padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

A person can be a pedophile, an adulterer, a sex abuser and an out and out crook and not be a heretic.

To your question, "would God really have these people as His representatives on earth?" Good question, let's consider it. The Gospel of Matthew begins with a long list of Hebrew names that gives the family tree of Jesus on the human side. All in all, some 47 names are mentioned. As we read the names some two thousand years of history pass in review. I hate trying to pronounce those names every year when we read that Gospel. This year I think I'll first put a couple marbles in each cheek - "Fake it till I make it." Anyhow, all those names are actually vivid pictures of living souls who prepared the way for Christmas. One more thing, the genealogy serves also to emphasize the true human nature of Jesus. One would think that Jesus would have come from a family tree that consisted, if not royalty, then at least of saintly and holy persons. But what do we find? We find that it includes murderers, adulterers, and incestuous persons. We find a prostitute, like Rahab. We find a murderer and adulterer like King David. We have sinners of all kind. An invented genealogy would have been far different. The gospel writers did not lie or embellish the background of Jesus. Look who God used in the genealogy of our Lord. I hope I've answered your question. Seems to me, if he used me he can use practically anybody as long as they.....keep the faith.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Get behind me and be quiet. You are a heretic and a schismatic.

In 1529, Dr. Link, the pre-eminent German language scholar of the day, wrote to Luther asking him why he had been inserting words into the German Bible. Luther's astonishing written answer nicely sums up the heart of the Protestant problem of individualistic subjectivity. "It is so because Dr. Martin Luther says it is so!"

I'm betting this will be received much like the corn passing through the goose scenario.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Padre,

You're so far out of line on this you could complete a circle.

I see you're out seeking demons, having memorized Jesus' words of rebuke, but do not point it at me.
That is a much needed enterprise in our world today, but you've aligned yourself on the wrong side of that spiritual warfare, and you are looking in the wrong direction.

I am defending the written Word of God, as it appears in Holy Scripture.

What is it that you are defending? May I suggest that it is your ego.

" God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul,
so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them.
Now there were some itinerant Jewish exorcists who tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those with evil spirits. They would say, “I bind you by Jesus, whom Paul proclaims.”…
Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.
Eventually, one of the evil spirits answered them, “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but you, who are you?”
Then the man with the evil spirit jumped on them and overpowered them all. The attack was so violent that they ran out of the house, naked and wounded." (Acts 19:11-16)

You need to know your limitations and to be able to recognize demonic activity. Spiritual warfare is no one's joke.

As for the goose; it is "grease through a goose," not corn.

Rose42

Good point.

He also used Paul and Paul was a murderer. Paul and the others were never declared infallible as the pope has been. Christ would not have one who covers up pedophilia, sexual abuse and other crimes as his infallible representative.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Reportedly, Paul was present at and even advocated the stoning of Steven. By his own admission he persecuted Christ believing he was doing God a favor destroying a religion he did not understand.

The catholic pope does not claim infallibility on anything except specific items and issues of the faith. He does not, as far as I know, give stock tips. However, if he did, this old Orthodox priest would probably listen. No, not, really! I've never owned any stock and don't expect I ever will.

Radiance3

==================
By all account the Catholic Church is the VALID AND AUTHORIZED Church to keep, to use, to teach, to preach the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church contains all the provisions authorized by God to follow and obey.
The Catholic Church has the three arms or power that God gave.
They are the Sacred Traditions, the Scriptures, and the Magisterium. The Church for 1,987 years has consistently followed God's order.

Except the Catholic Church, His Church, NO other forces could exercise this without authority from God.

Radiance3

==================
Rose42, you've got the dumbest question there, purely defective and incomplete.

What you have just stated are GROSS violations of God's Command.
The source of all your information is the Sola Scriptura. The fact that Sola Scriptura is incomplete and lacks the 1500 years of history. It does not give you the whole picture of God's Gospel. IT IS MAN-MADE!

Here are some of the defects of Sola Scriptura:


Problems with Sola Scriptura.
First: Sola Scriptura is anarchic.
This is evident from the endless multiplication of divergent theologies and denominations within Protestantism. Without a unifying voice, namely, a bishop, pope, or something similar, one becomes his own definitive authority on the meaning of Scripture.

