Problems with Protestantism

[2nd_Adam]

My experience, and being part of Protestantism myself not long ago, is that most modern Protestants don’t even fully know the original 5 solas, but in practice, they follow most of them…and if asked directly about them with their official defintions, would subscribe to most of them. Not all, but most.

Breaking them down…

Sola Scriptura is definitely accepted all modern Protestant circles that I’m aware of. This is the pivotal Sola, as the rejection of the Church is what Protestantism IS, and Scripture HAD to fill the void by default. Somehow convince them this is erroneous, and Protestantism as we know it crumbles. I pray for that day, frankly.

Sola Fide is a gray area. There are many modern communities who do recognize that post-profession-of-faith obedience and contrite repentance are a necessity for salvation, and therefore do not hold to the original reformist notion. Not all, and certainly not most that I encounter here on CAF…but on the whole I think there are many who do not subscribe to Faith Alone. Most who do subscribe to it don’t diminish good works, but the claim is that the works automatically flow from the “true” faith. It eradicates free will IMO, and the necessary synergism to effect our ultimate salvation. I think there’s a chance we can find considerable common ground on this Sola. Cooperation with grace is not as “believer-does-the-good-work-all-on-his-own-accord” as Protestants think Catholics believe. Likewise, it’s not as “God-does-absolutely-everything-for-the-believer” as Catholics think Protestants believe.

Sola Gracia. This one comes down to a misunderstanding of the source vs. the effect of salvation. The Church has always professed Grace alone is the source of salvific power (although the Reformers erroneously thought that the Church taught that it is our works-alone that serves as that source). Certainly I believe most modern Protestant groups hold to the original intent of this Sola. This is probably one of the most reconcilable arguments between the two camps. As soon as we can all settle down and realize that we both agree that Grace alone is the source which empowers our salvation, we can build a good bridge there. The difference lies in the effect, or application, of that Gracious source, in the life of a believer. This goes back to Sola Fide, and the issues with that.

I think most Protestants fully adhere to Solo Christo. Of course, that Christ is the one true mediator to the Father, is universally accepted by modern Protestantism, and of course also by the Catholic Church (who was the original professor of that truth). But, although many evangelical Protestants don’t recognize the concept of sacraments at all, most Protestant camps that still recognize and administer sacraments reject the notion of Holy Orders and authentic ordination necessary to effect most of those sacraments. Therefore, on the whole, the orignal “solo Christo” is alive and well today.

Finally, Soli Deo gloria is also alive and well today, as most Protestants certainly believe all Glory to God alone. And, most Protestants I know still erroneously think that the Church glorifies Saints, Popes and higher clergy to the same level as the Glory due to God. Of course, the Church teaches Glory to God alone, and veneration to the saints - quite a radical difference. So, an unfortunate misunderstanding that led to this Sola.

So, where does that leave us? For the most part, the original Solas are still with modern Protestants, with a few exceptions here and there. As you can see, some issues face difficult reconciliation, but other issues just need civil discussion and recognition of historical misconceptions.

Blessings.

Thanks again for the wonderful post. I truly believe in the invisible church only known by God which will be quite a mix of Christians from various visible communities. At least we can agree in grace alone by the merit of Christ. I dare not post faith alone on this site… it would be waving a red flag in front of angry roman bulls.

 

[SteveGC]

Thanks again for the wonderful post. I truly believe in the invisible church only known by God which will be quite a mix of Christians from various visible communities. At least we can agree in grace alone by the merit of Christ. I dare not post faith alone on this site… it would be waving a red flag in front of angry roman bulls.

LOL. Yeah, we might pounce on that if you threw it to us…but we know it’s a common belief of Protestants…and we’re not angry bulls. Well, most of us aren’t.

