"Bible only" disagreeing with each other?

[po18guy]

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 reformers themselves! Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even Melanchthon to a degree, separated from each other while the “reform” was still hatching! Theological entropy began with earlier dissidents like John Wycliffe and John Hus and accelerated sharply amongst the 20-30 somethings of the reformation. Luther and Zwingli were 33 in 1517, and Calvin was a ripe old 8 years of age! That is some life experience to draw on! Rather than wizened old greybeards, the reformers were more akin to a bunch of radical college students. As the rebellion unfolded, they certainly aged, but their radical dissident ideas remained. I maintain that they were the theological hippies of their day. See also the reformers such as Anabaptists John of Leiden, Thomas Müntzer, Kaspar Schwenkfeld, Sebastian Franck and Menno Simons. The seed of dissidence, theological anarchy and the ego-driven bible alone mania quickly spread throughout Europe. Pandora’s box was pried open.

Division is in the very DNA of the “reform”

 

[JonNC]

The reformers themselves! Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, even Melanchthon to a degree, separated from each other while the “reform” was still hatching! Theological entropy began with earlier dissidents like John Wycliffe and John Hus and accelerated sharply amongst the 20-30 somethings of the reformation. Luther and Zwingli were 33 in 1517, and Calvin was a ripe old 8 years of age! That is some life experience to draw on! Rather than wizened old greybeards, the reformers were more akin to a bunch of radical college students. As the rebellion unfolded, they certainly aged, but their radical dissident ideas remained. I maintain that they were the theological hippies of their day. See also the reformers such as Anabaptists John of Leiden, Thomas Müntzer, Kaspar Schwenkfeld, Sebastian Franck and Menno Simons. The seed of dissidence, theological anarchy and the ego-driven bible alone mania quickly spread throughout Europe. Pandora’s box was pried open.

Division is in the very DNA of the “reform”

To say that Luther and Zwingli separated from each other assumes that they were once together, which is not the case.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11214969]SS was Luther’s baby. It caused division immediately, and still causes division in Protestantism.

I will quote this the next time someone asks whose definition of SS is correct.

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.,

As Orthodox Bp Ware says, the issue is a tempest in a teapot issue.

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.

Steve, you make good arguments in all of these, but that doesn’t exclude the fact that there are divisions among those who claim Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Seemingly, Tradition causes division, too.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

To say that Luther and Zwingli separated from each other assumes that they were once together, which is not the case.

Jon

And that helps the Protestant cause how, Jon?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will quote this the next time someone asks whose definition of SS is correct.

Steve, you make good arguments in all of these, but that doesn’t exclude the fact that there are divisions among those who claim Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Seemingly, Tradition causes division, too.

Jon

Now, Jon…that is a non sequitur.

Individual Catholics may disagree with one another or with the Church, but there is ONE position on Catholic doctrine…except when there isn’t, of course.

 

[po18guy]

To say that Luther and Zwingli separated from each other assumes that they were once together, which is not the case.

Jon

I should have stated that differently. My bad. However, history shows that many of the reformers did indeed separate and go their own ways. Many others began apart and finished apart. They each probably thought that they were seeking the truth when, in actuality, they were formulating personalized religions - which bear their names to this day. The reform was not based on humble submission and unity, but on the driving force of the egos of charismatic individuals. How can one reasonably argue against that? Yet, they are all (with many others) classed as reformers. They felt authorized, even liberated, by the very nature of the revolt to indulge themselves and go their own way.

The fatal flaw in 'bible as rule" - no matter how one attempts to define it - is that individual egos interpret it to their personal desires. The very concept is the empowerment of the ego versus the suppression of the ego. Melanchthon and Luther had sharp disagreements and even the current 66 book bible retains that number only by the persuasive power of Melanchthon. This is history.

What strikes me is how young these charismatic men were when they felt the need for theological revolution rather than the needed moral revolution. 20s and 30s. Joel Osteen would be an elder - if anyone that old was trusted!

 

[JonNC]

And that helps the Protestant cause how, Jon?

I’m not aware of a protestant cause. I think its indicative of the turmoil in the Church at that time, just as the Great Schism reflects that turmoil. There’s no happiness in it, no “we’re better than you”. Its frankly sad.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Now, Jon…that is a non sequitur.

Individual Catholics may disagree with one another or with the Church, but there is ONE position on Catholic doctrine…except when there isn’t, of course.

