Question For Protestants

[BluffTHIS!]

How can all you protestants logically believe that the Reformation reformed Christian doctrine and worship that had become false and defective under the Catholic Church when there are so many different protestant denominations that espouse so many different beliefs/interpretations about various fundamental points of doctrine? Note that I am only referring to doctrine and worship and not about abuses, corruption and immoral practices of some Catholics including clerics, bishops and popes. And you need only examine conflicting doctrines preached by Luther and Calvin to see how early such disagreements arose.

[siegfriedandroy]

Bluff, let me answer your question with a question (zoolander!)

-Does rampant disagreement and widespread dissension among a certain group necessarily determine that no one within the group is correct?

[BluffTHIS!]

I am talking here about different protestant groups that all say they are the result of the reformation but have differing views on fundamental Christian doctrines. The logical implication to my mind is that they all are in error to some greater or lesser degree, and thus the resulting doctrines and worship practices of each all contain significant error and thus cannot really be reformed themselves, or that precisely one of them is correct. If they say that there doesn't have to be one demonmination that is entirely true, then they are saying that Jesus doesn't care how his teachings are intrepreted, including those relating to salvation.

[siegfriedandroy]

You are incorrect to assume that they are all wrong b/c disagreement exists. That in no way follows logically. I would wager that none of the Christian groups that exist today perfectly believe exactly and precisely all of the same things that Peter, Paul and company believed. In fact, Im sure the disciples themselves disputed many issues themselves. Does this mean none of them were correct?

Two problems I can see with your statement:

1. The same argument can be applied by the Jewish religion against ALL christianity.

2. A revolt does not mean that the original party was correct. Far from it. Listen very carefully to this so you understand it. The Church they revolted against is the SAME Catholic Church that once killed and persecuted people for saying the Earth was round, when the bible clearly showed it was flat. And drowned/burnt women at the stake because they were witches (God would save them if they weren't). Who killed women for sleeping with men out of wedlock because they were succubus (or something - devil incarnate).

Is it possible that some of their doctrine, and interpretations of the bible, were innacurate? (It's a pretty big thing to kill people for disagreeing with you in spite of the bible saying THOU SHALT NOT KILL)
Accepting that, why can't some of the revolters have it MORE correct than the original Catholic Church?

[BluffTHIS!]

Both of the two posts above do not notice my use of the qualification "or precisely one of them is correct", and the arguement for why their can only be one true denomination either among them or in the Catholic Church. The same applies to the Jewish position regarding Christian denominations - either Judaism is totally correct, or only one Christian denomination is. What isn't logical, is for their to be no true church that is entirely correct, because otherwise God doesn't care whether His message is intrepreted correctly or not.

[KidPokerX]

[ QUOTE ]
How can all you protestants logically believe that the Reformation reformed Christian doctrine and worship that had become false and defective under the Catholic Church when there are so many different protestant denominations that espouse so many different beliefs/interpretations about various fundamental points of doctrine?

[/ QUOTE ]

ughm ... sounds a little runny.

[ QUOTE ]
The same applies to the Jewish position regarding Christian denominations - either Judaism is totally correct, or only one Christian denomination is.

[/ QUOTE ]
No necessarily. They can have versions that are closer to or further away from the truth. I don't see the logic of having one completely accurate religion:

[ QUOTE ]
What isn't logical, is for their to be no true church that is entirely correct, because otherwise God doesn't care whether His message is intrepreted correctly or not

[/ QUOTE ]
Given the vast number of different religions in the world, and the fact Catholics only comprise 1/5 of the world's people, it would indeed seem that God doesn't care if his message is interpreted correctly.

We have already established that Catholics have no credibility with regard to interpretation of scripture (history clearly shows this). So God hasn't chosen to inspire Catholics to get the correct message. If not them, then who?

And the final point is, if God wanted to communicate his message accurately, he would have made sure that a clear, inerrant bible was written without clear contradictions. A lot of human suffering would have been avoided, that's for sure. And maybe less people would have gone to hell.

[David Sklansky]

"Two problems I can see with your statement:

1. The same argument can be applied by the Jewish religion against ALL christianity."

But why is that a problem? BluffTHIS's point is in fact very valid. Even though it leads to this. But that doesn't mean that Jews should take heart. Because the same argument can be applied by agnostics against ALL religions.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the vast number of different religions in the world, and the fact Catholics only comprise 1/5 of the world's people, it would indeed seem that God doesn't care if his message is interpreted correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are missing the difference between God caring that His messaged is preached and thus intrepreted correctly by at least one church, and His allowing through free will for various denominations to exist.

