"The Main Things are the Plain Things" Biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thessalonian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
EA_Man:
I grow exceedingly tired of having to explain this particular misconception to seemingly otherwise intelligent Catholics.

But, once more into the breech dear friends…

Barrett’s definition of denomination is essentially that any church body that governs itself is a denomination. So if there are ten churches in your town and they all govern themselves, you’ve got ten denominations.

His classifications do not seek to define the number of denominations based on doctrinal criteria. How could it?
Click to expand...
Thus I said “whatever” thousand as opposed to 26,000…or 33,000…or whatever the number is. In fact, I even explained what you just did in a previous post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=667645&postcount=7

Whatever the number is…the fact of the matter is that if there are 2 “Christ-minded” people with two different interpretations…we’ve got a problem…if indeed every person is supposed to interpret Scriptures accurately for themselves. It is safe to say there are more than 2 denominations…way more…and they all differ with their interpretation of crucial doctrines. If someone says there are 30,000 denominations of protestantism…and a protestant such as Eric Svendsen comes along to say that is way wrong…it is more like 15,000, or maybe it is only 1,000, or maybe even 500 different denominations. That in no way fixes the “*sola Scriptura *problem.” The truth is, no one knows for sure the exact number of denominations, but whatever the number is, it is way larger than it should be if “the main things are the plain things,” and the “main things” can be determined by each and every sincere person accurately. This simply is not the case, regardless of the proper number of denominations.
 
40.png
EA_Man:
You also offer a singularly illogical “rebuttal”. If scripture is God’s revealed, infallible word, why does it need another further infallible revelation? The “need” for such revealing suggests that it was never properly revealed to begin with.

Peace
Click to expand...
If you can find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that it indeed receives divine revelations, then I’m done with Catholicism 😛

I think the only illogical assumption would be that because the Bible is infallible, our interpretations of it will also be infallible. The Calculus book I had years back was infallible…free from error…but I can assure you that I needed a teacher along with the book.😉
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
I think the only illogical assumption would be that because the Bible is infallible, our interpretations of it will also be infallible. The Calculus book I had years back was infallible…free from error…but I can assure you that I needed a teacher along with the book.
Click to expand...
Another poor analogy:
  1. Some do not require a teacher to learn calculus.
  2. Once taught, you should not require being taught it forever.
  3. Your proficiency at some point should enable you to instruct others.
Peace
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Another poor analogy:
  1. Some do not require a teacher to learn calculus.
  2. Once taught, you should not require being taught it forever.
  3. Your proficiency at some point should enable you to instruct others.
Peace
Click to expand...
  1. I see, so if we give a newborn a calculus book and teach him not to talk, to read, to write, to add, to subtract, etc., the newborn will still, one day, be able to perform mathematical equations?
  2. Yes, but until I get to heaven, I suspect I have much more to learn. I suppose I should congratulate you for knowing all of God’s greatness now?!
  3. Yes, your proficiency at some point should enable to instruct others. How proficient are you, exactly?
In Jesus and Mary
Fiat
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Another poor analogy:
  1. Some do not require a teacher to learn calculus.
  2. Once taught, you should not require being taught it forever.
  3. Your proficiency at some point should enable you to instruct others.
Peace
Click to expand...
Poor analogy, but point take?

or

Poor analogy, therefore until you give a good analogy, everyone can infallibly interpret the Bible?
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Another poor analogy:
  1. Some do not require a teacher to learn calculus.
  2. Once taught, you should not require being taught it forever.
  3. Your proficiency at some point should enable you to instruct others.
Peace
Click to expand...
Poor analogy, but point taken?

or

Poor analogy, therefore until you give a good analogy, everyone can infallibly interpret the Bible?
 
40.png
EA_Man:
If scripture is God’s revealed, infallible word, why does it need another further infallible revelation? The “need” for such revealing suggests that it was never properly revealed to begin with.
Click to expand...
The need for the Magisterium to authentically interpret tradition, both oral and written (both of which constitute “God’s word”), does not suggest revelation was not properly revealed initially. It does suggest, though, that our understanding of the revelation would later need to be refined in light of new developments in heresy (e.g., Trinity).
 
