"major on the majors minor on the minors" Protestants

[Adamski]

A common idea I hear from all my protestant friends is
“we are all basically the same we major on the majors and minor on the minors”

I have asked where is that in the bible I haven’t got an answer yet. Does anyone know where this concept comes from? Or do protestants have any scripture to back it up?

 

[laircy]

What does that even mean?

 

[Pulvis]

Depending on the denomination, the reasons given for why ‘they’ are right and we are wrong are legion. (no pun intended) When i discuss(not argue) with protestants the separation of the Body of Christ i point to Our Lords own words, in the Gospel of Saint John, Ch. 17:
“11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are.”

We are to be one Body. The Western Schism, The reformation, Henry the 8th and others broke that union. What we now have is a fractured Body that needs to be re-joined. They need the Entire Faith, and we need the Body of Christ Whole.

When discussing with Protestants the separation, ignore the reasoning of why they are allowed to be separate, and focus on what Our Lord taught. And on the teaching of The Holy Fathers and the Church.

 

[Adamski]

Here is a list of pastors I have heard it directly from
Mars hill Seattle
Christian missionary alliance
Evangellical covedent churches

What they mean is
A Protestant will say
“we are all Christians as long as we agree on the essential things such as the virgin birth, trinity and so on”.
But I always ask who decides what is a major and what is a minor"
They resond “the bible”.
I’ll say “well what about gay marriage and abortion the Episcapalians chapion that”
They will say “well there not Christians”
I’ll say ok what about remarriage and birth control"
They will “that’s not essential”

That’s how it always goes I’ve talked to three pastors

 

[Ad_Orientem]

“Major in the majors, minor in the minors” is a good principle. Our Lord talked about straining out gnats and swallowing camels (Mt. 23:24). I think it’s the same idea.

Imagine if someone who regarded the Ten Commandments as optional, wrote a four-page letter to their bishop because their priest’s cassock was more than two inches above the ground. This would be minoring in the majors, and majoring in the minors.

As you point out, Adamski, when it comes to doctrine we need a living, visible Church to tell us definitively what the majors are and what are the minors. To some extent it is self-evident (as in the example above), but when it comes to fine points of doctrine, it’s not something a layman can just know by reading the Bible.

 

[bzkoss236]

What does that even mean?

Per my understanding of Protestant culture, this is the idea that the “minor” doctrines don’t matter. These “minor” doctrines are the things that separate the different denominations and the Catholic Church. So, if two denominations disagree with the Real Presence for instance, this would be considered one of the “minor” doctrines that “don’t matter”, for those that abide by the idea that is.

 

[TK421]

It’s a contemporary version of a much older statement by Augustine that went “on essential things, unity. On doubtful things, liberty. In all things, charity”.

It’s applied differently within protestant sects however, as there is no authoritative basis to decide essential from doubtful in the first place. I think most protestants want a unified front, love the sentiment of it, and try to avoid railing on each other too much, but there is still inevitable division.

 

[JRKH]

Here is a list of pastors I have heard it directly from
Mars hill Seattle
Christian missionary alliance
Evangellical covedent churches

What they mean is
A Protestant will say
"we are all Christians as long as we agree on the essential things such as the virgin birth, trinity and so on".

Yep…it’s just a restatement of the old “we agree on the essentials” which I believe goes back to Augustine and the adage, “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity”.

But I always ask who decides what is a major and what is a minor"
They respond “the bible”.

Good question from you and logical reply from them

I’ll say “well what about gay marriage and abortion the Episcapalians chapion that”
They will say “well there not Christians”
I’ll say ok what about remarriage and birth control"
They will “that’s not essential”

If you don’t mind my saying…I think you get off track here.
Instead of focusing the discussion on the who gets to decide… the discussion gets sidetracked to the opinions of these pastors on what is essential.

