Essential Doctrine from the Bible

The central premise of Bible alone Protestantism is.

The Bible is the sole rule of faith.

And the Bible gives clear teaching such that sincere believers will all agree on essential saving doctrines taken from scripture.

Examples of the premise.

“There are some things in the Bible that can be tricky to grasp. But that doesn’t mean that they’re impossible to grasp. And the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture assures us that even when they are hard to grasp, the Author intends His words ultimately to be understandable by anyone.” Barry Cooper.

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” Westminster Confession.

Sincere Bible alone Protestants aren’t in agreement on essential doctrines they garnered from Scripture. In fact nothing is settled.
They disagree on the necessity of Baptism and the Trinity for starters.

Thus the central premise is manifestly false by their disunity on essential doctrine.

 

The above statement is true and it nowhere promises everyone will come to the same conclusions on everything. In fact, if you actually read the statement it says the opposite. But the basic essentials are there, repeated over and over and in different ways. The Protestant idea is that scripture is the final authority on matters of dispute. Not someone who has assumed himself to be the official representative of Christ on the Earth.

 

All appeals to scripture are appeals to someone’s interpretation of scripture.

In Bible alone Protestantism there is no final arbiter for objective interpretation of scripture, thus essential doctrine is never settled. Truth is never established.

There are however hosts of subjective interpretations of scripture based on each man’s opinion, which can never be the basis for establishing essential doctrine.

Thus we see what has manifested from 500 years of Bible alone Protestantism is no agreement on essentials, in fact greater disunity as time passes.

Luther’s promise to the ploughboy fails, just give him a Bible and it will be clear, we’ll all agree at least on essentials.

Fail.

 

You didn't read what I said. Scripture is the final authority. Protestants, Baptists, Methodists, and everybody has if not a formal confession at least a "what we teach" section. With scripture agreed to as the final authority you have the ability to correct as error or misunderstanding comes in. In Rome's system, because you think the teaching is infallible, you progress from one error to another, with increasing heresy. You can observe this with the earliest church fathers reading a lot like the NT and then gradually developing an active priesthood, then a centralized Pope, who eventually is given infallibility. You have sacraments develop from representations of Biblical truths to gradually become the thing itself.

I do not believe in private interpretation, and I think an active authoritative church is essential. The problem is that your church is a holdover from an ever increasingly corrupt body, too full of error to correct without a complete split. Quote Luther all you want. He started out just trying to correct some of the more ridiculous errors but was excommunicated by the infallible clergy.

 

You didn’t read what I said. All appeals to Scripture are appeals to someone’s interpretation of Scripture.

Scripture can’t be the final authority, it simply ends in the unsettled circular mess we see in Protestantism, where each appeals to his own interpretations, coming out with his own doctrines.

 

The whole point is that you have an agreed authority. The justices on the Supreme Court don't agree on the interpretation of the constitution but (in theory at least) they have an agreed upon authority to refer to. Humans tend toward error and then compound the error. But if they can refer back to scripture they can correct and minimize the damage versus compounding the error as all the tradition based denominations tend to do.

 

Up to the point you interpret it, then the Church is the Authority. Whoever interprets it claims authority, it’s then a case of judging whose claims are legitimate. A sitting Justice or a guy on the street.

The Court itself is an Authority.

Catholics being traditional Christianity are originalists, we hold to the original interpretations and intent of the founders and writers, handed down in precedent/tradition.

Protestants are the innovators, they have interpreted everything under the sun from scripture, strayed far from the founders intent, by private interpretations of every kind.

Each bishop is an Apostolic Justice among the Church Fathers I quoted and is like a Supreme Court Justice but only he holds to a traditional interpretation of Scripture and hands down originalist intent.

The Protestant rebellion is like a citizen ignoring the sitting bench of justices and all preceding justices and interpreting the constitution for himself and encouraging everyone else to just pick up his pocket constitution and interpret for himself what laws he should follow.

It wasn’t by accident that it was a Catholic judge that pushed originalist thinking back into the United States Supreme Court recently.

 

You know as well as I do what the point is. Look at the chaos that occurs when non-originalists justices start their work. That's what Roman Catholics have done.

That doesn't work for you because you neglect the scriptures. The further back the writings of the ECF's go the more they look like our scriptures. The closer they get to Constantine the stranger they begin to look. And because they go so much on tradition rather than referring back to the original instructions the more they go into error. Even with todays precise copiers, if you make a copy of a copy of a copy is eventually becomes inaccurate. Same with doctrine.

 

The manifest chaos has been in Bible alone Protestantism, every wind of doctrine has been interpreted from scripture there Dave.

You have seen the Fathers interpretations of Scripture, your interpretations are alien to them Dave. They hold to Catholic interpretations of Scripture it’s plain and obvious.

 

I don't know how you can say that judging just from the original complaints of Luther while he was still a Catholic. Talk about Chaos and abuse.
I'm not an expert on the ECF's but they did not have the theology developed that the Roman Catholics developed later. I'm not saying it's wrong to develop theology as you have a more complete access to scripture but just to say that if Roman Catholic scholars are allowed to do this so can other Christian groups.

 

The Roman Catholic Church LITERALLY embodies the foolish virgins, the time is not for doctrines, dogmas, beatifying defuncts of the sinners or sinful people, to be invoked in prayers, and to be kissed and worshipped, the time is for the righteous Judgment of GOD.