40.png
Philthy:
In addition to the excellent points you have made, the assumption that " Scripture is clear enough to lead the average person to the conclusion that they are sinners in need of salvation. And clear enough to show that Jesus Christ is God and the Way to the Father." unfortunately doesn’t “close the deal” of actually bringing them to salvation. Or is that your claim EA_Man? To make such a claim you would need knowledge of someone who as actually been granted access to Heaven by the means you proposed. Do you have such evidence? Or are we going to circle back and argue that the Scripture, which remains to be proven as formally sufficient to communicate fully its message, is the source of this clear teaching? That seems to defy logic to me.
Click to expand...
EAMan:
I submit that it is more logically cohesive and coherent than accepting de fide, the attribute of infallibility from the claimant.
EAMan:
You mean we have to rely on logic and not Scripture itself? Is this logically cohesive and coherent position God’s position as well? When did logical cohesiveness and coherence become the standard for faith? And what are you and I to do with the fact that we disagree on which is more logically cohesive and coherent - your position or mine? Sorry, none of those questions have answers and we’re not making progress.
Click to expand...
EAMan:
You also offer a singularly illogical “rebuttal”. If scripture is God’s revealed, infallible word, why does it need another further infallible revelation? The “need” for such revealing suggests that it was never properly revealed to begin with.
Peace
Click to expand...
Thank you for organizing your thoughts - it makes it so much easier to communicate where the areas of disagreement and potential error exist. I believe there are some serious flaws with your logic:
**“If scripture is God’s revealed, infallible word” ** Hold your horses! Scripture does not now nor has it ever has revealed ITSELF as God’s inerrant word - the Church alone is responsible for that. You are simply claiming Scripture to be what an infallible interpreter has told you it is. This is the way God wants it, and the way it is.If it were not for the Church you would have no Scripture - its just a fact. Painful isn’t it?
"If scripture is God’s revealed, infallible word why does it need another further infallible revelation?" Perhaps we can ask God why He chose to give us Scripture which lacks sufficient clarity to lead all who read it with the genuine motive of finding the Truth to the full, actual Truth - but until that time the fact that the question remains unanswered in no way supports Sola Scriptura. I could answer the question by saying that he left an inerrant Scripture to guide the Church infallibly, but that answer wouldn’t satisfy you. So whether or not we have an answer to that question, we don’t come any closer to knowing Gods will - our answers are not inerrant.
**"**The “need” for such revealing suggests that it was never properly revealed to begin with."
Ahhhhh - here your bias is most mansifest. You have assumed that God’s purpose in “revealing” the bible was for it to be read INDEPENDENT of the Church and that if it isn’t it’s somehow imperfect. Where did you get that notion? Sorry, but that is totally illogical - none of the actual historical facts support it. Even the bible can be said not to support it. If your assumption were the case, God would have simply written and distributed it Himself. And it would be MUCH shorter and to the point with no room for ambiguities. But He didnt, did he? Instead, he chose to reveal Himself THROUGH THE CHURCH.
He continues to do so to this very day - his word is truly alive.

Phil
Click to expand...
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
Thus I said “whatever” thousand as opposed to 26,000…or 33,000…or whatever the number is. In fact, I even explained what you just did in a previous post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=667645&postcount=7

Whatever the number is…the fact of the matter is that if there are 2 “Christ-minded” people with two different interpretations…we’ve got a problem…if indeed every person is supposed to interpret Scriptures accurately for themselves. It is safe to say there are more than 2 denominations…way more…and they all differ with their interpretation of crucial doctrines. If someone says there are 30,000 denominations of protestantism…and a protestant such as Eric Svendsen comes along to say that is way wrong…it is more like 15,000, or maybe it is only 1,000, or maybe even 500 different denominations. That in no way fixes the “*sola Scriptura *problem.” The truth is, no one knows for sure the exact number of denominations, but whatever the number is, it is way larger than it should be if “the main things are the plain things,” and the “main things” can be determined by each and every sincere person accurately. This simply is not the case, regardless of the proper number of denominations.

