How do non catholics argue their denomination (or lack thereof) is the correct one?

[avhamm]

So how exactly do non Catholic denominations of Christianity argue that their views are the correct one? It is obvious that many denominations like Lutheran, Calvinism and Anglican are man made. Even non denominational Christians who always say that “Protestantism is just lite-Catholic” clearly take from Protestant traditions (Sola scriptura, faith alone). Often they just attack strawmen to bring down Catholicism while never giving any substantial ground for their beliefs. Example they always ask me where in the bible does it say to pray the rosary or baptize infants in those exact words yet when I ask them where does the bible specifically mention Sola Scriptura they fail to give any meaningful answer

Prior to the Reformation there was only Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Coptic with all of them having overlaps many of which contradict the bible. Funny how many of these anti Catholic “Christians” ignore Orthodox Christianity or other protestant sects that blatantly ignore the bible like having women clergy or openly gay priests. Whenever I press them they argue that their sect brings it back to how Christianity originally was, centuries later. Then when I press them if that sounds logical that people just got the bible wrong for 100s of years or when the Catholic church was in their opinion established since they refuse to believe Jesus established it they give me absurd or historically inaccurate answers.

I literally was in one discussion with a Calvinist who believed Calvin restored Christianity to its way and when I gave him evidence early church fathers fell more in line with Catholicism he said they were wrong too and he only follows Jesus and the bible alone despite the fact many church fathers saved the scriptures and established the theology that Calvin claimed to be calling back to.

Can anyone explain how someone can logically make the argument that some of the greatest minds in history just got the bible wrong for over a thousand years before one guy finally “got it right” a thousand years after Jesus died, not even claiming divine intervention for his reformation?

 

[Buzzard3]

So how exactly do non Catholic denominations of Christianity argue that their views are the correct one?

A lot of them argue that the Holy Spirit guides them to the truth when they read scripture, which means nothing really, as they all come up with different interpretations. How they decide which interpretation is the correct one, I know not … and I don’t think they do either.

It doesn’t occur to them that without a definitive teaching authority that decides what is correct doctrine, the Bible is useless as a trustworthy guide to spiritual truth.

 

[Peeps]

I was Evangelical Protestant for the first 43 years of my life, and attended several different denominations (mainly due to moves)–Conference Baptist (Swedish), Christian church (Campbellite), Southern Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Reformed Church in America, Evangelical Free…and then it was over.

As a pianist, I also played at Lutheran and Methodist churches.

I don’t think that most non-Catholics argue that their denomination is the “correct one.” Most non-Catholics in the U.S. have never studied or even read church history past the U.S. history, or the history of their denomination, and of course, the New Testament history (up 'til about 90 years after the Ascension of Jesus).

Evangelical Protestants main interest is attending a church “where they are fed.” You will hear this over and over from Evangelicals. When they say “being fed,” they’re talking about a church that offers a Bible-based sermon from the pastor(s), a Bible-based Sunday school that also has applications to life (e.g., a young married’s class that deals with issues like conflicts, money management, hospitality, managing time, etc.), lots of Bible studies, lots of children’s and youth programs, and very importantly–I cannot stress the importance of this to Evangelicals–really GOOD music (usually contemporary, with a praise and worship team, and also the option of a traditional service with piano/organ and hymns and a dynamic music leader).

I think many of the Mainline Protestant people are interested in continuing family traditions–many Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Reformed, etc. can proudly point to church records showing that their great-grandfathers and mother were founders of their parish way back in the 1800s. Traditions are big in these churches–yet, these are the churches that also offer “contemporary services” featuring occult-type practices like contacting spirit guides and yoga. Also, these churches proudly fly the rainbow and the BLM flags and are very welcoming of these populations, actively soliciting their involvement and abandoning their traditional liturgies to please their new participants.

As for the non-denominational Protestant churches, most are “Bible churches” that claim to use only the Bible as their guide. They will read other spiritual books, mainly contemporary works by current popular authors, and some 20th centuries authors like Chuck Swindoll, James Dobson, Billy Graham, etc.–but the Bible is their authority in all things. These churches have a tendency to last only as long as the founding pastor/family is around–when that person/family leaves (and sometimes it’s for bad reasons like a sex scandal), the church falls apart and another non-denominational church will come in and take over the building or worship space.

 

[Peeps]

One of the reasons I became interested in Catholicism is that I read a Protestant history of the Church, just for fun, and out of curiousity. The book is Church History in Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley. This author, at the time of writing the book, was a Senior Professor at Denver THeological Seminary, a school with a solid stellar reputation among Evangelical Protestants.

Shelley’s book describes all of history, including all the time that passed between 90 A.D. and the Reformation, a time that all of my pastors and teachers over the years had never dealt with other than to say that Catholicism took over and the “real Christian church” had to go underground. Shelley made it clear that this is NOT what happened at all–that Christianity was vibrant and active during this time and spread throughout the known world, and also he describes how the Bible books were selected almost 400 years after the last disciple had passed away (John).

The book really helped me to realize that Catholicism IS the FIRST and TRUE Christian Church.

