Which Church??

[benhur]

PRIVATE JUDGMENT.

That is the sand upon which Protestantism is built.

As pointed out earlier, we are talking about something deeper than denominationalism.** Everyone must privately make a decision on just what truth is **. You privately (whatever that might mean) decided the CC is it, that it holds the full truth .You choose to believe this. That is why in the end we will have a private conference with the Almighty. We will not be judged as part of a family or church or country or any “institution”. It is an individual thing at the very least, and of course much more.

**All denominations are temporary vehicles, and will vanish at His second coming . **So yes, some of P is built on sand but so is some of the CC etc… We will not go by these dispensational names into eternity. What we do for Christ in good faith will stand . What is it to you or me if you do it as a Lutheran, or a Catholic or even as from an autonomous local congregation like the pictures PR has posted ?

Also, the healed blind man before the Sanhedrin had a private judgement on the matter too To the wrongly narrow Sanhedrin, things had to be done with proper authority. Are we also improperly narrow minded ( there is a proper narrow mindedness) ?

Again, Peter “privately” came to Truth also. Was he on sand ? No , the church is at least built on this, and the gates of hell shall not prevail. Kind of what faith dancer was saying. Like what he has received from the Father, by God’s grace, he will hold on to like a bull dog (like the healed blind man). Revelation is an experience .It is in the pudding. What FaithDancer has is not a denomination

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

It’s good to see you again.

Luther chose to elevate his own theological opinions to the level of the Gospel. I don’t claim that this can be known a priori to be wrong. Perhaps he might have been right. But he wasn’t–and all Protestants except confessional Lutherans believe he wasn’t. More to the point, since you are a confessional Lutheran, if he was right then “Rome” had denied the Gospel. So why is it relevant whether he was “booted out”? By your doctrinal standards, shouldn’t someone believing what Catholics believe be booted out?

We often see the claim that Luther was ‘booted out’ of the Catholic Church, or that the Church decided to excommunicate him, as if he didn’t do anything ‘wrong’. The historical fact of the matter, as you know well, is that Luther basically excommunicated himself. Long before his actual formal excommunication, Luther had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was no longer “Catholic” in belief or in obedience. All the Church was doing in his formal excommunication was acknowledging what Luther had already very publically and disrespectfully proclaimed.

In regards to the reasons for the Church taking this formal action, Roland Bainton describes the proceedings of the Diet of Worms:
“On the sixth of May, His Majesty presented to a diminishing diet the final draft of the Edict of Worms, prepared by Aleander. Luther was charged with attacking the seven sacraments after the manner of the damned Bohemians.

“He has sullied marriage, disparaged confession, and denied the body and blood of our Lord.  He makes the sacraments depend on the faith of the recipient.  He is pagan in his denial of free will.  This devil in the habit of a monk has brought together ancient errors into one stinking puddle and has invented new ones.  He denies the power of the keys and encourages the laity to wash their hands in the blood of the clergy.  **His teaching makes for rebellion, division, war, murder, robbery, arson, and the collapse of Christendom. ** He lives the life of a beast.  He has burned the decretals.  He despises alike the ban and the sword.  He does more harm to the civil than to the ecclesiastical power.  **We have labored with him, but he recognizes only the authority of Scripture, which he interprets in his own sense.**  We have given him twenty-one days, dating from April the 15th.  We have now gathered the estates.  Luther is to be regarded as a convicted heretic (although the bull of excommunication still had not been published).  When the time is up, no one is to harbor him.  His followers are also to be condemned.  His books are to be eradicated from the memory of man.”  Aleander at the Diet of Worms, in Bainton, pg. 184.

It should be noted that this action was actually Luther’s third excommunication, with the first being from his Augustinian Order and the second being from the Church. This third ‘excommunication’ was a formal proceeding of the Empire.

