"Bible only" disagreeing with each other?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyk84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonyk84

Guest
Dear friends,

I’m looking for 5 or more examples of “bible only” churches, disagreeing in their beliefs and/or interpretation of scripture.

We know there are 1000s of churches which claim they go by the bible alone, and guided by the Holy Spirit, but disagree with each other on there beliefs and interpretation of scripture. What are some of these disagreements ?

Thanks and God bless.
 
I think gay marriage and abortion are pretty common examples - through a close friend and a close relative (separate people) I know they have had non-denom ‘Bible’ churches teach opposite sides of the coin

I can’t imagine any BC’s teaching transubstantiation, but perhaps teachings on communion (i.e. every week, once a month, ever?)

Just speculating now, but alcohol could be another divisive point.
 
I have noticed many different interpretations of baptism, the “entry point” of Christianity.

Among “Bible-based” ecclesial communities, we have the belief that baptism effects an actual change in the soul; that it is a necessary but symbolic act; that it is reserved for adults; that it is for everyone; that it is completely unnecessary.

HTH
 
Dear friends,

I’m looking for 5 or more examples of “bible only” churches, disagreeing in their beliefs and/or interpretation of scripture.

We know there are 1000s of churches which claim they go by the bible alone, and guided by the Holy Spirit, but disagree with each other on there beliefs and interpretation of scripture. What are some of these disagreements ?

Thanks and God bless.
Here are some of the doctrinal issues:

Infant baptism
baptismal regeneration
ordination of women
ordination of practicing homosexuals
artificial birth control
sola scriptura
sola fide
The Rapture

From a governance perspective, did Jesus establish leadership within the one Church beginning with Peter and the Apostles followed by their successors the bishops? If so, then every non-Catholic group which is not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome is a separate and distinct group with its own man-made leadership.
 
Here are some of the doctrinal issues:

Infant baptism
baptismal regeneration
ordination of women
ordination of practicing homosexuals
artificial birth control
sola scriptura
sola fide
The Rapture

From a governance perspective, did Jesus establish leadership within the one Church beginning with Peter and the Apostles followed by their successors the bishops? If so, then every non-Catholic group which is not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome is a separate and distinct group with its own man-made leadership.
To add to this list, there are many differences with regards to salvation such as how God saves his people and ‘election,’ for example, the reformed (Calvinist) people believe that God predestines people from the beginning as either among the elect or among the damned and chooses their fate according to his perfect will. Others believe that God granted us free will to choose or reject him (this is closer to what the Catholic Church believes).

Dispensationalists have different opinions regarding how God relates to the human race throughout history, and it’s a point that many Protestants disagree pretty strongly on. Also dispensationalists have a heavy focus on eschatology and believe in the rapture. You would think that this wouldn’t be a big deal but to a lot of people it is.

Pentecostals have different believes about how the Holy Spirit manifests itself among the Church. I can’t detail too much on this as I don’t remember much of what Pentecostals believe about this. I do know that they put a lot of emphasis on speaking in tongues and “charismatic-ness.” I remember my RCIA instructor telling a story about a pentecostal woman who visited our parish for mass and saying that she thought everyone looked so “spiritually dead” because it was so solemn. I have been to a Pentecostal church once and I just remember people running up and down the isles, convulsing, jumping up and down, screaming at the top of their lungs, and generally acting like chimpanzees in a zoo.

More recently there have been developments where some churches are moving away from the doctrine of the trinity (for example, the oneness pentecostals, also perhaps the Jehovah’s witnesses) because they claim that the doctrine lacks biblical evidence, and are convinced that it was a Catholic invention.

There are tons of little splinter groups who have various beliefs that they hold to be extremely important and upon which they separate themselves from other believers.

