| Author |
 Topic  |
|
JustaServant
14 Posts |
 Posted - 04/30/2009 : 12:34:22 PM
|
Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth", but not in a sense that it rules out the authority of Tradition and the Church. No biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the authority or rule of faith in isolation.
More importantly, there is no unity in Scripture Alone. If there were, there wouldn't be over 33,000 different denominations of Protestants around the world. Sola Scriptura falls apart everytime one opens the phone book and counts the number of churches in any given area.
For me, one of the shaky bricks in Scripture Alone came from a Baptist preacher years ago who told me of his troubles in a small town church.
The church was divided. One part of the church wanted things their way, the other side violently disagreed. This got to a point where the different factions would sit themselves on opposite sides of the church trading irritated glances and whispers among themselves. The pastor was in the middle, any sermon he preached would be seen as favoring one side over the other. So he came upon a wonderful idea:
Just read the Scriptures without comment and let God sort it out.
He chose, for better or worse the Book of Psalms.
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful" generated shocked looks that told this poor preacher that it was not being taken as David perhaps wrote it.
"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?" At this point there was murmuring in the pews. "Lord, how are they increased that trouble me! many are they that rise up against me." The congregation, on both sides, were in a rage. One lady walked out. "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity...?" Two more walked out and the head deacon interupted. The service was stopped and the preacher was forced to resign on the spot.
It wasn't the Scriptures, it was the WAY he read them. He OBVIOUSLY meant it for thier little group.
In that brief, unshining moment, that preacher learned something about "Scripture alone".
It doesn't exist.
No person has any guarantee of discerning those proper teachings in scripture, when read outside of the light of the Church. Every Protestant knows other "bible-believers" get the wrong teachings out of scripture, sometimes to the point of not even being considered Christians. They just seem to have a hard time taking the next step, which is to acknowledge that they themselves may also get the wrong teachings out of scripture. |
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 1:02:34 PM
|
Good point, Jim. As Monfrere pointed out in another thread, one thing many Protestants try to do is prove that the Catholic Church is only as fallible as they are in matters of doctrine to reduce the argument to a theological equivalent of I say/you say. To do this means to try to undermine the Church's authority and the role of Sacred Tradition in handing on truths received from all of the Apostles, not just the ones that wrote what later became canonical Scripture.
I'm not sure about the 33K number for denominations, though; that might be overestimating some. It may be safer to say "thousands", which is still way too many in light of Our Lord praying that all Christians be one in Him.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
 |
|
|
Algo
320 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 5:07:14 PM
|
JustaServant said:
quote:
"Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth", but not in a sense that it rules out the authority of Tradition and the Church. No biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the authority or rule of faith in isolation.
More importantly, there is no unity in Scripture Alone. If there were, there wouldn't be over 33,000 different denominations of Protestants around the world. Sola Scriptura falls apart everytime one opens the phone book and counts the number of churches in any given area.
For me, one of the shaky bricks in Scripture Alone came from a Baptist preacher years ago who told me of his troubles in a small town church."
---
JustaServant, I'm curious as to how you arrived at the 33,000 denominations claim?
Algo
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 5:32:56 PM
|
Maybe he read about it in the World Christian Encyclopedia:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm
Since Roman Catholicism was lumped in with the others, that's why I suggested he use a different term, since the 33K number is not entirely comprised of Protestants, though there are still a great number of those.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
rr1213
4467 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2009 : 6:13:27 PM
|
| The 33K number always leads to arguments between Catholics and Protestants that really cannot be resolved because of different definitions of "denomination". In the United States there are three major and several minor Lutheran groups. Do they constitute multiple denominations or only one, i.e., Lutheran? Is every independent non-denominational congregation a separate denomination? Are the Eastern Catholic Churches separate "denominations" (no, but depending on how you define the term, you can advance a reasonable argument to say that they are). Etc. |
|
|
|
john654
USA
1292 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 07:47:50 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Algo[/i]
[br]JustaServant said:
quote:
"Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth", but not in a sense that it rules out the authority of Tradition and the Church. No biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the authority or rule of faith in isolation.
More importantly, there is no unity in Scripture Alone. If there were, there wouldn't be over 33,000 different denominations of Protestants around the world. Sola Scriptura falls apart everytime one opens the phone book and counts the number of churches in any given area.
For me, one of the shaky bricks in Scripture Alone came from a Baptist preacher years ago who told me of his troubles in a small town church."
---
JustaServant, I'm curious as to how you arrived at the 33,000 denominations claim?
Algo
I have been hearing 20,000-30,000 + figures for years and years. They might be wrong, but that would be understandable given the fact that there are just too many to count. Anyone who reads the scripture would know that any number past 1 would be too many.
ALSO: I knew you couldn't answer this question, (christians who protest against the word of Jesus, CAN"T):
Algo,
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
What is the protestant meaning of the word "Whatever"?
