It's NOT in the Bible

[septimine]

I think the reason that SS falls off is that the “table of contents” is not in the Bible. That is, without some traditions as to what Christianity is about, you must in fact be open to the idea that the Church may have either rejected some books of Scripture or added books that are not Scripture. Either interpretation leads to an untenable position re SS. If we cannot be sure that the church was right about what is IN THE BIBLE, we cannot use the Bible as sole arbiter of what God said. What if God said something in the Book of Unknown Saint #25 that we must believe to be Christian, yet that book was left out? What if the book of James or some other book was never supposed to be Canon? In either case, you have a problem of making that case solely from a Sola Scriptura viewpoint, and it’s impossible to be sure at that point. The Bible without a book is not going to tell you that those books are missing, nor is it going to say that a certain look is not scripture. Logically, we should be rehashing Nicea with every new Protestant Sect – because not every sect is going to have the same Bible, and since every Bible is going to have different books, you can’t have unified christian dogma on Trinity, Salvation, any of that stuff.

I think this site might give you some idea of just how many books could have been in the Bible without a tradition. (earlychristianwritings.com/). Sans Tradition, how do you know what is and is not Bible?

 

[sedonaman]

I didn’t read all answer posts, so forgive me if has already been brought up, the printed Bible did not come about until around the 1400s or so when the printing press was invented, I know there were monks who made copies by hand, so in other words it would not have been avalible to most of the public, and for hundreds of years most people could not read. And it took hundreds of years for its books to be collected and finalized. IMHO I do not think our Lord Jesus established a Church that could only be read by a few for that long, IMHO we need tradition and teaching (CCC) also,

Not only that but not much was written down until the disciples noted that the numbers of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry were decreasing, and then the writings were not collected into a Bible for several centuries. The early Church had to rely on “solo traditio” until then.

 

[sw85]

Here’s a quote that at first lends itself to sola scriptura, though it’s easily dismantled:

2 Timothy 3:16-17. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

On the surface it looks like it says everything useful is in scripture.

A screwdriver is useful for working on a car, but isn’t the only tool you should use. (Unless it’s an old Beetle! LoL)

To the contrary. It seems to me to be saying not “everything useful is in Scripture,” but “everything in Scripture is useful.” It’s the difference between Scripture being sufficient (in the former case) and merely necessary (in the latter).

This is a good question, because Protestant biblical exegesis relies on a self-refuting standard. A thing that is self-refuting cannot possibly be true. If the Bible relies for its authority on something outside itself, then it must be the case that there is something other than the Bible which is authoritative – i.e., the word and will of God, revealed to us continuously through the Church He established.

Thomas Storck has a good article on the deficiencies of sola scriptura in NOR.

The best evidence we have for the falseness of the Protestant attitude toward this doctrine is that its adoption has not, in fact, ushered in a single, authoritatively correct Biblical exegesis – but thousands of competing and contradictory hermeneutics.

 

[pablope]

A lot of Catholics seem to say “Sola Scripture isn’t in the Bible”. Well, if Protestants don’t believe the Catholic Church’s claims, what else would they consider is an infallible authority besides the Bible?

Scripture doesn’t need to say that it is the only infallible authority, as Protestants just don’t think anything else is infallible. It isn’t that Sola Scripture is the only means of authority, it’s just that nothing else is infallible, therefore, beliefs should only be based on Scripture.

I think Protestants say that…but if they examine reality and deeply, they will realize that it is their pastor’s interpretation, which they rely on and form their interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures…their pastor is their informal teaching authority…they may not call it a magisterium, like in the CC, but it is akin to a magisterium, albeit, it is their pastor…but their pastor has no appeal to a higher authority…if there are disagreements. It is one’s interpretation versus another and the pastor’s and so forth.

I was just listening to a pastor convert relay this problem in his thesis…it was his interpretation versus someone else…so he appealed to Tradition…early Church tradition, the Fathers…to get around this…but ended up Catholic…

 

[SteveVH]

I think the question is based upon a faulty premise. My original statement was not that the ONLY place the doctrines essential to Salvation could be found is the Bible. It is that it is completely reasonable to expect that the ESSENTIAL doctrines - the core of Christian beliefs - will be found in the Scriptures.