As a whole evangelicalism is constantly trying to reinvent itself, especially the so-called “non-denominational” crowd. They particularly obsess over terms, for example, many evangelicals now refuse to call themselves Christian and instead refer to themselves as “followers of Jesus” or something more euphemistic, and they despise words like “religion” and tout the phrase “it’s not religion, it’s a relationship” and “I’m not religious, I love Jesus” and “Jesus came to abolish religion.” I remember hearing this in college and thinking this was some ploy to make Christianity sound “hip” and “cool” and appeal to the increasingly secular student population in order to draw them in; the problem is that nobody gets fooled by this. Redefining terms in order to trick people into becoming Christians without knowing it is not an effective means of evangelization. I think this approach to Christianity also makes the ground they are standing on extremely unstable, this is why they are abandoning so much with regard to morality and doctrine.
 
I think gay marriage and abortion are pretty common examples - through a close friend and a close relative (separate people) I know they have had non-denom ‘Bible’ churches teach opposite sides of the coin

I can’t imagine any BC’s teaching transubstantiation, but perhaps teachings on communion (i.e. every week, once a month, ever?)

Just speculating now, but alcohol could be another divisive point.
One night, while flipping through the channels, I cam across a televangelist based out of Florida who was teaching real presence as his personal belief. While that was surprising to hear, what really floored me was the manner of communion. Both the wine and host were is a PRE-PACKAGED holder, with the host in a wrap to keep it dry from the wine. Never saw anything like that when I was a Protestant.
 
One night, while flipping through the channels, I cam across a televangelist based out of Florida who was teaching real presence as his personal belief. While that was surprising to hear, what really floored me was the manner of communion. Both the wine and host were is a PRE-PACKAGED holder, with the host in a wrap to keep it dry from the wine. Never saw anything like that when I was a Protestant.
Wow - very interesting!
 
One famous and early example is the ferocious, murderous debate between Calvinists and Anabaptists in the 1540s. Calvin believed in infant baptism, and the early Mennonites flat out refused. The Anabaptists refused it because there wasn’t a single story of an infant being baptized in Scripture; the Calvinists accepted it because they saw Baptism as the New Covenant version of Circumcision. Both claimed Sola Scriptura.

We must be careful about how we use these terms. I know it isn’t fashionable around here to be soft on Protestants and schismatics, but honesty comes first: Sola Scriptura is a self-contained principle. If one individual says “scripture says X”, and another says “scripture says Y”, it doesn’t really hurt the integrity of the principle of itself.

Remember that there are some (liberal Amish) who say re-baptism is Biblical, despite the fact that Saint Paul says there is One Baptism. Sola Scriptura can be ignored by those who preach it - just as the Magisterium can be disobeyed by those who believe it exists. A multiplicity of opinions does not disprove Sola Scriptura - it disproves the moral integrity of fallen man, and proves his ability to be a hypocrite.

Compare Sola Scriptura to the Magisterium and its dogmas: the principle of the Magisterium has been defined - but in the defined dogma of the Assumption, for example, did the Blessed Virgin die first, or was she assumed while in her living body? We are allowed a divergence of opinions in this matter. Does that mean the principle of the Magisterium is somehow flawed? No.

The fact is that although Protestants do not agree on every Scripture passage, they all agree on the principle of Sola Scriptura. That is, itself, an ironic sort of unity.
 
This is such an erroneous belief. Before Martin Luther came the belief of Bible Only was never a belief. Even in OT times, there was not a belief of only “me and the Torah”. People need to understand that even the Bible states that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark, and that you go to the Church to fix any problem. God was and is really smart, he didn’t leave a Book in charge, he left a Church in charge
 
This is such an erroneous belief. Before Martin Luther came the belief of Bible Only was never a belief. Even in OT times, there was not a belief of only “me and the Torah”. People need to understand that even the Bible states that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark, and that you go to the Church to fix any problem. God was and is really smart, he didn’t leave a Book in charge, he left a Church in charge
You’re right. Bible only isn’t internally consistent. First there has to be a bible. The Church existed from Pentecost Sunday forward, and the Apostles immediately began preaching to the whole world as Jesus had instructed them. They had no bible but the Septuagint.

Later the Church wrote, gathered, verified, and canonized the New Testament. But for most of history, “bible only” wouldn’t help since most people couldn’t read, and the printing press hadn’t been invented. Is the ability to read necessary for salvation? Is the printing press necessary? That’s what bible only implies.
 