Perhaps a pastor or teacher can help one form ideas, but it is I and I alone who am responsible for determining the true meaning of any given passage. Of course, I might say that the Holy Spirit is giving me the truth – which would mean that everyone must actually listen to me. In Protestantism, everyone is their own little pope. This same “bottom-up” approach to God existed once before, at the Tower of Babel. And there too did the languages multiply endlessly unto chaos, just as we see within Protestantism now, where there is splinter after splinter.

Pentecost was the opposite – God came down to us (the Church as such, as represented by the Apostles and Mary in the Upper Room) and gave us a principle of unity from which to adapt to the many situations and needs submit that there are at least 7 massive problems with Sola Scriptura.

Second: Sola Scriptura is innovative.
It did not exist until 500 years ago when Luther came up with it. Protestants often complain about “man-made traditions” infecting Christianity – well, Sola Scriptura is one of them.

Would we not expect a Christian “God-made tradition” to have existed long before the 16th century? It sounds quite a bit like one of those “winds of doctrine” which Paul warned about (Eph. 4: 14). Of course, Scripture has been treated as authoritative throughout the ages, but it was not treated – or attempted to be treated – as the only authority until relatively recently. Did God let Sola Scriptura remain an obscure but correct practice and then even fall out of existence for centuries until Luther was inspired to revive it? This does not sound like the God of Christianity, does it… It sounds like a God Who did not remain among us but Who left us orphans instead – not only with no definitive interpreter of Scripture (see #1), but without the right doctrine about what Scripture is. And to think, He only left the children of Jacob in Egypt for 400 years…

Third: Sola Scriptura is historically impractical.
This is not primarily due to illiteracy (though one might also wonder if that would be an impediment to being a good Protestant), it is due to the fact that for many years there simply was no such thing as Christian Scripture, let alone a collection of texts organized into “the Bible.” [/b]

When Thomas the Apostle went to India, he did not bring with him the Gospel of Luke. When Peter went to Antioch, he did not bring Paul’s letters with him. When Matthew went to Alexandria, he did not bring the Johannine corpus with him. We can note that Paul in his missionary journeys, based on the whole Book of Acts and his own letters, is not using anything but Jewish Scripture in his disputations and preaching. How then could there be Christians in the wake of these evangelists? Doesn’t a Christian need a Bible? Obviously not. There were local churches set up in many places across the globe for a long time with little to no Christian Scriptures available, relying on the oral tradition and the authority of the Church as such, and it took even longer to form a real, authoritative canon (viz. “the Bible”) which allowed people to know what Scripture consisted of… Which brings us to the next problem.

Four: Sola Scriptura is conceptually impossible. We must know what actually is Scripture in order to use “Scripture alone,” yes? But how do we know what really counts and what doesn’t? The truth is that Scripture was defined by the Church, finally confirmed in a special way at the Council of Trent in response to the preaching and teaching of Luther, who wanted to throw out a few books which he didn’t think were really Scripture, but which most others did.[/b]

Without descending into the minutiae of the history of the so-called “deuterocanon,” we can simply note that it was indeed widely regarded as Scripture from an early time, even though there was some controversy surrounding it. A Protestant response might be to fall back on the principle of St. Vincent of Lérins, that the faith is that “which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” (Never mind that this was about faith in “the Catholic Church,” as Vincent says, nor that he only holds it out as a general rule for finding heresy rather than as a specific rule for formulating a biblical canon.) Universal acclamation of texts as Scriptural does not really work on its own… If there is a little disagreement, which there certainly was about non-deuterocanon, then one must begin to wonder, “How universal is universal enough?” There is no good answer. Instead, an authority must decide what is Scripture and what is not. Yes to 2 Peter, no to 1 Clement. Yes to Revelation, no to The Shepherd of Hermas. Etc. The New Testament itself does not and cannot provide a guide – nor does the New Testament provide a list of what belongs in the Old Testament. So the very existence of an authoritative canon which does not assemble itself or fall from the sky necessitates an authoritative compiler. That is the Church itself, which therefore must have its own special authority to speak for God. This guarantees the texts of Scripture are actually the ones which God inspired. (Let’s not even get into the bizarre and self-refuting theory that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible texts…)

Five: Sola Scriptura is arbitrary. Of course, it makes sense that a revealed religion would involve a sacred text which has authority, but it is conceivable that it would not.