I think the truth on which the essential doctrines are based are certainly contained in the Bible. The trouble is, as is evident from the variety of “essential” doctrines found in the thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations out there, each of which disagree and are therefore divided, what is essential seems to be illusory. We must read Scripture through the lens of Sacred Tradition in order to know what is essential. We can read the letter from Justin Martyr from around 164 A.D. explaining in great detail the Catholic Mass. Yes, the writings of the Apostles were an essential part of this (liturgy of the word) but we cannot throw away the rest of it which is the liturgy of the Eucharist and his words which express a very clear belief in the real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine.
Now, as a Catholic I can find this doctrine (of the Eucharist) very clearly expressed in the 6th chapter of John, yet the great majority of Protestant communities reject this as essential. I hope you see my point. Without an authoritative interpreter what is “essential” is pretty much up for grabs.

First, granted the first generation of Christians had access to the direct teaching of the Apostles - but we know it was not long before this became impractical. That’s why we have many of the Epistles. Add to this the fact that the Church was under persecution, and the need to record the teachings of Christ and the Apostles in written form.

I will agree to some extent, except that the teachings of the Apostles were handed down and guarded by their successors, the bishops. Yes the Church wished to preserve the witness of the Apostles in writing, but it possessed that witness in its very life. It did not rely solely on the written word by any stretch of the imagination. The Bible itself states that not everything Christ did and said was written down. Does that mean it was lost forever? Absolutely not. We must remember that the “good news” is a Person, Jesus Christ, not a bunch of writings. He promised to remain with his Church and is present there, not only in the few writings that make up the New Testament, but in its very life, most especially within the Eucharist.

Second, the Christian Scriptures were written very quickly after the founding of the Church - most within 30-35 years of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension. With the exception of John, the only way to extend that period is to argue that the listed authors did not write the books.

Third, even before the Gospels were written written accounts of Christ’s life and teaching were circulating. Without getting into the whole issue of how the Gospels came to be - if Matthew, Mark and Luke were written prior to 65AD, then the source materials were probably circulating for some time prior to this - probably with the knowledge of the Apostles.

The time at which the Gosples were written is one thing. Distributing them to all the believers is quite another in the absence of a printing press, not to mention the logistical problems in getting them delivered. Again, Tradition was essential.

Finally, I think we can all agree that the period immediately following the founding of the Church is not the place to look for normative experiences. These early Christians experienced many things differently than Christians did even 50 years later. For instance, we do not have large numbers of people speaking foreign languages the have never learned in order to communicate the Gospel. We also do nat have any living Apostles - unless I misunderstand Catholic doctrine even the Pope is not considered an Apostle. It is logical and reasonable to expect that prior to the writing of the Scriptures the essentials of the Faith would have been communicated directly by the Apostles.

The Pope is considered a direct sucessor to the Apostles. You are correct that prior to the writings of the Scriptures the faith would have been communicated by the Apostles, but also by those whom they sent in their place. There were only twelve. It is aslo logical and reasonable to assume that their successors, the bishops who they ordained, communicated the faith for many years after their deaths without carrying with them all the writings contained in the New Testament as we know it today. To think that they did would be illogical and unreasonable.

(Continued…)

 

[SteveVH]

(Continued…)

Perhaps not, but it is a logical one. To believe that the Apostles (and the Holy Spirit) would be so negligent as to leave out of the New Testament essential or major doctrines is something my faith in Christ simply cannot accept.

To come at this from another angle, just as I would find it almost impossible to accept a doctrine that no one had discovered in 2,000 years of looking and that no Christians had ever held - I also find it impossible to accept a doctrine as essential to salvation or of critical importance that cannot be found somewhere in the Scriptures.

As I have said before, I think the truth that is essential is contained within the Scriptures. The question is, can one truly find it? Each denomination claims that it can, yet each denomination disagrees with the other. The essential doctrine of the Eucharist has been rejected by most. The essential doctrine of Baptism by many. Forget the sacrament of Reconciliation. These are all doctrines held by that first Church for 2000 years, yet they have been lost or rejected outright. Those who hold the Bible as their sole authority have placed infallible authority in their own interpretations and we have seen the results. Division.