I would suggest a somewhat different approach.
Ask each for a list of “essentials” - things that ALL protestants agree require agreement.
I would be surprised if they all come up with the exact same list, but even if they do…you can still point out that other denominations will have differing ideas on what is essential.
As an example you can point out that some Protestant groups (Anglican and Lutheran) believe in the Real presence in the bread and wine while other groups firmly reject the idea of the real presence and insist that it is only symbolic.
Yet Christ, in John Chapter 6, says that if we don’t eat His body and drink His blood we have no life in us and Paul says to the Corinthians that those who eat and drink without properly discerning the body and blood eat and drink judgement on themselves.
This makes the matter of the real presence one of importance to salvation - would they agree with this?

Then you can point out that (as others have said) that Jesus called for unity…and you can use Scripture alone to show them that when there is doctrinal disagreement on matters of importance - Christ has given authority to The Church to settle the matters.
See Mt 18:15-18 for instructions (and point out that spreading a false doctrine is a sin) - and then go to Acts 15 to see these instructions in action at Antioch and Jerusalem.

You can point out that in Mt 18 we hear Jesus grant the Church authority to bind and loose whatever…

So - when they answer your question about the essentials with “The Bible”…you can take the bible and show them how it teaches that it is “The Church” which has authority to bind and loose because it is the pillar and foundation (1 Tim 3:15) and it is the Church God uses to manifest His wisdom (Eph 3:8-12)

That should get the conversation going in a new direction…

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=bzkoss236;10973978]Per my understanding of Protestant culture, this is the idea that the “minor” doctrines don’t matter.

Please define what “Protestant culture” means. I am a life-long Lutheran and have never heard the term before.

These “minor” doctrines are the things that separate the different denominations and the Catholic Church. So, if two denominations disagree with the Real Presence for instance, this would be considered one of the “minor” doctrines that “don’t matter”, for those that abide by the idea that is.

If there is anything, anything that is essential, it is word and sacrament. And in the Sacrament of the Altar, Christ’s words ring clear: This is my body..
As Luther is reported to have responded, “Ist ist ist.” Is is is.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

Please define what “Protestant culture” means. I am a life-long Lutheran and have never heard the term before.

That’s the problem - isn’t it Jon…How does one define "protestant culture’?

If there is anything, anything that is essential, it is word and sacrament. And in the Sacrament of the Altar, Christ’s words ring clear: This is my body..
As Luther is reported to have responded, “Ist ist ist.” Is is is.

And yet there are protestants communities who declare that this is not so…“Nicht, Nicht, Nicht”…not not not…and they back up their claims by referring to the “bible alone”…
Some of these groups even say that those who believe in the real presence are guilty of idolatry.

Based on this - I would suggest that at least part of the “protestant culture” would be the rejection of an overall authority to resolve such disagreements on fundamentals.
This rejection is seen from the very beginning of the reformation…
The Bible shows the Church coming together in council to resolve an important matter (Acts 15). Catholic Church history shows such councils happening repeatedly over the centuries.
I know of no such (successful) council among the protestant fathers or indeed in any of the five centuries since. At least none have ever been called to my attention.
Instead we see each protestant father going off in his own direction and each succeeding generation building on that model…Each going in their own direction…

Of course as always - I’m expressing myself in grossly general terms - individual mileage will vary…

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;10975183]That’s the problem - isn’t it Jon…How does one define "protestant culture’?

One of the things I have come to understand in my time here at CAF, based on the descriptions of “Protestant” by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is how unprotestant Lutheranism really seems to be, and how accurate the term “evangelical catholic” really is.

And yet there are protestants communities who declare that this is not so…“Nicht, Nicht, Nicht”…not not not…and they back up their claims by referring to the “bible alone”…
Some of these groups even say that those who believe in the real presence are guilty of idolatry.

How faulty that misuse of sola scriptura really is! By failing to reference the early Church, the ECFs the way the Lutheran reformers did, they miss an important resource we have for understanding scripture.

