Simple Question to Non-Catholic Christians

[1edyson]

So this is a question on Authority, its super simple, but at the same time important.

If say a Baptist, Lutheran, Non-Denominational, Episcopal non-Catholic Christian hold a doctrine, like Infant Baptism, all differently, who is right? How would we determine who was right? I dunno if all the listed denominations agree or disagree with the particular doctrine or not, but as a for instance. 4 Different well meaning, God Loving, Bible Reading pastors teach different doctrine, whose right?

Again, I’m very interested in the non-Catholic Christian response, because we all know where we “silly” Catholic Christians would turn to, and what we believe about Authority. TIA

In Christ

 

[BrianH]

We turn to our General Conference.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

We turn to our General Conference.

I was Methodist before I converted, and we had now clue or concern about the judgments of the General Conference.

Our Church was a small rural bible believing church.

 

[BrianH]

I was Methodist before I converted, and we had now clue or concern about the judgments of the General Conference.

Our Church was a small rural bible believing church.

I do not doubt that for a minute. There are Catholics who do not listen to the Pope. There are Southern Baptists who do not give a rip about the SBC.
The underlying premise of the question asssumes that ANYONES authority is going to care what the other person’s authority says. Catholics do not listen to the SBC and likewise.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I do not doubt that for a minute. There are Catholics who do not listen to the Pope. There are Southern Baptists who do not give a rip about the SBC.
The underlying premise of the question asssumes that ANYONES authority is going to care what the other person’s authority says. Catholics do not listen to the SBC and likewise.

The major point, IMO , is that Protestantism as whole is a rejection of the authority of the apostolic Church.

Luther opened Pandora’s box.

Without a central doctrinal authority, Truth is determined by popular vote.

 

[AshleyBelle]

The major point, IMO , is that Protestantism as whole is a rejection of the authority of the apostolic Church.

Luther opened Pandora’s box.

Without a central doctrinal authority, Truth is determined by popular vote.

I have to feel sorry for him though in some regards… I don’t think he knew at all that he was opening pandora’s box. I think he had good intentions, and recognized some very bad practices from “Christians” around him… He probably felt that the church “authority” had failed him, and he was looking for answers…seeking God.

But overall…my impression is that when he saw opposition to what he believed and fought for… pride won over, instead of faith and obedience. I really don’t think he would be happy to see the constant splits of Christianity that continue to this day.

 

[BrianH]

The major point, IMO , is that Protestantism as whole is a rejection of the authority of the apostolic Church.

Luther opened Pandora’s box.

Without a central doctrinal authority, Truth is determined by popular vote.

That is not an uncommon belief among Protestants who convert to Catholicism or even one of the forms of Orthodoxy.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That is not an uncommon belief among Protestants who convert to Catholicism or even one of the forms of Orthodoxy.

Do you deny it?

How does the General Conference decide doctrine?

 

[BrianH]

Do you deny it?

How does the General Conference decide doctrine?

That Protestantism is a rejection of the Apostolic Church? In some cases yes. In others, no.

That is pretty complicated. Lots of committees and meetings. Lots of small groups. Eventually a vote at General Conference but there is a historical continuity. If you were a United Methodist, you are familiar with the basis for what we believe.
If you were another Methodist, you could search the phrase
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

That Protestantism is a rejection of the Apostolic Church? In some cases yes. In others, no.

That is pretty complicated. Lots of committees and meetings. Lots of small groups. Eventually a vote at General Conference but there is a historical continuity. If you were a United Methodist, you are familiar with the basis for what we believe.
If you were another Methodist, you could search the phrase
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

I was a United Methodist, but my family was just a bible believing family that attended the local Church. I think this was the case for most of the attendees.

We were aware that the conference was becoming more liberal but not that concerned. It didn’t really impact us.

My problem is that people with no biblical or apostolic authority are acting as if they have some authority over the Truth.

 

[1edyson]

We turn to our General Conference.

would that also apply to the Non-Denominational Pastor? And pardon me for my ignorance, but what is a General Conference? But then how would they determine who is leading souls to Christ, and who is bringing them away?

 

[tortdog]

So this is a question on Authority, its super simple, but at the same time important.

If say a Baptist, Lutheran, Non-Denominational, Episcopal non-Catholic Christian hold a doctrine, like Infant Baptism, all differently, who is right? How would we determine who was right? I dunno if all the listed denominations agree or disagree with the particular doctrine or not, but as a for instance. 4 Different well meaning, God Loving, Bible Reading pastors teach different doctrine, whose right?

Again, I’m very interested in the non-Catholic Christian response, because we all know where we “silly” Catholic Christians would turn to, and what we believe about Authority. TIA

In Christ

The LDS response is that you talk to your current priesthood authority and scripture. Those outlay clearly that infant baptism is not appropriate. Then you consider that teaching, ponder it, and then kneel down and ask for a confirmation of the truth by the Holy Spirit.