OK, it’s good that we agree on some things

Actually, I am sure we agree on a great many things!

Yes I’m sure we do.

God bless you.

Steve

 

[White_Peony]

youtube.com/watch?v=2aTgxDibFsM

 

[SteveVH]

youtube.com/watch?v=2aTgxDibFsM

All I can say is WOW! I will be showing this video to the teens in my youth group this Sunday evening. Thank you.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Good stuff here I’ll stick around

 

[PastorVW]

I think this site might give you some idea of just how many books could have been in the Bible without a tradition. (earlychristianwritings.com/). Sans Tradition, how do you know what is and is not Bible?

If you have not already do so, take a look at my post on this above.

My answer is that without the witness of early Christians, we would not have had a starting point. If you want to call that tradition, I am OK with that. Let’s consider what the Bishops had to work with:

1. The Books that were universally accepted at that point in time (which was most of the New Testament)
2. Books that had been quoted by the Church Fathers as authoritative
3. Traditional stories as to who had written specific books (the witness of the early Church)

That’s a lot of information to go on. Beginning with universally accepted books that are quoted by the Church Fathers (proving that they believed they were authentic and authoritative), one can use three important questions to test additional Books:

1. The the Fathers quote it? It has been said that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from their writings except for a handful of verses.
2. What is the tradition surrounding this book? When did it show up?
3. Is the doctrine in this book consistent with that in the books we know are inspired and authentic?

As outlined in my previous post, I believe it is an error to conclude that because tradition is a critical witness to the Scriptures, it therefore must be of equal authority.

 

[PastorVW]

As I have said before, I think the truth that is essential is contained within the Scriptures. The question is, can one truly find it? Each denomination claims that it can, yet each denomination disagrees with the other

Steve, my brother, I have faced exactly the same argument from Mormons. The fact that we can regard each other as brothers in Christ is, in itself, proof that there is a core of doctrine that is essential to salvation that we both share.

Each denomination does not disagree with all the others. In fact many agree on all points of doctrine and just have ministry to different groups, or different forms of church government or just are located in different regions. Many form alliances.

Even when Evangelicals do disagree, it does not prevent us form working together for the cause of Christ.

Is there a core of doctrine that one must believe, accept and act upon in order to be a Christian? Clearly, the Catholic Church says “Yes” - as does every Bible based evangelical church. If this were not so, how could we regard each other as brothers in Christ? How could Vatican II call us “separated brethren”?

My point is simple: We probably agree as to what is the core of doctrine is. Catholics get there via the Scriptures and Tradition. Evangelicals get there via the Scriptures only. Is this not proof that these essentials are contained the the New Testament?

I wish I had more time, but every piece of machinery in our lives seems to be breaking (two cars, a computer, cable box, and our dryer) and I need to get busy and fix something while I have help

Before I go, I want to say how much I enjoy this forum, as well as Catholic Answers. May Our Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless all of you!

 

[SteveGC]

Different “Steve” chiming in here, PastorVW, so I apologize for possibly destabilizing your discourse with SteveVH.

The fact that we can regard each other as brothers in Christ is, in itself, proof that there is a core of doctrine that is essential to salvation that we both share.

“brothers in Christ” ideally would signify that we are truly united in belief, practice and worship, and it did…pre-Reformation. The truth, however, is that the post-Reformation utilization of the term merely signifies that we are united in our desire to seek Truth, that is, Christ. I hesitate to use the term “merely”, because I do not wish to downplay the very proper and righteous endeavor to seek Him. But seeking Him and following Him are two different things. The term no longer represents unity among Catholic and non-Catholic Christians, simply because these two groups no longer possess a unity in belief, a unity in what it means to truly follow Him.

My point is simple: We probably agree as to what is the core of doctrine is.

This is actually not true, and is the primary problem.

Catholics get there via the Scriptures and Tradition. Evangelicals get there via the Scriptures only. Is this not proof that these essentials are contained the the New Testament?

