how valid is saying "doctrinal differences don't matter, as long as we all adhere on Sola Scriptura"?

[jamil_joseph02]

Jamil,

This dialogue entertains acceptance of certain parameters. Doing that creates a dialogue of confusion. I believe that several questions should be answered.

I believe this discussion is not about who’s got the right parameter but understanding both the parameters Catholics and Protestants are using, right? This is critical, especially in the Catholic-Protestant exchange I’ve brought in. In other words then, I have to present both their views as best I can.

What do you mean by Church? Using the word Church as if each is speaking of the same thing in dialogue is confusing.

Differing understanding between a Catholic’s and Protestant’s understanding of “Church” has I think, been “implied” in my starting post.

The Protestant explained that the “Church” is the pillar and foundation of the truth and this “community of God” is instrumental in keeping us in check with the rest of the Christian community." With that, his assumption of Church as “the whole body of believers, not pertaining to one particular denomination” is already quite obvious.

When the Catholic asked “which Church is it (Arminian or Calvinist)?” then there goes the Catholic understanding that the Church must first, be only one and second, having unity in all doctrines and morals.

the Baptist rejects the concept, only he did not stated why:

Also, of course, this is written under the assumption that [this Catholic]'s church is the true church and that his concept of the church is the correct one. Needless to say, I reject his concept of the church and reject his assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church.

so there. My point is, the term “Church” is not used as if it’s the same thing.

What do you mean by Scripture? Where did Protestants get the Bible and is it the same Bible that all Christianity uses?

of course the Catholic there referred to the completed OT and NT Scriptures and nothing else. I believe the Protestant and Catholic in the discussion I’ve read through also uses that same understanding. As to your second question, well the Baptist, of course, contends that this Scripture was handed down by God and not by the Catholic Church. The Church (whole body of believers, not Catholic Church) received Scripture, and not the Catholic Church defining what is supposed to be and not to be Scripture.

If agreement on essentials is essential and disagreement on doctrine is acceptable, who decided that and on what authority was that decided?

I can’t speak for the Baptist here. This hasn’t been addressed in the discussion. But it is a good question though.

There is no infallible authority in Protestant thought and why am I or you to accept these essentials? This notion of essentials is not infallible.

The Protestants’ “essentials” not being infallible doesn’t mean we don’t have to pay little attention to it. We can always understand without having to agree/accept what they’re saying. I believe we have to understand their views, for how can we arrive at the objective truth, and provide them with better responses if we do not even know what they are talking about?

Does the Bible teach that Doctrines are not essential?

I still have yet to clarify this one. Well, I think saying “having doctrinal differences with other denominations” is different from “doctrines are not essential”. The first means that we are not saved by the virtue of having doctrinal differences, the second one means, well, what it really means – doctrines are not essential.

The first one is the Protestant’s point and not the second (which I believe I have implied in the title of the thread) So, I apologize if I haven’t cleared out this one.

 

[JerryZ]

Forgive me, as I could be wrong, but the corrective use of Sola Scriptura by the church would not necessarily preclude all new doctrine from an ecumenical council. My understanding does seem to indicate that It does preclude new doctrine from any individual.

My church is content with Sola Scriptura, as for us, it corrected false teaching and has kept us from introducing novelties. Frankly in my opinion, most protestant denominations would be much more like my own LC-MS church, if they applied Sola Scriptura as originally stated, and not just used the words or a modern definition to justify change and novelty.

If that was true, how do you explain that so many denominations allow divorce, homosexuality, ordination of women, same sex marriage, abortion.
How are this practices consistent with the teachings of “Sola Scriptura”?

 

[JerryZ]

The bottom line, Scripture may be the Word of God; however Scripture needs to be interpreted correctly. That is the problem with sola scriptura. I do believe Catholics have the same challenges and issue over correct interpretation as Protestants; however, the Catholic Faith just uses Apostolic Succession as their ace card to state that their interpretation is the correct one when it conflicts with other interperations within the body of Christ. Do I believe the Catholic Faith has a true Ace Card, no not really… but that’s just my personal view.

Here is a tough question for Catholics. If Catholics truly believe in Apostolic Succession and if the Catholic Magestrium teaches that artificial birth control is sin and equal event to abortion, then why do an estimated 98% of Catholics still use artificial birth control?

Wow 98% of all 1.18 Billion of them?

“hmmm”

 

[Christian_Unity]

Wow 98% of all 1.18 Billion of them?

“hmmm”

Maybe 98% of American Catholics. Anyways, there are all kinds of statstics for use of artificial birth control used by Catholics… all quite high.

uscatholic.org/blog/2011/04/department-no-duh-catholic-women-use-birth-control

the-american-catholic.com/2012/02/15/98-of-catholic-women-use-birth-control/

When a Protestant like myself considers jumping to the Catholic Faith, we have to look at the doctrine of Apostolic Succession very seriously to determine the validity of it. One way that I look at it… is to evaluate and determine how Catholics submit to official teaching and dogma by the Magestrium. I do see Catholics becoming in-house Protestants when they do not submit; therefore, I don’t take the claim of Apostolic Sucession too seriously. It is very possible that American Catholics think more like Protestants based on our culture in America in comparssion to Catholic countries.