I believe the Church is necessarily visible and invisible. I can’t imagine Christ going to quite significant lengths to declare through the apostles, through Sacred Scripture and Tradition, that He would build a Church that would be invisible. It not only downplays the declaration itself, but it really doesn’t stand to logic that Christ would not want His Church to be physically recognizable throughout all the world in His physical absence. Indeed, that is the very reason I believe the Church needed to be quite visible. Christ obviously knew of His impending departure, and knew that His flock needed to be shepherded by an earthly representative(s). Clearly, the Church of the NT was quite visible, atleast in the sense that all came to know of the apostolic community at its helm. Why would we presume, 2000 years removed from that era, that the need for the visibility of the Church would vanish? Especially in light of all the many references to handed down faith and teaching, and the ordination (laying on of hands) of so many disciples in the faith - given authority to teach. Add to that the vast writings of the ECFs, and the understanding that a planted acorn will still be the essence of itself years later, but have the outward appearance of a giant oak tree…and the Catholic Church is indeed very hard to deny that it is the maturation of the Church Christ built.

Clearly it is also invisible, though. For only God knows the heart of men, and being enjoined directly to the visible Church is not necessarily a guarantee of anything, and the Spirit speaks to all men, in all places, in all times. Of course, I believe the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christ and where He desires us all to be, but…

That’s a soap box you didn’t ask for…sorry. I’m very outspoken when it comes to that, though.

Blessings.

 

[2nd_Adam]

LOL. Yeah, we might pounce on that if you threw it to us…but we know it’s a common belief of Protestants…and we’re not angry bulls. Well, most of us aren’t.

I believe the Church is necessarily visible and invisible. I can’t imagine Christ going to quite significant lengths to declare through the apostles, through Sacred Scripture and Tradition, that He would build a Church that would be invisible. It not only downplays the declaration itself, but it really doesn’t stand to logic that Christ would not want His Church to be physically recognizable throughout all the world in His physical absence. Indeed, that is the very reason I believe the Church needed to be quite visible. Christ obviously knew of His impending departure, and knew that His flock needed to be shepherded by an earthly representative(s). Clearly, the Church of the NT was quite visible, atleast in the sense that all came to know of the apostolic community at its helm. Why would we presume, 2000 years removed from that era, that the need for the visibility of the Church would vanish? Especially in light of all the many references to handed down faith and teaching, and the ordination (laying on of hands) of so many disciples in the faith - given authority to teach. Add to that the vast writings of the ECFs, and the understanding that a planted acorn will still be the essence of itself years later, but have the outward appearance of a giant oak tree…and the Catholic Church is indeed very hard to deny that it is the maturation of the Church Christ built.

Clearly it is also invisible, though. For only God knows the heart of men, and being enjoined directly to the visible Church is not necessarily a guarantee of anything, and the Spirit speaks to all men, in all places, in all times. Of course, I believe the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christ and where He desires us all to be, but…

That’s a soap box you didn’t ask for…sorry. I’m very outspoken when it comes to that, though.

Blessings.

As I have posted before, Protestantism needs to return to a higher view of the visible church. I have been guilty of individualism and lone ranger Christianity… which is encouraged in many Protestant churches without realizing it. God ordained the visible church as providing His means of grace to His children… through the proclamation of the gospel, ministry of the Word, and the sacraments as an important means of grace. Do I believe the sacraments are infused grace, sure! I also truly believe that salvation is a process and understand the importance of the creeds and confessions are to Christians. In becoming Catholic, I’m not sure I would able to buy into Apostolic Succession on this side of glory. I also can only see a forensic justification in the Scriptures too. Otherwise, I have grown to realize that I have true siblings in the Catholic Church. However, I believe all churches and Christian communities are always a mix of sheep and goats. Keep the fellowship going… I do appreciate your postings greatly.

 

[SteveGC]

Keep the fellowship going… I do appreciate your postings greatly.

As I do yours. Thanks. Any time you’d like to discuss things…

Perhaps soon we can discuss apostolic succession in more detail?

 

[2nd_Adam]

As I do yours. Thanks. Any time you’d like to discuss things…

Perhaps soon we can discuss apostolic succession in more detail?

Your brotherly friendship inspired me to start a new thread. I hope you join me on it as an example to all on this site.

 

[AdrianP]

Copy paste:
“If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606. If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.
If you are ORTHODOX Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true “one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to the young people of the new millennium.”

 

[AdrianP]

Right to remarry is in Orthodox Church under certain conditions as I think it was in Early Church .

