Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[WayneTalbot]

Do you believe this? I believe we need all holy scriptures…but not solely all the holy scriptures.

I deleted most of your post to save space.
Hmmm … more (much more) deliberation required, but let me apologise here that I am unlikely to be able to respond before the end of January.
Have some Christmas duties to attend to, then off on holidays for a short break, then to the Holy Land for a pilgrimage following the steps of Jesus. Just hope that the conflict between Israel and Hamas doesn’t get too heated while I am there.
May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and holy Christmas, appreciating Jesus as “the reason for the season”. I have enjoyed your company.

 

[Romulus]

I believe we need all holy scriptures…but not solely all the holy scriptures.

Just want to clarify…I’m not contradicting myself with this statement…what I mean to say is that yes we need all the holy scriptures which can instruct us…but we can’t exclude the teaching authority of Jesus’ Church and the Sacred Tradition of his Church to also instruct us.

Merry xmas everyone! Have a safe trip Wayne

 

[jcrichton]

I’m guessing that here, you are suggesting that the RCC is united while all these Protestant denominations are not united. Are you saying that the existence of 30,000 Protestant denominations in itself, proves that Protestants lack unity?

***Hi, Nick Jones!

Firstly, I personally do not know the exact number of Christian denominations in existence (I use the number quoted by various sources including online groups.); and, I have not visited many of the ones known to me.

Secondly, my experience is based on both local (reginal: NY, NJ, DL) and online Bible groups:

• One group suggested that if I did not speak in tongues I was lacking in faith and understanding.
• Another group insisted that I be healed (both temporal and spiritual healing) and if there would be no healing my faith was lacking and I was a mere infant in understanding.
• One more group schooled me in the “once saved” doctrine–here only those who are of the world (a person that has not accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior) have to account for their sins; the “always saved” can go on with their choices in life because Jesus has taken care of their past, present and future sins once an for all.
• Yet another group invited me in taking part of a baptism–since the Catholic Church is not Christian my baptism was void; they reason that an infant cannot choose to be saved so infant baptism is taboo.
• A member of yet one other group informed an acquaintance that he had a devil in him–apparently, since he refused to join their church, and theirs is the one true church of Christ, he could only be resisting because of some evil possession.
• And this one other group was convinced that the Catholic Church was leading me to hell and that through their intervention I could be saved; all I needed to do was read their prayer where I beg Jesus to save me and ask him to take full control of my life as I was now ready to come to His church.
• There are several other experiences as the ones above… additionally, I have come to know the view of several non-Catholic Christians from online exchanges in various Bible sites. They agree in some things but they differ in at least as many points as they agree upon: Salvation, Baptism; Eucharist; keeping the Sabbath or the Day of the Lord; tithing; phisical church (building vs. interfaith gatherings, etc.); celebrating Christmas or not; number of Sacraments; and so many diverse Biblical interpretations (including: being permissible or not to commit suicide; female pastors; wealth as a true sign of being in the Lord; health as an indication of being saved–sin being the cause of ailment; mixed marriages–Christian and non-Christians; contraception; pornography; masturbation; homosexuality, etc. There are major discrepancies when it comes to what constitutes humility, arrogance, debasement, intellectualism, egocentrism, liberalism, superiority, the almost invisible: racism, etc.–all within the Christian scope of civil exchange in love and understanding.

Granted, my experience is mostly at an individual level and since I am Catholic I really do not seek to know the exact differences between Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, Non-denomenationalists, etc. I can only speak to you from my direct experience with the many people that have represented their denominational church. It is from that experience that I have made my statements.

If anyone feels that I have ill-represented their particular denomination, I apologize. But I cannot but reiterate: my understanding has been gained from the exchanges (live and online) with non-Catholic Christians.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

I do not dump on the Catholic Church, nor do I proudly announce anything, I am ever aware of my own fallibility.
Yes, I do use Scriptures to substantiate my statements - what other substantiation should one use?
I do not present my interpretation of Scripture as the inerrant and true rendering - I offer it for examination and refutation.
My interpretations are not just personal, they are the result of studying multiple conflicting viewpoints, and selecting the ones that best fit the basic rules of Bible exegesis, the rules of language comprehension, and the rules of logic.
I do not reject anything that contradicts me, but I do reject contradicting opinions that are offered without substantiation…

Let us be clear on one thing at least.
The Catholic Church does not claim infallibility - except in well defined circumstances.
If the Church is not infallible in some circumstances, it is thus capable of error.
Contrary views should be examined on their merits, tracing the path used to develop the view, either showing where error crept in, or accepting the likely truth of the view.
I have tried to follow that process, and admit that I am not always successful.
I am open to suggestions of better processes, but they should be grounded in discipline.

