DeoOmnisGloria.com

I've posted on sola scriptura recently in response to some of Dave Armstrong's issues with the doctrine. For a more classical Reformed view, see my blog at: http://www.coffeeconversations.com. I would love to hear your comments on what I've written thus far.

>>>KEVIN

Here is Dave Armstrong's response to Kevin Johnson, just for the record.

Jay,
SMH, are you at it again my brother?? For those who have read this post by Jay, you can see the rebuttals by those who have posted here before. This is not a new topic so I simply urge you, if you are interested to look into the archives on this site. No need to waste "finger energy" retyping everything.

God Bless

Jay,

You quote Ephesians 3:8-10. Paul WROTE Ephesians. Ephesians was a letter WRITTEN to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 3:3 you read that Paul wrote about the administration of God's grace. In Eph 3:4 Paul explains to the Ephesians, that in reading this, they would be able to understand Paul's insight on the mystery of Christ.
You keep forgetting, the church is not a delegation with rank officials, the church is ALL believers in Christ. Yes, the church has leaders, but they are to be tested against what the Scripture says. The Bible has shown this. Even the disciples were tested against Scripture.
Let me make this clear, I do not interpret the Bible by myself. I am taught by the church. Whether it is going to an Oral Roberts affiliate school, or by watching TD Jakes or speaking to my pastors. In any case, I can always check what they are saying and put it to the Scripture and see if it holds weight.
Lets say you are taking a Physiology class, and the book which is authoritative on physiology is called Physio. If you want to be a good student you can just listen to the teacher, and you will be good, as long as the teacher adheres to the book. But to be a great student, you would read that book. Should the teacher say something that is not in that book, guess who is wrong?
The teacher.
Enough of this, we don't have to revisit something that you know you already have read. You can look on this website, and revisit all you want.

Be blessed Jay

Jeff,
I'm very aware of who wrote Ephesians!

First, in some sense the church can be seen as an unorganized group of all believers. However, the Church is also a physical structure created by Christ in Matthew 16:18. The Biblical evidence to this is overwhelming. I recommend you read this article on the Visible Church in the Bible. Just one question, how is it possible to interpret Matthew 18:15-20 if there is no physical aspect to the Church? Under your (the protestant) perspective, your brother could simply switch to another church or denomination.

Also, how can the Bible clearly teach that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" if there are 20,000 different churches teaching different things?

You ramble on about what you think the church is, but you haven't answered a single objection above. How is it possible God intended for so much confusion? Remember, it was Jesus who prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one. Are protestant churches "one"?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

You act as if are no sects in the Catholic religion. I would advise that you read "David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982)."

You will learn that there not 25,000 Protestant denominations. You will also be surprised to find that there are denominations among Roman Catholics. Barrett breaks down Roman Catholicism in the following manner "1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant)."

You may ask what is so significant Barrett's encyclopedia? Because this is where most Catholic apologists get their stats from when breaking down the number of "denominations."

The whole time I have seen you post, you have questioned the number of denominations among Protestants? Explain the the RC denominations.
I suggest you read the article in Barrett's regarding denominations. You will be surprised.

Be blessed Jay

Jeff,
Needless to say this is a biased treatment of Catholicism. I'll find and read Barretts article, but it sounds like he is making random distinctions for no apparent reason (based on his belief structure).

The Catholic Church does not have denominations - sorry. All Catholics are obligated to believe in the doctrines of our faith. All Catholics participate in one universal mass that is the same around the world (albeit in different languages). There are not Catholics for example, teaching that Baptism is unnecessary or that the Eucharist is merely symbolic. Catholics have a clear source of teaching in the Catechism that lays out the details of their faith.

Is there a protestant "catechism" that clearly outlines what protestants believe universally? No, it would be impossible (or impossibly short), since every single church probably teaches some variation of doctrine. In reality there are likely many more than 20,000 protestant denominations, but I use this because it is the most commonly cited statistic - most agree that it is within a couple thousand of this either way.

So again, Catholics have a single clear belief system. Protestants do not. This is because Catholics are a part of the Church that Jesus promised "the gates of Hell will not prevail against" and protestants are in rebellion with that church - scattered like the ancient Babylonians.

