re: This man went to Church and spoke some true love biblical truth that

This is what happens to "church" when you put the world (Satan) first and proclaim it as love and of GOD. Neither GOD or The Holy Spirit is present in that building.

That man is absolutely correct. LGBTQ props have ZERO place in a Sanctuary of GOD.

Calling SIN, SIN is not judging. It's proclaiming TRUTH

quote:

---

It’s possible to create an idol and name it Jesus. That’s why God’s Word is the sole authority, not any man or tradition.

---

Agreed on the idol, but solo scriptura is self defeating. Jesus did not leave us the written word of God, and for over a thousand years The one holy and apostolic church was itself responsible for sharing it. Most people couldn't read, each precious copy of the Bible was hand copied and available only to the wealthy. The printing press was not invented until the late 1400s, but even then literacy was low.

We are told to "quench not the Spirit." When we are told to speak Biblical truth, we must obey.

Preach brother

quote:

---

The lack of infallible authority is why there are over 45,000 Protestant denominations today.

---

God's word is the infallible authority that all beliefs will be judged by. God will clarify to everyone what is correct and incorrect when we are in glory.

What you're referring to is not the need for another infallible authority, but the desire for organizational unity. I'd argue that while such unity is ideal, what is more important is the truth, which organizational unity doesn't necessarily provide.

A more specific problem with Rome's view of her own authority is that she often times does not provide what she claims is a benefit for relying on her over God's word. The claim is that the Bible is not clear, or at least not clear enough for the Church, and therefore it needs an infallible interpreter to provide necessary clarity to Christians. The problem here is that there are many doctrines and dogmas that Rome has taught to one degree or another that the faithful have lacked clarity about for centuries and millennia. While Catholics frequently point to Rome having a well-defined canon of Scripture, it wasn't officially dogmatized until the 1500's. All the way up until that point, there were still minority views within Catholicism that disagreed on what books were authoritative in the canon. It took 1500 years to provide the necessary clarity to ensure there wasn't difference in opinion. The same can be said for teachings about Papal infallibility (1800's) and the assumption of Mary (1900's). Even today there are disagreements about the morality of the death penalty among Catholics, which strikes me as odd since the RCC has partnered with the state to put heretics to death for over a thousand years prior to the recent developments.

So no, having one organizational structure doesn't provide a perfect sense of unity. It didn't prevent the split between the East and the West 500 years before Protestantism, either.

quote:

---

They lack the ability to agree with each other on major issues like Eucharist ,baptism, faith and works in salvation, church governance, and of course all of the major social issues we have today.

---

I find it amusing how Catholics always point to how unified they are as proof that they have the truth, yet they allow disagreements to exist on things like the continuation of the sign-gifts. You can have "charismatic Catholics" who speak in tongues and Catholics who don't (and don't expect to), and yet both are allowed in Catholicism. Protestant denominations start and split over the same difference in belief, but because they don't have organizational unity, you claim that's a win for Rome.

One of the biggest differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is that Catholics are exclusivists and are taught that there is no hope of salvation apart from the Roman Catholic church, in particular, while Protestants agree that there are many branches of Christ's one, true Church.

When you teach people that they will go to Hell if they aren't part of your denomination or sect, that tends to lead to organizational unity. Protestants don't teach that in the same way Rome does.

While you have organizational unity, there is disunity within the larger body. That doesn't seem to matter to you as long as there is unity on the core issues taught, and that's what Protestants believe, as well: if you can affirm the Apostle's Creed (for instance) and the five solas of the Reformation, then you have the basics down and can be considered part of Christ's true Church, at least broadly.

quote:

---

So like I said, solo scriptural is self defeating because it cannot lead to one truth, it leads to 45,000 of them who each think they are right. The scriptures, studied in a vacuum by different people, lead to different outcomes.

---

By your own standard, Rome's infallible teaching authority is self-defeating, at least in practice, for the same reason you gave about the Bible. The difference is that you can have millions of individual catholics believing different things instead of hundreds of individual denominations believing different things. That's a shallow unity.

Also, it's sola scriptura, not solo scriptura. I need to specify that since Protestants haven't historically taught solo.

quote:

---

Anad again, the practical matter that protestantism didn't come about until 1500 years after Jesus makes the argument silly.

---

Protestantism was simply a reformation movement in the Church. There had been several such movements in the past, but none so impactful. Even the RCC recognized abuses that led to the Reformation and had their own internal reform not long after.

The Reformation was a reclamation of biblical Christianity, not a novelty that created a new religion.

quote:

---

We were left one holy and apostolic church, from Jesus to St Peter to today.

---

Protestants agree with this, at least the one Church that came down from Jesus to the Apostles to the rest. There is but one Church of Jesus Christ. We differ with how that one Church is expressed. Protestants believe there are many branches of the one tree, and both RCC and the EOC believe there is but one branch of the one tree and they are it.

quote:

---

If scripture alone was sufficient Jesus would have left us with writings of his own.

---

All of Jesus' words were authoritative, and yet the Church only retains a small fraction of them, and the RCC can't disagree. Scripture is the more-sure revelation of God and the only God-breathed rule for the Church that remains. Once God preserved the oral teachings in the Scriptures, those teachings became the standard for the Church throughout all ages.

Sola scriptura does not teach that only the written words were authoritative, but only recorded Scripture is God's word preserved for the Church as the only infallible standard of truth.

quote:

---

Early Christians were given, by Jesus, the means for salvation.

---

They were. No disagreement there. Those means were then recorded in the Scriptures for the Church to have for all ages.

quote:

---

The thought that the full truth was not revealed until 1500 years later, and even then by thousands of denominations which are not themselves unified, is quite the leap.

---

I'm finding more and more that Catholics have very little idea of what the Reformation was and what it did, including the doctrines that were clarified during that time.

The Reformation was reclaiming the truth of the Bible and clarifying it in the midst of a lot of false teaching.

Think of it like this: when the RCC made papal infallibility a dogma in the 1800's, Catholics don't say that the full truth on the matter wasn't revealed until 1800 years after Christ. They claim that the truth was always there, but it came to full clarity and doctrinal definition at that time.

While I disagree with that particular dogma being biblical, the point is that the Reformation didn't create anything new, but clarified what was already in the Scriptures.

quote:

---

The bible is not secondary to anything, but it is not the only thing, and this is revealed by simple observations.

---

The question isn't whether the Bible is the "only thing" (authority?), but whether it is the highest "thing".

quote:

---

Luther himself never took issue with, most importantly, the Eucharist, but other Catholic teachings Protestants have lost What happened was not reformation as intended, but a schism that has led Protestants astray.

---

He taught what is called consubstantiation, not Catholic transubstantiation.