Which Doctrines Do All Protestants Agree Upon?

[mgrfin]

Except that not all “protestants” or “bible christians” or whatever term you’d like to use even subscribe to this list…

well, according to your list, the Reformation didn’t happen.

peace

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

This is no more than stonewalling on your part. In no fewer than 14 posts since your initial thread-derailing post, folks have included the Church’s fault as a partial cause of the Reformation. Pretty strange that you missed all fourteen posts, don’t you think? Why do you think that is? Any explanation?

Such deformed logic, no wonder this is going nowhere. In post 92 you said “More than once I have clarified with you that the Church had some fault in what happened…” So lets look at your examples:

Post 52:
“Corruption among some clergy exascerbated the need for discipline.” Notice what you said and did not say. You did not say the corruption was partially responsible for what happened, only that it exacerbabed the need for discipline. That would be true anytime there is corruption, yet a split does not occur everytime there is corruption. Still I will count it as one reference, not so much a clarification, but a fly-by mention.

Post 67
“If the Catholic Church has a fault in regards to Luther, it was that the Church ordained him to quickly. He became a monk for all the wrong reasons. I can tell by reading his theses that he didn’t fully understand the Catholic doctrine of confession/reconciliation.”
Nope. First it is not your post, isn’t that obvious to you? See why I see this as a waste of time? Maybe the Lord will find someway to redeem this time spent. Second, The word “if”, not very commital. And then the focus seems to be on Luther’s fault and understanding.

Post 68
"History demonstrates that secular politics predominated in the Reformation and that the Reformers were up to their chins in secular politics.

The difference is that the Church owned up and made corrections. Yall didn’t. And yall are still pointing your fingers everywhere but to your own founders."
Too vague, and sandwiched between denigrating remarks toward Protestants.Still haven’t seen you actually mention an abuse, more like walking around the elephant in the room, as you have alluded to previously.

Post 72
A repeat of post 52, only this time with disclaimers: “Have you ever read what history has to say about it? There were four other reasons listed, none of which had anything to do with the Church…Red herring. Luther’s interest was political, not theological.” Not much of a clarification of the Church’s responsibility, seems more like trying to minimize the Church’s role.

Post 76
Nope. First, not your post. Second, how is the Church agreeing or disagreeing admitting fault? Third, the commentary is clearly unfavorable toward Luther, so where is this admitting fault of the Church?
"Of the 95 items on Luther’s list, the Church did agree with him on all but (I believe) 14 of his points. He clearly held his private, personal interpretations above that of the Church.

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

Post 83
Nope, not your post. Second, blaming on individuals, and not on those who committed systematic abuses by their Church office and authority.
“Yep it says right there that MEN of both sides were to blame, not the Catholic Church. Nobody denies that there were sinful men IN the Church doing sinful things, but the Church Herself is not to blame for that, sin is.”

Post 86
Nope, not your post. And pretty much the same as post #67. Pretty much puts the responsibility back on Luther:
"It is a serious fault. By ordaining Luther, who had serious misunderstandings of Catholic teaching, the Church inadvertantly put a heretic in a perfect position to lead others into schism.
…And what do you make of Luther’s impieties? He broke a bunch of nuns out of a convent, proceeded to behave scandalously with them, and eventually married one. Sounds like a priest who didn’t take his office seriously to me.
"

continued

 

[Teflon93]

In practice, though, from your own experience there are pastors who attempt to speak authoritatively for Protestants. Are there not? On what basis?

Now I know that teaching and traditions are allowed by Sola Scriptura, but they are considered fallible. The bottom line is scripture itself. Yet, I suspect that those fallible teachings and traditions hold quite a bit of weight.

Why btw are we not including the solas or are those not considered ‘doctrine’? I would assume anything which unified mainline Protestants might be worthy of notice at this point.

I fully expected sola scriptura and certainly sola fide to be brought up as well—do all Protestants subscribe to these?

 

[Teflon93]

Mt—please get back on topic or open up a new thread. Reference the Forum rules, please.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

This is no more than stonewalling on your part. In no fewer than 14 posts since your initial thread-derailing post, folks have included the Church’s fault as a partial cause of the Reformation. Pretty strange that you missed all fourteen posts, don’t you think? Why do you think that is? Any explanation?

continued…

Post 91
Nope, not your post. And the disclaimer last sentence takes away from really admitting part of the responsibilty.
“Sure, Catholics bear their share of blame for the reformation. A modern analogy would be the formation of schismatic sects sparked by abusive interpretations of Vatican II. Even if scandal is not the real catalyst it sure provides a real opportunity.”

