In essentials, unity

[twiggymoo]

…in non-essentials, grace, as Protestants like to say.
Yes, but who gets to decide what is essential and what isn’t? Is there an infallible list??

 

[DeFide]

…in non-essentials, grace, as Protestants like to say.
Yes, but who gets to decide what is essential and what isn’t? Is there an infallible list??

Your profile says you’re Protestant. Are you looking for a list of Catholic teaching, or are you looking for a list of what Protestants consider to be “essential”?

 

[Randy_Carson]

…in non-essentials, grace, as Protestants like to say.
Yes, but who gets to decide what is essential and what isn’t? Is there an infallible list??

Most Protestants believe that conflicting doctrine can and does exist within the one true church. They won’t phrase it that way, but this is exactly what they believe: that conflicting doctrine is acceptable within the body of Christ, the church. How do they justify this belief? By dividing their beliefs into essential and non-essential doctrines.

The Baptist will say to the Presbyterian, “Well, at least we agree on the essentials or the “main things”. This means it is okay to disagree on the non-essentials. Is this correct? What does the Bible say about this? Where is the list of “essential” doctrines found in the Bible? There is none! So, who gets to decide which doctrines are essential and which aren’t?

Doesn’t this sound like some people are trying to justify all of the division within the Body of Christ and to justify not making a true attempt at reconciliation or reunification?

“But he answered, ‘It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’" (Matthew 4:4)

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

“Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)

Here Jesus states that every word, every iota, every dot is essential and that not even the least of these commandments will be relaxed. Does this sound like Jesus believes there are non-essential doctrines? No! All doctrine matters.

Well, if it is not possible to say that doctrine does not matter, then the other option is to say that conflicting doctrine is acceptable. Again, what does the Bible tell us?

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

Can the Spirit remind them of times when Jesus contradicted himself? No!

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth” (John 16:13)

Can the Spirit teach different people different things? No!

"For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6)

Can God change just for the purpose of allowing conflicting doctrines to be held within His one church? No!

The Church, therefore, must have a visible body. For the Catholic, the Church is both visible and invisible. In the passage quoted from Matthew above, the Church must be visible if anyone is to take their disputes to it. We know the Church is the Body and fullness of Christ, and Christ is its Head. As Paul wrote to the Ephesians:

“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” (Ephesians 1:22-23)

Jesus said:

“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:32)

If you can’t know the truth with certainty because partial or conflicting doctrine is acceptable, then how can you be set free?

 

[Erich]

…in non-essentials, grace, as Protestants like to say.
Yes, but who gets to decide what is essential and what isn’t? Is there an infallible list??

You’ve hit the nail on the head! As pointed out in Disunity on Essentials,

… Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

For example, for non-Lutherans, a good test would be: Could Martin Luther pastor your church, given his beliefs in things like baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, high predestination, and the Real Presence? The problem is much more general than Luther, however. Pastors from one Protestant tradition typically are not allowed to serve as pastors in Protestant churches of other traditions. A Lutheran’s belief in baptismal regeneration will prevent him from pastoring a Calvinist church, a Calvinist’s belief in high predestination will prevent him from pastoring a Methodist church, a Methodist’s belief in infant baptism will prevent him from pastoring a Baptist church, and so on. …

 

[rr1213]

Yet, the concept of essentials and non-essentials ***is ***biblical.

Romans 14:

5 Some consider one day more sacred than another; others consider every day alike. Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Those who regard one day as special do so to the Lord. Those who eat meat do so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and those who abstain do so to the Lord and give thanks to God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yet, the concept of essentials and non-essentials ***is ***biblical.

Romans 14:

5 Some consider one day more sacred than another; others consider every day alike. Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Those who regard one day as special do so to the Lord. Those who eat meat do so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and those who abstain do so to the Lord and give thanks to God.

Amen! Catholics love this verse.

Is there an inerrant list of essential and non-essential doctrines that all Protestants agree upon?

Infant baptism is no big deal either way to non-denominational types, vital to Lutherans, and forbidden by Baptists.

So, SOME things may not be essential per Romans 14, but not every Protestant will agree on what the non-essentials are.

 

[mikeledes]

Yet, the concept of essentials and non-essentials ***is ***biblical.

Romans 14:

5 Some consider one day more sacred than another; others consider every day alike. Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Those who regard one day as special do so to the Lord. Those who eat meat do so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and those who abstain do so to the Lord and give thanks to God.

Yes there is such a thing as non-essential things. But what Paul has in mind are customs and traditions (with a small “t”), such as dietary laws. Never does he divide doctrines that he has handed down into essential and non-essential.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[rr1213]

Yes there is such a thing as non-essential things. But what Paul has in mind are customs and traditions (with a small “t”), such as dietary laws. Never does he divide doctrines that he has handed down into essential and non-essential.