I do recommend you read the article I linked to in the last post. How many protestant churches would you say there are? And how can the Bible teach that all of these unique churches are the "pillar and foundation of truth"? How are they all "one" as the Father and Son are one?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

If you will search, you will find that most apologists who cite "20,000 denominations" either cannot find the source of that information or they can track it down to Barretts. However, when one reads Barretts encyclopedia you will find that Catholicism does have denominations.
You can choose to dismiss this simply because it does not agree with your beliefs. But the fact is that there are various forms of Catholicism.
Explain then the difference between you and a Sedevacantist. Do you agree totally with the Charismatic Catholic?
The truth is that the various forms of Catholic disagree with one another yet all claim they have roots to the original Catholic church.
This is a fact you can't deny. I am not making this up. You can do research in a library, forget the internet. Go to a library and find out the truth. I know this is a new topic for you. But there are different forms of Catholicism with different views on some topics, and very similar views on most topics...just as it is with Protestants.

Be blessed

Jeff,

I'll take a stab at explaining this to you.

There are no Catholic 'denominations'. Such an implication is an oxymoron and reflects the ignorance of the writer.

Catholics do not pick and choose the doctrines to which they will subscribe. Catholic doctrines are well established. If folks participate in pagan activities then they have chosen to set aside their Catholicism. One does not believe that the papal chair is vacant and concurrently live in the Catholic faith. The other variations you reference from Barrett's book can be similarly described and dismissed if their beliefs/behaviors are inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.

John Kerry is a good example of a person who wishes to be identified as a Catholic, yet demonstrates beliefs which are decidely non-Catholic. We could develop a very scholarly-sounding name for the group of people who are similar to Kerry in his beliefs, and add that name to Barrett's encyclopedia, but that group's name could never be 'Catholic'. Further, Catholic truth remains unaltered by that group's collective beliefs.

As a race, we humans get awfully puffed up on our 'accomplishments' and our 'wisdom'. That is an awfully dangerous spiritual path to walk. Pride will divide one from Catholicism like a hot knife through butter. Every non-Catholic Christian derivation on this planet owes it's existence to specific acts of willful disobedience. The longer I live, the more I understand why Christ directed us to live as a little child.

Some days you just do what you're told.

Be well,

Dennis

Dennis,

The one who does not believe in the second vatican, believes that you have been duped into accepting the false pope. You also have Liberal Catholics, Traditional, Conservative, and Evangelical Catholics. All claim to be Catholic, and all can trace their roots to the 1st Vatican. So who is right?
The point is, and you can do your own research, there are various Catholic denominations that exist.

Be blessed.

Jeff,

I think we are getting close to an understanding. Let's focus on the sedevacantists. I'll use some information available at : http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM

This is excerpted from Session 4 : 18 July 1870, Chapter 1:
1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.

...And from Chapter 2:
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The significance of these transcriptions is that they represent Catholic doctrine. It is not negotiable. Sedevacantists are people who CHOSE to believe differently, and in doing so, set aside their Catholicism in favor of disobedience.

The sedevacantists may choose to use the word 'Catholic' as part of their group identity, but they are, by definition, non-Catholics. A Catholic follows and believes Catholic doctrine.

If a group of Protestants chose to identify themselves by the name 'Protestant Catholics', would you believe that they are a Catholic 'denomination'? How would Barrett choose to categorize such a group (not that it matters one iota)? I believe the answer would be that they are neither Protestants nor Catholics. One's faith is not defined by the name on the church attended. One's faith is defined by one's beliefs and actions.

There are Catholics, and there are those that are not Catholic. Catholicism has no 'denominations'. It is that simple.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd like to finish this message in the right vein. Those who have chosen disobedience only remain divided from their home as long as they embrace their disobedience. I truly wish every person to experience the conversion of heart that brings them to the Holy Mother Church, just as the prodigal son returned home.

John Kerry is not excepted from my wish.

Without reservation,

Dennis

Dennis,
You are missing the whole point of this discussion. Take for example the pentecostal catholics. Many catholics disagree with the charismatic movement. They believe in speaking in tongues...something which a lot of Catholics frown upon, they believe in being slain in the spirit, something which a lot on this board do not believe. Guess what? The Pope gave his approval and called it a blessing to the RCC. So according to your reasoning, since the Pope gave it an OK, it means that they are truly Catholic. They practice certain things that the majority of Catholics do not. They still retain Catholic doctrine, but in addition they receive the Holy Ghost. They believe in gifts of the Spirit. They are in fact a Catholic denomination who is approved by the Vatican.

I challenge you to read Barretts encyclopedia if you are seriously interested in this topic.
Catholicism does in fact have various denominations.

Be blessed

Jeff,

You are not qualified to speak about the beliefs of the 'majority of Catholics' or of 'many Catholics' unless you choose to quote the Catholic Catechism.

Further, my last post directly addressed comments contained in yours posted at 8:47pm this evening. I refuted your assertions, and explained my thoughts cogently. You failed to answer the questions I posed in the middling of my reply.