Post 92
Nope, this is the post were you claimed to have told me more than once, it needs to be before this post.
“**More than once I have clarified with you **that the Church had some fault in what happened.”

Post 94
Nope, posted after your claim in post #92. And not really a clarification, or admission. Does go on to rant about Luther.
"NO ONE has said that the Church did not share fault in the Reformation. NO ONE. And yet repeatedly you build this strawman to attack both ourselves and the Church. You are neither discussing in good faith nor comporting yourself in a manner even vaguely evocative of charity.

Is Luther some kind of God that, as soon as anyone suggests that he was less than lily-white, the fingers come out pointing at everyone else and his brother? Luther is not God! His role in history is not above examination or criticism.

Post 100
So, not your post, and came after post 92.
This is an excellent post in my opinion. Perhaps this poster will not be “assaulted” since no specifics were referenced, leaving a less “bitter” taste. If this poster had said the same and included references to Alexander VI and Savonarola, would the responses be different?

"Michael,

Yes, abuses and corruption among members of the Church played a large role as both a catalyst and opportunity during the reformation. I don’t see the difficulty in saying this, since it’s true. That certain reformers may or may not have had political aspirations or used the unrest caused by these abuses to further their aims is irrelevant to the original point. The exterior of the Church was in great need of cleansing and the counter-reformation came a bit too late.

Post 101
This actually takes away from your post #52. Seems like you are saying the Chuch was not so much at fault, as a victum of circumstances, and weakened by the corruption of those She chose as clergy. That’s why it didn’t seem like an admission and clarification…it wasn’t intended to admit fault and responsiblity, just victimhood.
"That’s because the Church did not play a major role. The Church had been weakened by the Crusades, the Plagues, and the corruption among some of Her clergy. …
The Church was, in part, at fault.*** However***, having said this, it was not the Church Herself who authored the major changes in warfare, economics, and social organization that resulted from the Renaissance. Those changes were the major causes of the Reformation. Those changes were… POLITICAL. Luther’s strategy, tactics, and alliances were…POLITICAL.

Post 104
Oh, so not you’re going to pick apart that excellent post by another Catholic poster. Let’s see if the word games are the same.

Post 116
Why do you refer to this post?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I fully expected sola scriptura and certainly sola fide to be brought up as well—do all Protestants subscribe to these?

I can’t imagine a Protestant not subscribing to Sola Scriptura. At least not in theory.

Solo fides: I am not so sure. There seems to be some ins and outs around defining works.

As for the thread derailing: how long is that going to continue? I asked the guy to start a new thread. I am not sure how many times he has to read something though before it gets through.

Anyway, do you think Protestants would be happy saying that Sola Scriptura unifies them?

 

[Teflon93]

I can’t imagine a Protestant not subscribing to Sola Scriptura. At least not in theory.

Solo fides: I am not so sure. There seems to be some ins and outs around defining works.

As for the thread derailing: how long is that going to continue? I asked the guy to start a new thread. I am not sure how many times he has to read something though before it gets through.

Anyway, do you think Protestants would be happy saying that Sola Scriptura unifies them?

Well, I’m not sure—it’s possible that they’re simply aware of a major exception among the mainline denominations to the two solas.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Mt—please get back on topic or open up a new thread. Reference the Forum rules, please.

Maybe he just doesn’t know them. Here are the links:

Forum rules
Banned topics

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Well, I’m not sure—it’s possible that they’re simply aware of a major exception among the mainline denominations to the two solas.

What exceptions?

 

[scottm]

Inerrancy of the Scriptures

Denied by some. The Bible is just a book of faith, they say. It’s not necessarily always historically accurate, they say.

The authenticity of Christ’s miracles

Denied by some. Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t, they say. The point is that people believed that they did, they say. (The leaders of RCIA at my present Catholic church hold to this view, BTW.)