Lastly, a personal attack is not what I would expect on this site, to say nothing of the weakness in logic of *ad hominem *arguments.

***Hi, WayneTabolt!

I apologize if you feel that there was an attack on your person–perhaps I could have worded my post differently.

I have edited your post (above) and added one of your previous statements:***

Excerpt from: WayneTalbot #151
Another Catholic refutation is this: “Matt. 28:20 - “observe ALL I have commanded,” but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. This disproves “Bible alone” theology.”
John 20:30 says “There were many other signs that Jesus worked in the sight of the disciples, but they are not recorded in this book”.
John 21:25 says, “There was much else that Jesus did; if it were written down in detail, I do not suppose the world itself would hold all the books that would be written”.
Both of these quotes relate to what Jesus did, not what He said, taught, or commanded (the word used in Matthew 28). The “signs” in John 20:30 are most likely miracles, and maybe John 21:25 is referring to the same things, but either way, neither of these passages supports the contention that “not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture”. There is no mention of Jesus’ teachings, let alone any being left out.
Now put yourself in John’s shoes: would you leave out important teachings of Jesus, or would you simply avoid repetitions? Undoubtedly, in three years of public life, Jesus said and did the same things many times over; faithfully recording each and every instance would be unnecessarily laborious, particularly at a time when writing was such a chore. Besides, who would want to read repetitions of the same words and actions, what value would they offer?
The Catholic refutation, using these passages of John, is weak. If you think otherwise, show how these passages relate to Jesus’ teachings.

***Here’s what Christ said to the Apostles:

12 I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now.
13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and he will reveal to you the things to come.
14 He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine.
15 Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine.*** (St. John 16:12-15)

Now, either you are correct or Jesus did mean that there were things that He did not tell the Disciples that would be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[WayneTalbot]

***Here’s what Christ said to the Apostles:

12 I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now.
13 However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking of his own accord, but will say only what he has been told; and he will reveal to you the things to come.
14 He will glorify me, since all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine.
15 Everything the Father has is mine; that is why I said: all he reveals to you will be taken from what is mine.*** (St. John 16:12-15)

Now, either you are correct or Jesus did mean that there were things that He did not tell the Disciples that would be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

I agree entirely, and without equivocation, that this statement means what it says.
My post asserted that the previously quoted references to John did not mean what was claimed for them.
You see, the issue I have is not that there are passages in Scripture that dispute Sola Scriptura, but that people quote passages incorrectly, inaccurately, and out of context, and then claim that they mean other than what they can reasonably be understood to mean.
A problem I have with apologetics, from Catholics, Protestants, and probably all denominations, is that they often overstate their case, showering one with quantity rather than quality.
Your quotation above stands on its own - it needs no support from dubious sources which only cloud the issue.
The necessary steps in exegesis are to take the plain meaning, determine whether that meaning is consistent with other texts, and examine alternative interpretations. If consistency is found, end of story, there is no need to read the same interpretation into other texts just to bolster the case. If inconsistency is found, if the plain meaning of other passages in contradictory, then further analysis is required.
So, if in any of my posts, I have refuted a particular interpretation, you should not read any more into it other than what I have said. By all means challenge the interpretation that I have offered, I welcome the opportunity to discover truth, but I would ask that you don’t seek ulterior motive on my part - to the best of my ability, I consciously challenge myself on what I write, conscious always of the necessity for integrity.
God’s grace be with us all as we seek to serve Him in whatever capacity He assigns us.

 

[jcrichton]

Ever mindful of Paul’s admonition in Romans 12:16, “Do not be wise in your own opinion”, and I am reminding myself here, I would ask you to look upon many of these churches not as denominations in the conventional sense, but simply as churches in the sense of Romans 16:5. Certainly, there are “denominations”, and I am as horrified as any with some of their teachings, their acceptance of homosexual practices, abortion, euthanasia, etc, but there are many other churches that are rigorous and conservative in their observance of Scripture.
While the Reformation could be considered a “rebellion” against the Church of Rome, it was not rebellion against just doctrine, but against practice as well (and I don’t think you would argue with that). That said, many modern churches are not rebelling against anything, they are simply congregations of people devoted to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and an acceptance of His Gospel, preferring the simple model of early Christian churches to that now given by the Catholic Church.
They are not rebellious in nature, belief, or behaviour, rather they submit to the Lord in true faith and humility of heart. They see their calling as nothing more than serving God by loving Him, loving their neighbour, preaching the Gospel of Christ, and helping the poor and needy.
They see no need for the theologies and doctrines that the Catholic Church has added over the years, nor the some 1500 canons of Church Law.
Submitting to Him, they believe that Jesus lives in them, they are guided by Him, and He will judge what is in their hearts. They know they will sin, even though they try not to, but are guided by Paul’s words in Romans 7:20 “Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me”.
They see no need of a Marian theology, of departed saints, or of any intercessors with God other than what is promised in Scripture. They see the love of God in the intercessors that The Father has provided, Jesus Himself at the right hand (Romans 8:34), and the Holy Spirit, who intercedes for us because we do not know what we should pray for as we ought (Romans 8:26). How can any human intercessor add to that powerful duo?

