Thomas Cromwell during Henry VIII’s reign. He was Henry’s First Minister and responsible for the dissolution of most of the monasteries. The idea that one could pay for a loved one to leave purgatory and go to heaven, for example, is not in the Bible. The same went for spending money to view and hopefully benefit from holy relics. Thomas Cromwell viewed it all as a misappropriation of trust and appli…

 

[adamhovey1988]

Is baptism essential, like the Lutherans say? Or does it serve a purpose, like the Baptists say but doesn’t really forgive sins? Or do you have to do it at all, could you just do what the Salvation Army does and not baptize? Since this involves salvation, this seems to be a very important question to me.

 

[Gorgias]

For example Jesus’ expulsion of the money changers in the House of God could not be readily reconciled with charging admission to view a relic

Seriously?

The money-changers episode was all about people cheating the faithful when they came to do what the Law prescribed.

‘Charging admission to view a relic’ meets neither of those criteria.

However, it does fit another Scriptural episode: Matthew 17:24-27. When asked about paying the temple tax, Jesus actually does pay the tax which was used for the upkeep of the temple.

In short, then, what you’ve proven is that vernacular translations of Scripture led to inaccurate interpretations and calumny against the Church. OK… I can live with that…

 

[Gorgias]

Then they go and list what they believe is essential and non-essential. However, they don’t usually give an explanation where they got the list.

I’ll go one better: where in the Bible does it assert “keep the essentials; ditch the non-essentials”? I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that about His teachings…!

 

[adamhovey1988]

That’s because he didn’t

 

[TheButler]

In short, then, what you’ve proven is that vernacular translations of Scripture led to inaccurate interpretations and calumny against the Church. OK… I can live with that…

I’m merely stating what happened historically. How you wish to interpret it is up to you.

 

[TheButler]

I’ll go one better: where in the Bible does it assert “keep the essentials; ditch the non-essentials”? I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that about His teachings…!

I think Jesus said something along the lines of ‘If your hand deceives you cut it off’.

 

[masuwerte1]

People who say, “we can agree on the essentials and disagree on the non-essenstials,” are doing so out of charity, not because it can be found in the bible.

 

[MT1926]

Thanks but you didn’t really answer the question.

You gave your reasoning why you “BELIEVE” these are “non-esserntials”, but where does the bible say what is essential and what isn’t?

Just because you refuse to believe in a literal Eucharist isn’t evidence of it being a non-essential. Think about it even if it wasn’t literal, just the fact that Jesus commanded to do this in memory of me would seem like it is an essential wouldn’t it?

God Bless

 

[adamhovey1988]

Even amongst the same denominations, people disagree with each other about the Eucharist. Some Anglicans believe it to be purely symbolic, some believe it to be the literal body and blood of Christ, some believe it to be somewhere in between.

 

[Kei]

The essentials: stuff most protestants agree on
Non essentials: stuff they disagree over.

It makes the comment in quotes a bit of a truthism but still

 

[TheButler]

Just because you refuse to believe in a literal Eucharist isn’t evidence of it being a non-essential. Think about it even if it wasn’t literal, just the fact that Jesus commanded to do this in memory of me would seem like it is an essential wouldn’t it?

I have no religious affiliation as such. I am neither Protestant nor Catholic. If you believe in a literal Eucharist I have no qualms with that. I also have no issue with the Protestant view. For me the fact that a group of people who don’t necessarily know each other are getting together in celebration of someone who wanted humanity to work together in peace is the essential part. For me as soon as one person says ‘my way of celebrating him is better than yours’ it seems to taint the intended spirit of the action which is one of communion to which even Judas was a part. That from my perspective is non-essential.

 

[MT1926]

People who say, “we can agree on the essentials and disagree on the non-essenstials,” are doing so out of charity, not because it can be found in the bible.

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but how is telling someone that what they believe to be essential is actually non-essential (Baptism for instance) being charitable? It seems to me the person making the quote is only being charitable to themselves, by letting themselves off the hook of having to honestly answer the question… what is an essential to the faith and how do we know?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

For me the fact that a group of people who don’t necessarily know each other are getting together in celebration of someone who wanted humanity to work together in peace is the essential part.

Agreed, but did Jesus give us any essentials of how He wanted us to work together in peace and celebrate Him? What are they? And how do you know?

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

I don’t have a list but I can tell you that American Evangelical groups that consider each other as fellow Christians generally share the following beliefs.