Teflon93:

I fully expected sola scriptura and certainly sola fide to be brought up as well—do all Protestants subscribe to these?

and
Ani Ibi:

Anyway, do you think Protestants would be happy saying that Sola Scriptura unifies them?

No. Pentecostals are not “sola scriptura” people.
But I can’t think of any group that denies sola fide. I think you have one there.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

scottm:

No. Pentecostals are not “sola scriptura” people.

Yikes! :bigyikes: What relationship do Pentecostals have with Scripture?

scottm:

But I can’t think of any group that denies sola fide. I think you have one there.

I don’t know if this is official but I knew an official in an Anglican church who claimed to be semi-Pelagian.

Well, how do we resolve this? Ask the Pentecostals and Anglicans to leave our list?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Mt—please get back on topic or open up a new thread. Reference the Forum rules, please.

My apologies to all except Teflon93 and Ani Ibe. I tried to get back on thread with post 111, and 114, and then got distracted replying to accusations and misrepresentations. Both of you contributed to the diversion from the O.P., and it seems hypocritical to be then yelling back on track, back on track.

So, from my post 114:

"O.K. lets rephrase that so we can keep the blinders on.

Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine held in common? If not, and if most subcribe to the Apostle’s creed, then it would appear they not so much created new doctrines, as much as expel those they thought were contrary to God’s Word. Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine? Faith alone and Scripture alone really are not unique in creating something new, just cuts off what they don’t agree with. Faith and Scripture are not unique to Protestants, as they are central to Catholicism."

Can a Protestant denomination be Christian and not believe the basics of the Apostle’s creed? Maybe they don’t agree to the exact wording of the creed, however, do they agree to the basics of the creed?

Michael

 

[Teflon93]

My apologies to all except Teflon93 and Ani Ibe. I tried to get back on thread with post 111, and 114, and then got distracted replying to accusations and misrepresentations. Both of you contributed to the diversion from the O.P., and it seems hypocritical to be then yelling back on track, back on track.
Michael

Please refer to the Forum rules before posting again in this thread, Michael.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Please refer to the Forum rules before posting again in this thread, Michael.

Please follow your own advice. Are you going to let it go, or keep at it? Care to address my previous post relevant to the OP, or keep playing games?

"My apologies to all except Teflon93 and Ani Ibe. I tried to get back on thread with post 111, and 114, and then got distracted replying to accusations and misrepresentations. Both of you contributed to the diversion from the O.P., and it seems hypocritical to be then yelling back on track, back on track.

So, from my post 114:

"O.K. lets rephrase that so we can keep the blinders on.

Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine held in common? If not, and if most subcribe to the Apostle’s creed, then it would appear they not so much created new doctrines, as much as expel those they thought were contrary to God’s Word. Is there a uniquely Protestant doctrine? Faith alone and Scripture alone really are not unique in creating something new, just cuts off what they don’t agree with. Faith and Scripture are not unique to Protestants, as they are central to Catholicism."

Can a Protestant denomination be Christian and not believe the basics of the Apostle’s creed? Maybe they don’t agree to the exact wording of the creed, however, do they agree to the basics of the creed?

Michael

 

[Atemi]

Except that not all “protestants” or “bible christians” or whatever term you’d like to use even subscribe to this list…

Like who?

 

[rtconstant]

Yikes! :bigyikes: What relationship do Pentecostals have with Scripture?

I don’t know if this is official but I knew an official in an Anglican church who claimed to be semi-Pelagian.

Well, how do we resolve this? Ask the Pentecostals and Anglicans to leave our list?

I think that Anglicans, some Pentecostals and perhaps more believe in some level of works. I know one group of Pentecostals who actually believe that you can’t sin at all and be saved.

Also what about Protestant denominations like the UCC, Anglicans and I think Methodists who believe that Baptism is necessary how does that play into it?

 

[SyCarl]

I will start by saying that I have not read the entire thread which is quite long.

I do feel that a better question is “What doctrines do all Protestant denominations agree upon?” It will always be possible to find people who claim to be a member of a denomination who say things that are contrary to its official doctrine or do not really understand its doctrine. So individual examples of people disagreeing with a particular doctrine are no more useful than citing individual Catholics who either do not understand Catholic doctrine or who don’t agree with it while still claiming to be Catholics.