So I would ask that you not take generalisations too far when referring to the non-Catholic Christian communities. Certainly there are groups for whom we should especially pray, they are lost, but there are others with whom it would be hard to find fault – they are simply following the Gospel of Christ as originally taught and practiced by early Christians. To some ways of thinking, that is closer to the original intent of Jesus Christ.

Your theology and faith in a particular Church is your choice, and only God can know what is in your heart, but be neither rash nor harsh in your judgement of the choice of others.

*** Hi, WayneTalbot!

…you truly do not see a contradiction in your words?..

The Apostolic Church did not have a multitude of interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. And how awful it was that Paul taught prayer intercession, one baptism, one Gospel, Bishops (pastors) married to only one woman (no multiple marriages) and no female pastors… and he even threw in his own personal desire that those who served the Lord remain celibate… (Coincidentally, this is one particular subject which all Protestants agree to not even visit!)

Your theology and faith in a particular Church is your choice, and only God can know what is in your heart, but be neither rash nor harsh in your judgement of the choice of others***

…but how does that work exactly… Catholics wrong all others right? …but isn’t that based on judgment?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You see, the issue I have is not that there are passages in Scripture that dispute Sola Scriptura, but that people quote passages incorrectly, inaccurately, and out of context, and then claim that they mean other than what they can reasonably be understood to mean.
A problem I have with apologetics, from Catholics, Protestants, and probably all denominations, is that they often overstate their case, showering one with quantity rather than quality.
.
So, if in any of my posts, I have refuted a particular interpretation, you should not read any more into it other than what I have said. By all means challenge the interpretation that I have offered, I welcome the opportunity to discover truth, but I would ask that you don’t seek ulterior motive on my part - to the best of my ability, I consciously challenge myself on what I write, conscious always of the necessity for integrity.
God’s grace be with us all as we seek to serve Him in whatever capacity He assigns us.

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

…I think that I am beginning to understand you…

I have been reading various posts and at times it seems that you are expressing one concern or another… but then I come across another post that seems to negate the other…

Because I tend to group everything with relevance of congruency I would group your posts with others as key issue immerged as congruent thoughts/expressions.

Though, regretfully, there will always be differences in theology, I will begin to read your posts in a different scope.

Maran atha!

---

 

[WayneTalbot]

*** … and he even threw in his own personal desire that those who served the Lord remain celibate… (Coincidentally, this is one particular subject which all Protestants agree to not even visit!)

Angel

---

Dear Angel,
Why do you rant so?
And why do you throw in your own personal interpretation of the actions and motives of others, when clearly your generalisations bring the lie to your own assertions?
Your statement regarding the celibacy of the clergy: " that this is one particular subject which all Protestants agree to not even visit!"
Do you not understand that it is the Catholic Church that refuses to visit this subject?
Protestants acknowledge Paul’s preference for celibacy - they accept it as a personal “preference”.
You said it yourself, his own desire.
Paul also said that if needs be, then marry.
Look also at 1 Corinthians 9:5 ““Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other Apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
So Paul had a preference for celibacy, but also accepted the right of others to choose otherwise.
See also 1 Timothy 3:2-5 and 1 Timothy 4:3.
Scripture makes it clear: it is a personal choice.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, gives clergy no choice, it mandates celibacy. Why has it taken Paul’s expression of desire and turned it into a law?
So answer me this: where did you get the idea that " all Protestants agree not to visit”?
Who told you that?
How can you possibly believe that Protestants, who place more faith in Scripture than Catholics, would deliberately ignore the teachings of Paul, and the practice of the Apostles, some of whom were married?
How can you believe that it is Protestants who “agree not to visit” a subject on which they allow personal choice, just as Scripture tells us, when it is the Roman Catholic Church that is intransigent on the subject and allows no choice, and allows no discussion on the subject?
Honestly, you frustrate and yes, infuriate me with your obdurate adherence to Catholic doctrine, to the point where you are either woefully ignorant or deliberately dishonest.
It goes beyond faith, it verges on fanaticism.
I am not usually given to being personal, but in all conscience, I believe that you are much in need of reproof, correction, and instruction.
Think on this, in all conscience, where did you get that idea?
Did you not consider the position of the Catholic Church on celibacy, did the paradox of Paul expressing a desire and the Church enforcing a law not occur to you?
For one brief, shining moment, stay on topic and consider this one issue in isolation.
Where did you get the idea that Protestants won’t visit the topic, and if you have any understanding of the Protestants devotion to Scripture, the very topic of this thread, what motivated you to believe this absurd idea that if examined in the light of Scripture, is more a difficulty for Catholics than Protestants?
I sincerely pray that you reconsider the way you address these issues.