God Bless,
Michael

But then what do we do when the Church dogmatizes or prohibits matters which Scripture says is within the realm of Christian liberty?

 

[mikeledes]

But then what do we do when the Church dogmatizes or prohibits matters which Scripture says is within the realm of Christian liberty?

The historic and immediate context of the passage from Romans was the attachment of Jewish Christians to certin practices enjoined in the Law of Moses. For example, dietary laws, observance of sabbath days prescribed in the Mosaic Law, etc. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with these observances, as long as you don’t impose it as an article of faith.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

But then what do we do when the Church dogmatizes or prohibits matters which Scripture says is within the realm of Christian liberty?

The historic and immediate context of the passage from Romans was the attachment of Jewish Christians to certin practices enjoined in the Law of Moses. For example, dietary laws, observance of sabbath days prescribed in the Mosaic Law, etc. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with these observances, as long as you don’t impose it as an article of faith.

God bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

But then what do we do when the Church dogmatizes or prohibits matters which Scripture says is within the realm of Christian liberty?

The historic and immediate context of the passage from Romans was the attachment of Jewish Christians to certin practices enjoined in the Law of Moses. For example, dietary laws, observance of sabbath days prescribed in the Mosaic Law, etc. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with these observances, as long as you don’t impose it as an article of faith.

God bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

But then what do we do when the Church dogmatizes or prohibits matters which Scripture says is within the realm of Christian liberty?

Sorry for coming in late on this discussion…could you give me a few examples of what you mean here?

TIA.

 

[rr1213]

Sorry for coming in late on this discussion…could you give me a few examples of what you mean here?

TIA.

Some examples would include making Sunday the Sabbath (not that I have a problem with that, but the teaching from Romans 14 indicates that this would be within the area of Christian liberty…how has the Church addressed this, is it dogma or discipline?) Another example would be the disciplinary prohibition in the Latin Rite of ordaining married men when Scripture explicitly allows for a married clergy (and, yes, I know that the Eastern Rites do have married clergy and that the Latin Rite has exceptions…the point is that the Church in the Latin Rite has chosen through a disciplinary rule to prohibit something that Scripture explicity allows). Another example would be a disciplinary rule stating that you cannot eat meat on Fridays, which is contary to Romans 14. If I were more familiar with Catholic culture and traditions, I might be able to identify more examples.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some examples would include making Sunday the Sabbath (not that I have a problem with that, but the teaching from Romans 14 indicates that this would be within the area of Christian liberty…how has the Church addressed this, is it dogma or discipline?) Another example would be the disciplinary prohibition in the Latin Rite of ordaining married men when Scripture explicitly allows for a married clergy (and, yes, I know that the Eastern Rites do have married clergy and that the Latin Rite has exceptions…the point is that the Church in the Latin Rite has chosen through a disciplinary rule to prohibit something that Scripture explicity allows). Another example would be a disciplinary rule stating that you cannot eat meat on Fridays, which is contary to Romans 14. If I were more familiar with Catholic culture and traditions, I might be able to identify more examples.

Thanks for your reply.

I’m wondering if these things do not fall more into the realm of Church disciplines instead of doctrines and dogmas?

Thoughts?

 

[rr1213]

Thanks for your reply.

I’m wondering if these things do not fall more into the realm of Church disciplines instead of doctrines and dogmas?

Thoughts?

You’d know better than I, but I believe that the rules regarding a married priesthood and fasting/no meat on Friday (where this is applicable) are disciplines, not doctrines. As such, they can be changed by the Pope, or the responsible portion of the Magisterium, at any time, right? I don’t know where Sunday worship falls. Still, my point is that if Scripture relegates something to the realm of Christian liberty it is not for the Church to decide otherwise. I’m sure that you’ll disagree–bind and loose and all that–but that is the way I see it. In fact, as insignificant as it is in some ways, the restrictions on a married priesthood in the Latin Rite are one of the things that are personally galling to me because it seems to be the best example of something that Scripture specifically and explicitly allows and yet the Church, in its wisdom, decides to prohibit (or, more accurately, significantly restrict).

 

[twiggymoo]

Your profile says you’re Protestant. Are you looking for a list of Catholic teaching, or are you looking for a list of what Protestants consider to be “essential”?