Another important thing, is that the Bible was done, put together by the Catholic Church. Other churches need o accept that and be humble about it
 
Dear friends,

I’m looking for 5 or more examples of “bible only” churches, disagreeing in their beliefs and/or interpretation of scripture.

We know there are 1000s of churches which claim they go by the bible alone, and guided by the Holy Spirit, but disagree with each other on there beliefs and interpretation of scripture. What are some of these disagreements ?

Thanks and God bless.
  • The fact there are 1000’s of protestant churches, those following Luther, those following Calvin, those following Smyth, and the list goes on and on, shows they don’t go by the bible alone. Division from Our Lord’s Church is condemned as are those who divide. All those churches that came out of the 16th century revolt, that no one has seen before, is proof they don’t go by the bible alone.
  • They are NOT guided by the HS either. Where in Our Lord’s Divine Will, does He allow division of any kind in what He builds? [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) He wants perfect unity. Which means what the HS teaches originates from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) . The HS isn’t the author of all that confusion in Protestantism
 
Dear friends,

I’m looking for 5 or more examples of “bible only” churches, disagreeing in their beliefs and/or interpretation of scripture.

We know there are 1000s of churches which claim they go by the bible alone, and guided by the Holy Spirit, but disagree with each other on there beliefs and interpretation of scripture. What are some of these disagreements ?

Thanks and God bless.
Just one thought you might like to consider. That is that in the Jewish tradition disagreement is seen as the way of deepening understanding of scripture. Maybe we fear disagreement a little too much these days, as it exposes uncertainty. Also, Churches that look to tradition (Catholic, Coptic, Orthodox, Anglican) disagree with each other, so embracing tradition is not a magic bullet against disagreement.
 
Another important thing, is that the Bible was done, put together by the Catholic Church. Other churches need o accept that and be humble about it
Perhaps we ourselves should be humble enough to recognise that the majority of the Bible was put together by the Jews.
 
  • The fact there are 1000’s of protestant churches, those following Luther, those following Calvin, those following Smyth, and the list goes on and on, shows they don’t go by the bible alone. Division from Our Lord’s Church is condemned as are those who divide. All those churches that came out of the 16th century revolt, that no one has seen before, is proof they don’t go by the bible alone.
  • They are NOT guided by the HS either. Where in Our Lord’s Divine Will, does He allow division of any kind in what He builds? [John 17:20-23 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 17) He wants perfect unity. Which means what the HS teaches originates from Jesus [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) . The HS isn’t the author of all that confusion in Protestantism
There are very few that are the result of the Lutheran Reformation. The bigger problem within Lutheranism is keeping those who claim to be Lutheran true to the confessions. 😦

I guess, then the question is how much different is this than the “confusion” coming from those who profess to follow Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture - OO, EO, CC, Old Catholics, PNCC, etc. 🤷

Jon
 
Dear friends,

I’m looking for 5 or more examples of “bible only” churches, disagreeing in their beliefs and/or interpretation of scripture.

We know there are 1000s of churches which claim they go by the bible alone, and guided by the Holy Spirit, but disagree with each other on there beliefs and interpretation of scripture. What are some of these disagreements ?

Thanks and God bless.
I guess it might help to know what your definition of a “Bible only” church is.

Jon
 
There are very few that are the result of the Lutheran Reformation. The bigger problem within Lutheranism is keeping those who claim to be Lutheran true to the confessions. 😦
In the bigger picture

It’s been shown many times, revolt and schisn from the Catholic Church is condemned in scripture as are those who do it and remain in it. Is there a defense in scripture for schism from the Church? No. Is there a defense in scripture for remaining in schism from the Church? No. It doesn’t matter how long schism(s) lasts or how many splinters come from it. Schism is condemned. Aside from one being innocently ignorant of their schism, there is no defense for, nor expiration of, the warnings and consequence against schism / division from the Catholic Church nor those who do it and remain in it. That’s really the issue…right?
J:
I guess, then the question is how much different is this than the “confusion” coming from those who profess to follow Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture - -]OO, EO/-], CC, -]Old Catholics, PNCC, etc. /-]🤷

Jon
Satan is THE expert in confusion and disobedience

For Christians not in union with Peter, and as you know those numbers are highly splintered, it’s because Satan has successfully sifted them ALL away from Peter and what Jesus established. That’s what Satan does and he’s a master at doing it. He’s also a master at getting people once he’s divided them, to get them to defend their division as if it is right and ligitimate, which it isn’t.