Whatever the number is…the fact of the matter is that if there are 2 “Christ-minded” people with two different interpretations…we’ve got a problem…
Click to expand...
The fact that you say that “we” have a problem rather than classifying this as a Protestant problem is encouraging.

You see, according to David Barrett, the source of figures that Catholics around here love to misuse and misquote, there are four major divisions of Catholicism: Catholic Pentecostals (Charismatics), Christo-Pagans, Evangelical Catholics, and Spiritist Catholics. I may require lifelong,or even eternal instruction in calculus, but I know that 4 > 1.

Additionally, these threads are rife with all kinds of interpretations; some don’t like Vatican II, some hold to receiving the Eucharist on the tongue raher than in the hand, some who don’t consider Saturday Mass attendence as valid, some consider Latin the only “real” mass, and on and on - but everyone of them is convinced that theirs is the correct adherence to Catholic teaching, as you so aptly phrased it “the fact of the matter is that if there are 2 ‘Christ-minded’ people with two different interpretations…we’ve got a problem”

“Rome, we’ve got a problem.”
Peace
 
40.png
EA_Man:
The fact that you say that “we” have a problem rather than classifying this as a Protestant problem is encouraging.

You see, according to David Barrett, the source of figures that Catholics around here love to misuse and misquote, there are four major divisions of Catholicism: Catholic Pentecostals (Charismatics), Christo-Pagans, Evangelical Catholics, and Spiritist Catholics. I may require lifelong,or even eternal instruction in calculus, but I know that 4 > 1.

Additionally, these threads are rife with all kinds of interpretations; some don’t like Vatican II, some hold to receiving the Eucharist on the tongue raher than in the hand, some who don’t consider Saturday Mass attendence as valid, some consider Latin the only “real” mass, and on and on - but everyone of them is convinced that theirs is the correct adherence to Catholic teaching, as you so aptly phrased it “the fact of the matter is that if there are 2 ‘Christ-minded’ people with two different interpretations…we’ve got a problem”

“Rome, we’ve got a problem.”
Peace
Click to expand...
I guess I find it curious that you state there are “four major divisions” of Catholicism. I have never heard the Vatican announce these “4 major divisions,” nor do I see the Catechism explaining these “4 major divisions.” People may experience the ONE truth of the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church more “charismatically” or more “evangelically” than others, but how does this negate the one-ness of the Church? I have met numerous charismatics who cherish the sacraments of Holy Mother Church as much as traditionalists, each one having the same understanding of sacramental graces. On the other hand, I have not met a member of the Church of Christ and a Southern Baptist agree on something as fundamental as the nature of baptism. Now…tell us again where the divisions are?!

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat
 
40.png
EA_Man:
The fact that you say that “we” have a problem rather than classifying this as a Protestant problem is encouraging.

You see, according to David Barrett, the source of figures that Catholics around here love to misuse and misquote, there are four major divisions of Catholicism: Catholic Pentecostals (Charismatics), Christo-Pagans, Evangelical Catholics, and Spiritist Catholics. I may require lifelong,or even eternal instruction in calculus, but I know that 4 > 1.

Additionally, these threads are rife with all kinds of interpretations; some don’t like Vatican II, some hold to receiving the Eucharist on the tongue raher than in the hand, some who don’t consider Saturday Mass attendence as valid, some consider Latin the only “real” mass, and on and on - but everyone of them is convinced that theirs is the correct adherence to Catholic teaching, as you so aptly phrased it “the fact of the matter is that if there are 2 ‘Christ-minded’ people with two different interpretations…we’ve got a problem”

“Rome, we’ve got a problem.”
Peace
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between having a group of dissenters within your Church that don’t accept ‘official teaching’, and having ‘x’ numbers of ‘official teaching’. The Catholic Church has one official Catechism, with one official teaching. Whether or not a particular believer is a faithful Catholic is personal problem, not the Church’s.

Church teachings are not a subject of personal interpretation. You are either an orthodox faithful Catholic, or you are a heterodox dissenter. There are no other options.
 