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for the post and conversation. I got that term by reading the book called “Christless Christianity”, an honest assessment of the American Church which has been caught up with the philosophies of this world. It seems a drift away from Christ has affected the conservative and liberal churches in America alike. I always discerned this over the years, but the book clarified my thoughts.

amazon.com/Christless-Christianity-Alternative-Gospel-American/dp/0801013186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252010867&sr=8-1

Christ and Him crucified is not really preached, practiced, or central in many American churches.

Does it seem plausible that any Church is without fault in that respect ? It’s safe to say, people being as they are, that worldliness is not unknown to any.​

Maybe you can look at the Amazon link to get an overview of the book, but I don’t expect you to buy it since it was written by Michael Horton from Westminster Seminary.

Don’t US Christians of different Churches read one another ?​

 

[Anna_Scott]

I acknowledge that there are problems with many modern day American churches which could have Protestant roots. However, not of all these churches are rooted in the Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life).

Some American Churches actually practice a form of Christless Christianity. Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism simply a return to the Catholic Church? Maybe some of the same problems found in many modern American churches are the same problems found in the Catholic Church… for there is diversity in the various Catholic churches too. I like to hear your thoughts as Christians (Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Anglican, etc).

2nd Adam: Interesting topic.

I agree that not all current Protestant Churches adhere fully to certain doctrines of Protestant Reformers.

However, the writings of the many “Reformers” is a vast subject.

1. Can you narrow this down a bit and clarify the specific doctrines that you believe have been abandoned by some of the current Protestant Churches?
2. Which Protestant Churches/Denominations would you say are practicing “Christless Christianity?”
3. Regarding “Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life);” Could you be more specific and tell us if you accept all the writings of Certain Reformers, such as Calvin and Luther, or only parts of their doctrines?

Regarding, “Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism simply a return to the Catholic Church?” This is a great question and a difficult one to answer.

In other Threads, you have said that my beliefs are more “Catholic” than “Protestant,” though you did not specify which of my beliefs you think are so “Catholic.”

I do know that there are serious disagreements throughout the Protestant Sector; and this is very disturbing to me.

I have found that, even though much of the Protestant Sector claims Sola Scriptura; some Protestant doctrines are not supported by Scripture. I no longer accept Sola Scriptura for many reasons.

I have, also, found that some Protestants base much of their doctrine on the “tradition” established in the writings of the Protestant Reformers. If Protestants are to adhere to “Scripture alone,” we would not need doctrines worked out for us by anyone.

“Tradition” is “tradition,” whether it is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the writings of the Protestant Reformers.

I keep reading the Bible and studying the history of Judaism and Christianity; and continue to pray for God’s Truth. I disagree with some major Catholic doctrines, but I cannot say whether or not my prayers will lead me to the Catholic Church.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Copy paste:
“If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to re-marry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England, founded by Samuel Senbury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606. If you are of the Dutch Reformed Church, you recognize Michelis Jones as founder because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, New York, in 1829. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” or “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past hundred years.
If you are ORTHODOX Christian, your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It has not changed since that time. Our church is now almost 2,000 years old. And it is for this reason, that Orthodoxy, the Church of the Apostles and the Fathers is considered the true “one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” This is the greatest legacy that we can pass on to the young people of the new millennium.”

**AdrianP: **Very interesting Post. Much food for thought."

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam: Interesting topic.

I agree that not all current Protestant Churches adhere fully to certain doctrines of Protestant Reformers.

However, the writings of the many “Reformers” is a vast subject.

1. Can you narrow this down a bit and clarify the specific doctrines that you believe have been abandoned by some of the current Protestant Churches?

All churches can practice a form of a Christless Christianity in degrees. This is the call of repentance: reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/cambridge.html

1. Which Protestant Churches/Denominations would you say are practicing “Christless Christianity?”

See answer to 1.

1. Regarding “Protestant Reformation (doctrine and life);” Could you be more specific and tell us if you accept all the writings of Certain Reformers, such as Calvin and Luther, or only parts of their doctrines?

Calvin and Luther knew in part and believed things that are not true, just like all Christians in redemptive history. Scripture is the final source of authority.

Regarding, “Is the answer to these problems in contemporary Protestantism simply a return to the Catholic Church?” This is a great question and a difficult one to answer.

See answer 1.