[David Sklansky]

"What isn't logical, is for their to be no true church that is entirely correct, because otherwise God doesn't care whether His message is intrepreted correctly or not"


"Given the vast number of different religions in the world, and the fact Catholics only comprise 1/5 of the world's people, it would indeed seem that God doesn't care if his message is interpreted correctly."

Unless he hasn't even tried to send his message yet. Or if there is no God who cares about sending messages. See why I say Catholics walk a tightrope?

And you are missing the point that if God cared about his message being correctly preached and interpreted, he would have done a better job than he did at getting it written. The disagreements have come because the bible is so ambiguous, and clearly contradictory in places. If he had written in pure, clear English (or Aramaic for that matter), this problem wouldn't exist, at least not to the extent it does now.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And you are missing the point that if God cared about his message being correctly preached and interpreted, he would have done a better job than he did at getting it written. The disagreements have come because the bible is so ambiguous, and clearly contradictory in places. If he had written in pure, clear English (or Aramaic for that matter), this problem wouldn't exist, at least not to the extent it does now.

[/ QUOTE ]

And thus the reason and need for a true church to explain its apparent conflicts authoritatively, rather than the protestant notion of a priesthood of all believers in which each man is capable of self-interpretation.

[ QUOTE ]
1. The same argument can be applied by the Jewish religion against ALL christianity."

But why is that a problem? BluffTHIS's point is in fact very valid. Even though it leads to this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it is. But implied in his statement is the idea that unless the reformers agree, the original doctrine is more likely to be correct. Given that the Jewish religion predates and is the basis for Christianity, I was pointing out that his statement could lead to some silly conclusions (such as Jews being more correct than Catholics /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

[BB King's]

<font color="red"> The Church they revolted against is the SAME Catholic Church that once killed and persecuted people for saying the Earth was round, when the bible clearly showed it was flat. </font>

This is wrong ! The Catholic Church never killed and persecuted people for saying the Earth was round.

Someone should re-read the history of Galileo Galilei.

Well - it's a very common mistake.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl1.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was the first major supporter of Copernicus' theory; he was imprisoned by the Inquisition in 1592 and later burned alive for heresy. Early in the 17th century, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) invented the telescope which revolutionized astronomy. He observed that the planet Venus went through phases, that there were spots on the sun and that Jupiter had moons. The church arrested Galileo twice; the Inquisition showed him the instruments of torture that would be used to force his recantation if he didn't offer it willingly. He abandoned his teachings under pressure and retired. It was not until the year 1835 that the teachings of Copernicus and Galileo were finally accepted by his Church. More than a century and a half were to pass before the Roman Catholic church issued an apology.

[/ QUOTE ]

They may have it wrong, I don't know. Do you have any sources?

[BB King's]

... <font color="red"> the Copernicus' theory </font> isn't about the eatrh been flat or round.

Ask Columbus (1492) or Magellan (1519-21) or ...

You are quite correct. It is about the the earth rotating the sun, and not being the center of the universe, among other things. From what I've read the round earth theory has been around since Aristotle, to varying degrees.

Thanks for the information, I haven't had a misconception corrected in a long time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BB King's]

<font color="red">Thanks for the information, I haven't had a misconception corrected in a long time. </font>

Neither have I. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Thanks for the link. Lot of good stuff.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that I am only referring to doctrine and worship and not about abuses, corruption and immoral practices of some Catholics including clerics, bishops and popes.

[/ QUOTE ]

OOO, in your posts above you have once again failed to address the limitations in my post like the the one above. Also, the church is competent only in the sphere of faith and morals, not science, and this has always been the doctrinal case regardless of what errorneous scientific opinions might have been held by church leaders including popes.