 

[WayneTalbot]

---

***Here’s what Christ said to the Apostles:

12 I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you to bear now.

---

I replied earlier that I agreed with you that this passage of Scripture means exactly what it says, that Jesus knew that His Apostles could not then understand all that He wanted them to know, and that the Holy Spirit would come and lead them in complete truth.
This, we believe, occurred at Pentecost.
The question then, is what are these truths that the Apostles could not understand prior to the infusion of the Holy Spirit, and just as importantly, prior to Jesus completing His work?
Do not miss this point: at the time that Jesus said these things, His mission had not been completed.
Were they mysteries which did not make it into the Gospels or Epistles, were they new revelations not mentioned at all previously, or were they explanations of what Jesus had said but were beyond the comprehension of the Apostles at the time?
Let us understand the context.
The Apostles were Jews, and not particularly well educated. I am not inferring that they were not intelligent, simply that they were people who had little or no access to education beyond that which was passed on to them orally (for the most part), and that they belonged to a culture long steeped in Jewish tradition and the Mosaic Covenant.
Now along comes Jesus and says (among other things), I am the promised Messiah.
The Jews were expecting a King, all powerful, one who would rescue them from the bondage of the Romans.
But what did they get?
A man from Nazareth, and everyone knew that nothing good came out of Nazareth, a man who seemed to flout Abrahamic law, who worked on the Sabbath, sympathised with prostitutes, supped with tax collectors, and recruited fishermen. Sure, he cured people, worked miracles, spoke with wisdom, and claimed to be one with God, but he didn’t exactly fit the image of the promised Messiah. Later, far from leading them to victory, he got himself tortured and crucified, a very ignominious end for a victor.
Reading the New Testament, particularly Acts and the subject of Paul’s Epistles, we see that early Jewish Christians, including Peter, seemed to understand the New Covenant of Jesus as a continuation of the Mosaic Covenant, complete with the need for circumcision, avoiding certain foods, and not consorting with Gentiles. Not only did they claim the continuing relevance of the Mosaic Torah, they also required its observance by Gentile converts. The rending of the Temple curtain during Christ’s crucifixion apparently had no significance for them as the Temple system continued until the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
It is clear that there was much that the Apostles did not understand during the ministry of Jesus, indeed, it would have been remarkable if they had been able to put it all together as we now understand it.
So back to the question: what were the things that Jesus had to say to them but were too much for them to bear at the time?
Were they some un-named mysteries, or were they simply explanations of His Gospel that they were incapable of understanding at the time?
Jesus, of the House of David, his royal lineage securing his claim to the eternal throne promised to King David, His miracles pointing to the presence of God’s kingdom in the person of His Messiah, Jesus’ teachings sounding the invitation to the kingdom and laying down its demands, His sacrificial death atoning for the sins of those who would otherwise be condemned at the consummation of the kingdom, and finally, the resurrection of Jesus establishing Him as the Son whom God the Father has appointed the Judge of the world and the Lord of the coming kingdom.
Years later, no longer subject to the Mosaic covenant, being for all practical purposes unaware of that culture, it is easy for us to understand the Gospel, but for the Apostles, still living that culture, and still in the presence of the Jesus they had been following, such understanding would have been beyond them.
One might conjure up all sorts of imaginary mysteries to which Jesus may have been referring, but an understanding of the historical and cultural context would suggest something far simpler.
From my own studies, and these have been nothing other than studying the views and writings of scholars and historians from many persuasions, the latter conclusion seems far more probable.
As with many beliefs, it is our personal circumstances which favour one over the other.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Timothy: 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So some and not all of the scriptures can instruct thee to salvation…you don’t need all of it…Which ones are sufficient and which ones are not? Do you believe this? I believe we need all holy scriptures…but not solely all the holy scriptures.

I haven’t got to your syllogism yet, but thought that I would answer your last point.
Yes, I do believe that not all Scripture is required for salvation, you do not need all of it for salvation.
Most (maybe all?) of the OT is not necessary for salvation.
Jesus said, preach the Gospel, not preach Scripture.
There is a significant difference between the Gospel and Scripture, including NT Scripture.
It is what the Gospel contains that is required for salvation, and Scripture containing the Gospels is thus sufficient (syllogisms aside).
If you didn’t know the Book of Ruth, would your salvation be jeopardised? If you didn’t know the Song of Solomon, or even of its existence, would that make a difference?