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
Edited by - john654 on 05/01/2009 07:52:29 AM |
|
|
|
JustaServant
14 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 07:54:12 AM
|
| Well, the focus of the blog post goes beyond the 33K number. To me, this account illustrates the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Without proper direction, Scripture is reduced to caotic interpretation. This fellow was simply reading Psalms, without commenting, the ultimate Scipture 'alone'. |
|
|
|
Algo
320 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 08:58:26 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]Maybe he read about it in the World Christian Encyclopedia:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm
Since Roman Catholicism was lumped in with the others, that's why I suggested he use a different term, since the 33K number is not entirely comprised of Protestants, though there are still a great number of those.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
From James White's Blog Post:
"Phil Porvaznik Convinces Me that "R-------" Is Indeed the Proper Identifier of His Religion"
08/25/2007 - James White
"As soon as I saw this comment I knew Porvaznik has never laid his eyes on the source being cited. Why? Because of his mathematical formula: anyone who has actually looked at the source knows it lists less than 9k groups under "Protestant," not 32,797. In other words, he's blowing smoke. He is pretending to address a topic about which he is utterly ignorant. But note, that doesn't stop the faithful apologist for Romanism. So I wrote to Phil, and he confirmed, in his response, that he has not seen the 2001 edition, though he claims to have seen the previous edition. Well, if that is the case, he is still convicted by his own words of simple dishonesty, since the previous edition likewise broke down the data in such a fashion as to demonstrate beyond all contradiction that the use of its data to allege the existence of more than 20,000 "Protestant denominations" is just as bogus and dishonest as the current 33,000 claim. Eric Svendsen pointed this out years ago. "
Also,
James White has provided a blown up version of the chart mentioned above in his Blog post entitled:
"What Steve Ray Doesn't Want You To Think About"
08/27/2007 - James White
I am aware that Phil had done some editing the day after White's post but White's argument regarding "sola scriptura's alleged cause of disunity" is valid.
Algo |
Edited by - Patti on 05/01/2009 09:31:30 AM |
|
|
|
john654
USA
1292 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 09:09:06 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Algo[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]Maybe he read about it in the World Christian Encyclopedia:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a106.htm
Since Roman Catholicism was lumped in with the others, that's why I suggested he use a different term, since the 33K number is not entirely comprised of Protestants, though there are still a great number of those.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
From James White's Blog Post:
"Phil Porvaznik Convinces Me that "R-------" Is Indeed the Proper Identifier of His Religion"
08/25/2007 - James White
"As soon as I saw this comment I knew Porvaznik has never laid his eyes on the source being cited. Why? Because of his mathematical formula: anyone who has actually looked at the source knows it lists less than 9k groups under "Protestant," not 32,797. In other words, he's blowing smoke. He is pretending to address a topic about which he is utterly ignorant. But note, that doesn't stop the faithful apologist for Romanism. So I wrote to Phil, and he confirmed, in his response, that he has not seen the 2001 edition, though he claims to have seen the previous edition. Well, if that is the case, he is still convicted by his own words of simple dishonesty, since the previous edition likewise broke down the data in such a fashion as to demonstrate beyond all contradiction that the use of its data to allege the existence of more than 20,000 "Protestant denominations" is just as bogus and dishonest as the current 33,000 claim. Eric Svendsen pointed this out years ago. "
Also,
James White has provided a blown up version of the chart mentioned above in his Blog post entitled:
"What Steve Ray Doesn't Want You To Think About"
08/27/2007 - James White
I am aware that Phil had done some editing the day after White's post but White's argument regarding "sola scriptura's alleged cause of disunity" is valid.
Algo
WHATEVER!
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
Edited by - Patti on 05/01/2009 09:32:21 AM |
|
|
|
Algo
320 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 09:24:04 AM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by JustaServant[/i]
[br]Well, the focus of the blog post goes beyond the 33K number. To me, this account illustrates the fallacy of Sola Scriptura. Without proper direction, Scripture is reduced to caotic interpretation. This fellow was simply reading Psalms, without commenting, the ultimate Scipture 'alone'.
JustaServant said:
quote:
"Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth", but not in a sense that it rules out the authority of Tradition and the Church. No biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the authority or rule of faith in isolation.
More importantly, there is no unity in Scripture Alone. If there were, there wouldn't be over 33,000 different denominations of Protestants around the world. Sola Scriptura falls apart everytime one opens the phone book and counts the number of churches in any given area.
For me, one of the shaky bricks in Scripture Alone came from a Baptist preacher years ago who told me of his troubles in a small town church."
You've not mentioned why it's a/the "standard of truth" or regula fide (rule of faith). You've failed to mention that it's a function of it being theopneustos (God breathed) and that as such it is thus infaillible and that if anything contradicts it and claims to be an infallible rule of faith (like the traditions of the church for instance) then it logically follows that that entity is not an infallible rule of faith. I don't know how that principle can be unclear. As far as the "33,000" denominations, There are a multitude of problems associated with this argument. just to name one example from the blog article:
"The 33,000 Denominations Myth" by Dr. James White <08/22/2007>
"Roman Catholic apologist[s fails to] demonstrat[e] that sola scriptura is the source of these divisions... For example, when we see division in the ranks of Rome, and see strong disagreements on key issues, does it follow that the Roman magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint? If a Christian believes the Scriptures a sufficient rule of faith, how does it follow that an abuse of such a sufficient source is an argument against its sufficiency? That simply does not follow."
(the edits are mine to fit the context of this post and not an article.) To make a comparison, that's like saying that because the foundational documents of computer science resulted in thousands of programming languages, then that foundational material must be a terrible resource because no one has a united approach and stance on computer science... in latin this is called a "non sequitur" (It does not follow!).
Secondly a lot of churches accept principles that violate sola scriptura so it can't be blamed for the division of these churches (including the catholic church which believes in a magisterium much like jehovah's witnesses believe in the magisterium of the watchtower bible and tract society.This is also documented in the above mentioned article.