This discussion began with a focus on the protestant doctrine of 'sola scriptura'. Others felt the topic had already been covered, and I addressed the inappropriate use of the word 'denominations' when used with 'Catholic'.

Which part of this discussion do you think I am missing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The particular practices of Charismatics are not in conflict with Catholic doctrine. If the Holy Father says it is a good thing, then I'm with him. I don't need to check his math.

Here are a couple of sites that can help alleviate your thoughts of 'blind obedience' :
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_doc_27051998_movements-speech-hf_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

There you have it - faith practiced in the real world!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't understand why you've chosen to focus on the charismatics; they have no basis in the first Vatican Council. There is no specific founding date for the movement, and while it is generally acknowledged as having started in 1967, it seems to have sprung up all over the world during that general time period.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, Dave Barrett's use of the word 'denomination' in conjuction with the word 'Catholic' is not of any consequence to me or any other Catholic on this planet.

Catholicism does NOT have 'denominations.

Oy,

Dennis

Dennis,

Do you believe in the speaking of tongues? Do you believe in being slain in the spirit? Do you believe that Mass should be held in Latin only?
Maybe in your denomination of Catholicism there are no denominations, but Catholicisim as a whole does have various forms or if you will, denominations.

Jeff,
It seems you are trying to include those who are outside of the Catholic Church as if they were denominations. The point is that there are not Catholic groups (or groups of Churches) that think abortion is okay or that baptism is merely symbolic - these people cannot be called "Catholics" just because you want Catholics to have denominations.

The point is that there is no absolute core set of beliefs in protestant churches, but there is in the Catholic church. For example, the Catechism is what Catholics believe. Period. If they don't believe the Catechism (or parts of it) they aren't creating another denomination, they are simply losing their faith. Do you follow?

There are no Catholic denominations, no matter how much you want it to be so.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Your initial argument is that sola scriptura is flawed because anyone can interpret the Bible which can lead as you put it, division.
You and most apologists throw out a number of 25,000-30,000 Protestant denominations. A number which was happily obtained from Barrett's Encyclopedia.
My first point is the following, either you deny the exaggerated 30,000 denomination figure that is only found in Barrett's or you accept that figure read carefully and also accept that there are numerous Catholic denominations.(according to Barrett's as well)
Second, there are in fact various denominations or if you like "forms" of catholicism. If one form holds true to the 1st Vatican and rejects the 2nd, they still hold claim to there roots being traced back to Peter. One can claim that they are the true Catholics and that those who follow the 2nd vatican are the true dissenters. That comes down to an interpretation of Catechisms. Both claim roots back to the first vatican, one just claims that they stayed true to the original vatican and the other feels they are progressing with God. How do you know who is right?
Jay, do you believe in speaking in tongues? DO you believe in shouting and jumping for joy in church? Probably not as indicated in prior posts from you, but nevertheless I am sure you will say as long as the Pope declares it OK, then it is OK.
Not only are there different Catholic churches claiming that one of the other forms of Catholicism is wrong, you also have different Roman Catholic denominations which indeed do have differences in how Mass, Communion or Baptism are performed. One of these being the Byzantine Church. Yet they have approval of the pope.
It is funny how when catholic apologists are shown these points, they point out that it is the same "core principles" but variety is present. That is the same with Protestants.
The whole point to this all is that you can argue and disagree, but I have presented facts...which you can go verify yourself. If you want to harp on how Sola Scriptura is wrong because it can lead to "division", you need to take a look in the mirror and see the division and different ways Catholcism is practiced.

Be blessed

Jeff,
I keep explaining this, but I'm not sure why you don't get it: Show me where another truly Catholic group says baptism isn't necessary. Show me where they say the Eucharist isn't the blood and flesh of Christ. Show me where a group that isn't heretical (hasn't left the church) is not in agreement on the doctrines of the church.

You can keep arguing all you want that Catholics have "denominations," however we don't. We don't disagree on the core issues. Period. Differing protestant denominations hold all kinds of crazy beliefs and under the doctrine of sola scriptura you cannot tell them they are wrong.

In addition, there are numerous different groups that count the number of denominations. I said over 20,000 and virtually all of them agree that it is more than that. I did not get my number from Barretts, but from the Council on Christian Churches.

Ultimately you agree that division is not a good sign or you wouldn't be arguing so vehemently. Ask anyone outside of Barrett's how many Catholic "denominations" there are and you'll get the same answer: ONE. The difference lies in authority - the Catholic Church has the authority from God to bind and loose on earth and heaven. The Church has the ability to excommunicate based on false beliefs. Protestant churches don't have that ability; in fact, sola scriptura implies that you cannot tell another person they are wrong (the Holy Spirit might be leading them that way). Wake up, you're trying to invent division where it doesn't exist to make yourself feel better! It won't work.

