|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 18:49:06 GMT
If Sola Scripture is true, why do so many Protestants disagree on important matters of doctrine? Luther believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (although a heretical view of the real presence, i.e. consubstantiation), while other reformers did not believe in it, yet all would appeal to Scripture. The same goes for baptismal regeneration and infant baptism. Even the Marian doctrines were affirmed by some of the reformers that held to Sola Scriptura. For example:
Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:
Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.
Calvin also upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
At the end of the day, if two people, who both maintain Sola Scriptura, appeal to Scripture to support opposing doctrines, how do we determine who is right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 22:30:59 GMT
The doctrine of Sola Scripture i.e. "Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority. " (James White) does not guarantee there will always be agreement.
Sometimes we can't determine who is right because we don't know enough about the background etc about a given passage. Even in RCC with a infallible magesterium do you find complete unanimous agreement on the meaning of Scripture to what doctrines must be believed. I know of RC's who don't believe the same things on everything that the RCC teaches.
The reformers were not infallible but were certainly closer to what the apostles taught than what the RCC does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 13, 2015 22:53:44 GMT
Jay,
As far as Catholics, the dogmas of the Church can be found in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine lays them all out for you. So does the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Some may disputed these dogmas, but that doesn't mean the Church hasn't been clear as to what is a dogma.
You say
Do, certain important issues like, "should my infant be baptized" or "does baptism regenerate" or "is Jesus really present in the Eucharist" fall under this category? If so, it doesn't seem fitting for God not to preserve important data for us to understand important doctrines of the faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 23:34:51 GMT
So you admit that in your church with an infallible magesterium that not everyone believes the same things.Right? Not even your church can claim to be absolutely unified on everything.
I can claim the same thing you do --"Some may disputed these dogmas, but that doesn't mean the Church hasn't been clear as to what is a dogma."
What one believes about ""should my infant be baptized" or "does baptism regenerate" or "is Jesus really present in the Eucharist" is not necessary for salvation nor sanctification.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 15:03:35 GMT
You say:
I admit only that some who call themselves Catholic will disagree with what the Magisterium has taught. The fact that some oppose the Magisterium, doesn't mean the Magisterium hasn't determined a matter clearly and definitively, it just means some are evil and oppose what the Church has clearly taught definitively (just as some who call themselves Christians outright oppose Paul when he said that homosexuality leads to eternal damnation, e.g. 1 Cor. 6:9-11).
You say:
The difference is that you can't ask Scripture for clarification on something it said on matters of faith and morals, whereas, you can ask the Magisterium for clarifiction on matters of faith and morals when necessary.
You say:
What about justification? Some Protestants, like N.T. Wright, would not agree with the Reformers view of justification. Is not a proper understanding of justification necessary for salvation and sanctification?
What about the doctrine of once saved always saved? Is that necessary for salvatino or sanctification? Many Protestants disagree on this doctrine and both appeal to Scripture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 15:55:48 GMT
Your admittance does not change the fact that having a Magisterium does not lead to unanimity in beliefs. BTW- I thought I saw a poll recently that shows that 54% of RC's are for gay marriage.
What a person must believe is: " that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." Rom 10
Understanding the "mechanics" of justification is not necessary for salvation. How theologians explain it is not necessary.
Belief in OSAS is not necessary for salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 17:40:51 GMT
Jay,
You say
I never said all Catholics agree, I just said that the Magisterium is clear on matters of faith and morals. The Catholics who are in favor for gay marriage should be excommunicated for their infidelity to Christ.
You say
There are some Protestants that would see OSAS as an essential doctrine that is necessary for salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 19:40:41 GMT
Ok. Many individual Protestant churches and denominations agree on matters of doctrine etc without an infallible Magisterium in place. They are clear on what is necessary to believe.
How could OSAS be necessary for someone to believe for salvation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 15, 2015 22:01:34 GMT
Jay,
You say
This is simply not true. Various Protestants believe various doctrines are necessary to believe in order to be saved.
You say
I don't believe it is, but there are some Protestants who would say it is necessary for salvation. They would probably say that if you don't believe this then you don't really believe in the work of Christ on the cross.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 15, 2015 23:20:33 GMT
Let's start with a few simple doctrines that Protestants agree on and see if you can name one that does not agree with these:
1- Christ is God incarnate.
2- Christ died for sin
3- No Protestant church believes the pope is the head of the entire church
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 16, 2015 15:12:01 GMT
Jay,
What about how you receive what Jesus did on the cross? You didn't mention what Protestants believe about that because there are diverse views. Wouldn't you say that how we receive what he did is just as important as what he did?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 16, 2015 21:59:50 GMT
We receive what Christ did on the cross by faith in Him. Rom 10:9-10 is an example of this. Don't know of any Protestant that would deny this. Do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 19, 2015 18:24:32 GMT
Jay,
You say
Some Protestants say that one must also be baptized in addition to confessing Christ in order to be saved, while others would say this is not the case. In fact, some Protestants who don't even believe in baptismal regeneration, like the Baptist Paul Washer, argue that you confess Jesus with your mouth at the waters of baptism. This is just one example of several.
|
|