Thirdly, It's a lie, plain and simple, that there are 33,000 protestant denominations all believing in sola scriptura and all disunified in their beliefs and approaches to biblical christianity. To cite the source of this claim of 33,000 denominations (the World Christian Encyclopedia) as cited from Dr White's article above:
"On page 10, the source cited by Ray, we read,
GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY
had
26,350 33,820 denominations/paradenominations
with
1,391,020 3,445,000 congregations/churches
composed of
1,130 1,888 million affiliated Christians
dichotomized into
the 2 global categories below
The first number is from 1970, the second from 2000. The two "global categorizations" offered are "denominationalism" and "postdenominationalism." It is vital to realize that the 33,820 number, used by Ray and Staples and the other RC apologists, combines all the "denominations" included in bothlists. But if these men would just do a small amount of reading on the very page they cite, they would realize that this is not a listing of "denominations" arising from the Protestant Reformation (though, again, for clarity I note, this is exactly the claim of Steve Ray’s documented above). 21,990 of these denominations are in the "postdenominationalism" category, 11,830 in the denominational. And please realize, the denominational number includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants! In fact, amazingly, this source lists 242 Roman Catholic denominations! If these ever-so-careful researchers had bothered to read on to page 16, they would have discovered:
This source lists 781 "Orthodox" denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025.
This source lists 242 "Roman Catholic" denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.
Do either of these groups arise from the Reformation? Of course not! Instead, continuing on page 16, the over-arching group "Protestant" is listed as having 8,973 denominations in 2000, predicting 9490 by 2025. If we stop just here, this means Steve Ray and Tim Staples are off by 24,000 denominations in their oft-repeated claims, i.e., the actual number in the source is only 27% of the number they give. They are inflating the number by more than 300%! Why? Are they simply going on second-hand references without ever even looking at the sources? Or are they being dishonest? Which is it?
But this isn't the entire picture. As you begin to work through the list of "Protestant" denominations, you discover that they include non-Trinitarian groups such as the Oneness denominations, as well as other groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists! Some of the other denominations listed openly embrace "revelation" in the modern period, hence meaning that they would hardly hold to any meaningful doctrine of sola scriptura to begin with.
After the Protestant groups you have "Independent" groups, followed by "Marginal Christian" groups. But all of these are added into the 33,820 number! Please realize, this includes "Gnostics" (!), Mormons (122 denominations worth!) and Jehovah's Witnesses (228 denominations)!
So the serious-minded reader is left with one conclusion: Steve Ray, Tim Staples, and the rest of the Roman Catholic apologetics community that throws the 33,000 number around like a football are embarrassing themselves to no end every time they repeat this myth. Not only is it painfully obvious that sola scriptura is not to blame for this 33,000 number, but in this source, read in its own context, the large portion of those listed in the 33,000 number do not even confess the doctrine, let alone practice it in their theological enunciations and development! Even amongst the Protestant groups listed, how many seriously know the issues surrounding the doctrine, let alone make a conscious effort to apply the truth? So no honest person could possibly, in light of this information, continue to make use of this number the way Ray and Staples and others do with regularity."
I posit that in the above citation your "33,000 protestant denominations from sola scriptura" claim is refuted.
Algo
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 09:55:23 AM
|
quote:
And please realize, the denominational number includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants! In fact, amazingly, this source lists 242 Roman Catholic denominations! If these ever-so-careful researchers had bothered to read on to page 16, they would have discovered:
This source lists 781 "Orthodox" denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025.
This source lists 242 "Roman Catholic" denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.
Do either of these groups arise from the Reformation? Of course not! Instead, continuing on page 16, the over-arching group "Protestant" is listed as having 8,973 denominations in 2000, predicting 9490 by 2025. If we stop just here, this means Steve Ray and Tim Staples are off by 24,000 denominations in their oft-repeated claims, i.e., the actual number in the source is only 27% of the number they give. They are inflating the number by more than 300%! Why? Are they simply going on second-hand references without ever even looking at the sources? Or are they being dishonest? Which is it?
Apparently not at least the first one; as for the second, unless the writer of this overwrought screed developed an uncanny ability to read hearts and minds, that motive is unprovable and in light of the first, unlikely. Evidently, our emotional brother in Christ missed this from that article I linked to above:
These 33,000 are subdivided into "6 major ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs", and ordering them by denomination size we have (I am rounding up or down slightly for convenience, using year 2000 figures) :
* Independents (about 22000)
* Protestants (about 9000)
* "Marginals" (about 1600)
* Orthodox (781)
* Roman Catholics (242)
* Anglicans (168)
So the 33,000 number is from the total of these 6 mega-blocs:
22000 + 9000 + 1600 + 781 + 242 + 168 = 33,000+
That's where the 33,000 figure comes from. If you count the "mega-bloc" of "Protestants" only it is 9000 / 33000 or 27% of the total. However, if you combine Protestants with Independents and Anglicans ( [22000 + 9000 + 168] / 33000) it is 94% of the total or 31,000+ . We will see below that most (about 97%) of the "Independent" churches are indeed Protestants. Now that we have that settled, I will examine what the source says about each of these "mega-blocs." All of the information below is found on pages 16-18 (volume 1) of the World Christian Encyclopedia (2001, 2nd edition).
