)
This would be the normal lines of arguments we take boiled down.Hi,**1) **
There isn’t one…next…
really though, I suppose the common denominator is that scripture is the only source of divine revelation for the church. In that it is the norm for the way God directs his authority to the Church.
Beyond that each major block will have different opinions on how this should be taken. For instance the more Reformed have in worship the “regulative principle”, where unless it is commanded then it is forbidden. Whereas Luther and the Anglican Church (in general) are looser, and what scripture does not comment on is allowed. Same with various opinions on the role of tradition and church authority. Anglican (especially) and Luther had a larger role, the reformed had some role (magisterial reformation), and then the Zwinglian and Anabaptist tended to be more extreme.
Being Anglican I give unto thee:
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be
believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the
name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New
Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Article VI”
“Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of
the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true
interpretation of the Scriptures.” CAC (Catechism of the Anglican Church
Book recommendation: “the Last Word”, by Bishop N.T. Wright
**
2)**
"XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified
by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is
expressed in the Homily of Justification.
XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot
put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and
acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith;
insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the
fruit.
"
So by “salvation” we mean “Justification”. How one is considered to be a child of God, and leads to being adopted into the family and given the gift of the Holy Spirit, ect. One in this state can expect to be with their Lord when they die. And that good works are not done to aver God’s wrath, although he will use discipline to correct, but not in judgment.
I’d say that is a good summary of all Protestants…but still there may be slight nuances.
**3) **
sola scriptura is derived, not explicit. More like we know that scripture is a source of infallible divine revelation and authority, but have not been given assurance about anything else.
sola fide is derived from the all the salvation passages that describe Justification by faith, by the teachings especially in the book of Romans on Abraham and Galatians on the contrast with the works of the law, and then by Protestants believing the few verses that seem contrary to be interpreted differently. I would say most all of our arguments for it derive from our interpretations of Romans and Galatians
But I’m sure these have been debated back on forth on this forums allot, so I’ll refrain from scripture bombing
**
4)** Please show me a Protestant confession or creed which says this in the way you said and nuanced it
**
5)** You’re welcome!
May be better if you want to recommend some Protestant systematic theologies, if you get a Lutheran, Reformed Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican (although we don’t really have much in the systematic theologies area unless it is from the Tractarian era) and a generic Evangelical and look up definitions in them, what would give a good overview of the spectrum.
You said you were angelican so that is 2 denoms down that agree how many to go?
So you’re Catholic?Hi,
As an evangelical/born again/bible believing christian I agree with you.
The Protestant Denominations I belonged to could only agree on one thing…They did not submit to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome!!! - Funny I guess the Pope is unifying after all**1) **
There isn’t one…next…
really though, I suppose the common denominator is that scripture is the only source of divine revelation for the church. In that it is the norm for the way God directs his authority to the Church.
So what happened before the Apostles wrote the Sacred Scripture of the New testament? What about before Moses wrote the Pentatude?
Beyond that each major block will have different opinions on how this should be taken. For instance the more Reformed have in worship the “regulative principle”, where unless it is commanded then it is forbidden. Whereas Luther and the Anglican Church (in general) are looser, and what scripture does not comment on is allowed. Same with various opinions on the role of tradition and church authority. Anglican (especially) and Luther had a larger role, the reformed had some role (magisterial reformation), and then the Zwinglian and Anabaptist tended to be more extreme.
Being Anglican I give unto thee:
“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read
therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be
believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the
name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New
Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Article VI”
“Q. How do we understand the meaning of the Bible?
A. We understand the meaning of the Bible by the help of
the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the true
interpretation of the Scriptures.” CAC (Catechism of the Anglican Church
Why has the Holy Spirit lead to so many different interpretations that have caused so many rifts in the body of Christ?
Book recommendation: “the Last Word”, by Bishop N.T. Wright
**
2)**
"XI. Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified
by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is
expressed in the Homily of Justification.
XII. Of Good Works.
Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot
put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s judgment; yet are they pleasing and
acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith;
insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the
fruit.
"
So by “salvation” we mean “Justification”. How one is considered to be a child of God, and leads to being adopted into the family and given the gift of the Holy Spirit, ect. One in this state can expect to be with their Lord when they die. And that good works are not done to aver God’s wrath, although he will use discipline to correct, but not in judgment.
I’d say that is a good summary of all Protestants…but still there may be slight nuances.
**3) **
sola scriptura is derived, not explicit. More like we know that scripture is a source of infallible divine revelation and authority, but have not been given assurance about anything else.
