How does protestant settle issues concerning enterpretation of Scriptures when these issues arise?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wisdomseeker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Palaeologos said:
By schism, apparently.

I would think that the fissiparity of many Protestant churches would be the most glaring evidence against Scriptural perspicacity, but that’s just me!
Click to expand...
it could be one of the options, i guess.

So, the issue remains unsettled then, since by schism it cannot be resolved. correct?
 
wisdomseeker said:
there is only one Church by the Title of Catholic Church from the beginning and remains so. it never changed to any other name neither took this title from no other.
Click to expand...
:nope: Not exactly.

Jn1:1 **In the beginning **was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Acts 11:26 And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.
 
Palaeologos said:
By schism, apparently.

I would think that the fissiparity of many Protestant churches would be the most glaring evidence against Scriptural perspicacity, but that’s just me!
Click to expand...
Aparently!:confused::confused::shrug:Dear Lord enlighten us all, Carlan
 
CMatt25 said:
:nope: Not exactly.

Jn1:1 **In the beginning **was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Acts 11:26 And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.
Click to expand...
and after that what happened? how and when they named themselves Catholics and why? waiting for you to answer.
 
wisdomseeker said:
it could be one of the options, i guess.

So, the issue remains unsettled then, since by schism it cannot be resolved. correct?
Click to expand...
Well, to be a little less flip :

Obviously, each particular church, jurisdiction or denomination has its own mechanisms for dealing with problems. And each one also has its gray areas where there’s more or less latitude of interpretation. But there’s (almost) always a ne plus ultra, a limit. Most often, when there’s serious disagreement over scriptural interpretation, the less powerful faction either has to submit to the more powerful faction or leave. This is one reason why there are umpteen Baptist denominations, and umpteen Reformed denominations, and so on.

Lately, the mainstream Protestant churches are attempting to merely tolerate every disagreement and interpretation. This has resulted in a watering-down of their distinctives, with the result that the UMC, the PCUSA, and the UCC are virtually indistinguishable in theology & practice (you can substitute other alphabet soup in there if you wish). Presbyterians who still care about Reformed distinctives are mostly leaving to join stricter Reformed churches. I think eventually what will happen is that most of the mainstream denoms will become Unitarian in all but name, and the varied distinctive streams of Protestantism will continue in church bodies like the PCA, RCA, LC-MS, et al.
 
Carlan said:
You believe and I believe as Catholics, that Christ’s revelation is passed on down to us through His Apostles and successors, the Bishops and Priests. The Apostolic Church.:rolleyes::p;):)Right Matt???Carlan
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for you Carlan but sure I believe it at least started out like that with the 12 and after that as a member of the flock by their fruits I try to know the shepherds whom He called/calls.
 
wisdomseeker said:
can you answer the question or you dont know?
Click to expand...
What happened after they were called Christians from the beginning?

Christ said he would build His Church. The beginning and then keeping my eye on any straying afterwards in need of reform is what I am mainly interested in, Wisdom. I am interested in keeping His Church, the many members of the body of Christ universally united in Him. Not when someone decided later to name a church Roman Catholic.
 
It’s not that hard to sit in on a mass or service in any Church or to just go to any Priest or Pastor. If a Church has a problem with interpretation you can go to any religious institution ask their clergy and see who has the most documented historical fact behind their interpretation. Simple!
 
CMatt25 said:
What happened after they were called Christians from the beginning?

Christ said he would build His Church. The beginning and then keeping my eye on any straying afterwards in need of reform is what I am mainly interested in, Wisdom. I am interested in keeping His Church, the many members of the body of Christ universally united in Him. Not when someone decided later to name a church Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’ve never understood that argument against the Church. Let’s say a child is born to John and Janet. They can’t decide on a name for a week. They then decide to name their child Michael. Later, he gets the nickname “Mikey.” At no time is the child’s relationship to his parent’s contingent on how he is called.
 