Mr. Porvaznik also wrote, acknowledging that some of the groups are merely nominal Christians: The "Marginal Christian" groups include Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, various "Arian" or pseudo-Christian cults, some Christian science or "mind science" cults, some Unitarian/Universalist groups, and tiny numbers of so-called Christian or Catholic "Gnostics."
The author noted that 9000 denominations called themselves "Protestants" openly and that there were 22000 Independent and 168 Anglican denominations who could also be termed "Protestant", though of course they don't explicitly label themselves that way. Mr. Porvaznik also went on to say:
quote:
The source does refer to 33000+ total "Christian" denominations, but it defines the word "denomination" as an organized Christian group within a specific country:
“Denominations. A denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.” (Barrett et al, volume 1, page 16, Table 1-5, emphasis added)
So we have, according to Barrett's Encyclopedia:
* a denomination is defined as existing within a specific country
* there are 33,000+ total of these "Christian denominations" in 238 total countries
He was in fact stating that the number is using a strange scale that is not generally acceptable for either side and, in that sense, he is already debunking it, so Mr. White's efforts to debunk his article appear to be responding to a point Mr. P. isn't making. As to the point about the Roman Catholic "denominations", the apologist already noted in his article:
quote:
From these western and smaller eastern rites the encyclopedia gets 242 "Roman Catholic denominations" (year 2000 numbers). The largest is by far the Latin-rite (commonly called "Roman Catholics" by non-Catholic Christians) with 976 million members of the 994 million total members (or 98% of the total, year 1995 numbers). However, since virtually all of these western and smaller eastern rites are in union with the Pope (I am not sure of some of them), there is actually one Catholic Church, not 242 churches or denominations. Based on the encyclopedia's own definition of "denomination" the editors appear to be separating and counting by country which is how you get to 242 (or 238 countries plus 4) "denominations" of Roman Catholics. The Catholic Church in Canada is not a different "denomination" from the Catholic Church in the U.S., which is not a different Catholic Church from the one in England, etc. If you search the available "World Christian Database" online, there is indeed one Catholic Church in the U.S.A., (see also Barrett, Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 783 for the U.S.A.) and in the world there are indeed 238 "Roman Catholic" denominations (for exactly 238 countries), i.e. one Catholic Church for each country. The same "counting by country" seems to be the case with some of the denominations in the other mega-blocs.
When dividing these "denominations" by country as they do, there are definitely some problems in figuring out the true total "denominations" since many of them are being counted more than once -- and in fact 241 times too much in the case of "Roman Catholic" denominations. Barrett's Encyclopedia states this explicitly:
“As a statistical unit in this Encyclopedia, a 'denomination' always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world's 238 countries.” (Barrett, et al, World Christian Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 27, in the "Glossary" under definition for "Denomination" [later updated to 242]
How did such an astute scholar as your friend miss this?
To Jim:
I agree that the point is greater than the data, as even more than one faith calling itself Christian is a scandal. However, the same website did have a list of 5000+ Protestant denominations:
http://www.bringyou.to/DENOMS.php
As Martin Luther once wrote: There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit Baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 05/01/2009 10:01:14 AM |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 10:08:44 AM
|
quote:
I posit that in the above citation your "33,000 protestant denominations from sola scriptura" claim is refuted.
Well, that's a bit of a sticking point... No matter how "denomination" is used here, there are still more than one Protestant one, and the great majority of those insist that they follow only Scripture and/or that only things plainly found in Scripture are acceptable as God's doctrine. If they don't, then by what authority do they read and interpret God's Holy Writ? Is it man or the Bible? Please leave the Holy Spirit out of this one, as He does God's Will, and God the Son did pray for unity among His followers, and such disunity cannot be that Spirit's doing. Of course, that doesn't preclude it being the spirit of man or of the world.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Algo
320 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 10:47:06 AM
|
Patti said:
quote:
"“As a statistical unit in this Encyclopedia, a 'denomination' always refers to one single country. Thus the Roman Catholic Church, although a single organization, is described here as consisting of 236 denominations in the world's 238 countries.” (Barrett, et al, World Christian Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 27, in the "Glossary" under definition for "Denomination" [later updated to 242]"
and:
"How did such an astute scholar as your friend miss this?"
-------
Patti
He didn't miss this.
quote:
08/26/2007 - James White
"I might pause here a moment to note an interesting theory that has been put forth by some Roman Catholics regarding the 242 Roman Catholic denominations number. They have asserted that this refers to nations, i.e., one Roman Catholic church per nation. This may well be the case. And if it is, lets apply this to the Protestant numbers. This would mean that Protestant groups with less than 242 denominations listed would not be world-wide in their distribution; those with more would have more than one denomination in certain countries. This seems to make some sense in reading the data given by Barrett/Kurian/Johnson. But think about what this means as well: if taking this into consideration reduces the Roman Catholic numbers down to in essence one, it would likewise greatly reduce the Protestant numbers as well, would it not? In fact, if that is the case, then the actual number of Protestant denominations would be less than a hundred. Only 27 groups are listed under Protestant in this source. Most of these have very small numbers, i.e., they are very limited in their distribution. Few have more than 242 denominations listed. Hence, though merely dividing 8,973 by 242would give us too low a number (this results in 37), the realistic number would be between this number and about 100 or so, using the same logic by which the Roman Catholic number is reduced to one. "
Algo |
Edited by - Patti on 05/01/2009 11:47:31 AM |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 11:30:27 AM
|
Justaservants example of how Sola Scriptura fails, (reading the Scriptures and people coming to different applications and interpretations), is not unique to non-Catholics, it happens among Catholics also. I have heard Catholics say they don’t believe this teaching and they don’t believe that teaching of the Catholic Church, while still maintaining they are Catholic. Based on Justaservants example that would also prove the Magistarium, the Pope and the authority of the keys to the Kingdom to bind whatever, proves they do not have the authority they claim they do. But of course, you would reject that logic or deduction. For the same reason I reject the logic or deduction that Sola Scriptura fails. Just because there are many applications and interpretations of Scripture it does not prove Sola Scriptura fails, it proves people fail to handle the Word of God accurately!