The fact is that by this time in his ‘career’ as a Reformer, Luther had made it very clear that he was NOT a Roman Catholic in any sense. His disobedience was no longer tolerated by the Church, just as it would not be today by Lutheranism. If a Lutheran Theologian, Pastor, University Professor today were to so aggressively Rebel against Lutheran teaching the way that Luther did against the Church, Lutheranism would dismiss that person from their official roles and rightfully so.

In other words: either Rome had really denied the essentials of the faith, in which case the argument that he was “booted out” is irrelevant, or Rome hadn’t, in which case he could have avoided being booted out by exercising a little humility.

In fact, the Church showed great patience in dealing with Luther and whether he was ‘booted out’ or excommunicated himself is largely a matter of spin - the “Legend of Luther” as opposed to the historical facts. That being said, I agree with you that the more important issue is whether Luther was correct in his challenge of Church authority and doctrine.

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your response.

My response dealt with the Lutheran approach to private interpretation.

I understand that Jon, but your response did not address the main thrust of my point or my questions. I was discussing both Luther and Lutheranism and the ‘relationship’ between the two on the matter of private interpretation. The fact is that Lutheranism has taken the exact opposite approach to the early Reformation Luther. I said:

It would seem that if Luther had followed the teachings of either the Catholic Church (of which he was a member, Priest, Theologian, etc.), or the (later) teachings of the Lutheran church on doctrine NOT being a matter for individuals, the Lutheran church would not exist. The evidence here suggests that, according to the doctrinal teachings of both the Lutheran and Catholic churches, Lutheranism SHOULD NOT have been founded.

Jon, with all due respect, if you see this situation differently, of if you think I don’t have my facts straight, please explain specifically and exactly how.

This is an extremely important matter and the fact that Lutheranism completely repudiated it’s founder is very revealing. Jon, you have not refuted my facts or challenge my conclusions, but if you would like to do so, then please do.

Only if one believes the illogical notion that if someone is wrong about one thing, they must be wrong about everything.

Actually, nobody has said that Luther was ‘wrong about everything’, certainly not me. I am focused on two very specific issues, and am not much interested in generalities. Luther’s teaching of Private Interpretation and his defiance of rightful teaching authority. That being said, we agree that Luther was wrong about a LOT of things. A partial list would the Pope as the antichrist and the execution of Jews, Anabaptists, ‘reluctant wives’, Anabaptists, etc., etc. We can add to this list of agreements that it was wrong for Luther to teach Private Interpretation of Scriptures AND, apparently, that Luther was wrong to refute/deny/challenge the doctrinal teachings of his Church, which of course was the Roman Catholic Church.

If you disagree and believe that Luther did not teach that Christians should privately interpret Scripture, then please state so. If not, then the inescapable conclusion that we both must draw, you from the teachings of Lutheranism, and I from the teachings of the Church, is that Luther should NOT have refuted the doctrinal teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

But what are the ‘greater implications’ of Luther’s being wrong to rebel against the Church and it’s doctrines, meaning what are the implications for Luteranism?

If you believe that there were some sort of ‘special circumstances’ that must be considered in the case of Luther’s Rebellion against the Catholic Church, then please make your case specifically. If there is no case to be made, the obvious conclusion is that Lutheranism especially, but in fact Protestantism in general, were founded in defiance of what we both agree to be valid Christian teaching. IOW, that if the Christian Gospel had been followed, Lutheranism and Protestantism would never have been founded.

This is such an important matter that it deserves a thorough review, with each side presenting their best cases as supported by specifics and historical facts.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

 

[Faithdancer]

So in essence…you substituted the Magisterium of the Church for your own authority…so you youself determine what you want to believe and not believe…in essence, you are your own Magisterium and pope rolled into yourself…basically speaking.

From the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

“7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.”

Works for me!:dancing::clapping:

 

[Chong]

The Bible also states that you will be judged on based on what you know and what you did with it. If you know and see in the Bible, that Jesus was speaking literally in regards to the bread and wine, but yet deny it, then your denying him. Yes at the end of the day, you will be judged on what you did, but that comes with what you know. Remember theirs people still today that who cannot read and write. A lot are from other religions, they might never know about Christ, are they going to hell? Not necessarily because they were told about him.