[Georgia Avenue]

Don't argue with that guy, BT, he's not really a protestant...he just likes arguin'. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

According to my Protestantism, every man is in charge of his own moral and Bible interpretation according to his own "lights". How is this paradoxical, logically or otherwise?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
According to my Protestantism, every man is in charge of his own moral and Bible interpretation according to his own "lights". How is this paradoxical, logically or otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to do with truth, as in TRUTH. Regarding various passages of scripture that espouse various doctrines, can there really be more than one correct interpretation? And I don't mean how some biblical passage applies to your life right now, but regarding core christian doctrines that are obviously disputed among various demonminations including the catholic church. Since God is truth, then surely it is obvious that it is critical that His divine revelations be intrepreted correctly. If every man was a competent interpreter of scripture, then all would have the same unified interpretation of God's eternal truths. But even among protestant denominations this is not the case. And thus arises the necessity for an authoritative interpreter, for one true church/denomination among all of those around, so that God's truth can be preached entire and whole and without error. Obviously I think that one true church is the catholic church, and that only it possess the totality of sound doctrine.

If some protestants want to believe that their particular denomination is it instead, then I can accept that even though disagreeing with it, since they recognize the logical and theological necessity of a one true church. What I cannot accept is the view that God would be comfortable with the existence of multiple different denominations that taught competing views of various christian doctrines without one of them possessing the 100% truth. Such a view renders void God's word by not allowing it to be preached somewhere 100% truthfully and clearly. If Jesus thought it important to teach his apostles the truths of the faith, then He thinks it important that we here, almost 2000 years later, could have the totality of that truth preached inerrantly somewhere by someone in some church. Truth that is corrupted in differing interpretations is no longer the truth.

Perhaps I am moving too fast for you. Some things are obvious to me so I'm moving ahead with it...but I'll go back to the original point. Your arguments come down to this:

1. The reformation resulted in many different viewpoints on important matters.
2. Contradictory viewpoints on important matters cannot all be correct
3. Therefore, how can the reformation have validity?

You can view it like science. The reformation was a breaking down of long held doctrine, where people decided to look at the truth for themselves, without being subject to the interpretations of others. This is just like a lawyer looking at a judge's original judgement instead of a case brief, a scientist looking at the basis for Aether rather than believing in aether itself (as espoused by others), or a judge interviewing witnesses rather than listening to hearsay.

Many different opinions might come out of this process, but usually the process results in a more informed interpretation of the original material. Unfortunately, the bible is ambiguous, which makes the process harder.

Moving on:

[ QUOTE ]
Both of the two posts above do not notice my use of the qualification "or precisely one of them is correct", and the arguement for why their can only be one true denomination either among them or in the Catholic Church.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no logical reason for this. I think your confusion comes from this belief:

[ QUOTE ]
What isn't logical, is for their to be no true church that is entirely correct, because otherwise God doesn't care whether His message is intrepreted correctly or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big stretch. It assumes:

- You know what God cares and does not care about
- God's desire is to have to his message interpreted correctly.
- God cares that specific doctrinal points are interpreted correctly, rather the overall 'message'.

Do you see why you're assuming far too much with this belief?

As I said before, if God wanted his message interpreted correctly, one would think he'd ensure a clearer and less contradictory bible had been written.

The other stuff I wrote, was about the possiblity of Catholic doctrine being correct in the first place, given the glaring errors they've made interpreting the bible (which shouldn't happen if they are one true interpreter of such things, right?)

[Georgia Avenue]

Thanks for the response. I do see what you're saying and I follow your logic, but I have to agree with my atheistic comrade about what I now see is your premise:
[ QUOTE ]

Since God is truth, then surely it is obvious that it is critical that His divine revelations be interpreted correctly. If every man was a competent interpreter of scripture, then all would have the same unified interpretation of God's eternal truths.


[/ QUOTE ]
I do not think this is obvious. I would liken it to saying this: Since God is Good, then surely it is obvious that it is critical that His divine commandments be followed correctly. If every man was a competent performer of deeds, then all would universally do the Good.

Wouldn’t you say that a person’s sins are between him and god? (Oh maybe not, you believe in confession of sins to a priest. OK let me rephrase…) Not even a priest is a more competent judge of whether an action is a sin or not than the sinner himself, wouldn’t you say? Hmmm, maybe you wouldn’t.

OK it’s a bad analogy. It just leads to more disagreements between us. OOO said that you (BT) were assuming that:
[ QUOTE ]

- You know what God cares and does not care about
- God's desire is to have to his message interpreted correctly.
- God cares that specific doctrinal points are interpreted correctly, rather the overall 'message'.