40.png
Fiat:
I guess I find it curious that you state there are “four major divisions” of Catholicism. I have never heard the Vatican announce these “4 major divisions,” nor do I see the Catechism explaining these “4 major divisions.” People may experience the ONE truth of the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church more “charismatically” or more “evangelically” than others, but how does this negate the one-ness of the Church? I have met numerous charismatics who cherish the sacraments of Holy Mother Church as much as traditionalists, each one having the same understanding of sacramental graces. On the other hand, I have not met a member of the Church of Christ and a Southern Baptist agree on something as fundamental as the nature of baptism. Now…tell us again where the divisions are?!

In Jesus and Mary
Fiat
Click to expand...
To clarify EA_Man’s statement, he doesn’t necessarily believe of these Catholic divisions…rather…these are the divisions that Barret’s work states exist…the same work that also states there are some 30,000 protestant denominations or thereabouts. If I am wrong in representing you EA_Man, correct me please, but this is what I took your statement to mean.
40.png
EA_Man:
The fact that you say that “we” have a problem rather than classifying this as a Protestant problem is encouraging.

You see, according to David Barrett, the source of figures that Catholics around here love to misuse and misquote, there are four major divisions of Catholicism: Catholic Pentecostals (Charismatics), Christo-Pagans, Evangelical Catholics, and Spiritist Catholics. I may require lifelong,or even eternal instruction in calculus, but I know that 4 > 1.

Additionally, these threads are rife with all kinds of interpretations; some don’t like Vatican II, some hold to receiving the Eucharist on the tongue raher than in the hand, some who don’t consider Saturday Mass attendence as valid, some consider Latin the only “real” mass, and on and on - but everyone of them is convinced that theirs is the correct adherence to Catholic teaching, as you so aptly phrased it “the fact of the matter is that if there are 2 ‘Christ-minded’ people with two different interpretations…we’ve got a problem”

“Rome, we’ve got a problem.”
Peace
Click to expand...
As far as the varying differences among Catholics that you noted…not one of them was doctrinal in nature. Anyone is free to not like Vatican II, however if they disagree with Vatican II doctrines (which are identical to the 1st century Catholic doctrines)…then unfortunately they are not Catholic. Anyone can choose to receive the Eucharist on the tongue or the hand. The Church allows both. Whatever is chosen however, it is not a doctrinal teaching, only discipline and tradition (lower-case “t”). No matter what method of receiving the Eucharist is preferred, the doctrinal belief regarding the Eucharist remains the same in all faithful professing Catholics; Jesus’ Real Presence is present in the Eucharist. Any Catholic is free to choose how to receive the Eucharist, and can even debate their reasons for doing so with other Catholics, so as long as both believe the Eucharistic doctrine. As with the Eucharist, there are those who prefer the mass in Latin as opposed to their native language. Again, such a preference is merely that, a preference, however not a doctrine. There are masses one can attend that are in Latin if they desire, or any other masses that are in English. Either of the two are valid and not doctrinal in nature. I could attend an Italian mass in Italy, or a German mass in Germany and they both would be valid as well. The language of the mass is only a matter of preference.

Now if any self-proclaiming Catholic disagrees on non-preferential issues…then unfortunately they have mistakenly labeled themselves “Catholic.” Like Isidore_AK said, “whether or not a particular believer is a faithful Catholic is personal problem, not the Church’s.”

Peace,
Michael
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
To clarify EA_Man’s statement, he doesn’t necessarily believe of these Catholic divisions…rather…these are the divisions that Barret’s work states exist…the same work that also states there are some 30,000 protestant denominations or thereabouts. If I am wrong in representing you EA_Man, correct me please, but this is what I took your statement to mean.
Click to expand...
You are correct, I am citing Barrett. The point is this: the sauce that’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

If the people on these threads want to misquote and misconstrue the figures in Barrett’s work (i.e. the ridiculous 30,000 denominations meme), be prepared to address the other conclusions that Barrett reaches in his tome. It is intellectually dishonest to quote as authoratative these figures, incorrectly I might add, and then in the next breath deny that the figures quoted correctly from this work are wrong.

