Good thoughts. Thanks.

My objective is not to fight with you or anybody. I argue against a flawed theology. I use over 500 years of branching off and splitting into different denominations that believe totally opposite things as support for my contention that Bible Alone/Faith Alone don't work. This theology was unknown until over Fifteen Centuries after Christ Ascended to Heaven. Bible Alone/Faith Alone was invented or made up or discovered by men writing in the early 1500s. I'm not surprised that it is apparently broken and doesn't work.

I know you think that Bible Alone/Faith Alone do work. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. What I hope to do is to raise the questions and invite people who really want to put some serious thought into these important matters to look at what 500 years of Protestantism has wrought, i.e. many different denominations and some of which believe completely opposite things about very important topics.

Sure, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages had two Popes for a bit. But the theology was the same throughout the whole world in all of Christendom, despite the fact that there were two Popes.

It's intellectually dishonest to argue that the two Popes is the same thing as the scores of different Protestant denominations, many of which believe some totally opposite morals and doctrine.

Protestantism has a big problem. It's broken into many pieces. You can ignore it. That's probably what is best for you. But, for thinking people - they might want to exercise a bit of observation and reasoning, because they like to see things as they are, and not as they would hope them to be.

I think that Bible Alone has resulted in scores of different Protestant denominations. This is because anybody can pick up a Bible and "find" a new interpretation that allows Gay Sex, or some other new idea. If their church congregation agrees, they can vote on it and make it official doctrine of the denomination. There is no church hierarchy to overrule the new theology and declare it heresy. If some of the congregation don't like the new theology, they can branch off and start their own brand new Protestant denomination. It has happened hundreds of times in the last 500 years in Protestantism. Why? I say because the system is flawed.

I say it's better to stick with Saint Thomas Aquinas's denomination. He was a smart guy. If Bible Alone was correct, Aquinas would have said so.

This post was edited on 5/13/24 at 10:56 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Hawgnsincebirth55

Gods country

Member since Sep 2016

16165 posts

Posted on 5/14/24 at 6:27 am to Champagne

Seems like you didn’t really read his entire comment. Either that or you missed the point.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Prodigal Son

Member since May 2023

738 posts

Posted on 5/14/24 at 7:24 pm to Champagne

quote:
Good thoughts. Thanks.

And thank you. I enjoy these conversations- as long as they are friendly. I bet you and I agree on much more than what we disagree on. Sure, the things we disagree on are important to us, but I believe them to be secondary issues that we can discuss in a respectful manner.

I agree with much of what you say; regarding sola scriptura being responsible for divisions and heresies- in the sense that if it didn’t exist… If you couldn’t own a Bible, then you couldn’t take it out of context or misapply its teachings. An analogy: Like guns, right? If you just took away all guns, (except from the government), then there would be no shootings, right? Right. But, people are gonna people- no matter what.

Blaming Sola Scriptura, instead of blaming those who mishandle it; is like blaming the gun instead of the shooter. A gun alone, kills no one. And, when used safely, properly, with good (true) judgment, and without ill intent- it is an indispensable tool that procures and maintains the life and safety of the innocent; and when in the wrong hands, causes often irreparable harm to the innocent. At bottom, the only thing that stops bad guys with guns, is good guys with guns.

The same goes for God’s Word. When someone, Protestant or Roman Catholic, rightly dispenses the intended teachings of the Bible- immeasurable benefit is received by those who hear, accept, understand and apply it. When someone, either intentionally or unintentionally, mishandles the Word (due to a failure in one of the aforementioned categories), unspeakable harm is the likely outcome. If the Word was treated with the reverence it deserves, by everyone, we wouldn’t have this problem. But, the problem is not with the Word, but those who handle it. I think we are in agreement on that last statement.

For well over 100 years before the reformation, people were translating and distributing the Bible. If it hadn’t been the reformation from within, it could have been chaos from without. I suppose we’ll never know if things would have been worse, or better, if the reformation had never happened. We can only speculate. But, it doesn’t require a giant leap in logic , or an all-inclusive understanding of human history, to postulate that the reformation may have done more good than harm- much like the Roman Catholic Church, itself.

A few questions (that you are free to ignore):
- Can someone, who is not a Roman Catholic, enter heaven? Under what circumstances?
- Can a professing Roman Catholic be sent to hell? Why or why not?
- Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant Word of God? How or how not?
- Where does Rome get its authority from? And, how do you know that it’s legitimate? Can you prove it?

quote:
Sure, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages had two Popes for a bit. But the theology was the same throughout the whole world in all of Christendom,

Was it though? It seems like if that were true- there would have been no reformation. Can you provide documentation from the apostles that affirms the theology of the Middle Ages? Are we talking pre or post reformation?Do we have any extra biblical writings from Peter?

quote:
It's intellectually dishonest to argue that the two Popes is the same thing as the scores of different Protestant denominations, many of which believe some totally opposite morals and doctrine.

I agree with you. The point was more that there have always been divisions in the church- all the way back to the first century (1 Corinthians 11:18). Literally the only thing that hasn’t changed is the Bible. Theologies, doctrines and dogmas have all evolved over time, but the Bible has remained the same.

quote:
Protestantism has a big problem. It's broken into many pieces.

No doubt. But Christianity remains unfractured. If we stray from the truth then the truth is not in us.

quote:
You can ignore it. That's probably what is best for you. But, for thinking people

Somebody has a high opinion of himself.

quote:
This is because anybody can pick up a Bible and "find" a new interpretation that allows Gay Sex, or some other new idea.

No doubt. But also, anyone with a bible and an unperverted, unhindered desire for truth can refute heresy- using a proper, faithful, consistent exegesis of scripture. Anyone can take a couple of verses out of context, and derive “new” and “revolutionary” doctrines based on inconsistent interpretations. But, when held under the light of the overarching meta-narrative of the entirety of scripture- these false teachers are exposed as such, and only those who desire a false gospel will follow.

quote:
If some of the congregation don't like the new theology, they can branch off and start their own brand new Protestant denomination.

Like, a … reformation???

I’m just messing with you.

quote:
I say it's better to stick with Saint Thomas Aquinas's denomination. He was a smart guy. If Bible Alone was correct, Aquinas would have said so.

I love Aquinas. One of the greatest theologians of all time. But, he was not infallible. In the end, you scold Protestants for their acquiescence to the interpretations of fallible men- while deriving your own theology from (different) fallible men, yourself.