In other Threads, you have said that my beliefs are more “Catholic” than “Protestant,” though you did not specify which of my beliefs you think are so “Catholic.”

Catholic in the sense of man’s role in salvation (synergistic justification, semi-Pelagism, Arminianism in contrast to monergism in justification)

I do know that there are serious disagreements throughout the Protestant Sector; and this is very disturbing to me.

There is much abuse of sola scriptura in Protestantism. We cannot interpret Scirpture incorrectly or subjectively (1 Tim)

I have found that, even though much of the Protestant Sector claims Sola Scriptura; some Protestant doctrines are not supported by Scripture. I no longer accept Sola Scriptura for many reasons.

What have you replaced Sola Scriptura with as final source of authority?

I have, also, found that some Protestants base much of their doctrine on the “tradition” established in the writings of the Protestant Reformers. If Protestants are to adhere to “Scripture alone,” we would not need doctrines worked out for us by anyone.

“Tradition” is “tradition,” whether it is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the writings of the Protestant Reformers.

Some tradition is good and truthful. Some tradition goes against the truth of God. Tradition that lines up with the Word of God should be received.

I keep reading the Bible and studying the history of Judaism and Christianity; and continue to pray for God’s Truth. I disagree with some major Catholic doctrines, but I cannot say whether or not my prayers will lead me to the Catholic Church.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

My experience, and being part of Protestantism myself not long ago, is that most modern Protestants don’t even fully know the original 5 solas, but in practice, they follow most of them…and if asked directly about them with their official defintions, would subscribe to most of them. Not all, but most.

Breaking them down…

Sola Scriptura is definitely accepted all modern Protestant circles that I’m aware of. This is the pivotal Sola, as the rejection of the Church is what Protestantism IS, and Scripture HAD to fill the void by default. Somehow convince them this is erroneous, and Protestantism as we know it crumbles. I pray for that day, frankly.

Sola Fide is a gray area. There are many modern communities who do recognize that post-profession-of-faith obedience and contrite repentance are a necessity for salvation, and therefore do not hold to the original reformist notion. Not all, and certainly not most that I encounter here on CAF…but on the whole I think there are many who do not subscribe to Faith Alone. Most who do subscribe to it don’t diminish good works, but the claim is that the works automatically flow from the “true” faith. It eradicates free will IMO, and the necessary synergism to effect our ultimate salvation. I think there’s a chance we can find considerable common ground on this Sola. Cooperation with grace is not as “believer-does-the-good-work-all-on-his-own-accord” as Protestants think Catholics believe. Likewise, it’s not as “God-does-absolutely-everything-for-the-believer” as Catholics think Protestants believe.

Sola Gracia. This one comes down to a misunderstanding of the source vs. the effect of salvation. The Church has always professed Grace alone is the source of salvific power (although the Reformers erroneously thought that the Church taught that it is our works-alone that serves as that source). Certainly I believe most modern Protestant groups hold to the original intent of this Sola. This is probably one of the most reconcilable arguments between the two camps. As soon as we can all settle down and realize that we both agree that Grace alone is the source which empowers our salvation, we can build a good bridge there. The difference lies in the effect, or application, of that Gracious source, in the life of a believer. This goes back to Sola Fide, and the issues with that.

I think most Protestants fully adhere to Solo Christo. Of course, that Christ is the one true mediator to the Father, is universally accepted by modern Protestantism, and of course also by the Catholic Church (who was the original professor of that truth). But, although many evangelical Protestants don’t recognize the concept of sacraments at all, most Protestant camps that still recognize and administer sacraments reject the notion of Holy Orders and authentic ordination necessary to effect most of those sacraments. Therefore, on the whole, the orignal “solo Christo” is alive and well today.

Finally, Soli Deo gloria is also alive and well today, as most Protestants certainly believe all Glory to God alone. And, most Protestants I know still erroneously think that the Church glorifies Saints, Popes and higher clergy to the same level as the Glory due to God. Of course, the Church teaches Glory to God alone, and veneration to the saints - quite a radical difference. So, an unfortunate misunderstanding that led to this Sola.