Now, if you know God wants this this and this, and you still go against it, guess what, even if you donate all your money at the end of the day I think it might give you some problems because you ignored the truth and put your feelings first.

The ultimate is if ones name is in the book of life. If not, then they will be thrown to the lake of fire. What qualifies one to be entered in the book of life is of great importance. We should debate it and endeavor to achieve it.

 

[JonNC]

=Topper17;12579339]

I understand that Jon, but your response did not address the main thrust of my point or my questions. I was discussing both Luther and Lutheranism and the ‘relationship’ between the two on the matter of private interpretation. **The fact is that Lutheranism has taken the exact opposite approach to the early Reformation Luther. **

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that, as a tradition, Lutheranism does not practice private interpretation regarding doctrine.

This is an extremely important matter and the fact that Lutheranism **completely repudiated **it’s founder is very revealing. Jon, you have not refuted my facts or challenge my conclusions, but if you would like to do so, then please do.

I think it a tad overstated that Lutheranism completely repudiated Luther. After all, the Small and Large Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles are in the Book of Concord.

Actually, nobody has said that Luther was ‘wrong about everything’, certainly not me.

That’s good to hear.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

From the 1689 London Baptist Confession:

“7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.”

Works for me!:dancing::clapping:

As a Lutheran, I am kind of partial to Martin Chemnitz’s comment on the topic, which is in my signature.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is such an important matter that it deserves a thorough review, with each side presenting their best cases as supported by specifics and historical facts.

God Bless You Jon, Topper

Nice post.

FYI-

**Private Judgment: Its Meaning and How it is Viewed by Protestants and Catholics **
By Dave Armstrong
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/private-judgment-its-meaning-and-how.html

And I believe this is the first version of Dave’s paper (archived now on another site):

web.archive.org/web/20040203035143/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ469.HTM

 

[Stilldreamn]

I have read through this thread a couple of times and it is mentally exhausting.

There is a quote that CAF member Seraphim73 made on another thread that has been circulating in my mind as I ponder this “Which Church” thread:

[snip] God said "“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” We can’t put limits on God’s mercy.

“You ask, will the heterodox be saved. Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.” - St Theophan the Recluse

For me, this puts a different perspective on things. In my own faith journey, I am at a point where I simply cling to the cross, to the One who saves us all and cry for mercy.

 

[chero23]

The ultimate is if ones name is in the book of life. If not, then they will be thrown to the lake of fire. What qualifies one to be entered in the book of life is of great importance. We should debate it and endeavor to achieve it.

If I’m not mistaken I think your words sound similar to what Calvin said. It doesn’t matter what you do, you can be the best person but if your not in the book your not going to heaven.

I think God sees all that we do, I also think some people have gotten their names removed even added to the book of life, because of their conversion to God, thanks to his mercy.
But with that conversion comes truth and following it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I have read through this thread a couple of times and it is mentally exhausting.

There is a quote that CAF member Seraphim73 made on another thread that has been circulating in my mind as I ponder this “Which Church” thread:
Seraphim73;12570903:

As a general rule we don’t not. God said "“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” We can’t put limits on God’s mercy.

“You ask, will the heterodox be saved. Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins.” - St Theophan the Recluse

For me, this puts a different perspective on things. In my own faith journey, I am at a point where I simply cling to the cross, to the One who saves us all and cry for mercy.

*All Is Vanity
1 The words of the Preacher,[a] the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 Vanity** of vanities, says the Preacher,
vanity of vanities! All is vanity.
3 What does man gain by all the toil
at which he toils under the sun?
4 A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens[c] to the place where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.
7 All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.
8 All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things,[d]
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things[e] yet to be
among those who come after.***

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend’s
Or of thine own were:
Any man’s death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
by John Donne

“Man did not weave the web of life, he is but a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself”. Chief Seattle.