Based on this - I would suggest that at least part of the “protestant culture” would be the rejection of an overall authority to resolve such disagreements on fundamentals.
This rejection is seen from the very beginning of the reformation…
The Bible shows the Church coming together in council to resolve an important matter (Acts 15). Catholic Church history shows such councils happening repeatedly over the centuries.
I know of no such (successful) council among the protestant fathers or indeed in any of the five centuries since. At least none have ever been called to my attention.
Instead we see each protestant father going off in his own direction and each succeeding generation building on that model…Each going in their own direction…

Well, I would point to the Formula of Concord in this way for Lutherans, but then even the historic undivided Church being divided by differing opinions of even what the councils taught.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

Please define what “Protestant culture” means. I am a life-long Lutheran and have never heard the term before.

Jon

I used to hear it occasionally as a fundie years ago. It’s one of those catchphrases that sounds real good, but makes no sense the more you think about it.
Another catchphrase I remember preachers saying a lot was “Are you so Heavenly minded you’re no earthly good?” Or maybe it was the other way around.

 

[JRKH]

One of the things I have come to understand in my time here at CAF, based on the descriptions of “Protestant” by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, is how unprotestant Lutheranism really seems to be, and how accurate the term “evangelical catholic” really is.

Amen -
Hopefully someday we will be reunited.

How faulty that misuse of sola scriptura really is! By failing to reference the early Church, the ECFs the way the Lutheran reformers did, they miss an important resource we have for understanding scripture.

But how is this a faulty misuse of “Bible Alone”…Just because Luther and one idea on what “bible alone” meant and how it should be implemented…once the universal authority of the Church was rejected by Lutherans…why should anyone feel bound by the Lutherans view of what “Bible Alone” means?

Well, I would point to the Formula of Concord in this way for Lutherans, but then even the historic undivided Church being divided by differing opinions of even what the councils taught.

Jon

Yes things do get messy…

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;10975601]Amen -

Hopefully someday we will be reunited.

Pray for the day.

But how is this a faulty misuse of “Bible Alone”…Just because Luther and one idea on what “bible alone” meant and how it should be implemented…once the universal authority of the Church was rejected by Lutherans…why should anyone feel bound by the Lutherans view of what “Bible Alone” means?

If Luther and the Lutheran reformers are the recipients of the blame/credit for the practice, then it seems how they used the practice ought to be considered the default usage.
I would contend that the Lutheran reformers did not reject the authority of the Church, but instead sought to reform that authority to what the early Church recognized, but that’s for another thread. Additionally, one could ask the same question as to why anyone should be bound to the interpretation of Scared Tradition by one patriarch when the others are in unity in opposition to that interpretation.

Yes things do get messy…

Indeed.
Jon

 

[JRKH]

=JRKH;10975601]
If Luther and the Lutheran reformers are the recipients of the blame/credit for the practice, then it seems how they used the practice ought to be considered the default usage.

I agree with this…but there are others who do not. In the view of other protestants, since only the Bible is infallible - Luther could easily have been wrong on some things and right on others. So Luther’s idea of "Bible Alone could easily be seen as right while how he implemented it could be seen as wrong…
After all wasn’t that something of the crux of Luther’s dispute with Rome? That Rome had some things right and some things wrong? So if Luther could get away with saying Rome was partly right and partly wrong…surely other reformers could say that Luther got part of it right and part of it wrong…
See the problem??

I would contend that the Lutheran reformers did not reject the authority of the Church, but instead sought to reform that authority to what the early Church recognized, but that’s for another thread.

Agreed - we don’t want to get too far off topic here.
Suffice it to say that Luther did try to do this…but then refused to “Listen to the Church” (Mt 18:17) when he was told by the Church (who’s authority you say he did not reject) that he was wrong.
So - Luther rejects the Church’s ruling on the matter - and then, based on Luther’s own actions, others reject Luther’s take on things. This starts the dominoes falling with the result that today there is a wide and varied “protestant culture” all based on two basic principles - neither of which can be found in Scripture.
First is Bible alone…and second is the rejection of a universal ekklesial authority.