 

[CopticChristian]

Maybe 98% of American Catholics. Anyways, there are all kinds of statstics for use of artificial birth control used by Catholics… all quite high.

uscatholic.org/blog/2011/04/department-no-duh-catholic-women-use-birth-control

the-american-catholic.com/2012/02/15/98-of-catholic-women-use-birth-control/

When a Protestant like myself considers jumping to the Catholic Faith, we have to look at the doctrine of Apostolic Succession very seriously to determine the validity of it. One way that I look at it… is to evaluate and determine how Catholics submit to official teaching and dogma by the Magestrium. I do see Catholics becoming in-house Protestants when they do not submit; therefore, I don’t take the claim of Apostolic Sucession too seriously. It is very possible that American Catholics think more like Protestants based on our culture in America in comparssion to Catholic countries.

Christian,

Don’t think of becoming Catholic. Measure the truth by disobedience. On the other hand next time you read the Book of Romans…

5thro

ugh whom we have received grace and apostleship to** bring about the obedience of faith **among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, 6among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

sandwiched in between the introduction and the end Paul says that by one man’s disobedience we were made sinners and by one man’s obedience we were made righteous…

and at the end…

25Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

2000 years ago they did not get it…obedient Faith and Paul let them know that. What was true yesterday is true today…some just don’t get it…

The Kingdom is like this…Wheat and Chaff…

you should not become Catholic. Measure your decision by the disobedient and the Chaff…or perhaps rethink this…

Obedient Wheat…it’s your decision

 

[kbwall]

Sola scriptura makes no sense because the Bible can be interpretted any way one likes. Without someone to organize what the Bible says into teachings and doctrines, the Bible can be made to say anything somebody wants it to say. There are people that reject modern science and people that use the Bible to excuse racism. We also have Christians openly endorsing sins such as homosexuality, fornication, and masturbation. Sola scriptura says those people are correct and their interpretation is just as good as yours.

There’s even some Christians who don’t listen to anything in the New Testament not directly from Jesus, effectively rendering anything past the four gospels redundant.

Furthermore, it makes even less sense when you consider that in order for the Bible to be infallible, it must have been assembled by people with infallibility; the Church. So that means that you have to trust the Church to a certain extent, or you can’t trust the Bible. Then at what point do you stop trusting the Church? Then there’s the fact that they didn’t trust whoever assembled the Bible since they removed seven books. If seven books were deemed unworthy, then obviously whoever compiled the Bible wasn’t completely infallible, then who says any of the other books are worthy? Scipture isn’t sola scriptura.

Even if you get past all that, the doctrine of sola scriptura still fails, because Protestant churches don’t follow sola scriptura either. No organized church can be strictly sola scriptura because every organized church is endorsing at least one man’s interpretation of the Bible. Even if it’s just “believe Jesus will save you, everything else is optional” (who says that that one thing is the most important, or that other things are optional?). No matter how bare bones you try to break the faith down to, it’s still one man’s interpreation over other men’s. There is no such thing as 100% pure sola scriptura.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Christian,

Don’t think of becoming Catholic. Measure the truth by disobedience. On the other hand next time you read the Book of Romans…

5thro

sandwiched in between the introduction and the end Paul says that by one man’s disobedience we were made sinners and by one man’s obedience we were made righteous…

and at the end…

2000 years ago they did not get it…obedient Faith and Paul let them know that. What was true yesterday is true today…some just don’t get it…

The Kingdom is like this…Wheat and Chaff…

you should not become Catholic. Measure your decision by the disobedient and the Chaff…or perhaps rethink this…

Obedient Wheat…it’s your decision

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I gave up a long time ago with the idea of jumping the Protestant ship to the Catholic one. I was just trying to share my perspective on apostolic authority and how it functionally plays out from my viewpoint. Artificial birth control is a major blur on my screen (98% of American Catholics do not obey on this Catholic issue) . As we all agree, Protestantism has its issues and challeges. However, I do believe the Catholic Church has its own issues and challeges too. So how should we live as seperated siblings… through Christian unity… recogonizing and respecting our differences for the sake of Christ.

 

[Erich]

(98% of American Catholics do not obey on this Catholic issue)

Source, please.

 

[Erich]

There’s even some Christians who don’t listen to anything in the New Testament not directly from Jesus, effectively rendering anything past the four gospels redundant.

Of the original Twelve, only Matthew and John wrote Gospels; while Peter himself didn’t write one, Mark (his companion and recorder) did. That still leaves nine who did not write anything we can find in our Bibles today. What about them? Were their teachings somehow less authoritative because they didn’t write anything down that has been preserved for us in Scripture?