Peace
 
 
Calixtines
• Calvinism
• Calvinistic Methodist Church
• Camisards
• Campbellites
• Catholic Apostolic Church
• Christadelphians
• Christian Catholic Church
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
• Christian Endeavor
• Christian Reformed Church
• Christian Science
• Christian socialism
• Christians
• Church of Christ, Scientist
• Church of England
• Church of the Brethren
• Church of the Nazarene
• Churches of Christ
• Churches of God, General Conference
• Community of Christ
• Confessing Church
• Congregationalism
• Covenanters
• Cumberland Presbyterian Church
• Diggers
• Disciples of Christ
• dissenters
• Doukhobors
• Dukhobors
• Dunkards
• Dunkers
• Dutch Reformed Church
• England, Church of
• Episcopal Church
• Episcopal Church, Reformed
• Ethical Culture movement
• Evangelical Alliance
• Evangelical and Reformed Church
• Evangelical Church
• Evangelical United Brethren Church
 
…wait…there are WAAAYY too many…

Here’s a link to the rest of them…
reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/categories/protdenom.html

Would you agree that these are all **distinct **groups with doctrinal differences, who base their ideas from the “Bible Alone”?

Also, how do I know that you know better than the rest of these? If I were to leave the Church that Christ founded, why should I follow what you say? Weren’t these other people using the “Bible Alone” as their sole rule for faith?
 
Thanks Ryan. That about sums it up. There’s alot of denominations. I’ve seen a listing of 35 baptist denominatoins and one Protestant website claims there are 62.

Okay we’ve show that regarless of what Barrett says, there has been a cancerous division of Protestant denominations since Luther and Sola Scriptura began this fiasco. Luther himself said “there are more theologies than heads” lamenting what he had started.

Back to the topic. The quote “the main things are the plain things” implies that there are many things in scripture that just don’t matter to our salvation. Yet God says:

24: God is spirit, and those who worship him MUST worship in spirit and truth."

He doesn’t say some truth or truth mixed with things we disagree on and noone can really know for sure. He doesn’t say but it isn’t going to be possible with you fallible men for people to KNOW THE TRUTH. In fact Jesus says “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”. My impression of Protestantism is that it values the individual being able to interprut for himself (even though the vast majority in the world do not have the resources or knowledge to do so) rather than getting the scriptures right.

Blessings
 
Let’s for a moment be really generous and try to take the 6.023x10 to the 23rd power Protestant denominations and reduce the number based on what baptism is and what it does. Aren’t there like six different beliefs? If I am going to jump off the barque of Peter, pehaps someone can explain which one these I should jump into and why.

Scott
 
40.png
thessalonian:
My impression of Protestantism is that it values the individual being able to interprut for himself (even though the vast majority in the world do not have the resources or knowledge to do so) rather than getting the scriptures right.

Blessings
Click to expand...
The ironic thing is, I think the majority of sola Scriptura professing protestants actually *don’t *interpret the Bible for themselves…rather they follow the interpretation of their pastor. There are those like EA_Man who actually study the Scriptures with passion, but I don’t believe this would apply to the majority.
 
40.png
michaelgazin:
The ironic thing is, I think the majority of sola Scriptura professing protestants actually *don’t *interpret the Bible for themselves…rather they follow the interpretation of their pastor. There are those like EA_Man who actually study the Scriptures with passion, but I don’t believe this would apply to the majority.
Click to expand...
I have a tape by a former Independant Baptist pastor. Can’t remember his name offhand. It’s funny but his congregation hired him and his job was to spend as much time as he could studying scripture. They made sure he was well taken care of with a car, house, etc. etc. He was making a good living. It was basically his job to interprut the scriptures for them. Yes, I think you are right and the wave of Pre-trib rapture groupies following lahaye and jenkins around supports this as well. The movement has grown considerably and even some Catholics have been sucked in because of these books that are presented as fiction but like the Dan Brown stuff people are fooled.

Blessings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top