[/ QUOTE ]
But I think it’s more than that…Let’s focus on the original syllogism, rephrased so:

1. God is truth itself
2. God wants man to know the truth
3. He appointed some men to be better at discovering his truth than others

3 is not implied by 1+2, is it? I would say instead:

1. God is Truth itself
2. God wants man to know the truth
a. but they are incapable of being forced to Know
b. inasmuch as they cannot be forced to do Good.
c. for we have free will in knowing as well as doing
3. All men partake of God as much as they are able

In many ways it comes down to this question:

What is a soul?

If you believe that a soul contains all within it, including a grain of Truth, then no expert or authority is needed to find it, and in fact can often confuse or harm the soul by trying to impart a different truth to it. Truth can only be discovered, not taught. That kind of thing.

Now, when it comes to this statement:
[ QUOTE ]

“And I don't mean how some biblical passage applies to your life right now, but regarding core christian doctrines that are obviously disputed among various denominations including the catholic church.”


[/ QUOTE ]
I have to admit I am a weak Christian. I don’t believe that anything that doesn’t apply to my life right now is worth caring about. So as to whether I kneel or sit or stand or plié or whatever I just don’t think God cares. But that goes back to what I see as the original fallacy in the precepts you and anyone who demands spiritual authority: As Truth with a capital T, God cannot be wholly understood or accessed, therefore all amounts are the same.

Probably not convincing, but I'm also not really a good representative of all Protestants, being 1/2 Quaker and 1/2 Episcopalian=All Wuss.

[BluffTHIS!]

GA, the entire point of my previous post in reply to you was this: If what Jesus said was important, the He would wish us here and now, as well as those to whom He spoke almost 2000 years ago, to receive that message of His incorrupt. This means the best translations possible, and also most importantly, that it be interpreted according to HIS meaning. So even knowing that many could and would misinterpret that message, He would want there to be at least one 100% correct authoritative voice to repeat that message to us today. If there are 100 different Christian denominations with conflicting interpretations, then either all of them are incorrect to some degree and can only claim to proclaim the partial truth, or precisely one of them is 100% correct. There is no other possibility.

[BluffTHIS!]

OOO, most of your last point is addressed in my reply above to GA. However the last part is laughable because you basically assert that God doesn't care if His message gets corrupted. If that were true He wouldn't have bothered to give it out in the first place. And it further logically follows that He doesn't care what our response to that message is. This is a matter of logic not knowing what God thinks. If you want to argue that God acts in truly illogical manners, as opposed to on occasion apparent illogical manners because we don't have all the facts, then you are free to do so, and lots of cults would welcome you to their ranks.

You say that logically, God should care that his message is interpreted correctly, and further, God would actually intervene at some point to ensure that someone (as opposed to everyone) gets the correct message.

What premises is this logic based upon? Can you give me one reason other than "it's illogical to me!"

I'm not one to presuppose the mind or purpose of God, but here are some thoughts why this may not be the case:

- God believes that only those worthy of His love should go to heaven. He has given a book full of spiritual guidance. He sent his only son down to die and be reborn. How is that not enough? Why should he now spoon feed interpretations to people? Perhaps this life is some sort of test. Those who truly want to find God, can, with faith and everything he has given already. His message is clear enough to those that listen, without any religion or scriptural interpretation.

- God cares not for religion and interpretations of his work. His message is love, compassion and the promise of protection from life's ills. People have free will, so they may squabble all they like about various things. He didn't intervene in hundreds of wars, famines, plagues and injustices (even those perpetrated in his name), so why would he intervene in this?

- Assuming God had a hand in writing the original bible, why would he choose to make sure, after the fact, it is interpreted correctly? Why not just write it properly in the first place? Many of the different interpretations come from specific ambiguities in the bible.

- Maybe God didn't write the bible, but chose to act at various times to show his love for humanity. These were written down, but the 'scripture' was also distorted by the customs, laws and beliefs of the time (especially the Old Testament)

- FINAL POINT to sum up the others: If he really wanted people to get his message in a perfect form, he could appear to everyone simultaneously in some holy vision, and tell them of his love and message, and then let people decide. The fact that he has not done this suggests he works on a subtler level, or requires something like faith first (as evidenced by Christian testimonies). Do you see why this point invalidates your own?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You say that logically, God should care that his message is interpreted correctly, and further, God would actually intervene at some point to ensure that someone (as opposed to everyone) gets the correct message.