Deep down, it all comes to our ego and the fear of being wrong. It is as if we have forgotten that we don’t become right(eous) by our own power… but that it is because of the Cross and our Lord.

Apart from the Cross, all is vanity - as the Preacher says.

 

[Randy_Carson]

from Dave Armstrong’s paper referenced above:

Philip Schaff, well-known Protestant Church historian, whose multi-volume History of the Christian Church is so highly-regarded that it is available in several online “editions,” likewise ties private judgment into fundamental elements of Protestantism, in his comment on the Diet of Speier in 1529. He obviously sees it as a Protestant distinctive over against Catholicism:

From this protest and appeal the Lutherans were called Protestants; with good reason, if we look at their attitude to Rome, which remains the same to this day. It is the duty of the church at all times to protest against sin, error, corruption, tyranny, and every kind of iniquity. But the designation, which has since become a general term for evangelical Christians, is negative, and admits of an indiscriminate application to all who dissent from popery, no matter on what grounds and to what extent. It must be supplemented by the more important positive designation Evangelical. The gospel of Christ, as laid down in the New Testament, and proclaimed again in its primitive purity and power by the Reformation, is the basis of historical Protestantism, and gives it vitality and permanency. The protest of Speier was based objectively upon the Word of God, subjectively upon the right of private judgment and conscience, and historically upon the liberal decision of the Diet of 1526. (History of the Christian Church, VII, § 115. The Second Diet of Speier, and the Protest of 1529) (bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/7_ch08.htm)

In the same volume Schaff describes Luther’s protests:

In Leipzig he protested as a Catholic against the infallibility of pope and council; in Worms he protested against the papal tyranny over the Bible and private judgment; (History of the Christian Church, VII, § 107. The Marburg Conference, A.D. 1529) (bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf177.htm)

In his volume IV he even sets Orthodoxy and the “traditions” of Orthodoxy and Catholicism over against the right of private judgment:

. . . the traditions of the Greek Church are as strong a barrier against the exercise of private judgment and exegetical progress as those of Rome. (History of the Christian Church, IV, § 68. The Consensus and Dissensus between the Greek and Latin Churches) (bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/4_ch05.htm)

And in a very clear statement of the principle, Schaff opines:

The Reformation was a protest against a human authority, asserted the right of private conscience and judgment, and aroused a spirit of criticism and free inquiry in all departments of knowledge. It allows, therefore, a much wider scope for the exercise of reason in religion than the Roman Church, which requires an unconditional submission to her infallible authority. It marks real progress, but this progress is perfectly consistent with a belief in revelation on subjects which lie beyond the boundary of time and sense . . . The Reformers used their reason and judgment very freely in their contest with church authority. Luther refused to recant in the crisis at Worms, unless convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures and “cogent arguments” . . . (History of the Christian Church, VII, § 9 The Reformation and Rationalism) (ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc7/htm/ii.i.ix.htm)

It is no earth-shaking or particularly notable thing to simply accept people’s opinions about their own systems of theology. If Luther or Calvin say that they beleve thus-and-so about such-and-such, I believe it. On the other hand, analyzing their views and the historical fruits of same and internal inconsistencies or clashes with the Bible and previous history, etc. are different from questioning what the men themselves believed or how they conceived and described their own tenets, premises, and beliefs.

Protestants “listen” to and “submit” to “the [Protestant] Church.” But they don’t attribute infallibility to the Church. Here we have one of the the essential differences between Catholics and Protestants. The Catholic’s submission to the Church is absolute where his opinion clashes with that of the Church, whereas the Protestant has the right to dissent in some cases (precisely as Luther did at Worms). His private judgment is ultimately supreme (because sola Scriptura is now the formal principle).​

 

[Randy_Carson]

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge that, as a tradition, Lutheranism does not practice private interpretation regarding doctrine.