Everything that still exists today on Earth will be DISSOLVED like an implosion and destruction has already begun, just as it was in Sodom and Gomorrah. Everything that the great men plan or project to be done in the days that follow, will not go forward in any way, it will fail, except the pact or treaty and union between the two Beasts: The Gentile Beast of the Sea (Revelation 13:1-10), and the Jewish Beast of the earth (Revelation 13:11-18). Iron and Clay-Daniel 2:41-45. Take a look.

 

Baptist are not Protestants. Never have been. Never will be.

 

Theological development is one thing, but totally contrary interpretations of Scripture is another.
What has happened in the last 500 years of Bible aloneism is complete divergence and scattering, on the same scriptures. They are still debating the basics with no consensus, but have constant dispute and dissension.

When I quote the Fathers, I quote ancient kindreds of my faith.

If I went back in time to Augustine, or Ambrose, Cyprian, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus and many others, we would share the same faith and interpretations of Scripture over a one and a half millenia span of time.
Bible alone Protestantism doesn’t even resemble its founders faith after 500 years. Luther would have you burned at the stake. They aren’t just alienated from the Catholic interpretations of Scripture, they are alienate from their founders interpretations of scripture and even each other.

It’s time see it for what it is, that fur lined, ocean going mess I referred to before. Don’t tell me it’s all just theological development, you have got to step back and look at this from an outsiders perspective for a second, it’s a shambles.

“while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

And not just one and the same faith throughout the world, but one and the same faith throughout time.

 

No we don’t. I have had a full volume set of The Fathers from a young age, I have hardly touched on them in quoting them to you.

I know what they say, and they don’t resemble bible alone theologies.

Baptist’s are a small subset of the Bible alone believers, but even among them theology isn’t settled.

 

Yeah, well I’m Captain Stubing, and you’re on The Love Boat.

 

The Bible is essential from cover to cover.

The Bible IS the Word of God.

The only infallible interpretor is the Holy Spirit of God.

Catholicism is the product of the absence of the Holy Spirit. It is the product of the vanity of men.

 

The truth is, when you really look at doctrine, this is a false charge. A moderately Calvinist Baptist church may not be willing to combine with an IFB church but their doctrine is much closer than the gulf, as you continually show on here with the Roman Church.

And you always operate on the assumption that there is some desirability in having a large, rich, powerful organization which is not found in scripture as a goal or as a reality.

That's ridiculous. Augustine himself went through more changes than you can imagine. Besides, I told you, the Calvinists have him as their own, at least in one of his phases.

Yep. Just like the epistles. Human beings have not improved as a species. Of course we know that because we have theology that explains it.

Salvation by grace through faith was and always has been the "faith" that is true. The hocus pocus, the garb, the icons, the smoke, all that goes from somewhat useless to harmful. The mass, the infallible Pope, the interceding priesthood are even worse.

Is there a Catholic site where a Baptist could come on with the arrogant, abusive attitude you have and spout such heresy against your faith? I think not and I keep asking why this happens on here.

 

Catholics do, to some degree, have the same faith, but unfortunately, it’s false, and not according to Scripture. For example, John 14:6 says that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father except through Him. However, your pope says that people of all religions, especially Islam, are brothers and will make it to heaven. That breaks with your so-called common faith, because there was a time Catholics taught you had to be baptized into the Catholic Church to be saved.

As time goes on, the Catholic Church gets further and further from the truth, and is the world‘s longest running heresy. Now it is true that many of the non-Catholic churches have become apostate also. True Christianity does not identify with these apostate churches. The Bible says there is always a remnant. The number of genuine Bible believers is apparently dwindling, but He will always have His church on this earth until the rapture. God‘s truth is still in His Bible. We have to study to show ourselves approved and find a local congregation that believes the same truths, and fellowship there, not settle for heresy or last day apostate assemblies.

Scripture prophetically told us that in the last days many would fall away from the truth, and they have. They are accepting women to be pastors, they are accepting homosexuality, and making them priests and pastors, many reject the virgin birth and deny that Christ is God, and more, and all of that is absolutely against the Bible. Scripture warned us almost 2000 years ago, and Catholicism is at the head of the class of departure from the truth of Scripture.

 

What about all the other Bible alone denominations. Unitarians etc etc.

The Catholic Church is large because it is the oldest Church, it is only asset rich but those assets are where we worship on Sunday.
Vatican hill was pagan Rome’s garbage heap, where the bodies of Catholics killed in the arenas were dumped.

There were no Calvinists back then, and Augustine was a Catholic Bishop under the Pope.

Yes. Bible alone theology explains it alright.

Catholic sites are extremely tolerant, so long as you don’t call someone a poo poo head or something. They draw the line at poo poo head.
They actually actively seek to welcome everyone from every background and are the most popular forums you will find anywhere.

You can very openly profess your Baptist beliefs without fear of censorship.

I’ve haven’t called Baptist’s Pagan or Satanic or condemned them to hell as a group, but this is a common insult and experience for the diminutive Catholic community on this site. And very few voices rose to our defence. But we have to boldly defend our Christian Faith against these wrongful and prejudiced charges.

Besides, there is only one small sub forum entitled “ Other denominations “ for people to freely express their theology and perspectives.
This is a good thing, because sites that don’t do this become echo chambers and die out. Without different perspectives there is no real debate and learning of new things, this is what makes a site interesting.
I have learned many new things here, I really have, and appreciate it.

If you are concerned about hearing other beliefs and perspectives, the Other Denominations sub forum might be tough place to go on, because inevitably you will hear many other beliefs and perspectives you will disagree with, even strongly disagree with.