• Christology- Jesus is who He said He was. This is pretty much the same Christology as Catholicism.
• The Trinity- Also the same as Catholicism.
• The necessity of Faith in Christ
• We are saved by Christ alone and not by our works of righteousness.
• The Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice and is the inspired Word of God and is without error.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• Christ atonement of our sin by His death, burial and resurrection.
• Christ bodily resurrection

I would say the vast majority of American Evangelicalism would say they hold those beliefs and that anyone who holds those beliefs is a fellow Christian, including Catholics.

There is also an unwritten/assumed list of things that it is okay to disagree with or do differently.

Calvinism or Arminianism- I’ve seen Presbyterians and Methodist argue over election, grace (irresistible or prevenient), OSAS or Not and so forth then have a great time of worship together and get together to support a community ministry.

Church government. There are all types of church government in American Evangelical churches and everyone agrees it is up to each local church (or denomination) to decide for themselves what type of church government they have.

Worship Style/teaching style- again, each local church can decide for themselves if they want a formal service with a choir and formal music and dress or an informal service with a band and casual dress. Some churches have Sunday School for Bible study and others do not. Some meet on Wednesday night, some don’t. Each churches leadership team has the right to determine what is the best style, schedule, and programs that best fit the needs of the congregation.

The Role of Women in Church- Some think that women shouldn’t be Pastors, Elders, or Deacons and some think it is okay. While there is disagreement on this practice it doesn’t break fellowship.

The Role of Baptism- While there are sharp disagreements over how Baptism is administered and what role it plays in our justification/faith that difference generally doesn’t cause a break in fellowship. (except for a few minority groups). Methodist sprinkle and Baptist dunk and both believe they have are “doing it right”. However, they also have no problem attending each others churches and supporting each other in ministry.

Anyway, that is my .02 cents.

 

[Genesis315]

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you–except the stuff they don’t agree with and you judge to not be necessary.”

#ThingsJesusNeverSaid

Here’s a little encapsulation of the Catholic take on unity and the reasoning for it:

“The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?..A “being together” which betrayed the truth would thus be opposed both to the nature of God who offers his communion and to the need for truth found in the depths of every human heart.” --St. John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint

 

[MT1926]

Christology- Jesus is who He said He was. This is pretty much the same Christology as Catholicism.
The Trinity- Also the same as Catholicism.
The necessity of Faith in Christ
We are saved by Christ alone and not by our works of righteousness.
The Bible is the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice and is the inspired Word of God and is without error.
The Virgin Birth of Christ
Christ atonement of our sin by His death, burial and resurrection.
Christ bodily resurrection

Thanks for the response.

But my question is why am I wrong if I add or take away from the list?

I have no problem with someone saying this is what they believe. My problem is being told I am wrong on an essential by a person who can’t give a reason why their essentials are essential.

From the Catholic point of view I can use scripture to prove, TO ME, that the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ. And that Christ gave her the authority to determine the essentials and non-essentials. From this Biblical reasoning I can determine what is essential.

Sure other denominations might disagree with me about the Catholic Church, that is their right. But I can’t understand how they can logically claim to believe they can say what is and isn’t essential when they don’t even attempt to give a reason, to themselves or others, why?

God Bless

 

[TheButler]

Agreed, but did Jesus give us any essentials of how He wanted us to work together in peace and celebrate Him? What are they? And how do you know?

His two commandments upon which hang all laws and the prophets:

1. Love the Creator (and therefore Creation): Protect Creation
2. Love each other: Protect each other

Jesus cleansed us of sin. Humans haven’t changed the way they behave so the only way to remove sin is to redefine it. Jesus fulfils the law. When one fulfils a contract the contract is no longer binding. Jesus removed the bindings of sin. He replaced the laws determining sin with two simple commandments which, if everyone followed, would lead to a sustainable planet and world peace. All the previous laws hang on the two commandments, a clear statement of replacement.

Jesus was baptised by John to cleanse him of sin. With the authority of God in the form of the Holy Spirit the laws of Moses were washed away. Jesus healed on the Sabbath contrary to those laws demonstrating such laws no longer applied. Jesus saved the woman from stoning, again in contravention to Moses’ laws. They no longer applied. Jesus promised the thief next to him he would see him in heaven. Again the laws of Moses defining sin no longer applied.

From my perspective the essentials are ditch the old laws pertaining to sin and follow two new ones instead. How you want to celebrate Jesus and such a radical concept is entirely up to you and really isn’t going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Gorgias]

I think Jesus said something along the lines of ‘If your hand deceives you cut it off’.

Yeah, but in that context, He was talking about abandoning sinful acts. One would really have to make a stretch to try and assert that this applies to accepting or rejecting doctrine…