Why so many denominations?

[Bill McEnaney]

Can you give some example of that? Because there's only one meaning that I'm familiar with--(use) Scripture Alone (to determine doctrine).

I know that there's such a thing as SolO Scriptura that some people talk about, but Sola Scriptura is Sola Scriptura as far as I know.


Such as?

Some define it the way I did. Others will tell you that it teaches everything you need to know to get to Heaven, though they don't say whether it's the only authoritative source to get it from here on Earth. In the list I'm quoting here from Bible.ca, it's hard to know what the writer means by the word "means." It could mean "implies" or something like, "a statement we make with a declarative sentence." But I doubt that it means, "a definition in a dictionary." The list author seems to tell us what sola scriptura excludes, not what it consists in.

B. Sola Scriptura means:

The Bible alone without creeds. (ie Apostles creed, Nicene creed.)
The Bible alone without councils. (ie Ecumenical Councils.)
The Bible alone without church canons. (ie Canons of Dort.)
The Bible alone without statements of faith. (most churches create one.)
The Bible alone without oral tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without church tradition. (unless it is found in the Bible.)
The Bible alone without a "church interpreter". (Catholic, Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses all say only the church can correctly interpret the Bible, not the individual.)
The Bible alone without individual illumination of the Holy Spirit. (Evangelicals, Baptists, Charismatics and Calvinists believe they are personally guided by the Holy Spirit to correctly interpret the Bible.)
The Bible alone without modern day prophecy and inspiration. (Pentecostal, Charismatic and most of the 19th century cults, (Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists) all claimed to have living prophets.)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


I now post at the forums of www.carm.org You'll find several threads on this topic there. I suggest going to the Lutheran Forum.


The Rule of Scripture in Norming (What Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")


The Definition:


The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9).



What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for US to use for THIS process.


What it is NOT:

1. A teaching that all revelation or truth is found in Scripture. It's not a teaching at all, it is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of doctrines. Scripture itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" but our visual reception of the stars is not used as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us in the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens't seem to be adding any more books, the Rule of Scripture was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it is today - only the corpus of Scripture is larger, that has no impact on the practice of embracing it as the rule/canon/norma normans in our evaluation of doctrines among us. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

3. Hermeneutics. The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon). This is also beyond the scope here, the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon.




An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely MOOT - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.


Norming typically involves a norm: WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge) or canon (measuring stick) - WHAT will be embraced by all parties involved in the normative process that is the reliable standard, the plumbline. Perhaps in the case of Fred and Dave, they embrace a standard Sears Measuring Tape. They both have one, Bob does too. Dave, Fred and Bob consider their carpenter's Sears Measuring Tape as reliable for this purpose, it's OBJECTIVE (all 3 men can read the numbers), it's UNALTERABLE (none of the 3 can change what the tape says) and it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all 3 parties. Using that could be called "The Rule of the Measuring Tape." The Sears Measuring Tape would be the "canon" (the word means 'measuring stick') for this normative process.



Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.



Why do some (primarily the RCC and LDS) so passionately reject it?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes irrelevant (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).



I hope that helps. If you want to discuss with me, I'd love that - go to the forums at CARM - Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry since I RARELY visit this site anymore.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[Albion]

Some define it the way I did. Others will tell you that it teaches everything you need to know to get to Heaven, though they don't say whether it's the only authoritative source to get it from here on Earth.

Yes, but those are not different understandings of the meaning of Sola Scriptura. The second one is, to put it another way, an idea that derives from a belief in Sola Scriptura. It's like saying that the sacraments are ordinances that confer grace...and then going on to say something about what we are enabled to do with grace.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

Thanks, Josiah. I'm familiar with CARM, because I used to e-mail with CARM.org's webmaster and have watched some debate's he's been in. I'm even familiar with the Lutheran doctrine about consubstantiation, with which orthodox Catholics need to disagree. Transubstantiation and consubstantiation differ from each other. If bread and wine transubstantiate, their essences remain after the change. If they Transubstantiate, their essences go away. Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are mutually exclusive. Remember, Our Lord says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood." He never says "This is my body along with bread" or "This is my blood along with wine." But consubstantiation implies both are there after the miracle.