So, where does that leave us? For the most part, the original Solas are still with modern Protestants, with a few exceptions here and there. As you can see, some issues face difficult reconciliation, but other issues just need civil discussion and recognition of historical misconceptions.

Blessings.

There is a rather ironic dynamic involving the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation: If I begin with Sola Scriptura, and I read the Bible and pray for discernment, and believe I have correctly interpreted the Bible; it is very possible that “my interpretation” would, then, contradict one of the other 4 Solas, or some or multiple aspects of the remaining Solas. Starting with Sola Scriptura can actually result in the abandonment of Sola Scriptura.

Simply stated: Sola Scriptura can lead to the rejection of one or more aspects of the other 4 Solas.

This “ironic” characteristic of the “5 Solas” would explain many of the divisions within Protestantism.

1. Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
2. Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
3. Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
4. Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”)
5. Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

There is a rather ironic dynamic involving the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation: If I begin with Sola Scriptura, and I read the Bible and pray for discernment, and believe I have correctly interpreted the Bible; it is very possible that “my interpretation” would, then, contradict one of the other 4 Solas, or some or multiple aspects of the remaining Solas. Starting with Sola Scriptura can actually result in the abandonment of Sola Scriptura.

Simply stated: Sola Scriptura can lead to the rejection of one or more aspects of the other 4 Solas.

This “ironic” characteristic of the “5 Solas” would explain many of the divisions within Protestantism.

1. Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
2. Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
3. Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
4. Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”)
5. Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

Anna

It’s interesting to see where you finally land in Christendom. Thank God that perfect theology is not a requirement for Heaven. God saves sinners through Christ in-spite of knowing in part, and believing things that may not be true. No Christian community or individual Christian knows all things and are infallible in life and doctrine.

If you reject sola scriptura as final source of authority in life and doctrine, then what are you replacing it for discerning truth?

 

[Anna_Scott]

There is a rather ironic dynamic involving the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation: If I begin with Sola Scriptura, and I read the Bible and pray for discernment, and believe I have correctly interpreted the Bible; it is very possible that “my interpretation” would, then, contradict one of the other 4 Solas, or some or multiple aspects of the remaining Solas. Starting with Sola Scriptura can actually result in the abandonment of Sola Scriptura.

Simply stated: Sola Scriptura can lead to the rejection of one or more aspects of the other 4 Solas.

This “ironic” characteristic of the “5 Solas” would explain many of the divisions within Protestantism.

1. Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
2. Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
3. Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
4. Solus Christus or Solo Christo (“Christ alone” or “through Christ alone”)
5. Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)

Anna

It’s interesting to see where you finally land in Christendom. Thank God that perfect theology is not a requirement for Heaven. God saves sinners through Christ in-spite of knowing in part, and believing things that may not be true. No Christian community or individual Christian knows all things and are infallible in life and doctrine.

If you reject sola scriptura as final source of authority in life and doctrine, then what are you replacing it for discerning truth?

2nd Adam: You missed the point of my post, entirely.

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam, you have avoided nearly every question I have asked you, regardless of the Thread. When you start answering my questions, and refrain from the condescension; I will resume answering your questions.

Respectfully,
Anna

In the the major branches of Christendom, we have three sources of final authority:

1. Catholic - Magisterium
2. Orthodox - Orthodox form of Magisterium
3. Protestant - Scripture
4. Anglican - Scripture

 

[Anna_Scott]

In the the major branches of Christendom, we have three sources of final authority:

1. Catholic - Magisterium
2. Orthodox - Orthodox form of Magisterium
3. Protestant - Scripture
4. Anglican - Scripture

2nd Adam: To which question or Post does this pertain?

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

2nd Adam: To which question or Post does this pertain?

Anna

I believe you stated that you no longer believe in sola scriptura. I did not know what you were planning to replace it with. BTW, the great missionaries, theologians and evangelist were Calvinists. Try reading John 1, John 6, John 10, John 3, Romans 8, Romans 9, Romans 10 and 11, Ephesians 1 and 2 for starters to see if free will stands up to Scripture examination.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I believe you stated that you no longer believe in sola scriptura. I did not know what you were planning to replace it with. BTW, the great missionaries, theologians and evangelist were Calvinists. Try reading John 1, John 6, John 10, John 3, Romans 8, Romans 9, Romans 10 and 11, Ephesians 1 and 2 for starters to see if free will stands up to Scripture examination.