God bless,
Jay

Jay
What about catholics who reject the second vatican? They claim that those who follow the second vatican have been decieved. How can you tell who is right and who is wrong?

Please tell me what are some of the major differences among the protestant churches? Are they core issues?
In addition tell me where in the council is it documented that there are 20,000 protestant denominations. Since that is what you claim as your source for the 20,000 denomination figure.

Be blessed

Question for anyone,

Back to the subject Solo Scriptura, it seems like everyone agrees that at least until the Council of Hippo, (I think that is when the New Testament was assembled) the 'Church' as it had developed up until that point, was the true Church if she was able to take the 'God Breathed' Word, and collect it for the Bible.

If the Catholic Church is not the true church, when did she lose it?

Thanks Michael

All,

oooops, sorry. Sola, not Solo.

If we can't laugh at ourselves, where is all of the fun?

Michael

Jeff,

What I believe is not the point. I am either Catholic, or I am SOMETHING ELSE.

When one's beliefs diverge permanently from Catholic doctrine, one ceases to be Catholic, and this condition occurs whether one recognizes this divergence or not.

When one's beliefs diverge temporarily from Catholic doctrine, one has suffered a temptation, and perhaps even sinned, but ultimately demonstrates a renewed faith as shown by the temporary nature of that particular divergence.

Neither instance described above constitutes the creation of a Catholic 'denomination'. One's permanent rejection of the doctrines promulgated by the Second Vatican is a rejection of Catholicism itself. Catholic doctrine acquires definition over time, but it does not contradict itself.

Denominations among non-Catholic Christian faiths exist because of irreconcilable doctrinal issues. Perhaps Barrett's encyclopedia will explain those differences to you.

I am going to say this next part as clearly as I can; permanent divergence regarding Catholic doctrine does NOT create a 'denomination' - it creates a schismatic event. The Catholic Church is the definitive voice on these matters; Barrett's encyclopedia is irrelevant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One can CLAIM to be an orange, one can CLAIM to be a pear, and one can CLAIM to be an apple.

One's claims do not make one whit of difference when measured against truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, an apologist is one who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

I am not an apologist.

I'm simply telling you how it is.

Dennis

Dennis,

You believe that those who reject the 2nd Vatican, rejects Catholicism. That is your belief along with those who follow the 2nd Vatican. However, there those who feel that still follow the beliefs of the 1st Vatican. According to the beliefs and ways taught by the 1st Vatican, these Catholics believe that the 2nd Vatican practiced and taught in way that was not in agreement with the 1st Vatican.
Therefore, these Catholics rejected the latter Vatican and stuck with the former.
They feel that they are following true Catholicism.
Second, it doesn't matter what you say, because the Vatican, which the Catholic authority, does in fact recognize these Catholics as being part of the Catholic body. If you think I am making this up, do some research on Indult Catholics. These are Catholics who do not accept all of the 2nd Vatican reforms, yet they still have the blessings of the 2nd Vatican.
Mel Gibson is recognized as a Catholic by the Pope himself, yet Mel Gibson is a Traditional Catholic.
The Vatican recognized some Traditional Catholics as Catholics.
So if the Vatican recognizes them as Catholic brethren, who are you to say that they are not?
The reason I bring this up is because for a long time the argument that Catholicism having no denominations and being COMPLETELY united was being used as proof that Catholicism is right and that Protestantism is wrong. However, just like Protestantism, Catholicism does have variations(denominations.)
The whole point is the following, the rationale that sola scriptura doesn't work because of many denominations resulted from it should not be used because various denominations are present in Catholicism.

Jay makes it seem that Protestant denominations( by the way Barrett has the number of true protestant denominations at 21 and Catholic denominations at 14) differ greatly on core issues to the faith.
Let us see if these differences are core issues to the faith.
And where in the Council is it documented that there are 20,000 denominations?

Be blessed

Jeff and Dennis,

I was just thinking of a better analogy than apples, oranges and pears… basketball.

Years ago every shot was two points. One year it was decided that shots from beyond the baseline would count for three points; the game evolved. Can a team decide that it does not want to play by the rules and still be called a basketball team? Well they can’t play in the NBA!

Michael

Michael,

Traditions of men, basketball rules and this world itself can change and evolve....but God never changes.

Be blessed

Jeff,

I agree with you completely!

