A troubling confession - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

[Xeno.of.athens]

We are one in our faith in God

One insofar as you all profess faith in God; definitely not one regarding the content of the faith you confess.

 

[Strong in Him]

One insofar as you all profess faith in God; definitely not one regarding the content of the faith you confess.

A lot of differences, arguments and debates concern church practice, rather than doctrine. Either that, or details which, ultimately, aren't that important.
For example, look at the Eschatology section of this forum. There are a whole range of views there; when certain events will happen, why something will not happen and debates about verses in Daniel/Revelation.
Yet everyone agrees that Jesus will return one day.
To me, that is the important doctrine - which is stated in the Nicene Creed; that and the fact that we are to be Jesus' witnesses and make disciples until he returns. Similarly with the cross; there are all kinds of debates about atonement or the nature of Jesus' death. Yet all believe that he died for our sins, and it is by accepting his death that we have life. It's not like anyone teaches that Jesus didn't die, the cross is an outdated method of salvation or that sin doesn't matter any more.

And what's with the " Insofar as you all profess faith in God" statement?
Do Catholics no longer believe in the One, true God - or was that a way of separating yourselves from "us" because you believe that you are the only church?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

A lot of differences, arguments and debates concern church practice, rather than doctrine.

Predestination, baptismal regeneration, one saved always saved, losing one's salvation, receiving or rejecting sacred tradition, prayer and intercession, Paid ministers or only unpaid ones ...

 

[Strong in Him]

Predestination, baptismal regeneration, one saved always saved, losing one's salvation, receiving or rejecting sacred tradition, prayer and intercession, Paid ministers or only unpaid ones ...

Yes - those aren't doctrine.

Doctrine = the Gospel.
The Gospel is what makes us different from other faiths. It's not about man trying to get to heaven, finding God, doing things to please God - it's about God coming to earth, in Christ, to reconcile us to himself. God - the Maker of the universe - is not a remote figure sitting on a cloud, directing our lives from a distance; he is closer to us than a heartbeat and wants us to have a relationship with him.

No one comes to God except through Jesus. A person can go to church, intellectually assent to the creeds, be able to hold a logical argument about the topics you have mentioned - but not have received, and been trusting in, Jesus.
Believing in Jesus means believing his claims about himself and the things that he taught. Trusting in Jesus means trusting that it is HE who gives eternal life - not good works, the church, our favourite church tradition or anything else.
Salvation, and a relationship with God, is only possible through Jesus. There might be churches that want to believe that it is Jesus + the church/tithing/baptism/tradition etc which saves us - but it isn't.

 

[Halbhh]

The alternative is a free-for-all, as we have now to a great extent with many disagreeing with each other based on Scripture alone,

And a solution.

Notice the fine detail -- even inside the most unified churches people will disagree on this or that. (you learn as you listen to many) Even in the Catholic Church, which itself (like all churches or any one church) visibly having a lot of " many disagreeing with each other ". (websites are devoted to reporting all of this endless disagreement)

How could that be otherwise, since we are not all mature equally.

So, we are given Romans 14.
Reading and hearing it helps us notice how humans will always disagree with each other and that's ok -- that it's ok is the point. (Bible Gateway passage: Romans 14 - New International Version)

As you see in the chapter, this was already the norm from the first, in the earliest church, many already had these big disagreements. In like 60AD already.

So, when we talk about " disagreeing with each other based on Scripture alone," -- it's.... really just humans " disagreeing with each other ".

But....consider: really listening to God's words to us with faith is actually a most key, primary help against all that normal tendency to disagree.

After all, without the inspired Word, we have only individual's opinions in contest. One person claiming this is the only Truth, and another a different thing.

Like you'd see reported anywhere in dozens of articles a year about any large church body.

Bishops contesting viewpoints with each other.

Scripture -- that is, the literal Words from God -- is the only thing that saves us from only having different thoughts from one another, and nothing to unify with...

(After all, no 2 humans on Earth think just the same (not when you get into details)).

Scripture is how we can all agree on many crucial things.

So, to the best possible, I want to help people to remember their awe and love for the Words from God....