No, this is only proof that either Catholics are right about what is essential salvific doctrine, or non-Catholic Christians are right about it. Both cannot be right, because each hold to fundamentally different beliefs about what is required by God.

Before I go, I want to say how much I enjoy this forum, as well as Catholic Answers. May Our Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless all of you!

And you as well.

 

[PastorVW]

Different “Steve” chiming in here, PastorVW, so I apologize for possibly destabilizing your discourse with SteveVH.

No problem!

My point is not that Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on VERY IMPORTANT doctrines. My point is merely this:

1. There are essentials of the Christian Faith that are so critically important that failure to believe and act upon them places one outside the Christian faith as a whole.
2. The Catholic Church, post Vatican II, recognizes this by calling Baptized Protestants separated brothers. At the same time, the Catholic Church recognizes that groups such as the Mormons and the JWs are outside of orthodox (small “o”) Christianity and does not address them as “brothers”
3. Therefore the Catholic Church recognizes that there is a core of Christian belief that must be embraced in order for a person or group to be called “Christian”.
4. Since Protestant Evangelicals base their beliefs concerning salvation exclusively upon the Scriptures, it is evident that the Bible does contain sufficient doctrinal information for a person to become a Christian.

Dialog must always begin - if it is to be successful - by finding points of agreement. IMHO the Catholic Church is to be commended for the change of opinion regarding folks like myself, post Vatican II. Also to be commended are those who had the courage to sign the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) and the “Gift of Salvation” documents. Pope Benedikt XVI is also to be admired for his kind words regarding Luther and Salvation by Faith and his promotion of Bible reading (not new, but still good!). The late John-Paul II also rates high in my book for his willingness to work with Evangelical Protestants (Billy Graham and Campus Crusade in particular) in Poland. He caught a lot of flak for that, but continued to do it because he believed it was the right thing to do.

These folks did ecumenicism the right way - by finding common ground and acknowledging disagreements. That common ground for us is Christ. We are not enemies - WE ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. I will defend that statement in my church, any day, any time and against anyone.

The bottom line for me is always: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

Thanks again for being willing to dialog - I would LOVE to find a Catholic to meet with regularly for prayer, study and dialog. I’m not looking for a situation in which the goal would be for one to convert the other - but a situation in which we could seek to understand the other’s beliefs and join together in areas of agreement.

May Our Lord Bless and Keep You!

 

[Cat_Herder]

My point is simple: We probably agree as to what is the core of doctrine is. Catholics get there via the Scriptures and Tradition. Evangelicals get there via the Scriptures only. Is this not proof that these essentials are contained the the New Testament?

1. Since Protestant Evangelicals base their beliefs concerning salvation exclusively upon the Scriptures, it is evident that the Bible does contain sufficient doctrinal information for a person to become a Christian.

Pastor Vince,

I must respectfully take exception to the notion that Evangelicals (and all Protestants) base their beliefs regarding the core of doctrine on Scripture alone.

The NAE defines an Evangelical as one who holds to “the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus” through obedience to the Bible and that the Evangelical position is that this comes by grace through faith. However, it is evident that children, the mentally infirm, and the like are not capable of faith. Thus, Evangelicalism depends on the concept of an age of reason to complete its soteriology.

The problem is that nowhere in the Bible is there stated to be an age of reason. Instead, the Scriptures are firm that we are conceived in sin (Psalm 51) and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). To insert an asterisk that states that those who have not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior through no fault of their own can nevertheless be saved is seemingly to go against those passages. The Catholic Church holds that their salvation is nevertheless possible, however, she does not hold to sola scriptura. (Neither did the Jews, whose Oral Torah set out the age of reason after which a Jew was responsible for keeping the commandments; this tradition was inherited by Catholicism along with many others like the Communion of Saints and the devotion to Mother Rachel, which was fulfilled in the Blessed Virgin Mary). But Evangelicalism does hold to sola scriptura, and so therein lies the issue.