This of course begs the question "What great authority has assured you that the 27 books of the new teatament are indeed the inerrant word of God? Give you a hint…ROME.
sola fide is derived from the all the salvation passages that describe Justification by faith, by the teachings especially in the book of Romans on Abraham and Galatians on the contrast with the works of the law, and then by Protestants believing the few verses that seem contrary to be interpreted differently. I would say most all of our arguments for it derive from our interpretations of Romans and Galatians
But the “alone” part is nowhere in scripture, well except where it says “not by faith alone”. The thing is, The Catholic belief of “Faith and…” fits without having to interpret passages differently then they read.
But I’m sure these have been debated back on forth on this forums allot, so I’ll refrain from scripture bombing
**
4)** Please show me a Protestant confession or creed which says this in the way you said and nuanced it
**
5)** You’re welcome!
May be better if you want to recommend some Protestant systematic theologies, if you get a Lutheran, Reformed Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican (although we don’t really have much in the systematic theologies area unless it is from the Tractarian era) and a generic Evangelical and look up definitions in them, what would give a good overview of the spectrum.
Why are you not Anglican also then?Hi,
As an evangelical/born again/bible believing christian I agree with you.
So then there are 3 denominations that believe the same thing (so far). MeekFundamental, why are you not an Anglican? Why do you all agree and yet you all insist on this denominationalism? Which, by the way, Christ condemns in scripture.I’m a Baptist. I agree. That’s 3.
Hi, I was raised Episcopalian. I left as a teenager(no surprise ther
) I didnt start looking for a church until I was an adult and honestly it didnt matter to me what denom as long as they taught straight from the bible. I just happen to visit a baptist church first and loved it and there you go. I left there because of Pastoral problems and there were no programs going on and I was not being fed spiritually so I ended up where I am now and I and my children are thriving spiritually.
The minister who married my husband and I just went through some scandal and was forced to retire and is getting a divorce. Not really good role models for my children.
I could handle the scandal but my kids are a different story.Well, no because I did not go through the sacrements so I cant be catholic.So you’re Catholic?
I am Methodist and if you will notice the Methdist Articles of Religion and the Articles of the Church of England posted above are word for word the same
Interesting. I wonder why, then, that the Methodists, and the Anglicans insist on remaining different denominations if their articles of faith are the same? Any answers…?I am Methodist and if you will notice the Methdist Articles of Religion and the Articles of the Church of England posted above are word for word the same
WP
I am curious, which church teaches the truth? We have to agree that there is one truth and not many different ones. So, did the “pastoral” problems then reveal to you that the Episcopalians or the Baptists did not posses the truth? I also wonder if the lack of “programs” is what reveals to us that the truth was not present. And you happened upon the truth in the church you are currently attending? Sounds like amazing luck, but I could be wrong. I really am curious, let me know.Hi, I was raised Episcopalian. I left as a teenager(no surprise ther
Honestly, Im glad I never went back to the Episcopal church because of all that is going on.
AFH
I doubt the Eastern Orthodox say they accept the NT canon based on a decision from Rome either. Which council did Rome decide the canon of the NT? I have seen several early canon lists and don’'t remember when Rome declared one, nor when one was accepted because Rome authorized it. At most the canon of Laodecia which I believe was affirmed by an ecumenical council, being a general acceptance from the whole Church and not just Rome. It was really a process that came to a general consensus, like the OT canon with the Jews.There are historical reasons, John Wesley himself never broke off (and never wanted to), but the differences in the growing Methodist movement and the established CoE lead to a gradual split. There are some theological distinctions also, Methodism is Wesleyan in its Theology which is more focuses on Free-will and has the idea of preveinaint (sp?) grace (Arminian is sometimes throw about, but is inaccurate and unfair for his theology which was more unique then that. whereas Anglicanism tends to be more Calvinist/Reformed. i’m not sure how much these difference show up in the Anglican and Methodist articles…BUT
My Baptist brother or sister here and I will disagree on several other things though, we just happen to agree on these issues
I would venture to say that if I tried to install gold candles, vestments, infant baptism, “Eucharist” with kneeling and altar rails, and some form if any of a “priesthood” in their church then you would soon see some things that divide! We may even have different ideas on how sola scriptura plays out, for instance Anglicans have several creeds, Baptists (in general) are anti-creedal. So we still have some things that we do not agree on 2Ti 3:16
Hi,
I personally needed more then my former churches were offering–that’s all.The difference is that with Baptists and Episcopalians (40 years an Episcopalian, here), there is no court of appeals. If your pastor preaches idiocy, he/she [sometimes in concert with a political movement] can more or less claim freedom in the Holy Spirit . . . It’s draining and demoralizing.Hi,
Both churches had the truth. I did not leave because of any doctrinal issues. It was more I wasnt being spiritually fed where I was. Im sure catholics switch parishes for the same reasons. I see it as the same thing. Ive heard people here say to other people to find a better parish. I see that as the sane in protestantism. Some just dont teach the truth as well as others do.