I am Catholic, and while I am not as learned as some of the rest of you, I trust that the Church, started by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit will make the right decisions about our Tradition (capital ‘T’), without trying to change God.

Thanks for your wish for blessings on me, back at you my friend.

Michael

Jeff,

You are trying to drive a point which is pointless. You are doing so with the knowledge in your mind, and that contained within books which you have at your disposal. You draw connections where binding natures are not indicated, and you fail to cite references.

Despite all of this, I choose to correspond with you once more, though my motives have changed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This topic began with statements regarding the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This is a premise that goes to the heart of what it is to be Protestant. You and I got a bit off track by bantering to and fro regarding the proposed existence of Catholic 'denominations'.

In your post to me in the early morning of May 16th, you revealed something I DID NOT previously know - that the issue of non-existent Catholic 'denominations' is one which has been used as a 'proof' that Catholicism is right and Protestantism is wrong.

Please take me at my word when I say that my views on Protestantism were not of any consequence when I wrote to you. Let me assure you that the tenets of Protestantism were not even 'on the radar' for me.

My thought processes were only concerned with ensuring that the correct perspectives on Catholicism were assertively and appropriately stated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our Lord founded his Universal Church on Earth, upon the rock named Peter, for the sole purpose of leading all souls to heaven.

I will not contradict this sacred goal. It is my fear that if I win this argument I will hasten the loss of a soul.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many people on this planet would like to tear down Our Lord's Universal Church, and I am opposed to such things. At the same time, I must confess that I am only moderately affected by the things that occur in non-Catholic churches. We all have limits, and I have accepted mine.

I do what I can, when I can.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As I walk this Earth, I encounter people of all faiths, and often, of no faith. At all times, I hope to present an image to the observer which is favorable, and which ultimately is regarded as the work of our Father in Heaven.

You and I have tussled here regarding your contention that Catholic 'denominations' exist.I no longer care if you choose to force that point further.

I do care if that distinction pushes you further from the favor of our Lord's Salvation.

If, by my retreat in this matter, you are ultimately convinced that your beliefs are well-founded , please understand that you will have only succeeded in the same form of disobedience which caused the excommunication of Martin Luther.

Ultimately, we all face our Lord's Judgement individually.

Make good choices, Jeff.

Dennis

remember Dennis,
they did not take Jesus' life, He gave it. what you have shown is God's Wisdom at it's finest. God could...save the world if He wanted to, but that's not His intentions...read Ephesians 1-3. we are not called to be judges, just ambassadors of one Faith and one Promise to the only true God.

Dennis,

I am happy that you are concerned for my soul. But no need to fret, I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.
Dennis, I think you missed my point. I will reiterate. The argument that Sola Scriptura does is wrong because of the different Protestant denominations is weak simply because, there are other Roman Catholic Denominations.
I will summarize again. Mind you this is just one example. There are Roman Catholic churches that do not accept all of the reforms of the second vatican. Yet they recognize the Pope as their authority and....and...the Pope recognizes them as part of the Catholic church.
Clearly two different forms of Catholicism.
You can cover your eyes and ears to this fact.
It does not make it go away.
Now let me say this. Unlike a lot of posters on this board, I do believe that there are a lot of truly saved Catholics who are going to Heaven.(You can believe purgatory if you want, like you said, in the end, one of us will be right or wrong for believeing it or not)
I am sorry that you might be dissapointed, but I have long since made my decision, and I feel it was a good one. I follow the Lord. I left the Catholic church, I excommunicated myself then, didn't I:)
The final point I would like to make is the following. I do understand that Protestants are varied in certain practices. But are the beliefs among the Protestants as different as you and others say? If so, point out these differences, I am curious to know.

Be blessed

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff,
You keep hitting the Roman Catholic denominations thing, but it's false. I hope it isn't the only justification you have for sola scriptura.

First, there are no Catholic "denominations" that follow the pope and do not accept all of the reforms of Vatican Council II. These groups all do not follow the pope - they are schismatic just as Luther is (this would be like arguing that the Baptists are a denomination of Catholicism).

Note that you still haven't pointed out any Catholic group which denies part of Catholic doctrine or even part of the Catechism.

