Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Fair enough.
Can you name five things all Protestants believe in, agree upon and generally have never disputed.
Bear in mind, I’m asking you to vouch that no Protestants have ever disagreed with your ideas in good faith.
This isn't made explicitly clear in Scripture. But I would argue that "the precise procedure" is left to our judgment. The essential elements are clear - water, in the name of the Triune God, etc... But dunking, thrice dunking, or sprinkling? Who cares?
Agreed. They unfortunately do. But this would amount to a denial of Sola Scriptura! So, in this instance, the church divides because of a failure to adhere to Sola Scriptura.I would agree that if the precise procedure were an "essential," scripture would make it clear.
But a lot of people come to division over the precise procedure as though it were an essential.
In the Medieval era before the Reformation it was illegal in many places for private Christians to gather together to read the Bible. And the Bible was not translated into the common language because it was supposed that the Bible is not sufficiently clear - it is not able to be understood by the common people.
There is evidence the earlier church fathers were advocates for the laity to read the Scriptures. I believe @Tree of Life mentioned it was in the Medieval era.Nonsense. Total, unadulterated nonsense.
Ah. Glazed over your post during a cigarette break at work and thought that related to something else.Sure looks doctrinal to me.
To be clear, you’re saying all Protestants at all times in all places everywhere won’t reject the Apostles Creed or even disagree with anything the creed proclaims?Apostle's Creed. This doesn't mean there isn't disagreement on specifically what the words mean, though, just as there is disagreement between Catholics and Protestants on precisely what "saint" means...but we all agree that it means something and we ought to believe in whatever that is.
To be clear, you’re saying all Protestants at all times in all places everywhere won’t reject the Apostles Creed or even disagree with anything the creed proclaims?
I think it would be enormously incorrect to pretend that all Catholics believe every dogma of the RCC. I grew up in the RCC; I've seen it first hand. Or are we going to pretend Catholics don't disagree on, for example, the subject of birth control?The disagreement occasionally seen in Catholicism is on issues where the Church expressly allows differing opinions in good faith. By definition, it does not harm our communion.
Comparing that to the real and substantive disagreements Protestants have with each other is simply intellectually dishonest.
I don't think that Protestants disagree on the essentials. Here's an example of a basic confession which unites many protestants - Reforming Catholic Confession
Also, 99% of Protestants accept the Apostles' Creed. What's expressed in that Creed is, in my opinion, the absolute essentials. We are very united on these things. We're divided on other things but I would say that these are non-essential. But that's nothing unique to Protestants. Catholics are also very "divided" within Catholicism.
A good example of non-essential things. Baptism is essential. All agree to that. But mode of baptism? Psht. Who cares?
Confessions exist because they are very helpful. They don't add anything to Scripture. Rather, they draw out what is already implicit in Scripture. Confessions help unify the church and clarify doctrine. But confessions are not infallible. And they have no authority to add anything to the Bible.
The teaching of the magisterium, on the other hand, is taken to be infallible. They also add doctrines for acceptance that are not taught in Scripture. The difference between Catholicism and Reformed faith is not that one has confessions and the other does not. The difference is in how we view our confessions.
Non-essential items. You'll find these disagreements within Catholicism too.
No true Scotsman. Got it.That doctine is handed in a catechism as document of tradition and authority.
And far from "disagreeing" on it, you are not a catholic if you do not accept the catechism.
When some say they disagree, they are not catholic when they say that.
Billions of protestants have come to know the Lord via His word (scriptures) Im one of them. I follow what God teaches me, i follow what He puts in my heart.You miss the difference between Catholicism and protestantism
Catholics accept the need for tradition and authority to understand scripture, indeed to decide what scripture is, which was the product of church authority.
That doctine is handed in a catechism as document of tradition and authority.
And far from "disagreeing" on it, you are not a catholic if you do not accept the catechism.
When some say they disagree, they are not catholic when they say that.
But here is the difference.
Protestants also view scripture through a lens of tradition, they just dont admit it, some written as confessions and articles , some is not. But the very existence of the confession disproves sola scriptura.
When you state "not taught in scripture" you mean not in your interpretation of it.
And there is the problem. Your interpretation is tradition.
For example.
Since the earliest times the early fathers have taught the eucharist is the flesh of Jesus, valid perofmed by bishop in succesion or his appointee, and because it really is Jesus, it can therefore be profaned. Where do we get that from? The answer is we see it everywhere in early fathers, take ignatius to Smurneans who was taught by apostle John, who should know what John 6 means, and what it says is "unless you eat the flesh..you have no life in you " and if you do "he will raise you up at the last day"
So that is serious not detail.
Pre reformation churches all believed that. Many protestant churches do not.
They regard it as symbolism., but clearly that is not what the early church thought, and those who believe that clearly hold a different interpretation of one key verse.. "the words I taught are spirand life"
So scripture is not enough. Or that disagreement would not exist.
And when it comes to church authority "bind and loose" "keys of kindgom" "pillar of truth" they are fundamental.Because that is deciding how you resolve critical dcotrine. Or evn what is scripture.
As is the meaning of baptism. We can determine from early church, ie tradition.
.
βαπτίζω baptízō, bap-tid'-zo; from a derivative of G911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:—Baptist, baptize, wash.The precise procedure of baptism, for instance.
That's like Yoda wisdom up there. Well said!Protestants don't disagree on essentials, Protestants just claim as essential things that aren't.
As much as I'm grateful for Protestant efforts to make the scriptures plain, I think the history of the Reformation is evidence in itself that scripture wasn't sufficient. All kinds of people popped out of the woodwork preaching Sola Scriptura, but ended up butting heads. I think the saddest episode is perhaps Lutherans and Anabaptists getting to the brink of actual warfare. But outside of dramatic things like that, the history of Protestantism shows just how many denominations have been made, and how many of them say "Sola Scriptura". How is scripture sufficient if this is the outcome? You tell me if this is synonymous with "sufficient".
This assumes a certain goal of sufficiency. Are the Scriptures alone sufficient to end all disagreements, put away all division among Christians, end all factionalism, destroy denominationalism, and unite all churches under one visible entity? No. This is not what Sola Scriptura claims that the Scriptures are sufficient to do.
Neither are the Scriptures sufficient to usher in a New Heavens and a New Earth.
But the Scriptures are sufficient to save people and to teach them the will of God. Denominationalism is inevitable. A necessary evil that is a part of living in a fallen world. It existed even within the New Testament era. Just look at 1 Corinthians 1.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?