That said, I cannot pretend to know what all denominations teach.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Not a trick question, here—when I say “All Protestants” I’m referring to all Protestants currectly versed in their particular denomination.

When I say “Agree Upon”, though, I mean “accept a common practical definition of and agree in all significant ways as to its implementation.”

You might say, for example, the Trinity, but if T.D. Jakes or some significant denomination under the Protestant umbrella does not hold to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one person this would fail the test.

Significance will be an unavoidable question—with so many Protestant denominations one must note with charity that there are many tiny offshoots which do not rise to significant influence and should not count against the doctrinal unity which does exist.

A quick seach on the web shows the Apostle’s Creed as apparently common to Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodiis, Baptist, and perhaps Pentecostal (haven’t taken the time yet to see if how closely their offical creed agrees with the Apostle’s creed.

reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

Presbyterian
athensfirstpres.com/apostle.html
solochristo.org/info_apostlescreed.asp

Anglican
apostolicanglican.com/

Lutheran
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3355
elca.org/communication/creeds/creeds.html

Methodist
gbgmchurches.gbgm-umc.org/lonsdaleumc/beliefs.html
fumcwaco.org/traditional.htm

Baptist
baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=1967

Pentecostal
arc.iphc.org/theology/creed.html
bible.ca/cr-United-Pentecostal-(upci).htm

Michael

 

[mgrfin]

Mt_28_19_20:
It is amazing to me that after 450 years of Protestant innovation there can possibly any discussion about what is the body of common Protestant belief.

If you are free to believe what you want, interprete the Scriptures as you want, come and go inside religion as you want, nothing amazes me anymore.

Taking an example from the Cold War, after it was over, the USA didn’t have USSR to worry about any more. What was there to keep us on our toes?

If Protestantism didn’t have Roman Catholicism to oppose, to criticize, to analyze, then these denominations would generally disappear.

All these religions, from 200 to 2,000, whatever the number actually have little going for them. Sacraments (baptism, maybe a symbolic Communion), private interpretation of Scripture, some of the Decalogue, no Communion of Saints, no Mystical Body of Christ, some kind of belief in the Trinity, maybe a belief in the hypostatic union, a church (a loosely fitted grouping of similar people), no priesthood, but a surety of salvation (OSAS) almost regardless of the state of your soul, no Mariology, almost no doctrinal teaching (certainly no infallibility), just that Jesus saved us (‘now send in your money, operators available’).

Which doctrines to all Protestants agree upon? The theme of this tread: well, Universal acceptance of Jesus Christ as your personal savior, as if there wasn’t more to Christ’s appearance in time.

We as Catholics take criticism all the time, It keeps us humble. But Protestantism is the Horn and Hardart of religion - cafeteria Christianity - pick what you want, and if you are not happy, we still have the Catholic Church to pick on. And if you are really unhappy, move onto some other form of religion that makes sense to you.

Just look at this website. It is attack, attack, attack on the Catholic Church, sometimes more charitably than at any other times. For example, someone reaching back on some forgotten, esoteric homily of John Chrysostom on a scriptural passage with hardly any relevance, hoping that a Catholic might pass a anathema from Trent on the greatest preacher from the Early Church. A smear on a great saint of the Eastern Church.

Am I too harsh? Am I not ecumenical? If so, I apologize. But, I am still waiting for a body of Protestant belief common to non-Catholic Christians to appear on this tread.

peace

 

[savedsinner]

Well, we’re really looking for “official” doctrine here. Just as it wouldn’t be correct to take a dogmatic view of Limbo in the Catholic Church (we are free to believe or not believe in it); we probably shouldn’t view inerrancy of the Bible as a doctrine unless it’s considered to be a requirement for a given community.

Since the Fundamentalist movement is so large, of course, some of its doctrines may in fact rise to dogmatic beliefs.

I might be wrong here, but I thought that the fundamentalist movement was, at first, just a scaled down list of beliefs which could be clearly proven in scripture, later, ideas like dispensationalism was added, and there the movement started to get some doctrine which could be viewed by some as extra-biblical.
I am thinking of the fact that some dispensationalists say that the Gospels were written for the Jews, and not for Christians (Gentiles), Christians should look to the epistles for our teaching. The Gospels were still focused on the Law, but now we are under grace, which is found in the epistles.