 

[BrianH]

would that also apply to the Non-Denominational Pastor? And pardon me for my ignorance, but what is a General Conference? But then how would they determine who is leading souls to Christ, and who is bringing them away?

No. The answer I was trying to convey was

The underlying premise of the question asssumes that ANYONES authority is going to care what the other person’s authority says.

In other words, it applies to all groups.

 

[gcnuss]

If say a Baptist, Lutheran, Non-Denominational, Episcopal non-Catholic Christian hold a doctrine, like Infant Baptism, all differently, who is right? How would we determine who was right? I dunno if all the listed denominations agree or disagree with the particular doctrine or not, but as a for instance. 4 Different well meaning, God Loving, Bible Reading pastors teach different doctrine, whose right?In Christ

For Lutherans, the Augsburg Confession, written in 1530 and regarded as the basic statement of Lutheran belief, states the position on baptism rather succintly:

Article IX: Of Baptism.

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God’s grace.

They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.

The last part of this statement, sadly, led to persecution – even to execution – of many Anabaptists in the 16th century.

A bit more information, from the Confutatio – the Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession:

To Article IX.

The ninth article, concerning Baptism - viz. that it is necessary to salvation, and that children ought to be baptized - is approved and accepted, and they are right in condemning the Anabaptists, a most seditious class of men that ought to be banished far from the boundaries of the Roman Empire in order that illustrious Germany may not suffer again such a destructive and sanguinary commotion as she experienced five tears ago in the slaughter of so many thousands.

It’s clear that the 16th century Catholic and Lutheran views of the Anabaptists were in close harmony.

 

[1edyson]

For Lutherans, the Augsburg Confession, written in 1530 and regarded as the basic statement of Lutheran belief, states the position on baptism rather succintly:

The last part of this statement, sadly, led to persecution – even to execution – of many Anabaptists in the 16th century.

A bit more information, from the Confutatio – the Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession:

It’s clear that the 16th century Catholic and Lutheran views of the Anabaptists were in close harmony.

Thank you for the response. I guess I’m not as much as concerned with the particular doctrinal dispute, infant baptism etc, but more of the authority of who is right? If the goal of all denominations is to lead souls to Christ, and we have different doctrines being taught from one denomination to another, I must assume there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong. So then how would I know who was right and who was wrong? Or do non-Catholic Christians, and I don’t mean to sound patronizing at all here, believe that God will judge all them according to the laws and rules outlined by their particular denomination, no taking into account all others?

So to simplify the question, if 4 different people read a passage of scripture and all come out with 4 different interpretations, how would a non-Catholic Christians determine which is right, and which is wrong? Or is it seen as there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong?

 

[NDfan]

So this is a question on Authority, its super simple, but at the same time important.

If say a Baptist, Lutheran, Non-Denominational, Episcopal non-Catholic Christian hold a doctrine, like Infant Baptism, all differently, who is right? How would we determine who was right? I dunno if all the listed denominations agree or disagree with the particular doctrine or not, but as a for instance. 4 Different well meaning, God Loving, Bible Reading pastors teach different doctrine, whose right?

Again, I’m very interested in the non-Catholic Christian response, because we all know where we “silly” Catholic Christians would turn to, and what we believe about Authority. TIA

In Christ

Our church is non-denominational and we don’t preach infant baptism. Baptism is preceded with repentance and needs to be a conscious choice made by the individual. An infant cannot repent of their sinful ways and cannot choose Christ. We also believe that Christ would never refuse a child into Heaven because they were not Baptized given HIS demeanor to them in the Gospels.

Now the real question is do the church members follow this and see this as authority?? Some do and some may not. Many people including myself feel infant baptism is important. The best explanation I ever saw for this was a comparison of infant baptism to circumcision as being the mark of the new covenant vs the mark of the old covenant. Our church leaders would never refuse baptizing an infant, they simply would say they don’t see the need.

Now given that the RCC commands infant baptism does that mean that all RCs follow that? Emphatically no. I know plenty that do not.

So I don’t think it’s a question of who is right and who is wrong. Infant baptism may be right but that doesn’t mean people will agree and follow it.

 

[1edyson]

Our church is non-denominational and we don’t preach infant baptism. Baptism is preceded with repentance and needs to be a conscious choice made by the individual. An infant cannot repent of their sinful ways and cannot choose Christ. We also believe that Christ would never refuse a child into Heaven because they were not Baptized given HIS demeanor to them in the Gospels.

Now the real question is do the church members follow this and see this as authority?? Some do and some may not. Many people including myself feel infant baptism is important. The best explanation I ever saw for this was a comparison of infant baptism to circumcision as being the mark of the new covenant vs the mark of the old covenant. Our church leaders would never refuse baptizing an infant, they simply would say they don’t see the need.

Now given that the RCC commands infant baptism does that mean that all RCs follow that? Emphatically no. I know plenty that do not.