 

[White_Tree]

Can anyone explain how someone can logically make the argument that some of the greatest minds in history just got the bible wrong for over a thousand years before one guy finally “got it right” a thousand years after Jesus died, not even claiming divine intervention for his reformation?

It seems like that is the same argument being made by Jesus. He asserts that the greatest scriptural minds in history (the scribes, the pharisees, the Sadducees) got the teachings of Moses wrong for thousands of years, before he came and finally “got it right,” thousands of years after Moses died.

I certainly don’t think Jesus is illogical. If it was possible for people to be wrong about the scriptures for thousands of years before, it at least seems plausible that it could happen again.

 

[whatistrue]

He asserts that the greatest scriptural minds in history (the scribes, the pharisees, the Sadducees) got the teachings of Moses wrong for thousands of years, before he came and finally “got it right,”

My understanding is that the Scribes and others didn’t follow the law properly in their own lives, not that they “got it wrong”. See Matthew 23:2-3.

 

[White_Tree]

My understanding is that the Scribes and others didn’t follow the law properly in their own lives, not that they “got it wrong”. See Matthew 23:2-3.

No, he’s pretty clear that they also got it wrong.

See, for example:

Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. – Matthew 15:12-14

And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. – Mark 2:24-27

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? – John 3:10

His statement in Matthew 23:2-3 states the scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, they have the authority to tell people what to do with respect to religion. He doesn’t say they were exercising that authority correctly.

 

[whatistrue]

That’s not how I read it, but to me it isn’t a big enough deal to argue over. Have a good day.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think that most non-Catholics argue that their denomination is the “correct one.”

I’ve made the argument on other threads that non-Catholic Christian communities absolutely cannot make that argument; if they do, then they nullify the argument that validates their own existence.

On the other hand, they could argue over correctness of doctrine (but even that becomes difficult to argue, vis-a-vis the question of the authority to declare doctrine). At best, the assertion can be “we’re Christian, you’re Christian, we tend to agree on ‘essentials’ and respect each other on things we might want to categorize as ‘non-essentials’”.

Jesus. He asserts that the greatest scriptural minds in history (the scribes, the pharisees, the Sadducees) got the teachings of Moses wrong for thousands of years, before he came and finally “got it right,” thousands of years after Moses died.

To be fair, the “greatest Scriptural mind” in history is God. Jesus isn’t “finally coming and finally getting it right”; He’s asserting what God had in mind all along.

I certainly don’t think Jesus is illogical. If it was possible for people to be wrong about the scriptures for thousands of years before, it at least seems plausible that it could happen again.

Apples and oranges, though, don’t you think?

Moses and the scholars of antiquity weren’t given the assurance that “what you bind/loose on earth is bound/loosed in heaven”, or the promise of the Holy Spirit to teach and lead into all righteousness.

With those promises in mind, it really is implausible that Jesus could have gotten that wrong, such that the Reformation had to fix erroneous doctrine, no?

That’s not how I read it

In another thread, @mcq72 points out that, at Matthew 16:12, Jesus mentions that the Pharisees and Sadducees were promulgating “bad doctrine”. (I disagree with the translation and interpretation of the verse, as such – I think Jesus was talking about teachings that had diverged from true doctrine.)

 

[White_Tree]

To be fair, the “greatest Scriptural mind” in history is God. Jesus isn’t “finally coming and finally getting it right”; He’s asserting what God had in mind all along.

Agreed, though if I understand the OP correctly, that is basically what the non-Catholic denominations are arguing. I used that language because I was mirroring the specific question posed by the OP, but really, their assertion is that they are teaching what God had in mind all along, so it’s basically the same thing.

I’m not saying their assertion is right, but I’m saying it’s reasonable to believe experts can be mistaken about the truth for thousands of years.

Apples and oranges, though, don’t you think?

Moses and the scholars of antiquity weren’t given the assurance that “what you bind/loose on earth is bound/loosed in heaven”, or the promise of the Holy Spirit to teach and lead into all righteousness.

With those promises in mind, it really is implausible that Jesus could have gotten that wrong, such that the Reformation had to fix erroneous doctrine, no?

True, they were not given such assurances. But God did promise an eternal covenant with Israel, and then Jesus came and said, “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” (Matthew 21:43)

Plus, using those promises to assert the accuracy of Catholic understanding is circular logic. What if the promises actually mean something completely different than what we assume they mean? It wouldn’t be the first time Jesus had spoken in cryptic allegories.

We can’t really say, “Our interpretation of the promise must be accurate because our interpretation of the promise says our interpretation is accurate.” I mean, we can say that; people do say that. But it is literally circular logic.

So it’s not really a question of whether Jesus got it wrong. It’s a question of whether we are correct in our assumptions about what Jesus meant. In that context, the possibility of thousands of years of erroneous doctrine seems at least plausible.

Do I think the Protestants got it right? No. But the basic argument isn’t illogical.