I think it a tad overstated that Lutheranism completely repudiated Luther. After all, the Small and Large Catechisms and the Smalcald Articles are in the Book of Concord.

That’s good to hear.

Jon

This is kinda thin in light of all that Topper said, Jon. Just sayin’.

 

[Contarini]

from Dave Armstrong’s paper referenced above:

Philip Schaff, well-known Protestant Church historian, whose multi-volume History of the Christian Church is so highly-regarded that it is available in several online “editions,” likewise ties private judgment into fundamental elements of Protestantism, in his comment on the Diet of Speier in 1529. He obviously sees it as a Protestant distinctive over against Catholicism:

From this protest and appeal the Lutherans were called Protestants; with good reason, if we look at their attitude to Rome, which remains the same to this day. It is the duty of the church at all times to protest against sin, error, corruption, tyranny, and every kind of iniquity. But the designation, which has since become a general term for evangelical Christians, is negative, and admits of an indiscriminate application to all who dissent from popery, no matter on what grounds and to what extent. It must be supplemented by the more important positive designation Evangelical. The gospel of Christ, as laid down in the New Testament, and proclaimed again in its primitive purity and power by the Reformation, is the basis of historical Protestantism, and gives it vitality and permanency. The protest of Speier was based objectively upon the Word of God, subjectively upon the right of private judgment and conscience, and historically upon the liberal decision of the Diet of 1526. (History of the Christian Church, VII, § 115. The Second Diet of Speier, and the Protest of 1529) (bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/7_ch08.htm)

In the same volume Schaff describes Luther’s protests:

In Leipzig he protested as a Catholic against the infallibility of pope and council; in Worms he protested against the papal tyranny over the Bible and private judgment; (History of the Christian Church, VII, § 107. The Marburg Conference, A.D. 1529) (bible.org/docs/history/schaff/vol7/schaf177.htm)

In his volume IV he even sets Orthodoxy and the “traditions” of Orthodoxy and Catholicism over against the right of private judgment:

. . . the traditions of the Greek Church are as strong a barrier against the exercise of private judgment and exegetical progress as those of Rome. (History of the Christian Church, IV, § 68. The Consensus and Dissensus between the Greek and Latin Churches) (bible.ca/history/philip-schaff/4_ch05.htm)

And in a very clear statement of the principle, Schaff opines:

The Reformation was a protest against a human authority, asserted the right of private conscience and judgment, and aroused a spirit of criticism and free inquiry in all departments of knowledge. It allows, therefore, a much wider scope for the exercise of reason in religion than the Roman Church, which requires an unconditional submission to her infallible authority. It marks real progress, but this progress is perfectly consistent with a belief in revelation on subjects which lie beyond the boundary of time and sense . . . The Reformers used their reason and judgment very freely in their contest with church authority. Luther refused to recant in the crisis at Worms, unless convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures and “cogent arguments” . . . (History of the Christian Church, VII, § 9 The Reformation and Rationalism) (ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc7/htm/ii.i.ix.htm)

It is no earth-shaking or particularly notable thing to simply accept people’s opinions about their own systems of theology. If Luther or Calvin say that they beleve thus-and-so about such-and-such, I believe it. On the other hand, analyzing their views and the historical fruits of same and internal inconsistencies or clashes with the Bible and previous history, etc. are different from questioning what the men themselves believed or how they conceived and described their own tenets, premises, and beliefs.

Protestants “listen” to and “submit” to “the [Protestant] Church.” But they don’t attribute infallibility to the Church. Here we have one of the the essential differences between Catholics and Protestants. The Catholic’s submission to the Church is absolute where his opinion clashes with that of the Church, whereas the Protestant has the right to dissent in some cases (precisely as Luther did at Worms). His private judgment is ultimately supreme (because sola Scriptura is now the formal principle).​

Schaff is a 19th-century historian. 19th-century Protestants believed “private judgment” to be the essence of Protestantism. That claim cannot be accepted uncritically.