And there is, therefore, no a priori need for “Scripture” as an authority at all, let alone as the sole authority. Let me be clear: I am not saying the Bible is not an authority, I am saying it is not clear that it automatically must be… And anyone who says that it is an authority has to appeal to something outside of Scripture. An appeal to Scripture to prove the authority of Scripture is perfectly circular. Why is Scripture an authority? Why not “Sola Papa” (the Pope Alone)? Why not “Sola Ego” (I Alone)? Why not “Sola Luther” (Luther Alone)? There must be an authority which supports Scripture as an authority, and that authority must derive from God. Seeing as Christ did not give us a biblical canon, He must have somehow given authority to mere human beings to decide what texts God actually inspired. In the end, men must cooperate in the governance of the Church, at least in this way. This brings us to problem #6…

]Six: Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory.
It is a teaching of Martin Luther, a mere man, and by those following him: also mere men. By obeying those who teach Sola Scriptura, the very doctrine is violated. To practice it on one’s own is also a violation, as one must listen to one’s own interpretation of passages (especially in cases of controversy), or one must say that the Holy Spirit is interpreting[/b]

– Who is clearly not Scripture. And let us also note that Sola Scriptura is not taught by Scripture… So finally, we have the last and most problematic issue for the doctrine…
]b]Seven: Sola Scriptura contradicts Scripture. The Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura, but it does teach the importance of the oral tradition which is not written down. Scripture also teaches the authority of the Church as such. Two verses will suffice.[/b]

The first is 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 – “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (Other translations render παραδόσεις “traditions” instead of “teachings.”) This is enough to show that at least Paul thought that more than Scripture might be necessary for safeguarding Christian doctrine. What might the mechanism be? He describes it in the second verse for our examination, 1 Timothy 3: 15 –

“…if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” How can “the church” be a “pillar” for the truth unless it functions as a means of connection to God, whereby false doctrines are corrected with good authority? The truth is tied at least to this pillar, “the church.” And how can it also be the “foundation” for truth unless it has a special means of holding up truth in a special way? What else could be the foundation of truth except that which is first in announcing it in the world? The guarantee of truth – infallibility – rests upon “the church.” God corrects error and announces truth through “the church.” This is how the Catholic Church understands its role in condemning heresies and defining doctrines (including what is Scripture and what is not).

There we have it…
7 fatal flaws with Sola Scriptura. Protestant readers (if there are any) might object with many verses of Scripture (especially 2 Timothy 3: 16, which simply insists that Scripture is indeed important – I do not deny this!)
… However, in so doing they will no doubt demonstrate the points above.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Radiance,

"As convincing as your argument may seem to a devout Catholic, it is devoid of substance. Roman Catholic arguments against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura fail, and they are unable to provide any substantial basis for the Catholic dogma of an infallible oral tradition.

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura.

First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach Sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that Sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers.

This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition.

He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting Sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6).

It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century.

Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy.

Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).11 This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19).

Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically. Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word.

Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation. Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century.

However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.

Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament.

This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired.

The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for Sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture. The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible.

Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books.

It is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church.

The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, “Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7).

Likewise, “Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2).

Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

The essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.



https://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/
Christian Research Institute
By: Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie

bahmer

Excellent Zemirah that was laid out very well and factual thanks for that I for one appreciated it.

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

Thanks, Bahmer.

It's 46 degrees here at the moment, and the fog has burnt off for the day. We have no snow on the ground.

I trust you're able to maneuver through whatever snow you still have.

bahmer

It hasn't melted appreciably yet and I missed getting the garbage out for collection but since I live alone there is not much garbage from week to week so it won't cause to much of a problem for me. I will get it out next week for sure.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Good morning bamher. There is another consideration to zemira's comments.