Another Evangelical tradition not found in Scripture, and seemingly against it, is the use of church buildings. Acts 2:42 states that the Apostles and their disciples held all things in common and sold all other property to feed the poor, and Acts 2:46 identifies their places of worship as being their homes and the Temple in Jerusalem. The latter no longer exists, and thus, the only strictly biblical place of worship is in the home. The commandment to worship at home precludes the establishment of a church building that is not a house of a disciple, and the requirement to sell unnecessary property would require the church building to be sold. And yet, virtually all Evangelical churches own a church building. When I have put this question to Evangelicals, the response is that the building is a necessity, but then again, the use of a non-biblical rationale for establishing the manner of worshiping God is directly against sola scriptura.

For these reasons and many others, I am convinced that there is actually no such thing as sola scriptura. Every church has traditions, and many of them were inherited from the Catholic Church, such as the age of reason and church buildings.

 

[174a]

Pastor Vince,

I must respectfully take exception to the notion that Evangelicals (and all Protestants) base their beliefs regarding the core of doctrine on Scripture alone.

The NAE defines an Evangelical as one who holds to “the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus” through obedience to the Bible and that the Evangelical position is that this comes by grace through faith. However, it is evident that children, the mentally infirm, and the like are not capable of faith. Thus, Evangelicalism depends on the concept of an age of reason to complete its soteriology.

The problem is that nowhere in the Bible is there stated to be an age of reason. Instead, the Scriptures are firm that we are conceived in sin (Psalm 51) and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). To insert an asterisk that states that those who have not yet accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior through no fault of their own can nevertheless be saved is seemingly to go against those passages. The Catholic Church holds that their salvation is nevertheless possible, however, she does not hold to sola scriptura. (Neither did the Jews, whose Oral Torah set out the age of reason after which a Jew was responsible for keeping the commandments; this tradition was inherited by Catholicism along with many others like the Communion of Saints and the devotion to Mother Rachel, which was fulfilled in the Blessed Virgin Mary). But Evangelicalism does hold to sola scriptura, and so therein lies the issue.

Another Evangelical tradition not found in Scripture, and seemingly against it, is the use of church buildings. Acts 2:42 states that the Apostles and their disciples held all things in common and sold all other property to feed the poor, and Acts 2:46 identifies their places of worship as being their homes and the Temple in Jerusalem. The latter no longer exists, and thus, the only strictly biblical place of worship is in the home. The commandment to worship at home precludes the establishment of a church building that is not a house of a disciple, and the requirement to sell unnecessary property would require the church building to be sold. And yet, virtually all Evangelical churches own a church building. When I have put this question to Evangelicals, the response is that the building is a necessity, but then again, the use of a non-biblical rationale for establishing the manner of worshiping God is directly against sola scriptura.

For these reasons and many others, I am convinced that there is actually no such thing as sola scriptura. Every church has traditions, and many of them were inherited from the Catholic Church, such as the age of reason and church buildings.

If I may, the Bible tells us it is sin that separates us from God, and I have yet to meet a baby who lies, steals, murders, commits adultery and rape etc. These things come later, certainly when we reach the age of reason. If they are able to understand right from wrong then they are capable of a simple faith and it was Jesus who said to let the little children come to him.

.

 

[Cat_Herder]

If I may, the Bible tells us it is sin that separates us from God, and I have yet to meet a baby who lies, steals, murders, commits adultery and rape etc. These things come later, certainly when we reach the age of reason. If they are able to understand right from wrong then they are capable of a simple faith and it was Jesus who said to let the little children come to him.

.

I think you missed the citation to the Scriptures referencing original sin.

[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 50:4-8[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 3:23[/BIBLEDRB]

Also, as I said, there is no age of reason in the Bible.

 

[174a]

I think you missed the citation to the Scriptures referencing original sin.

[bibledrb]Psalm 50:4-6[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Romans 3:23[/bibledrb]

Yes, all have sinned is very true, and if we are capable of sinning then I suggest we are capable of repenting.

.

 

[Miriam1947]

No problem!