 

[WayneTalbot]

I see it as (c)… All God-breathed things are insufficient…All Sacred Scripture and All Sacred Tradition…

(Barbara syllogism):

(True) Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient
(True) Minor Premise: All Scripture is God breathed
(True) Conclusion: All Scripture is insufficient

Since you believe that it is the fallacy “Begging the question”…then you don’t accept the Major premise as an axiom…and believe it to be false. We both accept the minor to be true since it is explicit in Timothy.

Ok, if you accept the major premise is to be false…then by the Law of non-contradiction the negation is true…which you have to accept. Negation of major premise is “Some God-breathed things are sufficient”…this is what you would end up having to believe…

Timothy: 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So some and not all of the scriptures can instruct thee to salvation…you don’t need all of it…Which ones are sufficient and which ones are not? Do you believe this? I believe we need all holy scriptures…but not solely all the holy scriptures.

I’m a bit slow this morning, but as I began to dissect the syllogism, I realised that you had already done that for me.

As to the Major Premise: All God breathed things are insufficient - FALSE

In your opening line, you say (if I understand it correctly) that even with all Sacred Scripture and All Tradition, we still don’t have enough for salvation - do you really believe that, and if so, why?
What else do we need?
From the simple perspective of trusting in God who loves us, from Scripture that insists time and again that it is by grace through faith that we are saved, why would you believe that God has deliberately withheld from us, that which is necessary for salvation?
Personally, I do not get that message from the Gospel that Jesus preached to us. He completed His mission of salvation on the Cross, then The Father raised Him from the dead.
End of story.
Jesus said that the Scriptures had been fufilled, John 19:28-30.
Does there need to be anymore?

 

[Nick_Jones]

There is only TRUTH , How can the truth be divided into 30,000 parts ?

Well, for the sake of clarity, that’s like asking how McDonalds Corporation can be divided into 30,000 (or 500,000) different franchises. Each particular McDonalds restaurant is different in certain ways, yet part of the same corporation.

Catholics share One Thruth, One Dogma , and One interpretation of the Bible and Scripture, my protestant friends cannot even
agree with each other if divorce is supported by Scripture, how can they come up with one united front if every one thinks his or her interpretation of the Bible is correct .

It hardly matters that the RCC consistently teaches that divorce is not supported by Scripture if, as individuals, RC’s see nothing wrong with getting divorced when it suits them, even though their church teaches that divorce is not permitted.

As Catholics we believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding the
Pope and the Magisterium when they
interpret and promulgate Scripture. The Holy Spirit has for 2,000
plus years guided the one true Church of Christ.

What matters isn’t whether the pope and the magisterium have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what matters if whether YOU have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And if you do, then you will understand what God wants you to understand in the Scriptures.

Sola scriptura after everything has been said and done boils down to this. Whose authority do you recognize?

Exactly.

If you are protestant , you recognize and believe in the authority
of your pastor, priest or minister to guide you and interpret Scripture for you.

True, up to a point, but if the pastor is teaching something contrary to Scripture, or adding something to it, then such teachings are not binding on us.

If you are Catholic , you look to the Pope,bishops and the heirarchy of the Church to interpret Scripture and guide you…

Yes, even if what they teach has no Scriptural basis!

In making the decision on which path to choose, remember that God did not promise us a perfect Church, because His people are not perfect. He promised that He would be with us until the end of time.

A very good point.

Jesus Christ only established One Church, and only One.
The Catholic Church sprung up from the Rock , St. Peter.
to whom the keys to Heaven were given . the Apostles were
given the authority to bind and free anything on the earth.
This was never given to anyone else …

May God bless you and yours
Merry Christmas

I also respect the authority that Christ gave to the apostles. I agree that Jesus Christ only established one Church, and only one. The major difference is that most non-Catholic Christians would insist on placing their faith in the solid Rock of Jesus, as their One infallible authority.

Merry Christmas, and Blessings to you.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Dear Angel,
Why do you rant so?
And why do you throw in your own personal interpretation of the actions and motives of others, when clearly your generalisations bring the lie to your own assertions? … the rest deleted

Angel,
I wish to apologise unreservedly for the above quoted post.
The tone was unacceptable, unwarranted, unethical, and decidedly un-Christian.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the personal nature.
The content I will stay with, but the tone and the attitude that it implied I wish to withdraw.
Sincerely,

 

[rtconstant]

Ever mindful of Paul’s admonition in Romans 12:16, “Do not be wise in your own opinion”, and I am reminding myself here, I would ask you to look upon many of these churches not as denominations in the conventional sense, but simply as churches in the sense of Romans 16:5. Certainly, there are “denominations”, and I am as horrified as any with some of their teachings, their acceptance of homosexual practices, abortion, euthanasia, etc, but there are many other churches that are rigorous and conservative in their observance of Scripture.