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Randy,

As you know, the Church Fathers were just as severe in their opposition to Private Judgment as is Scripture, which makes it that much more inexplicable that it became a foundational principal of Protestantism.

**“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, **by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes];…" Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).

Please note the importance of Apostolic Succession in the second century. Breaking away from that Succession almost insures heresy.

"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles……Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind…” Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

Breaking WITH the Succession actually breaks the succession – surprise! The concept of Apolostic Succession becomes absolutely meaningless when combined with Sola Scripture and it’s evil twin, the “Right of the Individual’ to correctly interpret Scripture. (SS+PI)

**“To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), **yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not." Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, 32 (c. A.D. 200).

Can these modern churches trace their lineage back to an Apostle other than through someone who rebelled against the Church or someone who, in defiance of the Church, formed their own denomination or communion or tradition?

"But since they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation, according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense, and that our opponents are in error." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, I:37 (A.D. 362).

**“To refuse to follow the Fathers, not holding their declaration of more authority than one’s own opinion, is conduct worthy of blame, as being brimful of self-sufficiency.” **Basil, EpistleTo the Canonicae, 52:1 (A.D. 370).

"While (the sects) mutually refute and condemn each other, it has happened to truth as to Gideon; that is, while they fight against each other, and fall under wounds mutually inflicted, they crown her. All the heretics acknowledge that there is a true Scripture. Had they all falsely believed that none existed, some one might reply that such Scripture was unknown to them. **But now that have themselves taken away the force of such plea, from the fact that they have mutilated the very Scriptures…….”**Ephraem, Adv. Haeres (ante A.D. 373).

One of the hallmarks of heresy is multiple interpretations. Whether the number of Protestant denominations is 30,000 or whatever number is not the point. The fact that the number is uncountable or unknowable is.
**
“For heresies, and certain tenets of perversity, ensnaring souls and hurling them into the deep, have not sprung up except when good Scriptures are not rightly understood, and when that in them which is not rightly understood is rashly and boldly asserted.” **Augustine, On the Gospel of John, Homily XVIII:1 (A.D. 416).

**“Therefore, as I said above, if you had been a follower and assertor of Sabellianism or Arianism or any heresy you please, **you might shelter yourself under the example of your parents, the teaching of your instructors, the company of those about you, the faith of your creed. I ask, O you heretic, nothing unfair, and nothing hard. As you have been brought up in the Catholic faith, do that which you would do for a wrong belief. Hold fast to the teaching of your parents. Hold fast the faith of the Church: hold fast the truth of the Creed: hold fast the salvation of baptism.” John Cassian, Incarnation of the Lord, 6:5 (c. A.D. 429).
**
“His (Nestorius) first attempt at innovation was……………” **Theodoret of Cyrus, Compendium of Heretics’ Fables, 12 (c.A.D. 453).

We should note the historic pattern of heretical groups being named after their founders.

In summary, the Fathers were no less against Private Interpretation than is Scripture, and yet, it was a founding principal of Protestantism, and in some denominations, it still is, in spite of the obvious damage it has done to Christianity.

God Bless You Randy, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Hi Chero,

The Bible also states that you will be judged on based on what you know and what you did with it. If you know and see in the Bible, that Jesus was speaking literally in regards to the bread and wine, but yet deny it, then your denying him. Yes at the end of the day, you will be judged on what you did, but that comes with what you know. Remember theirs people still today that who cannot read and write. A lot are from other religions, they might never know about Christ, are they going to hell? Not necessarily because they were told about him.

Now, if you know God wants this this and this, and you still go against it, guess what, even if you donate all your money at the end of the day I think it might give you some problems because you ignored the truth and put your feelings first.