So I don’t think it’s a question of who is right and who is wrong. Infant baptism may be right but that doesn’t mean people will agree and follow it.

1edyson:

Thank you for the response. I guess I’m not as much as concerned with the particular doctrinal dispute, infant baptism etc, but more of the authority of who is right? If the goal of all denominations is to lead souls to Christ, and we have different doctrines being taught from one denomination to another, I must assume there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong. So then how would I know who was right and who was wrong? Or do non-Catholic Christians, and I don’t mean to sound patronizing at all here, believe that God will judge all them according to the laws and rules outlined by their particular denomination, no taking into account all others?

So to simplify the question, if 4 different people read a passage of scripture and all come out with 4 different interpretations, how would a non-Catholic Christians determine which is right, and which is wrong? Or is it seen as there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong?

 

[ChristianKnight]

I turn to belief. I am for Baby baptisms in the sense that they are being baptized ot be raised to God by the family.

 

[Contarini]

So this is a question on Authority, its super simple, but at the same time important.

If say a Baptist, Lutheran, Non-Denominational, Episcopal non-Catholic Christian hold a doctrine, like Infant Baptism, all differently, who is right? How would we determine who was right? I dunno if all the listed denominations agree or disagree with the particular doctrine or not, but as a for instance. 4 Different well meaning, God Loving, Bible Reading pastors teach different doctrine, whose right?

This question only makes sense if you think we have a view of authority whereby all well-meaning, God-loving, Bible-reading pastors can reasonably be expected to agree.

Speaking for Anglicans, we don’t have any such model. Baptists and others who reject infant baptism do so not because they fail to read the Bible or to love God, but because they read the Bible through the lens of post-Reformation radical Protestantism rather than through the lens of historic Christianity.

Where we differ from members of your communion is that we don’t think we can be confident that communion with a particular apostolic See guarantees that we will always read the Bible correctly. In fact, many Anglicans would argue that conservative Catholics such as yourself and conservative/fundamentalist Protestants who trumpet “Scripture alone” are both making the same mistake. You are both trying to shortcut the hard work of interpreting the Bible correctly by coming up with some automatic process that will always give the right answer. We don’t think Christ has given us any such guarantees. We think that He has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail, but we don’t think that the gates of hell prevail every time Christians make a mistake. That assumption seems to reflect an overly neurotic and fearful view of God.

Edwin

 

[NDfan]

Thank you for the response. I guess I’m not as much as concerned with the particular doctrinal dispute, infant baptism etc, but more of the authority of who is right? If the goal of all denominations is to lead souls to Christ, and we have different doctrines being taught from one denomination to another, I must assume there is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong. So then how would I know who was right and who was wrong? Or do non-Catholic Christians, and I don’t mean to sound patronizing at all here, believe that God will judge all them according to the laws and rules outlined by their particular denomination, no taking into account all others?

So to simplify the question, if 4 different people read a passage of scripture and all come out with 4 different interpretations, how would a non-Catholic Christians determine which is right, and which is wrong? Or is it seen as there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong?

This is such a great question. I think the best way to answer it personally is to say I don’t believe in private interpretation of scripture. That can be very dangerous and is why we have non-theological, non-seminary trained people like Joel Osteen preaching their brand of Christianity.

RC Sproul explains this issue so well. He states that the Church never really wanted the laity reading scripture for fear of exactly what we have today. Denomination upon denomination. Growing up Roman Catholic I can remember learning that the Bible wasn’t really meant for the lay person. Now that we have so many great english translations it’s much easier to read although still very tricky to interpret in some areas. Sproul preaches interpretation of scripture within the confines of the church not privately. There’s only one right interpretation of scripture although there could be thousands of applications of it.

One thing our church preaches is agreeing on the essentials and not worrying about the non-essentials. So then that begs the question what are the essentials for our salvation. Christ says to have faith like a child. I think if we take that approach and lead our lives in a Christ-like fashion we can never go wrong. I know I’m not directly answering your question as to who has the final say or who is the final authority. To that question I will say the final authority is GOD. HE alone is the final judge.

So although some denominations may mis-interpret scripture I believe GOD sees into our hearts and knows our true intentions. That’s what we will be judged upon. I don’t believe if someone is not submitting to the authority of the pope and the teachings of the magisterium that it impacts their salvation. Unless of course someone is outright rejecting Christ. But believing or not believing that Mary was a perpetual virgin, or sinless vs sinful has no impact on my salvation. The Catholic church itself admits that they have developed a further understanding of scripture and therefore create doctrine surrounding it. So then you can’t constantly hold people accountable for something that continues to develop. Hence the essentials vs non-essentials. I believe the essentials for salvation are clear and will never change. If they were always developing then that would mean GOD is withholding information from us. For folks then who believed in Christ right after HE died 2000 years ago it means they had less information than we do placing their salvation in jeopardy. I find that hard to believe.

Hope that helps