My point is not that Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on VERY IMPORTANT doctrines. My point is merely this:

1. There are essentials of the Christian Faith that are so critically important that failure to believe and act upon them places one outside the Christian faith as a whole.
2. The Catholic Church, post Vatican II, recognizes this by calling Baptized Protestants separated brothers. At the same time, the Catholic Church recognizes that groups such as the Mormons and the JWs are outside of orthodox (small “o”) Christianity and does not address them as “brothers”
3. Therefore the Catholic Church recognizes that there is a core of Christian belief that must be embraced in order for a person or group to be called “Christian”.
4. Since Protestant Evangelicals base their beliefs concerning salvation exclusively upon the Scriptures, it is evident that the Bible does contain sufficient doctrinal information for a person to become a Christian.

Dialog must always begin - if it is to be successful - by finding points of agreement. IMHO the Catholic Church is to be commended for the change of opinion regarding folks like myself, post Vatican II. Also to be commended are those who had the courage to sign the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) and the “Gift of Salvation” documents. Pope Benedikt XVI is also to be admired for his kind words regarding Luther and Salvation by Faith and his promotion of Bible reading (not new, but still good!). The late John-Paul II also rates high in my book for his willingness to work with Evangelical Protestants (Billy Graham and Campus Crusade in particular) in Poland. He caught a lot of flak for that, but continued to do it because he believed it was the right thing to do.

These folks did ecumenicism the right way - by finding common ground and acknowledging disagreements. That common ground for us is Christ. We are not enemies - WE ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. I will defend that statement in my church, any day, any time and against anyone.

The bottom line for me is always: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

Thanks again for being willing to dialog - I would LOVE to find a Catholic to meet with regularly for prayer, study and dialog. I’m not looking for a situation in which the goal would be for one to convert the other - but a situation in which we could seek to understand the other’s beliefs and join together in areas of agreement.

May Our Lord Bless and Keep You!

There is a great DVD called: Common Ground, What Catholics and Protestants Can Learn From Each Other. A priest and an Evangelical pastor discuss the differences between us. They have a wonderful open and kind relationship and have each spoken at the other’s church.

ninevehscrossing.com/CommonGround/CGOrder.php

Quite the eye opener. One of the points the priest makes is that if a Protestant wants to leave their church for any other church why that is just fine but, if they are becoming Catholic that is a whole other story.

A really enlightening video. I have watched this several times.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, my brother, I have faced exactly the same argument from Mormons. The fact that we can regard each other as brothers in Christ is, in itself, proof that there is a core of doctrine that is essential to salvation that we both share.

Each denomination does not disagree with all the others. In fact many agree on all points of doctrine and just have ministry to different groups, or different forms of church government or just are located in different regions. Many form alliances.

Even when Evangelicals do disagree, it does not prevent us form working together for the cause of Christ.

Is there a core of doctrine that one must believe, accept and act upon in order to be a Christian? Clearly, the Catholic Church says “Yes” - as does every Bible based evangelical church. If this were not so, how could we regard each other as brothers in Christ? How could Vatican II call us “separated brethren”?

My point is simple: We probably agree as to what is the core of doctrine is. Catholics get there via the Scriptures and Tradition. Evangelicals get there via the Scriptures only. Is this not proof that these essentials are contained the the New Testament?

I wish I had more time, but every piece of machinery in our lives seems to be breaking (two cars, a computer, cable box, and our dryer) and I need to get busy and fix something while I have help

Before I go, I want to say how much I enjoy this forum, as well as Catholic Answers. May Our Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless all of you!

Thanks for your response, Pastor. So, if I may ask, what is this “core doctrine” which unites all Christians. And if there is a “core doctrine” that is the only thing essential in being a Christian, then why isn’t the New Testament 1 or 2 pages long?

My point is that there are truths that are essential to believe that have been rejected by most outside of the Catholic Church. “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you will have no life in you.” That sounds pretty essential, but most Protestant denominations reject this. Yes, we can all say that we believe in God. We can all say that we believe that God sent his only Son to save us from our sins and that we must believe in Him in order to be saved. But is that enough? Some say it is. And then we hear that we must be born of water and the Spirit through Baptism. Yet some say this is only an “ordinance” and that Baptism is not necessary for slavation. Those that do believe it is necessary disagree on exactly what effect it has on the soul.