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Jjane
Canada
1540 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 11:41:33 AM
|
Welcome back Ralph. I have a question. Don't feel you need to answer it.
Are you married outside the Church, ie Roman Catholic Church? |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 12:13:07 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Jjane[/i]
[br]Welcome back Ralph. I have a question. Don't feel you need to answer it.
Are you married outside the Church, ie Roman Catholic Church?
Thank you. Never really left, been reading just not commenting.
I was married in the Catholic Church 29 years ago last month.
Ralph |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 12:27:34 PM
|
quote:
I have heard Catholics say they don’t believe this teaching and they don’t believe that teaching of the Catholic Church, while still maintaining they are Catholic.
Those are Protestants, no matter what they call themselves. A Protestant is a Catholic who picks and chooses what Church teachings he accepts and denies. As soon as he denies one, he is a Protestant. Herr Luther considered himself a good Catholic when he rebelled against the Church. So did practically every heretic or schismatic prior to the Reformation. It wasn't until Protestantism formed that the number of groups multiplied.
At least in Catholicism, there's a Magisterium that provides a standard for obedience or dissidence to Catholic doctrine. Protestants do not have that; by the same book of Scriptures that one group proves infant baptism, another group disproves it. Both claim to be following the Scriptures yet neither is following Scripture alone but its interpretation of Scripture.
To Algo: I removed the snide little reference to "spin". Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and your friend's house is very fragile. That whole thing he put up was refuting what Mr. Porvaznik already stated in his article, so at the least he missed that it was already stated the first time he read it and at the most he is applying his own spin to what was said. In any event, the point: "Most of these have very small numbers, i.e., they are very limited in their distribution." and the following math formulation are flawed because size and distribution do not matter as factors. What counts is a shift in doctrine that has occurred in the ensuing centuries since Martin Luther declared the Bible to be the sole infallible rule of faith. A Reformed Calvinist does not believe what a Lutheran believes, nor does a Lutheran believe as a Methodist believes, and so forth.
Since Luther's revolt, denominations in Protestantism have increased rapidly compared to the first fifteen centuries. The only major group to leave the Church and remain visible was the Orthodox; after 1517, there were forty major groups formed. This does not count all the minor groups that cropped up all over the place with subtle and not-so-subtle variations in theology, Christology and the like.
Just so you're aware, in case it wasn't clear, I am not endorsing nor repeating the 33K number; I'm recommending a more general term, such as "thousands", or better yet "numerous", be used in connection with Protestant denominations. A more general term leaves open the possibility that there may be less or more than a particular number. Leaving aside the semantics, even two Protestant denominations claiming their views as sole truth solely taken from the Scriptures is too many and debunks sola scriptura as a viable approach to the Gospel in light of Christ's own prayer for unity. If the Scriptures alone are the sole infallible rule of faith and contain all truths in plain sight to those who read them, and if it is the way God intended men to understand His Gospel, then there ought not be more than one Christian system of belief based solely on the Bible.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 05/01/2009 12:33:36 PM |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1216 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 12:33:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralph
Just because there are many applications and interpretations of Scripture it does not prove Sola Scriptura fails, it proves people fail to handle the Word of God accurately!
It seems to me when Truth Itself visited this earth and Truth Itself said that He would send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth that we would believe HIM. Let God be true and every man be a liar.
When we admit to a source outside of ourself as being authoritative we can then begin to break the trap of depending upon ourselves as the final arbiter of truth. We as too broken to "figure it out". Without the protection of the Holy Spirit, the Church would be too, since it is composed of men. God invested His Truth to His Church; it's up to men to admit they cannot do it without the Church -- without which all men can claim equal authority (which ain't much!!)
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 12:41:16 PM
|
quote:
Just because there are many applications and interpretations of Scripture it does not prove Sola Scriptura fails, it proves people fail to handle the Word of God accurately!
1. Who decides in the Protestant system when people fail to handle the Word of God accurately?
2. When and how is it decided that there's been a failure to do so?
3. As Jim's example demonstrated, the preacher simply read the Psalm to his congregation without any embellishment or expounding. Why did the people not cease in their contention?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5275 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 12:44:22 PM
|
Ralph sez:
quote:
I have heard Catholics say they don’t believe this teaching and they don’t believe that teaching of the Catholic Church, while still maintaining they are Catholic.
Ah, yes. This is called LYING. I hope that clarifies the matter.
:-)
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
Edited by - artsippo on 05/01/2009 8:40:55 PM |
|
|
|
rr1213
4467 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 1:49:20 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
I have heard Catholics say they don’t believe this teaching and they don’t believe that teaching of the Catholic Church, while still maintaining they are Catholic.