To just listen, without needing to already agree on everything.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes - those aren't doctrine.

One cannot help but disagree.

 

[Strong in Him]

One cannot help but disagree.

How come?
How are predestination, rejecting tradition or having paid/unpaid ministers Christian doctrine?

 

[Dan Perez]

Saint Paul said that there is

One body [the Church which is Christ's body]and ​

one Spirit: ​

as you are called in one hope of your calling. ​

One Lord, ​

one faith, ​

one baptism. ​

One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.​

Ephesians 4:4-6 DRB

It is a truth from apostolic times; those who deny it may as well deny the inspiration of the holy scriptures.

But ONE LORD , ONE FAITH , ONE BAPTISM is true .

EXCEPT where it says ONE BAPTISM , does not mean WATER BAPTISM , as it means ONE BAPTISMA , JUST CHECK THE GREEK TEXT and see

This Greek word BAPTISMA is used in Matt 3:17 , 20:22 , 21:25 ---Mark 1:4 and in 1 Peter 3:21 22 passages ,

dan p

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

How come?
How are predestination, rejecting tradition or having paid/unpaid ministers Christian doctrine?

They are, by definition, doctrinal.

 

[Strong in Him]

They are, by definition, doctrinal.

That doesn't answer my question.
How?
How is the discussion about whether to have a paid or unpaid minister Christian doctrine? It isn't - it's a practical matter depending on what a church can afford, or what resources they have. Ordination, itself, isn't doctrine - the Gospel and Christian faith don't change because the leader of the church wears a dog collar. Even those who strongly argue against women's ordination concede that it is not a matter that affects salvation.

If Christian tradition is doctrine then breaking, or rejecting, that tradition would almost be heresy. But it isn't. A church building that has been standing for 100+ years may traditionally have always had pews. Then it is decided to take them out and have chairs - for comfort, and to better uses the space. Having pews wasn't doctrine, and removing them wasn't heresy.

 

[fhansen]

Notice the fine detail -- even inside the most unified churches people will disagree on this or that. (you learn as you listen to many) Even in the Catholic Church, which itself (like all churches or any one church) visibly having a lot of " many disagreeing with each other ". (websites are devoted to reporting all of this endless disagreement)

I’m speaking about which theology is right, not the opinions of individuals, which may vary widely. Individuals do not define Catholicism, for example; the Catholic Church does so, and so it’s teachings are the standard Im comparing other beliefs with. And those teachings can be found in the catechism of the Catholic Church. And those teachings do not depend on Scripture alone, but on the faith as received prior to the New Testament even being written.

Scripture is how we can all agree on many crucial things.

Not at all. Going by Scripture alone people have agreed on heretical or erroneous viewpoints. JW theology comes to mind, as well as the Reformed theology on justification. At the same time new denominations continue to spring up, as they did at the beginning of the Reformation, based on disagreement over Scriptural interpretations! Luther feared and predicted that this could happen!

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura has produced more variety, as in confusion, of beliefs than any other source! That’s why a church, with a central authority given by God, guided by the Holy Spirit, is essential in maintaining unity of beliefs, regardless of whether any individuals, including popes, agree with it or not.

 

[fhansen]

But ONE LORD , ONE FAITH , ONE BAPTISM is true .

EXCEPT where it says ONE BAPTISM , does not mean WATER BAPTISM , as it means ONE BAPTISMA , JUST CHECK THE GREEK TEXT and see

This Greek word BAPTISMA is used in Matt 3:17 , 20:22 , 21:25 ---Mark 1:4 and in 1 Peter 3:21 22 passages ,

dan p

Oh, yes, it means water baptism. Read the didache, read early fathers and the beliefs and practices of the early churches and you’ll find that there was never any other understanding within Christianity. Yours is a matter of interpretation, which also happens to disagree with the interpretation of many other Protestants going by Scripture alone and so which proves, once again,the fallacious nature of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sola scriptura produced more denominations in one generation than 1,500 years of history that preceded it. Relying on scripture as sole authority and individual interpretation as effective authority led to endless divisions and we still see its fruit today with new independent churches arising every day and evolving into new denominations every few years.