Although my profile says I’m Protestant, I am on a journey to the Catholic Church. I was referring to the many differences between Protestants, serious differences about Communion, Baptism, Sin, Repentance, Hell, Heaven, Christian living, Authority, etc…

 

[saltandlight]

Hi,
I’m new here, so forgive me if this has been said before -
but here’s another angle on it.
For me, the only “essential” that separates Christians from non-Christians is the doctrine of what constitutes “saving faith” - i.e. how do we become believers in Jesus Christ.

This is the unity that Jesus prays for in John 17:20
“My prayer is not for them alone.” (he has just been praying for His disciples) “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you”…“May they be brought to complete unity, to let the world know that you sent me”.

I would say that this essential cuts across all denominations - protestant and Catholic. I know that within my own church there is a very clear distinction made between believers and non-believers. Believers are those who have become followers of Jesus Christ through saving faith, and non-believers are those who are adherents of the church or families of believers.
I therefore feel that there are members of many denominations (including members of the Catholic church) who I have unity with in this essential, and many who I do not (even within my own church).

But even in this one essential I’m sure that there will be those who disagree about what constitutes saving faith and what does not - and here is where the official teachings of denominations differ - as distinct from the beliefs of individuals.

Personally for example, I cannot see how infant baptism can make someone a believer. Jesus refers to those who believe in Him - and this implies a conscious step of faith, which is not within the capability of an infant (obviously this also exempts them from condemnation… but that’s another subject).

Does anyone else agree?

 

[MariaG]

Personally for example, I cannot see how infant baptism can make someone a believer. Jesus refers to those who believe in Him - and this implies a conscious step of faith, which is not within the capability of an infant (obviously this also exempts them from condemnation… but that’s another subject).

Does anyone else agree?

Interesting take. You should start a thread on how it is “obvious” that an infant’s lack of capability of conscious faith exempts them from condemnation.

I assume you say “conscious” since clearly in scripture we see that infants are in fact aware of who Our Lord and savoir are?

But start a thread, post a link. I know many would be interested in discussing this further with you

 

[MariaG]

Hi,
I’m new here, so forgive me if this has been said before -
but here’s another angle on it.
For me, the only “essential” that separates Christians from non-Christians is the doctrine of what constitutes “saving faith” - i.e. how do we become believers in Jesus Christ.

This is the unity that Jesus prays for in John 17:20
“My prayer is not for them alone.” (he has just been praying for His disciples) “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you”…“May they be brought to complete unity, to let the world know that you sent me”.

I would say that this essential cuts across all denominations - protestant and Catholic. I know that within my own church there is a very clear distinction made between believers and non-believers. Believers are those who have become followers of Jesus Christ through saving faith, and non-believers are those who are adherents of the church or families of believers.
I therefore feel that there are members of many denominations (including members of the Catholic church) who I have unity with in this essential, and many who I do not (even within my own church).

But even in this one essential I’m sure that there will be those who disagree about what constitutes saving faith and what does not - and here is where the official teachings of denominations differ - as distinct from the beliefs of individuals.

Personally for example, I cannot see how infant baptism can make someone a believer. Jesus refers to those who believe in Him - and this implies a conscious step of faith, which is not within the capability of an infant (obviously this also exempts them from condemnation… but that’s another subject).

Does anyone else agree?

Agree that a “saving faith” is the only essential? Define “Saving faith”?

And, Welcome to the forums:wave:

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’d know better than I, but I believe that the rules regarding a married priesthood and fasting/no meat on Friday (where this is applicable) are disciplines, not doctrines. As such, they can be changed by the Pope, or the responsible portion of the Magisterium, at any time, right? I don’t know where Sunday worship falls. Still, my point is that if Scripture relegates something to the realm of Christian liberty it is not for the Church to decide otherwise. I’m sure that you’ll disagree–bind and loose and all that–but that is the way I see it. In fact, as insignificant as it is in some ways, the restrictions on a married priesthood in the Latin Rite are one of the things that are personally galling to me because it seems to be the best example of something that Scripture specifically and explicitly allows and yet the Church, in its wisdom, decides to prohibit (or, more accurately, significantly restrict).

Hmmm, doesn’t every organization set certain guidelines or rules for its members?

Marines may have to meet specific height requirements.
Pilots may need good eyesight.
The President of the United States has to be a natural citizen.
Baptists are not supposed to drink or dance.
Catholic priests must be unmarried men (unless they are converts from Anglicanism)

The Church has prohibited no one from marrying. But if you want to be a priest, then you must be willing to forego marriage. In this regard, the Church follows the advice of Paul who wrote:"I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am."

“I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—” (1 Corinthians 7:32-33)

“But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.”

Paul seems to be offering his own opinion - but he does so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that makes Paul’s opinion inerrant, doesn’t it?

Again, marriage is a free choice as is the priesthood. There is no compulsion.