Those are Protestants, no matter what they call themselves. A Protestant is a Catholic who picks and chooses what Church teachings he accepts and denies. As soon as he denies one, he is a Protestant.
I have a different take on this problem. Despite the multitude of varieties of Protestantism, there are still some basic principles that they usually hold in common (especially the five solas). In other words, the term "Protestant" has a meaning in and of itself outside of the fact that such as person is in some way in opposition to the Catholic Church. In the example given above, I think that "dissident Catholics" is the better description. |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 4:04:50 PM
|
Patti said, “Those are Protestants, no matter what they call themselves. A Protestant is a Catholic who picks and chooses what Church teachings he accepts and denies. As soon as he denies one, he is a Protestant. Herr Luther considered himself a good Catholic when he rebelled against the Church. So did practically every heretic or schismatic prior to the Reformation. It wasn't until Protestantism formed that the number of groups multiplied.”
I don’t disagree with you Patti. My point is there are people who reject sound doctrine whether it comes from your Magisterium or the Bible. Is it the fault of the Magiserium of the Catholic Church or Sola Scriptura? I would say neither; it is the fault of people, people who think they know better than the Magiserium of the Catholic Church and or how to properly handle the Scriptures.
Patti said, “At least in Catholicism, there's a Magisterium that provides a standard for obedience or dissidence to Catholic doctrine. Protestants do not have that;”
This is not true Patti. Scripture tells us to obey our leaders. ( See Heb 13:17) And that our leader is called Bishop or Overseer, or Elder. Though I believe Scripture uses the title Elder and Bishop and Overseer describes the job of an Elder, which is more commonly called Pastor today. The point I am making is this person or persons, in the Protestant churches “provides a standard of obedience or dissidence to…”,Biblical, “…doctrine.” ( See I Peter 5:1,2, Acts 20:17, Acts 20:28, Titus 1:5-9, Titus 2:1, Acts 14:23)
Patti said, “…by the same book of Scriptures that one group proves infant baptism, another group disproves it. Both claim to be following the Scriptures yet neither is following Scripture alone but its interpretation of Scripture.”
We are not responsible for the heresies of others, the misinterpretation of others and the misapplication of others. Just like the Catholic Church does not feel responsible for what it considers the heresies of so called “Catholic” splinter groups. This is not the fault of any authority or Sola Scriptura. It is the fault of man. A problem Catholics and Protestants seem to have.
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 4:11:00 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
Just because there are many applications and interpretations of Scripture it does not prove Sola Scriptura fails, it proves people fail to handle the Word of God accurately!
1. Who decides in the Protestant system when people fail to handle the Word of God accurately?
2. When and how is it decided that there's been a failure to do so?
3. As Jim's example demonstrated, the preacher simply read the Psalm to his congregation without any embellishment or expounding. Why did the people not cease in their contention?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
I would suggest the answer to question 3 is fear, not qualified to Shepherd Gods people, respector of people, pay check to name a few. I am not trying to be judgmental, but it is a fact shepherding Gods people is not for the weak of faith and that there are many temptations to care more about what the sheep say than what God says. The sheep can get pretty out of control at times, but they are not serving the sheep, pastors are serving God and must respond to the actions of the sheep in a way that honors God regurdless of the way the sheep respond.
Just my opinion
Ralph |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 4:13:42 PM
|
quote:
We are not responsible for the heresies of others, the misinterpretation of others and the misapplication of others.
But by what authority does one group call the other heretical, or prove that they're misinterpreting or misapplying Scripture? I used the example of baptism because there are some Protestants who baptize infants and others who don't. Which group is right and why? Both have Scriptural evidence in support of its position. Where is the objective authority to say that one is interpreting and applying Scripture as it should?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 4:53:27 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
We are not responsible for the heresies of others, the misinterpretation of others and the misapplication of others.
But by what authority does one group call the other heretical, or prove that they're misinterpreting or misapplying Scripture? I used the example of baptism because there are some Protestants who baptize infants and others who don't. Which group is right and why? Both have Scriptural evidence in support of its position. Where is the objective authority to say that one is interpreting and applying Scripture as it should?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
Someone outside all our camps could ask the same question. "Where is the objective authority to say that one is interpreting and applying Scripture as it should?" Is it the Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Baptist, and the list goes on and on? Two Protestant Churches claiming authority to hold differing doctrines in no way proves the Catholic Church has the authority these churches don't. I am not saying it disproves it either, it just adds nothing to the claim of objective authority the Catholic Church says it has.
I don't think the point you are trying to make settles the matter of who has objective authority for all those who claim to be followers of Christ. Those outside Christianity see us all in the same way you are seeing Protestants.
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 5:18:16 PM
|
quote:
Someone outside all our camps could ask the same question.
Not really, since I'm asking you how your system of belief calls someone a heretic by virtue of interpretation and application of the Scriptures. Someone who isn't Christian at all could ask "How do I know you guys have all of God's truth as opposed to another group?" That's not what I'm asking. Rather, I want to know how you know your interpretation of the Scriptures is the only correct one and someone else who interprets it differently is wrong.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Ralph
USA
598 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 6:29:41 PM
|
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
Someone outside all our camps could ask the same question.