 

[Albion]

Thanks, Josiah. I'm familiar with CARM, because I used to e-mail with CARM.org's webmaster and have watched some debate's he's been in. I'm even familiar with the Lutheran doctrine about consubstantiation, with which orthodox Catholics need to disagree. Transubstantiation and consubstantiation differ from each other. If bread and wine transubstantiate, their essences remain after the change. If they Transubstantiate, their essences go away. Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are mutually exclusive. Remember, Our Lord says, "This is my body" and "This is my blood." He never says "This is my body along with bread" or "This is my blood along with wine." But consubstantiation implies both are there after the miracle.

How literal you suddenly become when it comes to this one verse. Even so, we can't seriously say that "This--my body" means Transubstantiation rather than three or four other possible interpretations, most of which are older than Transubstantiation.

Don't forget that it took the RCC until the 1200s to notice that the verse means what you just said. If it was as explicit and unavoidable as you say, that would not have been the case.

 

[Bill McEnaney]

How literal you suddenly become when it comes to this one verse. Even so, we can't seriously say that "This--my body" means Transubstantiation rather than three or four other possible interpretations, most of which are older than Transubstantiation.

Don't forget that it took the RCC until the 1200s to notice that the verse means what you just said. If it was as explicit and unavoidable as you say, that would not have been the case.

I always taken Our Lord's words literally when read what he says about His body and His blood. I do that partly because I've read the article about the Eucharistic miracle that happened in Lanciano, Italy. That article includes photos of both flesh and blood along with lab test results. In the photos, I can't see even the slightest bread crumb, and if I interpreted the passages figuratively, the Pope or a bishop could excommunicate me for what the Catholic Church considers to be a heresy. Please tell me what you think I've misinterpreted and explain the accurate interpretation of it. Meanwhile, I think I'll call the pastor a the Lutheran where I belonged to the youth group. I'm sure he'll explain what the Missouri Synod means by "consubstantiation" and whether that synod takes the Bible's Eucharistic passages literally.

Remember, there's a difference between knowing what a verse means and knowing how to express a doctrine in the most precise theological jargon. Even at the Council of Ephesus, the Council Fathers needed to "do their homework" before that council taught infallibly. In a moment, I'll post a link to that council's Historical Introduction, which you can look up at the Protestant site at (Christian Classics Ethereal Library). But I'll get a link from a site where the Ephesene documents are easier to find.

Internet History Sourcebooks

 

[Albion]

I always taken Our Lord's words literally when read what he says about His body and His blood.

Like when he called himself a vine?

I

do that partly because I've read the article about the Eucharistic miracle that happened in Lanciano, Italy.

Yes, the Middle Ages really got off on bogus miracles, phony relics, alchemy, and such things.

Please tell me what you think I've misinterpreted and explain the accurate interpretation of it.

It's reasonable to believe that Christ's Real Presence is part of the Eucharist. That is a belief that goes back to the Apostolic Age. But the idea that bread and wine are changed like lead into gold by a magician who stands in for Christ at the moment he pronounces magic words, etc. is straight out of the age of myth and magic made popular in our own times by the Harry Potter books. You lose nothing by stripping all that away and staying with the unavoidable meaning of scripture--Jesus makes himself present in a very personal way at the time that we repeat the Last Supper.

Meanwhile, I think I'll call the pastor a the Lutheran where I belonged to the youth group. I'm sure he'll explain what the Missouri Synod means by "consubstantiation"

If you feel comfortable doing that, I'd say it's a good idea. He will probably say something like that old joke (?) about Everyone says Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation but Lutherans say that's just something Anglicans do.

 

[Willie T]

It's reasonable to believe that Christ's Real Presence is part of the Eucharist. That is a belief that goes back to the Apostolic Age. But the idea that bread and wine are changed like lead into gold by a magician who stands in for Christ at the moment he pronounces magic words, etc. is straight out of the age of myth and magic made popular in our own times by the Harry Potter books. You lose nothing by stripping all that away and staying with the unavoidable meaning of scripture--Jesus makes himself present in a very personal way at the time that we repeat the Last Supper.[/I]

This is quite a paragraph. Thank you for such a descriptive rendering. It really is beautiful.

 

[barryatlake]

The only "church" Jesus left for "all" of us was Apostolic- " Teaching them to observe all that I have taught you" {Matt. 28:20}

" He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me"[ Luke 10:16 ]

"As the Father has sent me, I also send you" [ John 20:21 ]

His Church is for all people of all nations and all times and teaches all the doctrines of Jesus. Catholic means universal, embracing all.