2nd Adam, I am “cutting you some slack” here, even though you have yet to answer any questions I have asked you.

First, I do believe that we find Divine Inspiration in Scripture. I believe that God speaks to us through Scripture, and that discernment comes through the Holy Spirit. I think there is also a very human element in Scripture, as man recorded his experiences with God throughout the ages.

We have no autographs, so I doubt any manuscript is entirely without error—which means it is doubtful that any current Bible Translation contains the “divine inerrant Word of God.”

I have found that some Bible translations are more honest than others. There are many variants among the more than 5,000 New Testament Manuscripts. The Early Church Fathers quoted Scripture extensively, which helps date certain N.T. renderings or variants, and also identifies interpretation of Scripture at different points in history.

Having said that, I do believe that there is great power in God’s Word, as were are told in Hebrews:

Hebrews 4:12 (ESV): 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

I have experienced the power of God’s Word in miraculous ways in my own life.

I also believe that to confine a particular Scripture, for a single purpose, may simply be man’s attempt to impose finite limits on an infinite God.

I did say that I have let go of Sola Scriptura. You are asking “what I am planning to replace it with.”

Well, that is a work in progress. I see several alternatives.

1. I could interpret Scripture in light of the writings and tradition of the Church Fathers, as Catholics do.
2. I could interpret Scripture in light of the writings and tradition of the Protestant Reformers, as you do.
3. I could consider both the traditions of the Early Church Fathers, and the Protestant Reformers.

In reading the Bible cover-to-cover, I found that many of the Protestant Doctrines I have been taught, for most of my life, are not grounded in Scripture.

As I said in an earlier post, there is a rather ironic dynamic involving the 5 Solas of the Protestant Reformation: If I begin with Sola Scriptura, and I read the Bible and pray for discernment, and believe I have correctly interpreted the Bible; it is very possible that “my interpretation” would, then, contradict one of the other 4 Solas, or some or multiple aspects of the remaining Solas.

Starting with Sola Scriptura can actually result in the abandonment of Sola Scriptura. This is the case for me. Though a long discussion with a Forum Member resulted in the turning point of releasing Sola Scriptura.

I will be honest enough to say that I have not found my place in the world of Christendom.

At this point, after four years of studying the Bible, and the history of Judaism and Christianity, I fell like a Christian “all dressed up with no place to go”—to worship and fellowship with other Christians.

I’m somewhere between Protestant and Catholic–not an easy place to reside.

So, I keep studying and praying for God’s Truth, and I keep praying that God will help me find my place within Christianity.

Anna

 

[2nd_Adam]

Anna,

Thank you for sharing your spiritual journey. We are aliens and pilgrims in this world; therefore the Christian life one of pressing on to our upward calling in Christ Jesus. This world is not our home. The Christian life is one of trials, prosecution, and suffering allowed and designed by God for our good. There is a big difference between reading the Reformers as good guidance and commentaries on the Scriptures as compared to the Catholic Magisterium within sacred tradition. In Ephesians 4, God reveals that he does give us teachers and pastors to help mature us in the faith. They are God’s servants throughout redemptive history who know in part, but used by God for maturing the saints. You are right in regards to translations, but the good ones are trustworthy but not inspired and God-breathed like the original.

Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul - Peter

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Thank you for sharing your spiritual journey. We are aliens and pilgrims in this world; therefore the Christian life one of pressing on to our upward calling in Christ Jesus. It is an intentional struggle with trials, prosecution, and suffering allowed and designed by God for our good. There is a big difference between reading the Reformers as good guidance and commentaries on the Scriptures as compared to the Catholic Magisterium within sacred tradition. In Ephesians 4, God reveals that he does give us teachers and pastors to help mature us in the faith. They are God’s servants throughout redemptive history who know in part, but used by God for maturing the saints. You are right in regards to translations, but they are trustworthy but not the originals.

2nd Adam,
If you truly believe in Sola Scriptura, you would never need to even mention Calvinistic Theology or Reformed Theology, or the countless Reformers you cite in your Posts. You would rely upon “Scripture alone.”

Anna