While I appreciate what you’re saying I think it is rather hard to not see the other churches as denominations. Even when I was a Protestant it was hard to not see it that way. You say that many of these Churches are conservative and rigorous and I understand what you’re saying from a Protestant perspective. There is indeed a drastic difference amongst the denominations in terms of adherence to orthodoxy.

From an historical Christian perspective though even these conservative groups appear rather radical. There is a tendancy in Protestantism to “focus on the essentials and not make a big deal about the rest.” Now that is from an individual perspective a reasonable position. However, what is important and what isn’t actually depends on the outlook of the denomination in question. The differences between denominations spread through the entire doctrinal gambit. As such when all the denominations are taken together it make Protestantism appear to not actually have any “essentials” cut in stone.

Again I realize that each denomination typically does have their own set essentials. Yet if one is seeking Truth and wants to know what is correct belief and what is essential they must focus on their denominational teachings. This basically cuts into the overall Protestant position that there really aren’t denominations and that they there really aren’t any “real” differences between the various sects.

A Southern Baptist may not see being baptized as all that important (non-essential) but a Church of Christ member sees it VERY important (essential). The Methodist wouldn’t make a big deal about the method of baptism (emmersion, sprinkling etc.) so it would be a non-essential. Yet many evangelical denominations see emmersion as the only valid form of baptism (essential).

Some may say that faith in Christ is the only real “essential”. Yet what constitutes Faith in Christ? Some denominations say that one must have the vague characteristic of “Saving Faith”. Most denominations think that some level of devotion and works must accompany faith for it to be real. While others condemn the previous as taking away from Christ’s sacrifice. Anyway, even on the one thing that should be a universal essential there is no consensus on how to achieve that essential.

While the Reformation could be considered a “rebellion” against the Church of Rome, it was not rebellion against just doctrine, but against practice as well (and I don’t think you would argue with that). That said, many modern churches are not rebelling against anything, they are simply congregations of people devoted to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and an acceptance of His Gospel, preferring the simple model of early Christian churches to that now given by the Catholic Church.
They are not rebellious in nature, belief, or behaviour, rather they submit to the Lord in true faith and humility of heart. They see their calling as nothing more than serving God by loving Him, loving their neighbour, preaching the Gospel of Christ, and helping the poor and needy.

While I’m not going to argue about the local corruption that was part Martin Luther’s rebellion. The corruption that existed in certain regions certainly made justification of revolt seem more justified on the surface. Those involved during that period in that corruption no doubt reaped a bitter harvest for their complicity.

Still it doesn’t really excuse the leaps in novel doctrine that Luther introduced and it especially doesn’t excuse the other Protestant leaders who saw their oppurtunities to make even more drastic leaps in new doctrine.

Yet I would agree that for most Protestants today are simply attending the faith that they grew up in or were first introduced to. They aren’t thinking about origins of their individual denominations or unique doctrines. So, I would agree that today most are not thinking in terms of any sort of rebellion.

 

[rtconstant]

They see no need for the theologies and doctrines that the Catholic Church has added over the years, nor the some 1500 canons of Church Law.

If doctrines had been added then I could see where that might be an issue. As to the doctrines that have been passed down to the Church from the Apostles Protestants would do well to see a need in them.

In the Catholic mindset all doctrine is essential.

Submitting to Him, they believe that Jesus lives in them, they are guided by Him, and He will judge what is in their hearts. They know they will sin, even though they try not to, but are guided by Paul’s words in Romans 7:20 “Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me”.
They see no need of a Marian theology, of departed saints, or of any intercessors with God other than what is promised in Scripture. They see the love of God in the intercessors that The Father has provided, Jesus Himself at the right hand (Romans 8:34), and the Holy Spirit, who intercedes for us because we do not know what we should pray for as we ought (Romans 8:26). How can any human intercessor add to that powerful duo?

You have a flawed understanding of the Communion of Saints. You might want to search through some other threads dealing with that to get an actual Catholic perspective. Obviously no human can add to the Trinity The Church does not make this claim. All those that reject the Communion of Saints simply limit their spiritual growth and experiences by rejecting the Church Victorious. It is also sad that this essentially suggests a Heaven that is either filled with selfish saints who don’t care about their brothers and sisters or that God no longers listens or has interest in us once we die.

So I would ask that you not take generalisations too far when referring to the non-Catholic Christian communities. Certainly there are groups for whom we should especially pray, they are lost, but there are others with whom it would be hard to find fault – they are simply following the Gospel of Christ as originally taught and practiced by early Christians. To some ways of thinking, that is closer to the original intent of Jesus Christ.