I know that this is not really “Lutheran” - but there it is…

Additionally, one could ask the same question as to why anyone should be bound to the interpretation of Scared Tradition by one patriarch when the others are in unity in opposition to that interpretation.

And yet a good topic for yet ANOTHER thread…:shrug:

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;10975680]I agree with this…but there are others who do not. In the view of other protestants, since only the Bible is infallible - Luther could easily have been wrong on some things and right on others. So Luther’s idea of "Bible Alone could easily be seen as right while how he implemented it could be seen as wrong…
After all wasn’t that something of the crux of Luther’s dispute with Rome? That Rome had some things right and some things wrong? So if Luther could get away with saying Rome was partly right and partly wrong…surely other reformers could say that Luther got part of it right and part of it wrong…
See the problem??

Well, it isn’t a problem me, or you. It is a problem for them. And related to the thread, it again points out how unprotestant we are, and how wrong many of them are about the nature and importance of the sacraments.

Agreed - we don’t want to get too far off topic here.
Suffice it to say that Luther did try to do this…but then refused to “Listen to the Church” (Mt 18:17) when he was told by the Church (who’s authority you say he did not reject) that he was wrong.
So - Luther rejects the Church’s ruling on the matter - and then, based on Luther’s own actions, others reject Luther’s take on things. This starts the dominoes falling with the result that today there is a wide and varied “protestant culture” all based on two basic principles - neither of which can be found in Scripture.
First is Bible alone…and second is the rejection of a universal ekklesial authority.

Well, again, I wouldn’t say it is as simple as this, but I think the interesting thing about the thread, and relatedly, our discussion, is that for us, Catholics and Lutherans, doctrine is important. It was important for Ecke and Cajetan, and for Luther. It remains so important to confessional Lutherans that this notion of essentials/non essentials always brings a response from me.

Jon

 

[rcwitness]

I was in a bible study guided by a study series from pastor Mark Driscol from Mars Hill. All friends were non Catholic and the study was good. I shared my Catholic disagreements but like always i do try to keep the “majors” or essentials as the foundation in fellowship.

It gets difficult regarding certain things. Driscoll is Calvinist. He likes to define the term “religion” as negative in its essence. He likes to accuse all our efforts to serve God as useless…“we dont need to try harder” was the way he put it. Its a “WE are filthy rags” as opposed to "our WORKS are filthy rags view. He likened the real presence to canibolism and said the communion bread is to help us remember Jesus’ sacrifice. I dont know how bread without any grace can help us remember anything.

 

[rcwitness]

CCC 838
“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entiretyor have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain , although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

The basic gospel is the foundation that we have in common.

That God became man, Jesus of Nazereth, of the Virgin, fulfilled a perfect life free of sin, suffered died and rose again in order to reconcile the world of sin to God the father. Those who believe are baptized in the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

 

[rcwitness]

Sorry to jump in on a good conversation you were having. Carry on, i was not in step w/ you guys

 

[JRKH]

Well, it isn’t a problem me, or you. It is a problem for them. And related to the thread, it again points out how unprotestant we are, and how wrong many of them are about the nature and importance of the sacraments.

Well, again, I wouldn’t say it is as simple as this, but I think the interesting thing about the thread, and relatedly, our discussion, is that for us, Catholics and Lutherans, doctrine is important. It was important for Ecke and Cajetan, and for Luther. It remains so important to confessional Lutherans that this notion of essentials/non essentials always brings a response from me.

Jon

Jon as always your comments are good and on point. I agree that I am oversimplifying but I think that it really does get at the fundamental point of what the “protestant culture” is at it’s core and and why it is like that - even for the confessional Lutheran.

The Catholic Church seeks to use the biblical model of councils to resolve matters and to grow unity. The councilior model is one that builds consensus and the best expression of God’s Truth (even if not total understanding and agreement among members).
The “protestant model” of bible alone and (arg) private interpretation with it’s consequent rejection of universal ekklesial authority heads in the other direction.

Luther had no idea what he was unleashing…

Peace
James