 

[avhamm]

well i’ve certainly seen non catholics argue that they have the right interpretation of the bible. Like I talked with this preacher at my college who claimed to be nondenominational (Though came off as more Calvinist) and claimed that Ignatius and Augustine and Gregory and others were just wrong and that he only follows the bible and of course the things like the pope or holy water aren’t word for word written in the bible. Kinda ironic since many pro choice and pro lgbt christians use the same argument yet this guy decried them

 

[JonNC]

Can anyone explain how someone can logically make the argument that some of the greatest minds in history just got the bible wrong for over a thousand years before one guy finally “got it right” a thousand years after Jesus died, not even claiming divine intervention for his reformation?

Lutherans don’t make that argument. In fact, Lutherans would say that, regarding ecclesiology and soteriology, it is Rome that drifted from the early Church.

If one looks at the Augsburg Confession, one sees the approach. Lutherans use scripture as the final norm, confirmed and supported by the early Church, the fathers, Tradition.

One can disagree with their conclusions, but that’s the approach. Lutherans view their tradition as a continuation of the apostolic faith.

 

[JonNC]

We can’t really say, “Our interpretation of the promise must be accurate because our interpretation of the promise says our interpretation is accurate.” I mean, we can say that; people do say that. But it is literally circular logic.

This.

So it’s not really a question of whether Jesus got it wrong. It’s a question of whether we are correct in our assumptions about what Jesus meant.

I’ve been disputing the argument about “guiding us into all truth” means Christ must have lied if the Catholic Church is wrong since I’ve been here. It isn’t an argument I would make because His promising to guide us is ongoing.

 

[commenter]

I’ve been disputing the argument about “guiding us into all truth” means Christ must have lied if the Catholic Church is wrong since I’ve been here

1. We noticed.
2. Your work isn’t even close to being done.

 

[mcq72]

In another thread, @mcq72 points out that, at Matthew 16:12, Jesus mentions that the Pharisees and Sadducees were promulgating “bad doctrine”. (I disagree with the translation and interpretation of the verse, as such – I think Jesus was talking about teachings that had diverged from true doctrine.)

If I may interject, it seems teaching and doctrine are interchangeable here amongst translators.

The context is who is doing the teaching/ indoctrinating. Indeed a teacher may teach something that a church holds or doesnt hold as a " doctrine". In this case Jesus was referring to those in the “seat of Moses”, as an institution (filled by Scribes and Pharisees), not a renegade teaching/ teacher.

Jesus did tell the apostles to teach all nations of His commands, to indoctrinate I suppose. So again, teaching, indoctrination seem like the same thing. Whatever word you use. Jesus still says to beware when it is “bad”, as in do not regard it as binding, as would be otherwise.

 

[Gorgias]

If I may interject, it seems teaching and doctrine are interchangeable here amongst translators.

Actually, ‘doctrine’ is characteristic of the KJV, rather than other translations. (In fairness, though, the Douay-Rheims offers this rendering, too.)

The word being used here, though, is διδαχῆς. It would seem that the attempt to use this word as equivalent to the Catholic notion of “doctrine” is poorly founded.

Whether the teachings were from “renegades” or not is immaterial here, I think. What’s relevant that they’re teachings which Jesus disapproves of.

 

[mcq72]

Actually, ‘doctrine’ is characteristic of the KJV, rather than other translations. (In fairness, though, the Douay-Rheims offers this rendering, too.)

The word being used here, though, is διδαχῆς . It would seem that the attempt to use this word as equivalent to the Catholic notion of “doctrine” is poorly founded.

Whether the teachings were from “renegades” or not is immaterial here, I think. What’s relevant that they’re

Ok…thank you…was going to mention the DR version using “doctrine”.

If poorly founded then is Petrine chair not equivalent or at least OT simultude to Moses seat?

Is it poorly founded because of inerrant protection of God’s Word under new covenant institution of the church vs OT protection of seat of Moses?

 

[Gorgias]

If poorly founded then is Petrine chair not equivalent or at least OT simultude to Moses seat?

It is not. Jesus’ grant of authority isn’t one that refers back to Mosaic authority. Rather, it refers directly to authority in the context of the Davidic kingdom.

 

[mcq72]

It is not. Jesus’ grant of authority isn’t one that refers back to Mosaic authority. Rather, it refers directly to authority in the context of the Davidic kingdom.

Ok. I think CC references both Moses seat in teaching from the Written Word, and the keys referencing Davidic or kingly secular or “business” functioning of church.

 

[No3]

Can anyone explain how someone can logically make the argument that some of the greatest minds in history just got the bible wrong for over a thousand years before one guy finally “got it right” a thousand years after Jesus died, not even claiming divine intervention for his reformation?

Isaiah 43:8

[ **Isaiah 43:8
isaiah/43-8.html

Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears


Deuteronomy 29:4; Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2; Romans 11:8; 2 Corinthians 3:14 …

… the LORD has not given you a heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. … have eyes to see, but see not, who have ears to hear, but hear not, for they … 20He sees many things, but does not observe them

[
Deuteronomy 29:1-4; Isaiah 6:9-10 - Bible Study Tools

They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people. 3 “ Therefore, son of man, pack your belongings for exile and …

When you read the gospel of Mark 3 times Jesus tells of his trials and death and the deciples do not understand.

Isaiah predicted the lack of understanding.