I agree that it is always wise to suggest avoiding generalizations. In general when I’m writing I’m assuming it is understood that there are exceptions to every rule. Also with all the variation that exists in the denominations it would not be fair to say that all Protestant sects are created equal as it were.

I also understand that most Protestants believe that they are practicing the Christian life of the early Christians. Yet the likely just down road stands a Church that has existed without break for 2,000 years. It doesn’t get more original than that.

Your theology and faith in a particular Church is your choice, and only God can know what is in your heart, but be neither rash nor harsh in your judgement of the choice of others.

Certainly all thing should be guided by compassion.

 

[WayneTalbot]

If doctrines had been added then I could see where that might be an issue. As to the doctrines that have been passed down to the Church from the Apostles Protestants would do well to see a need in them.

In the Catholic mindset all doctrine is essential.

Certainly all thing should be guided by compassion.

Thank you for a gentle and well considered response.
As to doctrines that have been added, I would prefer to not debate this issue here, but rather, simply agree to disagree.
I have studied the history of a number of Catholic doctrines, tracing their origins and development through the centuries, and I remain unconvinced as to their authenticity as originating with the Apostles. My sources of research have been almost entirely Catholic, one would have to view other sources with a degree of scepticism.
Currently I am studying the development of the Marian theologies, and with some alarm. I am still trying to get my head around the concept of a Co-Redemptrix and an omnipotent mortal as now espoused by the Church. Reading The Glories of Mary by the eighteenth century author, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, I have been deeply moved by the devotion of Catholics throughout the centuries, and by the heart warming stories of visitations and miracles. Nonetheless, I do have problems with some interpretations.
Sorry, I am debating what I said I would not.
Again, my thanks for an informative post, even though I disagree with some of your points.
May God bless you with His Peace in this season of celebration of the birth of Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

 

[believer112]

Well, for the sake of clarity, that’s like asking how McDonalds Corporation can be divided into 30,000 (or 500,000) different franchises. Each particular McDonalds restaurant is different in certain ways, yet part of the same corporation.

Are you comparing all protestant churches to a corporation?
McDonald’s has one product line and one corporate identity.
Each protestant church has a different identity and preach different
interpretations of the Bible. One service I attended ( a funeral ) the pastor preached that suicide was OK , and that because the person has been saved once , he was saved forever ??
Another time , I had an Anglican preacher say that suicide
was against the law of God , and therefore , the person who
attempted it or did it did not merit salvation. Which one of these would you have me believe?? At least a Big Mac I had in China , tastes the same as the one I had in America.

It hardly matters that the RCC consistently teaches that divorce is not supported by Scripture if, as individuals, RC’s see nothing wrong with getting divorced when it suits them, even though their church teaches that divorce is not permitted.

The individual members of the Catholic church are human and as human beings they can fall to sin. The choice of divorcing your spouse or not is an exercise of your free will, and that the Church cannot control , because free will was granted to us by God.The Catholic Church will not grant the sacrament of matrimony to anyone that had a previous sacramental marriage and divorces their spouse. This is not true for all protestant churches, some will remarry couples that are divorced.
If Scripture condenms divorce, then why are some protestant churches granting their form of sacramental marriage to their
divorced followers ??

What matters isn’t whether the pope and the magisterium have the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what matters if whether YOU have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And if you do, then you will understand what God wants you to understand in the Scriptures.

The above statement does not make sense, if the Holy Spirit is guiding the Pope and the heirarchy of the Catholic Church , then
how can the people who practice sola scriptura come up with so many different interpretations that are not even remotely similar to the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture. If both the Catholic Church and those who practice sola scriptura are guided by the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t they have the same TRUTH ?? There can only be one TRUTH, everything else would be false.

True, up to a point, but if the pastor is teaching something contrary to Scripture, or adding something to it, then such teachings are not binding on us.

Again, with that statement , sola scriptura divides rather than unites. It explains why there are 30,000 plus protestant sects, denominations and churches . Each claiming to be right and each claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The apostles preached one Gospel ,the early Catholic Church came up with one Bible and one interpretation of the Bible. God
will not divide His own people against each other.

I also respect the authority that Christ gave to the apostles. I agree that Jesus Christ only established one Church, and only one. The major difference is that most non-Catholic Christians would insist on placing their faith in the solid Rock of Jesus, as their One infallible authority.