If Protestantism's foundational teaching of sola scriptura is of God, why has it resulted in the formation of thousands of differing groups that can't agree on basic aspects of what the Bible says, or even on what it means to be a Christian? They cannot all even agree on the necessity, efficacy, relevance, purpose, methods and means of Holy Baptism. If the Bible is sufficient apart from Holy Tradition, why can a Baptist, a charismatic, a Methodist and even a Jehovah's Witness all claim to believe what the Bible says, and yet no two of them agree on what it is that the Bible says?

Clearly, here is the situation in which Protestants find themselves, which is without a single doubt at odds with the Church we find in the New Testament. Unfortunately, most Protestants are willing to blame this sad state on almost anything except the true root problem. Mind you, bahmer, the trouble here is not the integrity of the Bible. Unquestionably, the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is received by the Church as the Logos, the Word of God. I am not arguing here the inspiration of scripture, but rather its proper use. The idea of sola scriptura is so foundational to Protestantism, to them it is tantamount to denying God even to question it. But as our Lord said, "Every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a bad tree brings forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:17). If we judge sola scriptura by its fruits, then we are left with no other conclusion than this tree, which has sprouted thousands of conflicting other trees, needs to be "hewn down, and cast into the fire" (Matther 7:19). God is not a God of confusion but of perfect order.

All Protestant denominations believe that they rightly understand the Bible. And though they may disagree on what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible: on one's own and apart from Church Tradition. If one can come to honestly understand this belief, why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the Holy Scriptures, then one can engage Protestant of any denomination in a discussion of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church with understanding and that is our goal, honest discussion. Even groups as different and diverse as the Baptists and Jehovah's Whitnesses are not as different as they outwardly appear once you understand this essential point. If you ever have opportunity to watch and listen to a Baptist and a Jehovah's Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that each quote different scriptures back and forth at each other. If they are equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion, because they both essentially agree on their approach to the Bible. And because neither question their common underlying assumption, neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the scriptures is the real problem. Now in saying that Jehovah's Witnesses approach the Scriptures is essentially the same way as do most evangelical or fundamentalists, am I suggesting that there is no difference between them? Not at all! In fact, THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT! There is a world of difference between the average Southern Baptist, who believes in the Holy Trinity, and a Jehovah's Whitness who does not. The point is, since Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses share a common approach to the Scriptures (sola scriptura) and yet come to such drastically different conclusions on the vital and essential doctrine, obviously something is drastically wrong with the approach!

bahmer

I didn't do any googling for this answer as it is my speculation only and none other. I would guess excluding Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons as well as Islam that none of these would fall inside the standard protestant circle but would be outside that circle. I would also speculate that depending ob how close you are to the stalk that would be how much of the original doctrine that would be brought in would be. I would look at the Lutherans as being right next to the stalk of Roman Catholicism and thus they would bring in a number of things directly from the Roman Catholic Church like infant baptism as well as other doctrines as well that the people leaving felt comfortable with irregardless of whether it is found in and justified by scripture or not. Sort of the The Eastern Orthodox religion adopting infant baptism for its reasons as opposed to searching the scriptures to validate it or not. Most protestants have the same or at least relatively the same doctrine with very few deviations. Some of those deviations would arise out of questions. One question that came up to me was are the gifts of the spirit for today and if not where in scripture is it stated that they were done away with. That would then be the start of the Pentecostal movement of today. It would continue on with the variations being hardly negligible but still enough difference as to designate a different belief. Most of the other tenants remained the same and that is salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and asking and accepting forgiveness for our sins from and through Him. Going any further is beyond my pay grade and so I will leave it to others to ferret out other things that I may have missed or even misspoke on.

Rose42

I have often seen Catholic apologists use unity as a defense for false doctrine. That argument doesn't work. The vast majority of muslims are unified in their beliefs but they're wrong too.

We have to stick with what we know to be true - God's word. Satan will try anything and everything to undermine the truth and that includes using scripture to his own ends. Remember how he tempted Christ and used scripture while he was fasting? How did Christ rebuke him? With just words or with scripture? Scripture is always first. One can't say you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God on the one hand while blatantly going against it on the other.

Most protestants agree on what one needs to do to be saved though some just pay lip service to it. Some differing opinions such as will there be a rapture or not are not going to keep anyone from being saved.

bahmer

Amen and Amen I see your point thanks for that.