Then you seem to suggest that protestant beliefs aren't that different. I would suggest you look at the Anglican beliefs and then the Southern Baptist beliefs - it's difficult to argue they are both Christian, because of their differences. Add in the Mormons or the Quakers. Some protestant denominations deny what others insist upon and vice versa. There is no unity. How can you argue this is what Jesus wanted when He prayed that we would be one as He and Father are one?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Once again, there are indeed Catholics who do not accept all the reforms of the second Vatican yet the POPE recognizes them as part of the CATHOLIC church. Not as separated brethen...but as Catholics.
Second, if you want to talk about disagreement among Catholics, you yourself have gone on record on this site saying that church is not a place you go to so that you may feel good. You were addressing Pentecostal style of worship. What do you have to say about Charismatic Catholics and there way of worship. They believe that Roman Catholics do not worship properly. They believe in the gifts of the spirit and speaking in tongues. They believe that speaking in tongues is evidence of being saved and...and the Pope approves of the Charismatic Catholics as part of the Roman Catholic Church.
You can say that they follow the same things as you do, but they still have differences with your style of Catholicism.
Lastly, what are the big issues that denominations in protestantism, that each denomination denies each other?
Please elaborate.

Be blessed

Jeff,
Please go back and read my last post. Really read it.

First, I'm not saying that protestant groups have different styles of worship, that's meaningless. I'm saying that some protestants believe it is sinful to worship on Sunday (7th Day Adventists), some say that infant baptism is wrong (Southern Baptists), and some say you need to baptize infants (Methodists). Some still believe you must eat and drink the blood of Christ (Anglicans).

Show me one group within Catholicism that doesn't follow the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Just one.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

All of these points you bought up, are irrelevant in regards to the core tenets of the faith.
Let me ask you this, if the Charismatic Catholics believe that you do not engage in true worship, who is wrong and who is right?
At a Charismatic Catholic church they believe in gifts of the spirit and speaking in tongues. How is that different from one protestant believing in infant baptism and the other not believing in it? The point is that there is no difference. You argue that the core issues remain intact among various styles of Catholicism, and I am telling you that the core issues are intact among Protestants.
There are differences, and the Bible in Revelations clearly shows that there 7...count them...7 churches which varied in practices. They were all considered part of the body of Christ.
This argument that I am making is merely to show that your belief that Sola Scriptura makes for division is falsely exaggerated. Second your claim that the Roman Catholic Church is 100% unified is also falsely exaggerated.
There are differences between churches. There were differences among the seven churches, however, they were all considered part of the body of Christ...and that my friend is what the 'church' really is, the believers in Christ.

Be blessed

Hey Jeff,

If you consider the two sacraments generally held by both Catholics and Protestants (generally, and/but with considerable discrepancies) - i.e. Baptism and the Eucharist/Commuion - one can see differences.

All Roman Catholics follow the teachings of the Magisterium on both of these "core" elements of the faith. All Protestants do not agree with one another on either of these - and to varying degrees of agreement and disagreement.

Further, I am not aware (and so eager to be educated if I am wrong) of any expressions of Roman Catholicism - that claim to adhere to the teaching of the Magisterium - that do not agree across the board on the Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church; the meaning & efficacy of these sacraments and their implementation.

I would suggest that the seven sacraments are the core elements of the (practicing) faith of Roman Catholicism, and not the granting and use of Charismatic gifts such as tongues and prophecy.

I suspect too, that even charismatic Catholics would agree that Charismatic gifts are not "the core," but rather the sacraments are.

[aaaah, "The Core"! A great Clapton tune, eh?]

For those thinking that the charismatic Catholic movement is a separate "denomination", consider this debate between Dave Armstrong and Mike Breslin, Catholic Debate on the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. These individuals disagree over the value of the movement, but neither party claims that they are not Roman Catholics. Neither does the pope. Neither do the individuals involved in the movement. I'm not sure how charismatic Catholics got wrapped up in this discussion, but they shouldn't be. They are unquestionably Roman Catholics.

The key issue is authority. Catholics (Eastern or Roman rite, traditionalists, charismatics, etc.) are all submissive to one authority. That is, they submit to the bishops of the Church and the first among those bishops, the Roman pontiff. They accept as true all dogmatic proclamations of the Church. The Pope himself has stated that where the Church has not spoken (i.e. in non-essentials) there is freedom. Catholics may practice as they see fit, as long as it comports with all of the teachings of the Church. Protestants, loosely termed, do not have a single doctrine upon which they all agree because they have no unifying authority. On the other hand, point out any group who does not submit to the Pope, and you have discovered a group that is not Catholic. Does this make any sense?