If you recognize the authority given to the Apostles and agree that Jesus Christ established only one True Church ,then answer
me this? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire people go against the
teachings of the Church that Jesus established?
Why are the Scriptural interpretations of the practitioners of
sola scriptura so different from that of the Catholic Church ?
Clearly, if Jesus gave the authority to the Apostles and they
turned against the teachings of Jesus, then God ,Himself would
have rescinded the authority. But this did not happen. The Catholic Church has been steadfast and true to the teachings and proclamations of Jesus Christ.

May God Bless Us All and Merry Christmas to ALL.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Are you comparing all protestant churches to a corporation?
McDonald’s has one product line and one corporate identity.
Each protestant church has a different identity and preach different
interpretations of the Bible. One service I attended ( a funeral ) the pastor preached that suicide was OK , and that because the person has been saved once , he was saved forever ??
Another time , I had an Anglican preacher say that suicide
was against the law of God , and therefore , the person who
attempted it or did it did not merit salvation. Which one of these would you have me believe?? At least a Big Mac I had in China , tastes the same as the one I had in America.

Are you saying that the existence of other burger restaurants (other than McDonalds) means that all McDonalds restaurants do not serve up basically the same products? What does the fact that non-McDonalds fast-food restaurants (serving up tacos and who knows what else) have to do with the fact that all McDonalds are basically the same?

The above statement does not make sense, if the Holy Spirit is guiding the Pope and the heirarchy of the Catholic Church , then
how can the people who practice sola scriptura come up with so many different interpretations that are not even remotely similar to the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture. If both the Catholic Church and those who practice sola scriptura are guided by the Holy Spirit, wouldn’t they have the same TRUTH ?? There can only be one TRUTH, everything else would be false.

Well, to continue with the fast-food analogy, not everyone who says they practice SS (or claims to be just another McDonalds) really is.

Again, with that statement , sola scriptura divides rather than unites. It explains why there are 30,000 plus protestant sects, denominations and churches . Each claiming to be right and each claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The fact that you can easily find a so-called bible church that teaches things that are contrary to Scripture doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, true, global, church that really does teach what the bible says.

The apostles preached one Gospel ,the early Catholic Church came up with one Bible and one interpretation of the Bible. God
will not divide His own people against each other.

I agree. God will not divide His people.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Nick Jones;3113110:

The Catholic Church will not grant the sacrament of matrimony to anyone that had a previous sacramental marriage and divorces their spouse. .

That IS what the Church teaches, it is NOT what it always practices. There have been numerous cases where the Church has “annulled” marriages, doing so by skirting at the edges of their guidelines, arguably conforming to the letter of the rules, but even more arguably contravening the spirit of the rule.
Politics has influenced many such decisions.

The interesting thing about the Church attitude to marriage is that the proof text for the sanctity of marriage, “what God has joined together”, never gets a mention in the grounds for annulment. If you haven’t done so, read them, and then try to establish a causal link between the grounds for sanctity of marriage with the grounds for annulment. The latter consist entirely of secular reasons.

I agree that divorce in general is too easy, that there are good reasons for trying to keep husband and wife together, none the least of which is God’s directive.

But to my mind, and those of many others, the difference between divorce and annulment is a matter of semantics, the latter saying “well, it wasn’t a real marriage anyway”.

 

[believer112]

Are you saying that the existence of other burger restaurants (other than McDonalds) means that all McDonalds restaurants do not serve up basically the same products? What does the fact that non-McDonalds fast-food restaurants (serving up tacos and who knows what else) have to do with the fact that all McDonalds are basically the same? ?.

I did not mention any other fast food corporations in my answer. I merely used your analogy . If protestant churches were like
a franchise, then they would not have different interpretation of Scripture, but like I cited in previous answer , they can’t even
make up their minds on something as simple as suicide. How can they have a united theology ,if everyone thinks his/her interpretation is correct ?

Well, to continue with the fast-food analogy, not everyone who says they practice SS (or claims to be just another McDonalds) really is.

Again, this is the problem of the practitioners of sola scriptura.
How can you have 30,000 plus churches claiming that they have the absolute TRUTH ? How can their be 30,000 plus interpretations of Scripture that are inspired by the Holy Spirit?
And then , you have to make up your mind as to which one is true. The Catholic Church has One interpretation, One dogma
and One thruth.

The fact that you can easily find a so-called bible church that teaches things that are contrary to Scripture doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, true, global, church that really does teach what the bible says.

Yes, The one ,true,global church was established by Jesus Christ through St. Peter, The Rock , to whom the Keys of Heaven were given . That is the Catholic Church , it teaches the
One true Gospel of Jesus Christ and that has not changed in 2000 plus years

I agree. God will not divide His people.

Then if you agree, why practice sola scriprura, The principle divides, rather than unites God’s people. If you believe that God will not divide His people , then sola scriptura must be inherently false.

May God Bless Us with a Happy Christmas and a sprirtually bounteous New Year