Jesus does not want your many man-made multiple conflicting/ non-conflicting [ none whatsoever ] church , Jesus only wants us to belong to His One True Apostolic and Universal Church, if your church can not trace back it's religious/ faith based lineage' directly' to Jesus and His personal chosen teaching apostles then your church is not from Jesus, it was invented by somebody else.

 

[Albion]

The only "church" Jesus left for "all" of us was Apostolic- " Teaching them to observe all that I have taught you" {Matt. 28:20}

" He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me"[ Luke 10:16 ]

"As the Father has sent me, I also send you" [ John 20:21 ]

His Church is for all people of all nations and all times and teaches all the doctrines of Jesus. Catholic means universal, embracing all.

That's fine, but you seem to think that the word being included in the legal name of one particular denomination (actually a dozen or more) makes it --for that reason only--the church spoken of in the Bible. That's ridiculous. By that thinking, the "Church of Christ" must be the only one that follows Christ...just look at the name!

Jesus does not want your many man-made multiple conflicting/ non-conflicting [ none whatsoever ] church

,
OK, although what Scripture says is to be of one accord, not to have the same membership card.

He wants us to belong to His One True Apostolic and Universal Church

And we do. At least most of us here certainly do, regardless of denomination.

church can not trace back it's religious/ faith based lineage' directly' to Jesus and His personal chosen teaching apostles then your church is not from Jesus, it was invented by somebody else

If that is your standard, there still are dozens of churches which can make the claim.

 

[barryatlake]

Albion, name one other "True" Apostolic Church besides the Catholic Church and the EOC.

 

[Albion]

Albion, name one other "True" Apostolic Church besides the Catholic Church and the EOC.

I find that to be quite funny, barry. You name TWO different church bodies which have significant doctrinal differences and pretend that you're speaking 9of "ONE true" church. By your own standards then, there probably are many one, true churches.

 

[barryatlake]

St Peter the Catholic Church, St.Andrew the Eastern Orthodox Church, now name just one Protestant church that can trace its religious lineage directly back to one of Christ's Apostles.

 

[shturt678s]

Churches are composed of make-believers, deceived-believers, sometime-believers, and even have a few true-believers.

My point: Determining if one is one of those rare true-believers, all one has to do is to think of the Church in the sense of the Kingdom of God. This will narrow down the field exponentially, eg, denom./non-denom. Which one or ones are valid?

Old Jack

 

[abysmul]

St Peter the Catholic Church, St.Andrew the Eastern Orthodox Church, now name just one Protestant church that can trace its religious lineage directly back to one of Christ's Apostles.

Genealogy and history of multimillion/billion dollar organizations don't mean anything to me. There are countless Christians that can trace their "religious lineage" directly back to Christ... through His love, His sacrifice for all of us, and with the help of our Bibles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

Genealogy and history of multimillion/billion dollar organizations don't mean anything to me. There are countless Christians that can trace their "religious lineage" directly back to Christ... through His love, His sacrifice for all of us, and with the help of our Bibles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Yours is a clear-eyed view, all right. Christ certainly called all men of all times; and the idea (held by some) that what he started was not a movement but, rather, a narrowly-based bureaucracy that admits people to Christ, or excludes them, through membership requirements like some kind of insurance organization, is discouraging, to say the least.

 

[Tangible]

Genealogy and history of multimillion/billion dollar organizations don't mean anything to me. There are countless Christians that can trace their "religious lineage" directly back to Christ... through His love, His sacrifice for all of us, and with the help of our Bibles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is basically the Lutheran position on Apostolic Succession. It's not the people involved that matter. It's the message that matters.

 

[shturt678s]

That is basically the Lutheran position on Apostolic Succession. It's not the people involved that matter. It's the message that matters.

The ol' "talking the talk" routine.

 

[barryatlake]

abysmal, all passed unnecessary churches received their basic sound Christian doctrine from the Catholic Church. Those Protestant churches along with their cults, yes cults, are all splintered off of Protestant churches [ proof is that every cult idolizes only the KJV Bible.Also very anti-Catholic ] Today, especially in the USA, all non-Catholic churches and the cultist all splinter off from other Protestant churches. every time a new splinter occurs the more watered down it becomes, while moving further away from the True Gospel, just look around and see the difference from the early settling of this country with the original Puritans and Separatists. The Protestant church has taken the easy way, a "pick and choose" type of church while every church is different from each other and different from Jesus 'Apostolic Church.'

 

[abysmul]

abysmal, all passed unnecessary churches

What is "all passed unnecessary churches"?