 

[tampasteve]

I was always taught (when I was in the RCC) that it meant that we knew the most assured path to Salvation was through the Church (The RCC), but we did not know that there is not salvation outside of the Church as God is ever merciful. Basically CC847 gives an "out" to people that just have no real chance to embrace Rome but live a "Christian" life.

Now, those of us that actively and purposely left the RCC, well we are probably damned based on most RCC teachings. Fortunately we also believe that those ideas are incorrect in the first place so take little stock in that line of thought.

 

[fhansen]

I was always taught (when I was in the RCC) that it meant that we knew the most assured path to Salvation was through the Church (The RCC), but we did not know that there is not salvation outside of the Church as God is ever merciful. Basically CC847 gives an "out" to people that just have no real chance to embrace Rome but live a "Christian" life.

Now, those of us that actively and purposely left the RCC, well we are probably damned based on most RCC teachings. Fortunately we also believe that those ideas are incorrect in the first place so take little stock in that line of thought.

Knowledge is always key to culpability. I left the RCC for over 25 years and was very a surprised when I found myself back inside her doors-especially since I was quite anti-Catholic for a long spell. God works in mysterious ways, etc. He has His own plans in any case-and sometimes they may well upset and controvert our own-thank God!

Anyway, I had genuine faith before I returned and I doubt I would've been hell-bound if I hadn't returned. Yes, the church teaches that we're all part of the larger Church and that most who call themselves Christians are more or less perfectly joined to it while lacking the "fullness of truth" but still within God's family. There are still some Protestant groups and individuals, OTOH, that fail to return such consideration, instead considering the RCC to be the harlot of Babylon.

 

[Strong in Him]

Sola scriptura produced more denominations in one generation than 1,500 years of history that preceded it. Relying on scripture as sole authority and individual interpretation as effective authority led to end less divisions

I'd rather rely on God's word as the sole authority than on some denomination which says that they, alone, have the full truth.

Jesus IS Truth and ALL authority in heaven and on earth was given to Jesus.

 

[Strong in Him]

There are still some Protestant groups and individuals, OTOH, that fail to return such consideration, instead considering the RCC to be the harlot of Babylon.

I know there are; I've seen them on here, and I've always defended Catholics against that teaching.
But I find that I don't get the same consideration from some Catholics, who have said that I have only a "subset" of the truth, that I am outside the "true" church and that I need to "come home."

Now who was it who said, "treat others as you would like to be treated"?

 

[fhansen]

I know there are; I've seen them on here, and I've always defended Catholics against that teaching.
But I find that I don't get the same consideration from some Catholics, who have said that I have only a "subset" of the truth, that I am outside the "true" church and that I need to "come home."

Now who was it who said, "treat others as you would like to be treated"?

I'd hope that in treating me like others would want to be treated they would not be holding back the Truth from me. Should we withhold the truth from those with non-Christian beliefs, for example? And the truth is that not all of us possess the truth of the gospel as fully as others do (presumably none of us possess it absolutely perfectly as individuals), which is one reason why these forums exist and why even Protestants debate other Protestants on these very forums. Either way, speaking the truth, if done in love, is not maltreatment, even if not always comfortable.

 

[Strong in Him]

I'd hope that in treating me like others would want to be treated they would not be holding back the Truth from me. Should we withhold the truth from those with non-Christian beliefs, for example?

No.

And the truth is that not all of us possess the truth of the gospel as fully as others do

Jesus IS Truth.
What "truth" do some Christians possess that others don't?

Either way, speaking the truth, if done in love, is not maltreatment, even if not always comfortable.

But saying that I have only a "subset" of the truth, is not true.

A subset according to Catholics, possibly - but according to God?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

those of us that actively and purposely left the RCC

One would like to have a charitable view of people who have done what you say but it is hard to do that. If you knew what you were leaving, chose to leave it, and then to oppose it one cannot hold out much hope. Deliberate apostasy is a problematic stance to take, what you say is, if it is true, deliberate apostasy.