The quiet despair of Protestants

[W2L]

If two people believe that Jesus is on their side, and they disagree on a matter of interpretation over a belief they both hold to strongly, who's the authority, who's correct?

The scripture is correct. Bro, the Pope inst always right, neither is the Catholic church.

 

[fhansen]

The scripture is correct. Bro, the Pope inst always right, neither is the Catholic church.

Ok. But you are? For example, when one Protestant insists that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist and another says not so, or one says baptism is necessary for regeneration and another says otherwise, which position is correct?

 

[W2L]

Ok. But you are?

Im the one who must answer to the Lord, correct? Will you answer for me? I must decide for myself what is true and what is not.

 

[fhansen]

Im the one who must answer to the Lord, correct? Will you answer for me? I must decide for myself what is true and what is not.

Of course. But you're sure enough that you deny the truth of another church or persons interpretation. And that's why we're having this discussion incidentally.

 

[W2L]

Of course. But you're sure enough that you deny the truth of another church or persons interpretation. And that's why we're having this discussion incidentally.

You deny my truth at the same time. So what should we do with your appeal to authority?

 

[fhansen]

You deny my truth at the same time. So what should we do with your appeal to authority?

Just saying that we need one outside of ourselves, and Scripture cannot serve that purpose because at the end of the day, we're still the authority interpreting it. I'm not saying that reading Scripture is unprofitable by any means, just that it needs to be read in light of historical church understanding where reasonable doctrinal questions arise.

 

[W2L]

Just saying that we need one outside of ourselves, and Scripture cannot serve that purpose because at the end of the day, we're still the authority interpreting it. I'm not saying that reading Scripture is unprofitable by any means, just that it needs to be read in light of historical church understanding where reasonable doctrinal questions arise.

Such as? Catholicism? No friend.

 

[fhansen]

Such as? Catholicism? No friend.

Ok fine. That still doesn't answer the question or resolve the problem as I've experienced it

 

[Albion]

Of course, and many atheists can't agree that God exists in good conscience. And many JW's and Muslims can't agree that Jesus is God in good conscience.

Did we agree to change the topic of this thread?

 

[fhansen]

Did we agree to change the topic of this thread?

Only if you did by suggesting that differences in what people can believe in good conscience is good reason for having separate churches, i.e. disunity. But like I said, dissension is human.

 

[W2L]

Ok fine. That still doesn't answer the question or resolve the problem as I've experienced it

What did God promise to put in your heart?

 

[Albion]

Only if you did since by suggesting that differences in what people can believe in good conscience is good reason for having separate churches, i.e. disunity. But like I said, dissension is human.

We were not discussing Atheists, JW, and Moslems, so I must disagree. But on the other hand, there's probably nothing more to say on our topic anyway..

 

[fhansen]

We were not discussing Atheists, JW, and Moslems, so I must disagree. But on the other hand, there's probably nothing more to say on our topic anyway..

Awww, man! But, yeah, probably not

 

[fhansen]

What did God promise to put in your heart?

The law for one thing, and the truth, love, etc. But many people disagree while claiming to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[W2L]

But many people disagree while claiming to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Thats because they follow tradition that God doesnt write on the heart.

 

[fhansen]

Thats because they follow tradition that God doesnt write on the heart.

We'll ok. I'm sure many would disagree with you since they don't necessarily come from tradition-based theologies. But we all have to believe that the Spirit is leading us either way. And do the best we can with that.

 

[W2L]

We'll ok. I'm sure many would disagree with you since they don't necessarily come from tradition-based theologies. But we all have to believe that the Spirit is leading us either way. And do the best we can with that.

What do i care what others think? You believe that Jesus changes bread into human flesh that you can eat. I disagree but do you care?

 

[zippy2006]

Well, yours is the largest denomination, especially if we dont count the millions of nominal members. But that's all there is to that. It is still just one denomination among 30,000 (or whatever figure is correct) different denominations, no different than any other one of them in that respect.

If The Episcopal Church, for example, is expected by you to be in unity with, say the Assemblies of God (for some unknown reason), then so ought the Roman Catholic Church.

Regardless, you are still broad brushing anyone not catholic. So what if there are thousands of denominations? How is that the fault of any one denomination but not the fault of your church too?

My comparison is not arbitrary, it is based on self-identification. Those who self-identify as Catholics are relatively united; those who self-identify as Protestants are relatively divided. My argument certainly falls to pieces if Catholics are Protestants. Luckily that is an absurdly false idea.

If you read my argument more carefully you will see that it is based on traditional Churches and Protestant churches. The argument holds for Orthodoxy in much the same way it holds for Catholicism. (This of course means, W2L, that what is at stake is Protestantism, not non-Catholicism, which was very clear from the start)

If Anglicans want to claim that they are neither--as no third party believes--they are welcome to do so. The ratio then falls to 1:29,900-some rather than 1:30,000.

 

[W2L]

My comparison is not arbitrary, it is based on self-identification. Those who self-identify as Catholics are relatively united; those who self-identify as Protestants are relatively divided. My argument certainly falls to pieces if Catholics are Protestants. Luckily that is an absurdly false idea.

If you read my argument more carefully you will see that it is based on traditional Churches and Protestant churches. The argument holds for Orthodoxy in much the same way it holds for Catholicism. (This of course means, W2L, that what is at stake is Protestantism, not non-Catholicism, which was very clear from the start)

If Anglicans want to claim that they are neither--as no third party believes--they are welcome to do so. The ratio then falls to 1:29,999 rather than 1:30,000.

What you are doing is trying to lump anyone who is not catholic into one group, but that is wrong. What you should be doing is comparing the Catholic church to each denomination, such as catholic verses Lutherans, for example. How united are Lutherans compared to Catholics?

 

[zippy2006]

What you are doing is trying to lump anyone who is not catholic into one group, but that is wrong.

No, I am lumping Protestants together based on their aversion to tradition, their Sola Scriptura, and their overwhelming divisions. There are lots of non-Catholics who are not Protestants. Please read more carefully.