Jesus commanded the Apostles to baptize and to teach; He didn’t say anything about writing books. Scripture is a subset of Tradition, not the other way around. In fact, not a word of Scripture had yet been penned on that first Pentecost Sunday… so what was the yardstick (or should I say cubit-stick?) by which accountability was measured?

 

[Christian_Unity]

Source, please.

uscatholic.org/blog/2011/…-birth-control

the-american-catholic.com/201…birth-control/

Also, please Google it for yourself.

 

[JonNC]

If that was true, how do you explain that so many denominations allow divorce, homosexuality, ordination of women, same sex marriage, abortion.
How are this practices consistent with the teachings of “Sola Scriptura”?

They’re not.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Christian Unity;10020693]The bottom line, **Scripture may be the Word of God; however Scripture needs to be interpreted correctly. That is the problem with sola scriptura. ** I do believe Catholics have the same challenges and issue over correct interpretation as Protestants; however, the Catholic Faith just uses Apostolic Succession as their ace card to state that their interpretation is the correct one when it conflicts with other interperations within the body of Christ. Do I believe the Catholic Faith has a true Ace Card, no not really… but that’s just my personal view.

Perhaps I should repost from post #12.

Second, there are significant points of departure regarding what sola scriptura actually is and teaches. From a Lutheran perspective, SS is not a doctrine, but a practice of the Church. Further, SS in no way excludes doctrinal statements, creeds and councils, but instead holds them accountable to scripture.** In fact, when it comes to doctrine, it actually excludes personal interpretation if that interpretation is contrary to church teaching**. For example, I cannot remain Lutheran if I believe that the Eucharist is symbolic. A Lutheran pastor cannot preach that from the pulpit. There are those protestants who would disagree with these two points. Hence, the argument that since we all agree on SS falls flat.

Here is a tough question for Catholics. If Catholics truly believe in Apostolic Succession and if the Catholic Magestrium teaches that artificial birth control is sin and equal event to abortion, then why do an estimated 98% of Catholics still use artificial birth control?

What the laity may practice is not a compromise of Church doctrine. There are plenty of Lutherans who do not believe what the Lutheran Confessions teach, as well.
The bigger conundrum for them is the fact that, just like those claiming sola scriptura may have differing views of doctrine, so too do those who claim the equality of Sacred Tradition.

Jon

 

[Erich]

uscatholic.org/blog/2011/…-birth-control

The link is broken, but even so, is someone’s blog post really an authoritative source? From this link:

U.S. Catholic is the monthly magazine published by the Claretians. Unfortunately, the material in this magazine often takes an anti-hierarchical position and undermines Church doctrines. There is a large volume of material on the site and, by no means, is it all opposed to Church teaching; however, there is much that undermines the faith and encourages indifferentism. The overall theme of the site seems to be “cafeteria Catholicism”—just pick the teachings you agree with and leave the rest.

the-american-catholic.com/201…birth-control/

This link, too, is broken.

That said, I suspect both of these links referenced the Guttmacher report of several years ago claiming that “98% of Catholic Women have used birth control” and also noting that “nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization, the birth control pill or an IUD".

Well, that study was limited to women between 15 and 44. While it’s somewhat reasonable, as 45-50 gets into the pre-menopausal range, it leaves out all the women who didn’t use contraceptives prior to menopause. So the study was about *current *contraceptive use; the claim as constructed misleadingly attempts to extend that “98%” figure to cover women who are 45 and older.

Next, having left out all the ≥ 45 women who never used birth control, the study next trims out women who aren’t sexually active (no sex in 3+ months). There go all the nuns, but there also go all the women who, for one reason or another, have opted for celibacy and/or chastity.

Next, the study subtracted pregnant women, post-partum women and women trying to get pregnant. Now, it makes sense to subtract them if all you’re doing is taking a snapshot of who’s using contraception at a given time frame. But if you’re trying to construct a general claim, then you need to look at a) whether these women used birth control beforehand, and b) whether they’ll go back to birth control afterwards.

Finally, the “98%” statistic is including all the Catholic women who expressly told researchers that they used “no method” to avoid pregnancy. The 98% statistic is apparently derived by subtracting only the 2% who said that they used NFP from 100%. So women who said they used no method of contraception are apparently being included in a statistic about how many Catholic women use contraception. How’s that for crazy?

You must remember — first, last and always — that the Guttmacher Institute is the social-science sock puppet of the National Abortion Rights Action League. While they’re occasionally capable of respectable science, their mandate and raison d’être is to make abortion and contraception look good. If they can spin the data in their favor, spin they will. They know that relatively few people look beyond the top-line numbers or dig further into reports, so their news releases will bury unfavorable conclusions and trumpet the culture of death’s idea of “good news”. The Guttmacher Institute can’t be trusted to tell the unvarnished truth, even when the truth appears to favor them.