1holycatholic said:
I’ve never understood that argument against the Church. Let’s say a child is born to John and Janet. They can’t decide on a name for a week. They then decide to name their child Michael. Later, he gets the nickname “Mikey.” At no time is the child’s relationship to his parent’s contingent on how he is called.
Click to expand...
I think it is opposite of another argument, which says since the CC has the name Catholic it must be the same as the Early Church. As if the parents meet a man named Michael many years later, and so assume they must be their son. They are both silly arguments…
 
Bluegoat said:
I think it is opposite of another argument, which says since the CC has the name Catholic it must be the same as the Early Church. As if the parents meet a man named Michael many years later, and so assume they must be their son. They are both silly arguments…
Click to expand...
That’s a bad example too.

The historical record is crystal clear - the early Church and the Catholic Church are one in the same.

There are always those deny history. 🤷
 
Getting back to the OP question, the many thousands of Protestant denominations do not have a singular teaching authority on earth to turn to. Usually the only immediate resort would be their pastor, as opposed to we in the Aposolic Church having the Magisterium, our teaching authority.
We in the Catholic Church are so blessed to have such: fullnes in our Spirituality, the sacraments , helping us with God’s precious grace to continue to grow in the holiness he requires of us.:)God Blesses us with his love and peace, Carlan
 
Carlan said:
Getting back to the OP question, the many thousands of Protestant denominations do not have a singular teaching authority on earth to turn to. Usually the only immediate resort would be their pastor, as opposed to we in the Aposolic Church having the Magisterium, our teaching authority.
We in the Catholic Church are so blessed to have such: fullnes in our Spirituality, the sacraments , helping us with God’s precious grace to continue to grow in the holiness he requires of us.:)God Blesses us with his love and peace, Carlan
Click to expand...
:tsktsk:
The only teaching authority in Protestantism is the Bible alone. It’s one of the five Solas.

In practice it means everyone is their own authority.
 
Hebrews 12
**
7 Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, 8 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today: and the same for ever. 9 Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.**

i understand that the author here is speaking probably about the Jews telling Christians something contrary to what the Apostles have tought. so, the author tells Christians to remember those who spoke the Word of God to them. he also talks about strange doctrines.

when the deformers separated themselves from the CC, they preached different doctrines from those whom they heard the Word of God from.
they cannot go back in history and confirm their teachings True because they have a different preaching, different teachings. but who in their midst have the authority to determine which is false and which is not? how they do it? do they go back and check with the early Christians teachings? how?
 
1holycatholic said:
That’s a bad example too.

The historical record is crystal clear - the early Church and the Catholic Church are one in the same.

There are always those deny history. 🤷
Click to expand...
You may well take the position that that is the case, but the argument that it is based on the name doesn’t prove anything. It is no different than the argument that you commented on. The fact that the name is the same, or changes, is really not that useful. If the CC is the Church instituted by Christ, it doesn’t matter if he called it something else. If the CC has strayed from the True Church, it doesn’t matter if it has the same name.

An argument doesn’t make sense just because its conclusion happens to be the case. If I say that Catholicism is true because the Pope has nice shoes, even die-hard Catholics who love shoes would think it a foolish argument.
 
Bluegoat said:
You may well take the position that that is the case, but the argument that it is based on the name doesn’t prove anything. It is no different than the argument that you commented on. The fact that the name is the same, or changes, is really not that useful. If the CC is the Church instituted by Christ, it doesn’t matter if he called it something else. If the CC has strayed from the True Church, it doesn’t matter if it has the same name.

An argument doesn’t make sense just because its conclusion happens to be the case. If I say that Catholicism is true because the Pope has nice shoes, even die-hard Catholics who love shoes would think it a foolish argument.
Click to expand...
but as an anglican you have to admit that your separation came from the CC. you also must remember how it happened and why. correct? do you think that king henry was right and was sent by God to do as such?
 
wisdomseeker said:
when the deformers separated themselves from the CC, they preached different doctrines from those whom they heard the Word of God from.
they cannot go back in history and confirm their teachings True because they have a different preaching, different teachings. but who in their midst have the authority to determine which is false and which is not? how they do it? do they go back and check with the early Christians teachings? how?
Click to expand...
Wait, you mean this isn’t the faith?
:whacky:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top