Of course.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I should have stated that differently. My bad. However, history shows that many of the reformers did indeed separate and go their own ways. Many others began apart and finished apart. They each probably thought that they were seeking the truth when, in actuality, they were formulating personalized religions - which bear their names to this day. The reform was not based on humble submission and unity, but on the driving force of the egos of charismatic individuals. How can one reasonably argue against that? Yet, they are all (with many others) classed as reformers. They felt authorized, even liberated, by the very nature of the revolt to indulge themselves and go their own way.

The fatal flaw in 'bible as rule" - no matter how one attempts to define it - is that individual egos interpret it to their personal desires. The very concept is the empowerment of the ego versus the suppression of the ego. Melanchthon and Luther had sharp disagreements and even the current 66 book bible retains that number only by the persuasive power of Melanchthon. This is history.

What strikes me is how young these charismatic men were when they felt the need for theological revolution rather than the needed moral revolution. 20s and 30s. Joel Osteen would be an elder - if anyone that old was trusted!

And yet we also see that ego in the Church leadership of Luther’s time, ego that led to abuses and corruption.
Here is my point, and it isn’t that “Bible only” is better than sola scriptura, or that sola scriptura is better than prima scriptura, or that any of these are better than Scripture-and-Tradition. It is that, regardless of the practice used, there is and has been division, and the fault is in human sin. It isn’t a failure of the Spirit, but a reflection of our free will, and our fallen condition.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

And yet we also see that ego in the Church leadership of Luther’s time, ego that led to abuses and corruption.

No one is arguing this point! What we are arguing in the incomprehensible damage that the reformation did to Christian unity - again through corruption and sin. But, we did not need theological revolution when what was needed was a moral revolution. Corruption replacing corruption + radical theological change is NOT what was needed.

Here is my point, and it isn’t that “Bible only” is better than sola scriptura, or that sola scriptura is better than prima scriptura, or that any of these are better than Scripture-and-Tradition. It is that, regardless of the practice used, there is and has been division, and the fault is in human sin. It isn’t a failure of the Spirit, but a reflection of our free will, and our fallen condition.Jon

Agreed on sin. But 'bible anything" is not how the Church was founded by Christ. The Catholic Church, through all of this, did not change her teaching. Neither did the Orthodox. The reformers developed unprecedented theology which was rejected by both Catholic and Orthodox. There is intended to be a message there.

 

[JonNC]

No one is arguing this point! What we are arguing in the incomprehensible damage that the reformation did to Christian unity - again through corruption and sin. But, we did not need theological revolution when what was needed was a moral revolution. Corruption replacing corruption + radical theological change is NOT what was needed.
Agreed on sin. But 'bible anything" is not how the Church was founded by Christ. The Catholic Church, through all of this, did not change her teaching. Neither did the Orthodox. The reformers developed unprecedented theology which was rejected by both Catholic and Orthodox. There is intended to be a message there.

For twice as long, Po, the Orthodox and Catholics have also rejected each other’s theology.
EDIT: I might also add that, from a Lutheran perspective, we are only responsible for what we teach. Of all the Reformation movements, I would say we are probably the least radical.
Jon

 

[pablope]

And yet we also see that ego in the Church leadership of Luther’s time, ego that led to abuses and corruption.
Here is my point, and it isn’t that “Bible only” is better than sola scriptura, or that sola scriptura is better than prima scriptura, or that any of these are better than Scripture-and-Tradition. It is that, regardless of the practice used, there is and has been division, and the fault is in human sin. It isn’t a failure of the Spirit, but a reflection of our free will, and our fallen condition.

Jon

But did God not show the way to effect reforms?

But then…how should one have gone on to effect reforms…Is it to throw out the bishops and pope or work thought the bishops and pope to effect reforms?

The model of Catherine of Sienna or Luther’s and his fellow reformers? ?

 

[JonNC]

But did God not show the way to effect reforms?

But then…how should one have gone on to effect reforms…Is it to throw out the bishops and pope or work thought the bishops and pope to effect reforms?

The model of Catherine of Sienna or Luther’s and his fellow reformers? ?

The Catherine of Sienna comparison has come up before. My unanswered question regarding this is did her calls for reform represent a danger to a revenue stream in the way that Luther’s did?
That said, he might have been a better model for reform, though I can’t confirm that.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

To try to respond to your question.

1. They sometimes disagree on infant baptism.
2. There are groups that are sabbatarians, while others observe Sunday worship
3. Some groups are strongly iconoclastic, while others are not
4. Some are pre-trib, some post-trib.
5. Some are KJV only, while others are not.