Think of it like a corporation. GM, FoMoCo, and Daimler Chrysler all build cars. They have the same purpose and build similar end products. But they are all different companies. Nobody in GM can tell someone at FoMoCo what to do. In fact, they may have completely opposite "first principles" regarding how to run a company. On the other hand, consider Chevy, Pontiac, GMC, Buick, and Cadillac. These are all unique branches of a single company, GM. They may each have the freedom to pursue their own brand image, marketing, style, etc. But they are not free to run their branch in a way that is contrary to the edict of GM. If they do, the heads will be fired and replaced by the folks at GM. The difference is authority. Different expressions of Catholicism all fall under the authority of the Pope, and thus cannot be diametrically opposed to one another (a house divided against itself...). Different protestant groups, however, do not answer to a single authority and frequently are diametrically opposed to one another.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave and Jack,

What issues do various Protestants object each other on? And are they relevant in doctrines pertaining to faith.
The Charismatic movement finds speaking in tongues evidence of presence of the Spirit. A lot of Roman hierarchy and members feel that this is not the case. Is it important to the doctrine of faith?
So again, what are the issues that protestants object against one another? And are they important in the doctrine of faith?

Be blessed

Jeff,
I don't think I can give you a satisfactory answer, as I do not know the details of the various "doctrines of faith" of all varieties of the protestant denominations. But I think Jay's response was adequate earlier (if I am recalling correctly).

There are a number of protestant denominations that consider any baptism other than infant baptism, to be of no use - and that only adult baptism will result in one's salvation. On the other hand, there are a number of protestant denominations that do not consider infant baptism to be the only legitimate baptism soteriologically. Nevertheless, I believe that all protestant denominations would consider baptism to be a "core" element of the faith - and yet the differences!

I wish I could give you a more precise response, but I am not able to devote the necessary time to this very interesting web log to offer more on this point.

Your argument is not only an attack on "Bible alone" but also an attack against personal judgement in religious matters. However, you probably do not realize that by your logic, you undermine your own position.

The Roman Catholic alternative is the addition of Tradition to the Bible, and absolute submission to the Magisterium in place of personal judgement. Now, I ask you, how can you possibly know that what the Pope says is correct and true? Do you answer that he is the infallible Vicar of Christ? Well then, how do you know that? You will not answer that you believe it because the Pope teaches so - for then you will be reasoning in a circle. You probably argue from the Scriptures and from church history and the writing of church fathers and so on.

Can you see that when you do so, you are exercising personal judgement, the very thing you are so eager to eliminate? Whatever you believe, it is because you are convinced about its veracity.

Moreover, you rashly attribute the differences of opinions among Christians to 'Sola Sciptura' - namely, the Protestant belief that the Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of Christian doctrine. I don't see how the addition of an undefined and mysterious body of teaching called 'Sacred Tradition' could help to improve the situation.

The fault is not in the 'Bible alone' but in the human heart. We need to distinguish between two basic facts. The Bible is perspicuous (clear, understandable) - it is not some mysterious book that cannot be understood by common ordinary Christians. Otherwise why would the apostles address their epistles to them? On the other hand, human nature is such that people can misunderstand even the simplest of matters. This is true of Christians (even the apostles were hard to understand!), and it is even more so in the case of unregenerate people whose hearts are darkened. Our problem is not merely intellectual; there are also spiritual and moral reasons involved. Sometimes we find it hard to accept the teaching of the Bible because of practical implications. For example, many people did not receive the words of Jesus because of fear of the Jewish leaders and social isolation.

So, it is unfair to say since Christians have disagreements between themselves, and since they study the same Bible, the Bible is no perspicuous. The problem is not with the Bible. The problem is with us.

First of all, we are all still learning, after all Christians are called 'disciples' (students). Since we have not yet arrived to a full and mature understanding of the Scriptures, one expects to find differences. Secondly, Christians are not immune to error. This is evident from the Bible itself; the apostle Paul had to correct the believers in Corinth, Galatia and Colosse for various errors. It is no different today. Thirdly, and most importantly, sin remains in the Christian heart and it opposes the plain teaching of God's Word. Sometimes we do not receive the teaching of the Bible, not because we don't understand it, but because we are not willing to do so.

These problems are not limited to Protestants. For in the Roman Catholic Church you will find a similar constellation of opinions among the faithful on any subject, despite their 'infallible' magisterium. For example, in a nationwide survey of fifteen hundred American Catholics,

"the survey found significant gaps between individual values and the Roman Catholic Church's structure and teachings. When asked to make a moral decision on several issues, 50% said in vitro fertilization procedures are not wrong, and 61% would not condemn artificial birth control. The church opposes both. Although the church also opposes the death penalty, Catholics were evenly split on the issue. However, 61% agreed with their church's stand against stem-cell research that "entails destruction of human embryos"; 68% agreed, "that abortion is morally wrong under virtually all circumstances"; and 61% said "homosexual behavior" is wrong. Nonetheless, 83% said it is wrong "to discriminate against homosexuals. Most would let priests marry (54%), allow women to be ordained (53%), give the laity more leadership roles (72%) and make the church more democratic in its decision-making (62%)" (Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY 11/16/2001).