Not really, since I'm asking you how your system of belief calls someone a heretic by virtue of interpretation and application of the Scriptures. Someone who isn't Christian at all could ask "How do I know you guys have all of God's truth as opposed to another group?" That's not what I'm asking. Rather, I want to know how you know your interpretation of the Scriptures is the only correct one and someone else who interprets it differently is wrong.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
I believe Jesus promised to lead those who believe in Him to truth. (See Jn 14:15-21, Jn 16:13, Rom 8:5-11, 1 Jn 2:26,27, Heb 8:10,11, 1 Peter 2:1-3, 2 Peter 3:17,18)
I understand that just because I "say" or "I believe" my interpretation of Scripture is correct, it does not prove my interpretation of Scripture is correct. But again, the question goes both ways, just because someone "says or believes" the Catholic Church has infallible authority, is able to infallibly interpret Scripture and declare infallibly what is doctrine, does not mean it’s correct either.
Ralph
Ralph
|
|
|
|
Tim Buley
USA
152 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 11:03:16 PM
|
Many confessional Lutheran churches would seem far more catholic to some then many catholic churches since the VII reforms, in the catholic church in America many just "play" catholic and then vote for abortion loving presidents or ordain celibate gay-clergy, seen the philippine crucifixions every year, this happens in the catholic church not the LCMS. I see no special protection preventing scandal. In a sungenis debate I heard prior to Vatican 1 a council found 41 papal errors, gerry matatics wrote that at one time 90% of the bishops were in error. What comfort does your magisterium offer you when you don't even have an infallible commentary on the whole bible? I've seen responses like that as soon as someone acts contradictory to the church they are acting out side the church, but then at any given time who is in your church "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth."
It is sad to see all the schismatic in the world today but it is better for 1000000 schismatic churches who understand justification by Faith Alone than for 1 visible church depending on one's works, I always see the many churches in my town and think, If only the proud would have only listened to Luther and corrected their error instead of hardening their hearts and binding themselves to ultramontanism took on so many dogmas
Tim Buley
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 11:28:51 PM
|
Pity that justification by faith alone isn't Scriptural.(James 2:24)
As for the rest of your post, do you know what calumny and detraction are, Tim? In discussing differences, people here have often asked that persons not be attacked in the discussion of doctrinal points where there is digression. You've just thrown a lot of mud at people and, frankly, you just disqualified yourself as able to calmly and rationally discuss anything Catholic by your flaming lack of charity. How about if we just pretend your little rant never happened and try to discuss differences of doctrine?
If you really believe the Catholic Church is so vile and produces little if any good fruit in the Holy Spirit, just watch what happens when Obama pushes his abortion agenda down the Church's throat and one-third of our nation's hospitals close rather than kill unborn children. The bishops have already made it clear to the president that this could very well become a reality. And when was the last time you went to an AIDS house and volunteered to help the Sisters of Charity?
Since I don't expect you to answer those questions nor consider your level of personal sanctity necessary to see truth in your beliefs, I expect you to check your bigotry at the door when visiting here, please.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
MonFrere
USA
1216 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2009 : 11:45:49 PM
|
quote:
The ELCA Social Statement on Abortion , adopted by the 1991 Churchwide Assembly, acknowledges the issue's complexity, noting that it "evokes strong and varied convictions about ... human life and responsibility, freedom and limits." The statement also offers useful guidance: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born, nor does a pregnant woman have an absolute right to terminate a pregnancy. The concern for both the life of the woman and the developing life in her womb expresses a common commitment to life."
A last resort
"The strong Christian presumption is to preserve and protect life," the statement says. "Abortion ought to be an option only of last resort. Therefore, as a church we seek to reduce the need to turn to abortion. ...We also deplore the circumstances that lead a woman to consider abortion as the best option available to her."
The above statement of from ECLA; not the Missouri Synod, to be sure - but still the largest Lutheran body in the U.S. Find an official Catholic document that supports abortion. Because there's no protection of the Holy Spirit you are forced into smaller and smaller groups to uphold basic moral norms. I'm glad you uphold moral norms; but as Patti has brought up, a lack of charity is anti-Christian too.
MonFrere
If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Tim Buley
USA
152 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 12:08:22 AM
|
Patti,
I gladly acknowledge that many from your church do and have done great things in this world. I would stand beside Jew, Muslim, Atheist or yourself for the sanctity of human life or any other truth we hold in common. I do not believe these actions save us or work towards our salvation, this is the work of God through us in our lives and vocation. Many in your church hold the line on your doctrine especially the likes of EWTN and Mr. Madrid, yet you must acknowledge the last 50 years has not looked at your church and seen a consensus of historical orthodoxy, in fact in my short life I have seen many a scandal, and I don't think 70% or so of the LCMS members voted for Obama
I do not mean these things in any bigoted way towards the good people of your church, I'm sure both of us agree that the others doctrine can lead to hell, yet the implication that Sola Scriptura has caused all the problems in the christian church and that you guys are some how more exalted and untouched by disunity I don't think is fair. acknowledge
This is why I distinguish between the Visible and Invisible church and the the Invisible church can even be found amongst your church body.
And the actions of some does not speak on their orthodoxy even within your doctrine have you ever seen some of the quotes of Mother Teresa?
Tim Buley
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 12:28:06 AM
|
quote:
...in the catholic church in America many just "play" catholic and then vote for abortion loving presidents...
Disobedience to the Church's teachings does not invalidate them. And not every American who's a member of the Catholic Church "play catholic", whatever that's supposed to mean.
quote:
...or ordain celibate gay-clergy...