What premises is this logic based upon? Can you give me one reason other than "it's illogical to me!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm through with you just like with udon'tknowmickey for the same reasons. A person who maintains that there is no logical contradiction in God giving a message and then not caring whether it is corrupted is not worth wasting one more word with.

You miss the point that caring and taking specific action in spite of reasons not to are two completely different things.

If he really cared and wanted his pure message to get through, he would appear to the whole world tomorrow and tell everyone his message. Your 'logic' leads to that same conclusion.

And I can't believe you can't see the reasons why, even if he cared, he may not intervene, or he may not intervene in the way you think he would. You seem to know more about the mind and intentions of God than God himself, and certainly a great deal of scholars.

You're being very unreasonable. Good luck with that.

[BluffTHIS!]

"But the word of God is not fettered." 2 Tim. 2:9

"we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word" 2Cor 4:2

"But it is not as though the word of God had failed." Rom. 9:6

"The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord abides for ever." 1 Pet. 1:24-25

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." Luke 21:33

[NotReady]

I think it's obvious why we believe Catholic doctrine was reformed by Luther and Calvin. That doesn't mean we think anyone has everything right or that Rome had everything wrong. I'm not a historian so I won't comment on the details of the development of the Reformation but I believe it started because Luther had serious problems with certain practices of the church. This lead to re-examination of doctrine and some significant differences between the Reformers and Rome became apparent.

But none of the Reformers have ever claimed perfection in doctrine. So different interpretations arose.

The Bible itself records differences between Christians. Paul warned about this in Corinthians. Acts tells of a major dispute between Paul and Peter. And Roman Catholics disagree among themselves all the time.

[BluffTHIS!]

You have not addressed the question of whether there should logically exist one true church/denomination. Read my earlier posts in this thread. And just because some abusive practices did indeed occur by immoral clerics, why would that lead to examination of doctrine?

Regarding dissenting catholics, their dissent in no way calls into question true doctrine. It just means they aren't people of integrity or they would just go join whatever protestant denomination best melds with their beliefs. I have stated before the reasons they don't do this which is they would no longer be the "progressive" darlings of the anti-religious media and would just be more protestant dissenters no longer worthy of news coverage.

[RJT]

Your analogy of agnostics to ALL religions seems correct.

A caveat I would mention, though, regarding Jews to Christians is that I think Jews believe that a Messiah is to come. They just don’t believe he has yet and they don’t believe it is Jesus. Not sure if this makes any difference or not regarding the Jews to Christianity analogy.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But none of the Reformers have ever claimed perfection in doctrine. So different interpretations arose.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying here is that they didn't believe the catholic church's interpretation was correct, so they went out and came up with other ones that they admitted weren't either. How can anyone possibly buy their interpretations then?

[BluffTHIS!]

Hey txaq007, how come you never join my protestant/catholic discussion threads? I feel rejected.

[KeysrSoze]

Say what you want about the Catholic Church at the time, but Martin Luther was an equally nastly little man. He was extremely anti-Semitic, equally supported the torture and burning of witches, and didn't care a hoot about the common peasants of the land while toadying up to the nobility who protected him. Pretty much par for the course for everyone at that time, though.

[BluffTHIS!]

You're a man after my own heart, though out of justice and even though I am catholic, I have to acknowledge the abuses and failings of many church leaders then. But you are correct. Many protestants don't know a lot that Luther said and did, including his sanctioning of the bigamous marriage of his patron, Phillip the landgrave of Hesse.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Say what you want about the Catholic Church at the time, but Martin Luther was an equally nastly little man.

[/ QUOTE ]

"You can take the boy out of Catholicism, but you can't take the Catholicism out of the boy." /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[baggins]

"fundamental Christian doctrines." i think we all agree on the one fundamental Christian doctrine: Christ died for our sins and we can be forgiven and restore a relationship with our Creator-God if we accept that and allow our lives to be ruled and led by Christ. all other doctrine is less than fundamental.

I also don't think that Catholic doctrine concerning this one essential tenet differs.

bah, denominations are antiquated and dumb. why can't the church just be the church? can't we all just love Jesus and love other people in his name? do we have to have a name for it and a board of elders to decide on things like infant baptism and the church's stance on XXXXXX doctrine?

[BluffTHIS!]

Read this other thread I started.

What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3350123&amp;page=1&amp;view=colla psed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=7&amp;fpart=1)