Jon

 

[pablope]

The Catherine of Sienna comparison has come up before. My unanswered question regarding this is did her calls for reform represent a danger to a revenue stream in the way that Luther’s did?
That said, he might have been a better model for reform, though I can’t confirm that.

Jon

Jon…my comparison with Catherine has nothing to do with what needed to be reformed…it is how to effect the reforms needed for the Church…in whatever time period.

ewtn.com/library/mary/catsiena.htm

Catherine wore herself out trying to heal this terrible breach in Christian unity and to obtain for Urban the obedience due to the legitimate head. Letter after letter was dispatched to the princes and leaders of Europe. To Urban himself she wrote to warn him to control his harsh and arrogant temper. This was the second pope she had counseled, chided, even commanded. (So how can Catherine do all this and not be excommunicated?)

Far from resenting reproof, Urban summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice. Reluctantly she left Siena to live in the Holy City. She had achieved a remarkable position for a woman of her time. On various occasions at Siena, Avignon, and Genoa, learned theologians had questioned her and had been humbled by the wisdom of her replies. (So…Catherine won those against her…with her wisdom and charity…is what I am stressing as a model to follow).

That said, he might have been a better model for reform, though I can’t confirm that.

So how is throwing invectives, insults…and instead of unity…caused a split of the altars…a model to follow?

 

[steve_b]

I will quote this the next time someone asks whose definition of SS is correct.

Just when I thought it was safe to come out from under my desk
J:

Seemingly, Tradition causes division, too.

Jon

For some yes, but in the main, not for those who persevere in the faith

 

[po18guy]

For twice as long, Po, the Orthodox and Catholics have also rejected each other’s theology.
EDIT: I might also add that, from a Lutheran perspective, we are only responsible for what we teach. Of all the Reformation movements, I would say we are probably the least radical.
Jon

Not so fast there, young man! Orthodox theology may be a snapshot in time (they will hate that opinion), since they stopped accepting councils. OK, fine. They did not reject the Apostolic nature and founding of the Church, the Sacraments, the Sacred Tradition combined with Sacred Scripture and “Sacred Authority” if you will. The Orthodox have all three to this day, and that is undisputed.

The young rebels of the 16th century ended up - in practice - rejecting all of it except for that portion which scripture itself tells us is easily twisted - sacred scripture. The “Confessions” may sound just fine, but who died and left the reformers in charge of the Body of Christ? Even if you think the Catholic Church died, the Orthodox certainly did not - and they flatly rejected the reformer’s theology.

Time to recall that the early reformers contacted the Orthodox numerous times in the hopes of forming an alliance - a communion even - and were ultimately rebuffed. Not because of a lack of desire by the Orthodox to oppose Catholicism, but rather on the insuperable difficulties the Orthodox had with protestant theology. The Orthodox flatly rejected bible alone, no matter how you define it.

The Orthodox were then dismissed by the reformers as being essentially “too Catholic” The salient point for the reformers being either missed or disregarded.

 

[JonNC]

Jon…my comparison with Catherine has nothing to do with what needed to be reformed…it is how to effect the reforms needed for the Church…in whatever time period.

ewtn.com/library/mary/catsiena.htm

Catherine wore herself out trying to heal this terrible breach in Christian unity and to obtain for Urban the obedience due to the legitimate head. Letter after letter was dispatched to the princes and leaders of Europe. To Urban himself she wrote to warn him to control his harsh and arrogant temper. This was the second pope she had counseled, chided, even commanded. (So how can Catherine do all this and not be excommunicated?)

Far from resenting reproof, Urban summoned her to Rome that he might profit by her advice. Reluctantly she left Siena to live in the Holy City. She had achieved a remarkable position for a woman of her time. On various occasions at Siena, Avignon, and Genoa, learned theologians had questioned her and had been humbled by the wisdom of her replies. (So…Catherine won those against her…with her wisdom and charity…is what I am stressing as a model to follow).

So how is throwing invectives, insults…and instead of unity…caused a split of the altars…a model to follow?

Actually, it was a typo. I meant to say “she”, not “he”.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11218176]Just when I thought it was safe to come out from under my desk

Ah, Steve. You know you have nothing to fear from sweet, humble little me.

For some yes, but in the main, not for those who persevere in the faith

It wouldn’t surprise you were I to say I try, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to persevere in the faith, as I know you do.

Jon

 

[SPH1]

The Catherine of Sienna comparison has come up before. My unanswered question regarding this is did her calls for reform represent a danger to a revenue stream in the way that Luther’s did?
That said, he might have been a better model for reform, though I can’t confirm that.

Jon

What revenue stream is that?