Seminary entrance scrutinies are more restrictive now in weeding out problem candidates for the priesthood than before Vatican II, and this remark wrongly assigns celibacy as a cause of homosexuality. Since Christ and most likely Paul and some of the Apostles were celibate, and Scripture extols those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom, it just doesn't follow that celibacy makes men gay.
quote:
...seen the philippine crucifixions every year...
I had to look that up, since I had no freakin' clue what on earth this meant. The Church does not sanction and discourages this type of behavior. That doesn't mean people listen.
quote:
...I see no special protection preventing scandal...
Yeah, I know, they keep happening, just like in Corinth and a bunch of other places where the Church keeps letting those sinners in instead of keeping herself "pure". Paul wrote a lot of letters to the churches he founded about their scandalous members.
quote:
In a sungenis debate I heard prior to Vatican 1 a council found 41 papal errors...
Not one doctrinal one. Amazing. For more information, please Google "Dodgy Popes".
quote:
...gerry matatics wrote that at one time 90% of the bishops were in error...
The Arian heresy. In fact, it was higher than ninety percent. So, basing your belief that Christ is divine on a slim minority that could about be counted on one hand (including the pope) who held out against overwhelming odds (and persecution from non-Church officials and emperors) should be cause for rejoicing in Christ keeping His word to Peter in Matthew 16 about the gates of hell. The Arians, by the way, tried to limit the evidence offered by both sides strictly to Scripture alone and tried to exclude Tradition from the Apostles as evidence of how to properly interpret the Scriptures.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 12:46:37 AM
|
quote:
And the actions of some does not speak on their orthodoxy even within your doctrine have you ever seen some of the quotes of Mother Teresa?
Oh, yes, out of context and tossed up as proof she was an irenic heretic who embraced indifferentism. Since what she said isn't binding on the whole Church or even members of her order, that doesn't prove the Church does things wrong, only that some of her members may say or do things wrong (or have them wrongly quoted). Mother Teresa's actions actually did say a lot more about the Gospel she'd learned when she picked up dying people from the gutters of Calcutta or comforted an AIDS patient whose own family had disowned him. She saw Christ in the sick and dying she tried to help, in the least of His brethren, which is in keeping with Matthew 25.
On the other hand, disunity and multiplication of denominations is a very visible sign that sola scriptura is not a viable model for the Church. The "invisible Church" idea sounds nice in theory but Christ said all sorts of things that indicated He founded a visible Church on Peter and the Twelve. Here is a list of Scripture references that demonstrate the Church as a single visible entity:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-V
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
|
|
|
Algo
320 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 08:11:40 AM
|
Patti said:
quote:
"On the other hand, disunity and multiplication of denominations is a very visible sign that sola scriptura is not a viable model for the Church. The "invisible Church" idea sounds nice in theory but Christ said all sorts of things that indicated He founded a visible Church on Peter and the Twelve."
Actually there is a great deal of unity amongst those who practice Sola Scriptura. Look at the comparison of these two communions. Both view Scripture and Justification identically. Regarding Baptism, it is true that we Presbyterians disagree with our Baptistic Brethren on who are the recipients of the Sacrament/Ordinance. But we do not consider each other heretics.
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html
Algo |
|
|
|
Patti
USA
7401 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 09:10:34 AM
|
Identically? Well, since the 1689 one is a slightly revised version of the 1658 Savoy Declaration, which in turn is a slight revision of the 1646 Westminster one, that isn't surprising. What is surprising is the more explicit statements regarding God and Christ in the later one and the exaltation of Scripture as "above all things in the world" that was also inserted later. There are considerable differences in sections such as "Repentance Unto Life and Justification". However, both make the claim that Scripture is the only way one interprets Scripture.
The evidence is that there is some reasonable unity between two groups in which one is a later derivation of the other. This is scarcely enough proof that sola scriptura unites; besides, if it did, why are there revisions and differences inserted at all?
On the other hand....
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num6.htm
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
Edited by - Patti on 05/02/2009 10:41:39 AM |
|
|
|
artsippo
USA
5275 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2009 : 09:47:08 AM
|
Nonsense, Algo. The Baptists are constantly 'sheep stealing' from the mainstream Protestant denominations. And you "split P's" are always breaking away and calling EACH OTHER heretics.
I am sorry, Algo, but your claim is delusional. I have heard Greg Bahnsen rant and rave about how Lutherans are not truly 'reformed.' The Lutheran view of "faith alone" is in diametric opposition to that of the Calvinists on several key points (especially the ordo salutis). If you don't beleive me read what Pieper (Lutheran) and Hodge (Presbyterian) say about each other in the several editions of their respective systematic theologies. And PLEASE don't pretend that either Calvin or Luther were 'tolerant' of the Baptists in their day. Both advocated physical violence to the point of death for them.
And Sola Scriptura is pure hypocrisy when the very basis of your faith (JBFA) literally CONTRADICTS the Bible (James 2:24).
The fact is that you have to misrepresent your realtionship to other Protestant sects because you are embarassed at the disunity and enmity amongst you.
The real point, Algo is that there is no authority among Protestants. None of you can speak for Christ. All of you do whatever is right in your own eyes regardless of what the Bible says. Protestantism is not true Christianity but self-serving disobedience and rebellion against God and his Christ.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
Edited by - artsippo on 05/02/2009 5:10:56 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
What One Preacher Learned About "Scripture Alone"