I’m sorry, but I just cannot buy the notion that the division is due to just ministering to different groups, or different forms of church government or the location in different regions. The Catholic Church is located all over the world and has been for centuries, but we are united in our doctrine, practices and beliefs. The division is due to personal opinion as to what is essential based upon personal interpretation of the Scriptures. The fact that when it al shakes out there may be some common ground here and there is not enough.

Yes, the Catholic Church calls most Protestant denominations our “seperated bretheren”. We say this because we believe in the mercy of God and also believe that if they knew the truth of the Church that they would accept it.

So, what is essential, Pastor? And who determines what is essential? You? Me? The next person that knocks on our door? And by what authority do we proclaim that only this is essential and that isn’t?

Thanks and God bless. Hope you get everything fixed. One thing we certainly have in common is that we all have days like that.

Steve

 

[SteveGC]

LOL. Seems like you’ve got a double-vision of “Steves” here to “contend” with I’ll gracefully bow out of this if it becomes confusing for you, because I think the other Steve and I will basically discuss things from a similar light anyway.

No problem!

My point is not that Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on VERY IMPORTANT doctrines. My point is merely this:

1. There are essentials of the Christian Faith that are so critically important that failure to believe and act upon them places one outside the Christian faith as a whole.
2. The Catholic Church, post Vatican II, recognizes this by calling Baptized Protestants separated brothers. At the same time, the Catholic Church recognizes that groups such as the Mormons and the JWs are outside of orthodox (small “o”) Christianity and does not address them as “brothers”
3. Therefore the Catholic Church recognizes that there is a core of Christian belief that must be embraced in order for a person or group to be called “Christian”.
4. Since Protestant Evangelicals base their beliefs concerning salvation exclusively upon the Scriptures, it is evident that the Bible does contain sufficient doctrinal information for a person to become a Christian.

Dialog must always begin - if it is to be successful - by finding points of agreement. IMHO the Catholic Church is to be commended for the change of opinion regarding folks like myself, post Vatican II. Also to be commended are those who had the courage to sign the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) and the “Gift of Salvation” documents. Pope Benedikt XVI is also to be admired for his kind words regarding Luther and Salvation by Faith and his promotion of Bible reading (not new, but still good!). The late John-Paul II also rates high in my book for his willingness to work with Evangelical Protestants (Billy Graham and Campus Crusade in particular) in Poland. He caught a lot of flak for that, but continued to do it because he believed it was the right thing to do.

These folks did ecumenicism the right way - by finding common ground and acknowledging disagreements. That common ground for us is Christ. We are not enemies - WE ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS. I will defend that statement in my church, any day, any time and against anyone.

The bottom line for me is always: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

Thanks again for being willing to dialog - I would LOVE to find a Catholic to meet with regularly for prayer, study and dialog. I’m not looking for a situation in which the goal would be for one to convert the other - but a situation in which we could seek to understand the other’s beliefs and join together in areas of agreement.

May Our Lord Bless and Keep You!

Thanks for that response. I suppose my point is that, it is one thing (a very noteworthy and important thing) for us to all have the capability to call one another Christians, and even brothers and sisters in Christ. But we must be careful not to assume, or derive from this capability, that this signifies a unity in belief in salvific doctrine, for this is an entirely different thing. It seems you agree with me on this point, although I’m not entirely sure.

And the more prevalent point of all this is the fact that sola scriptura is at the very heart of this division of essential salvific doctrine, and this is no trivial matter. It is absolutely critical, for souls are at stake. At the end of the day, ecumenism much reach through all the necessary charity, all the hand-shakes, all the niceties, all the accommodations…and grasp firmly the division, that which makes it NOT OKAY for us to rest in our differences, and speak boldly about what those differences are, and why those differences potentially put eternal lives at risk.

In other words, PastorVW, simply being able to call you my brother in Christ merely allows us to come together peacefully in discourse, in commonality of our spiritual ambitions, and in recognition of the One Who makes our charity and peace possible, to discuss very serious matters about what it truly means to be unified in belief and practice, to truly follow Him and BE Christian, as opposed to being LABELED as Christian. For I would assume you would agree that salvation does not come from that label, no matter who allows it to be attributed to another.