Just thinking out loud, I think many folks have lost their fear of hell. And I suspect most of THEM feel they won’t go there anyway so they can’t be scared away from doing certain actions even though scripture says those actions will prevent one from inheriting heaven if they die in that sin. Instead of taking the warning seriously, they just think when the lights go out, they automatically go to heaven. Such ignorance isn’t always innocent nor guilt free.1791

Speaking of “bible only” as Jesus and Paul teach, division is evil, and from Satan. Romans 16:17-20 . And if one remains in schism / division / dissension / they won’t inherit heaven. Galatians 5:19-21. While the HS inspired Paul to teach that, it came from Jesus. John 16:12-15 . iow the judge of all souls is telling us in advance, how He will judge division from His Church
 
There are very few that are the result of the Lutheran Reformation. The bigger problem within Lutheranism is keeping those who claim to be Lutheran true to the confessions. 😦
Luther started SS. It was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant revolt of which Luther is the father of. And look what it has produced. Division on steroids
J:
I guess, then the question is how much different is this than the “confusion” coming from those who profess to follow Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture --] OO, EO,/-] CC, -]Old Catholics, PNCC, etc/-]. 🤷

Jon
Problems here was not over SS, which is the subject of the thread, but over the authority of Rome, i.e. the pope.
 
=steve b;11214438]Luther started SS. It was one of the rallying cries of the Protestant revolt of which Luther is the father of. And look what it has produced. Division on steroids
Actually, for us, until lately with the advent of modernism, it hasn’t been a problem. The division you speak of are not Lutheran, by and large. They belong to others.
Problems here was not over SS, which is the subject of the thread, but over the authority of Rome, i.e. the pope.
Correct. They are problems regarding the interpretation of Tradition. Does Tradition teach universal jurisdiction? Does it teach the Filioque? The IC? Indulgences?

Jon
 
Actually, for us, until lately with the advent of modernism, it hasn’t been a problem. The division you speak of are not Lutheran, by and large. They belong to others.
SS was Luther’s baby. It caused division immediately, and still causes division in Protestantism.
J:
Correct. They are problems regarding the interpretation of Tradition. Does Tradition teach universal jurisdiction?
I would ask, what part of the Church did Peter NOT have authority over? None. Who in the Church does Peter NOT have authority over? None. Did Peter’s authority die with him? The Church says … NO.

For example (during apostolic times)

A bishop has no authority in another bishop’s diocese, let alone in another country outside his own country. Yet Clement of Rome Italy, a bishop, settled sedition among bishops in Corinth Greece. Now at this time, St John the apostle is still alive and living in Ephesus which is much closer to Corinth than Clement was.
  • So why didn’t Corinth go to John? Just being transparent, I’m still thinking about that one.😉
  • So anyway, the point is, Corinth had options and certainly many bishops surrounding them to go to for help, but they didn’t go to any of them. Why?
  • Consider the Church in Athens for example, mentioned in Acts, they’re only 50 miles away from Corinth. Overlooking that short distance vs going all the way to the bishop in Rome should cause one to ask why? Especially given the danger to one’s life for being Catholic.
  • Someone had to go from Corinth to Rome and back, which wasn’t a quick trip, and keeping in mind one doesn’t want to be captured and thrown to the lions.
So bottomline, Corinth went to Clement, because He’s the successor to Peter and has the authority to settle the sedition between their bishops, and everybody in the Church knew that.,
J:
Does it teach the Filioque?
As Orthodox Bp Ware says, the issue is a tempest in a teapot issue.
J:
The IC? Indulgences?
We can see the IC in scripture. And indulgences are part of the power of the keys given by Jesus, and the authority that comes from binding and loosing. Just as a seclar judge can reduce the sentence of a criminal, so can the Church in the supernatural, work on behalf of a sinner to commute part of ones sentence in purgatory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top