I agree. What concerns me sometimes is the fate of those who know that the Church is what it says it is and STILL resists it. My brother comes to mind. He is very anti-Catholic and while I think that he COULD come to the conclusion intellectually that the Church is that which Christ established for ALL of us, I don’t think that he is emotionally/psychologically capable of becoming ‘truly Catholic’. His ego simply would not allow itself to be ‘reduced’ to the point of being a follower of Church doctrine rather than a ‘developer’ of individual doctrine.

Satan could not have possibly developed a more seductive and ego-stroking teaching than Sola Scripture in combination with it’s ‘Evil Twin’ and only logical end point - the ‘Right’ of the individual to (correctly) interpret Scripture.

God Bless You Chero, Topper

 

[Jubilarian]

It’s tough hearing that Satan is involved in sola Scriptura . I say that because it would imply that because a Christian not having the fullness of the Catholic faith is in jeopardy of hell . I realize Protestants have gone astray but is it to the point that they are following the orchestration of Satan?

Maybe I just never pondered about the devil and the Reformation .

 

[JonNC]

Philip Schaff, well-known Protestant Church historian, whose multi-volume History of the Christian Church is so highly-regarded that it is available in several online “editions,” likewise ties private judgment into fundamental elements of Protestantism, in his comment on the Diet of Speier in 1529. He obviously sees it as a Protestant distinctive over against Catholicism:

 

[Topper17]

Hi Jubi,

It’s tough hearing that Satan is involved in sola Scriptura . I say that because it would imply that because a Christian not having the fullness of the Catholic faith is in jeopardy of hell . I realize Protestants have gone astray but is it to the point that they are following the orchestration of Satan?

Maybe I just never pondered about the devil and the Reformation .

First of all, the Catholic Church teaches that one does not HAVE to be Catholic to achieve everlasting salvation. We believe that Protestants will also find heaven, which is not a ‘charity’ that is returned by all Protestants in regards to Catholics going to heaven.

That being said, it is very clear that Sola Scriptura, especially in combination with Private Interpretation has actually be responsible for a tremendous amount of doctrinal confusion and disunity. Given that Christ and the Scriptures command unity of faith, SS+PI is clearly NOT a teaching of Christ or the Apostles. SS is obviously NOT true and if it is not true, then what is it? Who is the author of all lies?

The whole question of ‘Which church’ would be completely unnecessary if it were not for SS+PI.

Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox EVER taught ANYTHING like SS or PI. In fact at the Leipzig Debate of 1519, where Luther was defeated by Catholic Theologian John Eck, Luther’s insistence on SS+PI came fully to the forefront. Richard Marius, my favorite biographer of Luther relates the following:

After Leipzig: “**Eck’s crowing letters after the event (Leipzig) declared that Luther opposed the sacred and solid tradition of the church with the appeal to conscience of the individual. Men of Eck’s conviction foresaw – rightly, as it turned out – that once the individual conscience was granted freedom to seek its own definition of truth, Christian faith would become so fragmented that no consensus would be possible and the uncertainties inherent in any religion would then become the spiritual equipment of humankind.” **Marius pg. 186

Luther was repeatedly warned that his radical teachings would lead to doctrinal disunity, but he would not listen. As it turns out, and as Marius admits, they were right.

As for SS+PI being of Satan, we should leave that judgment to the individual for the moment, but can you suggest a doctrine on the authority of the Church vs. the individual which could possibly be more damaging to Christian unity?

These things are worth thinking about (I think ).

God Bless You Jubi, Topper

 

[SyroMalankara]

I agree. What concerns me sometimes is the fate of those who know that the Church is what it says it is and STILL resists it. My brother comes to mind. He is very anti-Catholic and while I think that he COULD come to the conclusion intellectually that the Church is that which Christ established for ALL of us, I don’t think that he is emotionally/psychologically capable of becoming ‘truly Catholic’. His ego simply would not allow itself to be ‘reduced’ to the point of being a follower of Church doctrine rather than a ‘developer’ of individual doctrine.

Tell you what, you pray for my relative’s conversion and I’ll pray for yours!