The problem is not limited to the laity. There are serious differences of opinion among priests and theologians. For example, a Catholic lady wrote to me saying, "I just visited your website, and couldn't believe that you would quote Richard McBrien as your source for a Catholic theologian. He is well known to be a dissenter." When I asked her whether the he is excomunicated or not, she replied, "As far as him being excommunicated, right now, if every priest who dissented from Church teaching was ex-communicated, I guess it would be the majority, especially the older ones." Another Catholic lady was frank enough to admit: "Among Catholic theologians right now they are trying to interpret the meaning of the Vatican II documents. People who were there have disagreements on what Vatican II said!" Though Catholics do not believe sola Scriptura and though they claim to have an infallible magisterium, they still face the same kind of problems faced by evangelical Christians.

I suppose you would respond that it is not the fault of the Catholic authority because the teachings of the magisterium is plain enough. You may add that there is a need to teach Catholics more clearly and to correct their misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. You may also say that some Catholics are willingly disobedient to the teaching of the Church.

In principle, the same is true among Evangelical Christians. The doctrinal differences among Christians are not due to our authority (the Bible) but due to the limitations and sinfulness of the human heart.

Nelson,
A couple of issues. First, Catholics agree that the Bible is autoritative and infallible on faith and morals. However, protestants ignore parts of the Bible, which is the problem here. I am not suggesting the dissention among protestants is caused by the Bible, but by those who interpret the Bible in a way that fits their personal desires.

So for example, the Bible calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and notes "that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known" (Eph 3:8-10). Jesus instructs that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood in the John 6:47 ff. And yet protestant churches have chosen to ignore these truths. Why? How can you ignore the parts of the Bible you don't like and pretend you have the fulness of truth?

On this website we tend to argue from the Bible, since most protestants see this as the beginning point or the base of any discussion. However, it's important to note that many historical figures would argue in exactly the opposite direction. Augustine once remarked that he would not believe the Bible if the Church had not said it was true. This is important because the Church can trace herself back to the twelve apostles and her creation in Matthew 16:18.

In the end, our issue here is that Jesus asked us to be "one" as He and the Father are one. However, sola scriptura (which is not Biblical) enables people to invent their own divisions and follow whichever path they want. This isn't simple division over what time to hold church, these are key issues on communion, baptism, marriage, homosexuality, etc.

You try and argue from several questionable sources that the Catholic church is just as divided. However, the Church has a clear doctrine that Catholics must adhere to. In the case of those like Father McBrien, the church is wisely very slow to excommunicate someone, since this is akin to condemning their soul to hell. Rather those within the church work towards helping McBrien see the right path - but if he continues doing what he's doing, he may be excommunicated in the future.

Ultimately though, if you do not hold to the teachings of the church, you effectively excommunicate yourself. As I've noted elsewhere, there is no requirement that you be formally excommunicated. Also, I would argue with anyone who suggests that most priests are dissidents - that's a fallacy that some love to push.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Ephesians 3
This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner fora Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you, 3and how the mystery was made KNOWN to ME(Paul) by revelation, as I WROTE above in a few words, 4a READING of which will ENABLE YOU to PERCEIVE my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: 6that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
7 Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God's grace that was given me by the working of his power. 8Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, 9and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; 10so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him.e 13I pray therefore that youf may not lose heart over my sufferings for you; they are your glory

You forget once again to mention what came before one of your favorite quotes. Once again, clear support that the CHURCH DOES NOT MAKE doctrine, but that they follow doctrine that is WRITTEN.

Be blessed

Jahira,

Your response to Jay would stand better if you explained what you think Paul understood to be "the church" in verse 10. He would indeed be arguing in circular fashion if by "the Church" he meant the particular community of believers in Ephesus. And if he was not referring to the community at Ephesus, then "the Church" must be referring to the Jerusalem community, the seat of the Judaic form of Christianity held to by the 12 apostles and the earliest believers in Jesus Messiah. This emergent - and earliest - expression of faith in Jesus Messiah was eventually outdone by Pauline & Johannine Christianities. Of course, all of this long before there was a "New Testament."

Anyhow, the Catholic Church emerged out of this rich dynamic of expressions of faith in Jesus, and was the Church from whence the New Testament in its canonical form ultimately materialized.

I am curious to know, as I am not quite clear on your stance Jay. Are you in communion with Rome. Do you accept the current Pope? Sincerely,Lily

Post a comment